Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
121200 CC Agenda
lin compliance with the Americans wth Dsab ties Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meet ng, 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 Tit e ] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE DECEMBER 12, 2000- 7:00 P.M. At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council wilt 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. Ali meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 5:30 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning acquisition of real property located at APN 922-042-004 & 005. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Pac West Group, Inc. Under negotiation is the price and terms of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, Jim O~Grady, Gary Thornhill, and John Meyer. 2. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956:8 concerning acquisition of real property located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Norm Reeves Honda, Donna L. Reeves Trust and Richardson RY. Under negotiation is the price and terms of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson and Jim O'Grady. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) with respect to two matters of potential litigation. With respect to such matters, 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. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reViewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: Mayor Jeff Stone Jordan Bellino Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2000-14 Resolution: No. 2000-80 R:~Agenda\121200 1 Invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Youth Pastor Scott Treadway of Rancho Community Church Councilman Roberts Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation on Future Traffic Proiections for Interstate 15 by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Caltrans 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. 2 When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICETO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 17, 2000. R:~Agenda\121200 2 3 Resolution approvinq 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 4 City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31,2000. 5 Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2000. 6 Contract Inspection Services for Buildinq and Safety RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve a First Amendment to an Agreement for Consultant Services with P & D Consultants in an amount of $108,000 to provide supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department; 6.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $10,800. 7 Agreement for Use of Flood Control Property RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFWCD) for use of approximately 33.5 acres of property located adjacent to Jefferson Avenue. R:~Agenda\121200 3 8 10 Parcel Map No. 29895 (located south of Dendy Parkway, east of Winchester Road, and north of Reminqton Avenue) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 29895 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 8.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 8.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond as security for the agreements. Consideration of Amendment to the Boys and Girls Club Loan RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve an amendment to the loan to the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, Inc. that would provide for funding of approved programs in lieu of cash loan payments. Emerqenc¥ Managers Assistance (EMA) Grant Receipt RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Consider appropriating $11,505.99 to purchase emergency management communication equipment. RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:~genda\121200 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2000-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2000-19 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of November 28, 2000. 2 Tract Map No. 29286 - Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service Level D Rates and Charqes (located on the southeast corner of Date Street and Marqarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:~Agenda\121200 5 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 SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 29286 BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 3 Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2000. 4 Completion and Acceptance of Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrade - Proiect No. PW00-04CSD RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Accept the project Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrade - Project No. PW00-04CSD as complete; 4.2 Authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion; 4.3 Accept the Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract. 5 Consultant Aqreement - Children's Museum Exhibit Desiqn and Installation RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the Consultant Services Agreement with Sparks Exhibits and Environments in the amount of $550,000 for the exhibit design, conceptual drawings, exhibit fabrication and installation, and tenant improvement drawings; 5.2 Approve a 10% contingency for the project in the amount of $55,000. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next adjourned regular meeting: Tuesday, December 19, 2000, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\121200 6 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2000-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2000-07 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and flied with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of November 28, 2000. 2 Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2000. R:~Agenda\121200 7 3 Aqreement between the Redevelopment Aqency of the City of Temecula and Vision's West 4 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Authorize staff to enter into an agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Vision's West for the demolition of five single-family residences for the construction of future affordable housing projects not to exceed $38,060. First Amendment to Owner Participation Aqreement and Restrictive Covenant RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TERMINATING THAT CERTAIN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND OLD TOWN PLAZA PARTNERS, LLP, DATED DECEMBER 14, 1999 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next adjourned regular meeting: Tuesday, December 19, 2000, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\121200 8 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public Hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 11 Reconsideration of Planninq Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula Ridqe Apartments RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Reconsider previous denial of the Temecula Ridge Project COUNCIL BUSINESS 12 Community Services Commission Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Appoint one applicant to an unexpired term through October 10, 2001 and two applicants for three-year terms through October 10, 2003 to serve on the Community Services Commission. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next adjourned regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, December 19, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\121200 9 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN/~NCE CITY MANAGER ,,'"~-"~ z CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Coun~ Grant M. ,,~'~, Assistant to the City Manager December 12, 2000 Presentation on Future Traffic Projections for Interstate 15 PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND: At the request of Councilmember Naggar, Mr. Arnold San Migel from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Ms. Linda Grimes from CALTRANS will present an overview of the projected future traffic flow on the 1-15 freeway through Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 17, 2000 The City Council convened in an adjourned workshop meeting at 6:04 P.M., on Tuesday, October 17, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone. Absent: Councilmember: None. ALLEGIANCE The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Roberts. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Naggar advised that he had attended a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee meeting. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 Fourth Workshop for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file. City Manager Nelson reviewed the staff report (of record), advising that this fourth workshop would be for the purpose of receiving a status update regarding the Land Use Plan/Ger~eral Plan, Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP)fTransportation Component, the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and an update on a recent density workshop with the Board of Supervisors and County Planning Commissioners. At this time, Mr. Nelson introduced Mr. Richard Lashbrook, Agency Director. Mr. Lashbrook advised that he and County staff would welcome City Council questions during the County presentation of the Riverside County Integrated Plan and introduced Mr. Mel Placilla, Project Director. Advising that the RCIP is a three-pronged project, Mr. Placilla commented on the General Plan, the CETAP/-rransportation Component, and the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan; noted that County staff is into 18-months of this 36-month RClP process; advised that in an effort to address General Plan issues, Area Plan public meetings had been scheduled; and commented on the desire to balance population growth with quality of life issues. R:\Minutes\101700 1 Summarizing issues addressed at the October 16, 2000, Board of Supervisors/County Planning Commission Workshop, Mr. Jerry Jolliffee, Administrative Manager, noted the following: · Land Use designations - mixed use areas may receive higher density development to ensure balanced communities; · Higher density- developer would be required to provide a development fee as well as additional design considerations for higher density; development fee would be used to acquire open space to ensure the implementation of the MSHCP as well as to address infrastructure needs; · Certainty Program - once the RCIP is adopted, major/cumulative changes would be reviewed on a five-year cycle. Mr. Mel Placilla proceeded with an overview of the Southwest Area Plan alternatives, commenting on the three alternatives: · Trend - continuation of existing land use policies; · Sphere of Influence - cities have planned for development outside the border within the sphere of influence · Vision (preferred alternative) - derived from the communities; densiflcation in a specified area. With regard to the MSHCP, Mr. Placilla advised that the objective of this Plan would be to formulate a comprehensive Open Space Plan for species preservation as well as for human activities where appropriate. Mr. Lashbrook addressed previous discussions pertaining to Habitat Transaction Methodology (HTM); advised that after some discussion relative to that methodology, it was determined that there was an insufficient amount of broad-based support to proceed with this type of implementation strategy; and noted that other alternatives have been discussed and as a result, a range of potential MSHCP alternatives were mentioned as follows: · Alternative 1: · Alternative 2: · Alternative 2A: · Alternative 3: · Alternative 4: Species considered for conservation in August 9 Draft MSHCP Proposal (164 species) Listed, proposed, and strong candidate species (144 species) Narrow Endemic Plant Species Listed and proposed species (130 species) Existing reserves Mr. Lashbrook advised that it would be anticipated that a preferred Alternative would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors by late November or early December. By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Steve Smith, CETAP representative, provided information with regard to this process, particularly with respect to the Corridors Element, and addressed the various corridor alternatives and associated traffic decreases and increases, noting the following: · Banning/Beaumont to Temecula Corridor and Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore - objective to reduce the number of alternatives to more limited numbers; to proceed with an environmental process with more detailed evaluation; and to present a preferred alternative by Fall 2001; · Public, City Council, and City staff involvement very important; R:~/linutes\101700 2 · First public meetings have been scheduled for late October, early November; the meeting for the City of Temecula has been scheduled for November 6, 2000, at the Temecula Community Center, 4:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. · Process will parallel with Federal and State agencies; will meet with Corpse of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, and Environmental Protection Agency; · November 7, 2000, will be the next CETAP Advisory Committee meeting; at which time, it would be anticipated to present a local recommendation on alternatives to forward into the environmental process; · Requested feedback from the City as to which alternatives the City would not recommend carrying into a more detailed process and those which should be reviewed in a more detailed process; · Draft EIR/EIS, for each corridor, will be completed by July 2001; after which, a series of public meetings will be scheduled; and then a preferred alternative will be chosen for each corridor. Questions by the City Councilmembers In response to Councilman Roberts, Mr. Smith advised that the Date Street connection on the south end of Butter, eld Stage Road is being considered as one of the alternatives for the Eastern Bypass which would extend to Anza, advising that another alternative would be SR 79 from Butterfield Stage Road over to Interstate 15. For Councilman Pratt, it was noted that the Tier I document for each corridor (environmental clearances) would be completed in approximately two years and that by such completion, the County may reserve the right-of-way and that Tier 2 would pertain to the funding issuance for each corridor; that the RCTC would be the programmer for those funds; and that until a financing plan has been completed, it would be difficult to determine actual construction time but that it would be estimated within four to five years. With regard to development fees, it was noted, for Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, that the details with regard to the allocation of the additionally imposed development fees to those projects with increased densities have not been determined. Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero relayed his desire that those fees would remain local to ensure mitigation of impacts within the area of development versus funneling those fees into a centralized County account. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Mr. Lashbrook addressed cost sharing as it relates to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, noting that the Advisory Committee is in the process of reviewing a mix of various funding sources including development mitigation fees, Federal/State participation, County contribution of Habitat Conservation fees from landfill, etc. and advised that because of the amount of acreage and associated costs, alternatives and their feasibility are being explored. For Councilman Pratt, it was noted that concerns with regard to high-rise versus Iow-rise construction with clustered and higher density has been discussed, noting that whatever decision will be made within the County would reflect the desired character and lifestyle of the Riverside County residents. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Nelson thanked the County staff members for their attendance and participation and invited them to another City RCIP Workshop in January 2001. R:~linutes\101700 3 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:00 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 24, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. A']-rEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:Wlinutes\101700 4 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $1,012,504.25 Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 12th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] Resos 2000- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITYOF 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 12~h day of December, 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Resos 2000- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 11/22/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 11/30/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 12/12/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 11/22/00 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 12/12/00 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 192 193 194 195 210 28O 3OO 310 320 330 340 GENERAL FUND RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND RDA-REDEVELOPMENT INSURANCE VEHICLES INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES $ 177,684.15 15,320.04 46,752.47 36.76 5,893.69 316.21 1,050.00 121,091.63 331,613.23 381.53 33,081.40 57,754.98 10,804.82 4,411.74 $ 198,791.97 461,058.25 146,342.43 206,311.60 $ 1,012,504.25 $ 806,192.65 001 165 100 192 193 194 280 300 320 33O 34O GENERAL FUND RDA-LOW/MOD iNCOME HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D RDA-REDEVELOPMENT INSURANCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST TIM McDERMOTT, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER 148,965.99 3,639.69 36,387.52 55.23 2,352.10 496.34 1,576.04 6,250.84 1,951.78 3,900.13 206,311.60 $ 1,012,50~4.25 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORR'=CT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. VOUEHRE2 11/22/00 10:18 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 9 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSO SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP $00 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 86,912.89 8,098.89 28,344.49 25.10 2,011.07 217.19 1,050.00 54,630,44 3,6?2.75 253.25 11,722.69 428.20 1,425.01 TOTAL 198,791.97 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 11/22/00 10:18 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 1 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAHE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 66017 11/17/00 000869 LAWRENCE WELK RESORT TH L.WELK XMAS EXCURSION 11/30 190-183-999-5350 510.00 510.00 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 23,591.10 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 407.96 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 5,111.03 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 14.30 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 365.36 76634 11/22/00 000283 IHSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 119.00 76634 11/22/00 000283 IRSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 141.92 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 70.68 76634 11/22/00 000283 IMSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 1,040.65 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 234.13 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 535.77 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 5,870.08 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 140.56 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 1~342.51 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 2.34 7~34 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000203 MEDICARE 193-2070 87.04 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 20.44 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 60.12 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 28.16 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 262.30 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 65.62 76634 11/22/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 142.05 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 001-2070 93.81 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 165-2070 2.75 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 75.39 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SD! 193-2070 1.96 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (ROD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 .49 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 5.26 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 330-2070 4.77 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 340-2070 .94 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 6,473.36 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (ROD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 114.39 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 lw181.09 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 192-2070 4.23 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 80.74 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 194-2070 34.09 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 44.73 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (ROD) 000444 STATE 300-2070 14.75 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320-2070 221.45 76710 11/22/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 55.23 76710 11/22/00 000444 IRSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 112.~3 66021 11/22/00 002~2 AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTR DOMESTIC DUCK/GEESE REMOVAL 190-180-999-5212 66022 11/22/00 004022 AMERICAN MINI STORAGE, RENTAL UNIT-R&E STORAGE 001-162-999-5250 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY OCT WORKERS, COMP PREMIUM 001-2370 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY OCT WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 165-2370 200.00 248.00 66.74 39,653.12 8,522.14 200.00 248.00 VOUCNRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2 11/22/00 10:18 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66023 11/22/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 66024 11/22/00 004380 BOY SCOUTS OF ANERICA OCT WORKERS~ COMP PREMIUM OCT WORKERS~ COMP PREMIUM OCT UOMKERS~ COMP PREMIUM OGT WOMKERS~ COMP PREMIUM OET WOMKERS~ COMP PREMIUM OCT WORKERS~COMP PREMIUM OCT ~ORNERS' CC~4P PREMIUM OCT ~ORKERS' COMP PREMIUM OCT WORKERS~ COMP PREMIUM LIFE SPNSR-CITIZEN AWRD DINNER 66025 11/22j00 004314 BREWER COTE SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOOp SEALER 66025 11/22/00 004314 BREWER COTE SOUTHWEST FREIGHT 66025 11/22/00 004314 BREWER COTE SOUTHWEST SALES TAX 190-2370 192-2370 193-2370 194-2370 280-2370 300-2370 320-2370 330-2370 340-2370 001-101-999-5285 001-164-602-5218 001-164-602-5218 001-164-602-5218 1,010.75 .45 47,20 8.50 23.67 5.10 59.34 13.35 156.96 1,000.00 175.50 38.49 13.60 4,673.52 1,000.00 227.59 66026 11/22/00 002099 BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES NOV LEASE:OLD TWN RESTROOHS 66027 11/22/00 000413 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GA EXTENSION:IST STREET BRIDGE 280-199-999-5234 280-199-807-5804 826.00 127.25 826.00 127.25 66028 11/22/00 001159 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE 66029 11/22/00 003979 CALVARY CHAPEL OF MURRI 66030 11/22/00 003047 CNAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL 66031 11/22/00 COLE, TERRY 66032 11/22/00 003?"59 COTTON BELAND ASSOCIATE 66033 11/22/00 001716 DANS ROOFING 66034 11/22/00 004285 DAVE BANG & ASSOCIATES 66034 11/22/00 004285 DAVE BANG & ASSOCIATES 66034 11/22/00 004285 DAVE BANG & ASSOCIATES 66035 11/22/00 DISBURSING OFFICER,DFAS 66037 11/22/00 004192 DO~NS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 66037 11/22/00 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 66037 11/22/00 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL EUELIN 66037 11/22/00 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 66037 11/22/00 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 66037 11/22/00 004192 DOWNS COHMERCIAL FUELIN 66038 11/22/00 001714 DREAM ENGINEERING IHt 66039 11/22/00 PROCESSING FEE:EMPLEE PRINTS ELECT LGBT PARADE BAND ENTRY ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY REIMB:NIGR HOPES SUPPLIES UPDATE HOUSING ELEM PA99-0186 ROOF REPAIR · HINTERGARDT PRK BARBEQUE GRILL W/FIREBOX FREIGHT SALES TAX ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES BOND COPIES:TEM SPORTS FAC 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 95366-02 DIEGO DR LDSCP 001-150-999-5250 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 190-183~999-5320 001-161-999-5248 190-180-99<2-5250 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-183-999-5370 001-162-999-5263 001-161-999-5263 190-180-999-5~63 001-164-601-5263 001-163-999-5263 001-165-999-5263 210-190-174-5802 193-180-999-5240 126.00 300.00 300.00 52.80 1,788.00 275.00 525.00 250.00 40.69 82.00 24.41 89.68 254.86 192.26 197.83 36.13 9.00 159.16 126.00 300.00 300.00 52.80 1,788.00 275.00 815.69 82.00 795.17 9.00 159.16 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 11/22/00 10:18 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 66040 11/22/00 66041 11/22/00 66042 11/22/00 66043 11/22/00 66043 11/22/00 66043 11/22/00 66043 11/22/00 66044 11/22/00 66044 11/22/00 66045 11/22/00 66045 11/22/00 66045 11/22/00 66045 11/22/00 66045 11/22/00 66045 11/22/00 66045 11/22/00 66046 11/22/00 66046 11/22/00 66047 11/22/00 66048 11/22/00 66048 11/22/00 66048 11/22/00 66049 11/22/00 66050 11/22/00 66051 11/22/00 66052 11/22/00 66053 11/22/00 66053 11/22/00 66054 11/22/00 66055 11/22/00 66055 11/22/00 66055 11/22/00 66055 11/22/00 66055 11/22/00 66055 11/22/00 66055 11/22/00 002917 EDWARDS CINEMAS 002060 EUROPEAN DELI & CATERIN 003959 EVERETT & EVERETT PAINT 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL L~NDSCAPE 000478 FAST SIGNS 000478 FAST SIGNS 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 002832 FENCE BUILDERS 002832 FENCE BUILDERS 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 004052 FREDERIC R HARRIS INC 000378 HAFELI, ~HOMAS 000871 HILTON HOGENRAAD, CAROLYN 003624 HOWELL, ANN MARIE 003624 HOWELL, ANN MARIE HRUSKA, ROSEANN 000194 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS ITEM DESCRIPTION HIGH HOPES GRP ACTIVITY TICKET REFSHMNTS:CLOSED COUNCIL MTG RES IMPR PRGM:REYNOLDS,DAVID OCT LDSCP REPAIR:SPRT PRK OCT LDSCP REPAIR:SPRT PRK OCT LDSCP REPAIR:RANCHO CA MED OCT LDSCP REPAIR:SPT PRK FIELD PUBLIC SAFETY EXPO BANNER SALES TAX EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES RES IMPR PRGM:NARON,LARRY RES IMPR PRGM:CHAVEZ~ ADRIAN LOT BOOK REPT: YOUNG XX-5288 JONES:EARTHLINK/HTGS XX-5288 JONES:EARTHLINK/MTGS XX-5288 JONES:EARTHLINK/MTGS SEP-OCT SUPPORT SVC:IST BRDGE COMDEX 2000:HAFELI:11/14-16/O0 HTL:SCACEO CF:SALAZAR:12/01 PUB SAFETY EXPO LIVE BROADCAST TEM NEWCOMER/RELOCATION GUIDE SALES TAX REIMB:PUB SAFETY EXPO SUPPIES 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-183-999-5320 001-100-999-5260 165-199-813-5804 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-3212 190-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5212 001-110-999-5278 001-110-999-5278 320-199-999-5230 165-199-999-5230 190-180-999-5230 001-165-999-5230 001-150-999-5230 001-162-999-5250 001-111-999-5230 165-199-813-5804 165-199-999-5250 320-199-999-5211 001-120-999-5261 001-100-999-5260 280-199-807~5801 320-199-999-5258 001-161-999-5261 001-110-999-5278 001-111-999-5270 001-111-999-5270 001-110-999-5278 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 193-2080 194-2080 280-2080 300-2080 ITEM AMOUNT 225.00 271.92 3,000.00 389.74 81.37 475.20 100.00 207.84 16.11 39.76 12.20 14.82 27.66 12.20 54.92 30.72 1,508.00 150.00 345.79 654.90 259.56 157.50 545.74 103.55 250.00 144.00 11.16 115.64 2,253.12 378.34 405.85 30.00 16.04 126.11 50.00 CHECK AMOUNT 225.00 271.92 3,000.00 1,046.31 223.95 192.28 3,108.00 150.00 1,260.25 157.50 545.74 103.55 250.00 155.16 115.64 3,259.46 VOUCHRE2 11/22/00 10018 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 66056 11/22/00 66057 11/22/00 66058 11/22/00 66058 11/22/00 66059 11/22/00 66060 11/22/00 66061 11/22/00 66062 11/22/00 66063 11/22/00 66064 11/22/00 66065 11/22/00 66066 11/22/00 66067 11/22/00 66067 11/22/00 66067 11/22/00 66067 11/22/00 66067 11/22/00 66068 11/22/00 66068 11/22/00 66068 11/22/00 66069 11/22/00 66069 11/22/00 ~070 11/22/00 66071 11/22/00 66072 11/22/00 66073 11/22/00 66073 11/22/00 66073 11/22/00 66073 11/22/00 66073 11/22/00 66073 11/22/00 66073 11/22/00 660~ 11/22/00 6607'5 11/22/00 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 0037'57 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS INLAND EMPIRE LAW CORP. INSTITUTE ON 21st CENTU INSTITUTE ON 21st CENTU 001517 INTEGRATED INSIGNTS DBA JAMES L DAY MIDDLE SCHO 003223 K E A ENVIRONMENTAL, IN ICARMA, JACKIE 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC 00437'7 L 0 LYNCH QUALITY WELLS LAMBS FELLOWSHIPj THE 005286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI 004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC 004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC 004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC 004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC 004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC 004141 MAINTEX INC 004141 MAINTEX INC 004141 MAINTEX INC 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASS 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASS 002693 MATROS, ANDREA 003800 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING 003448 MELODYS AD WORKS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 0013~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION OFFICE 2000 ON-SITE TRAINING REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT LIBRARY WKSHP:RUSE/ADAMS:11/30 LIBRARY WKSNP:RUSE/ADAMS:11/30 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY OCT BIOLOGICAL SV:PALA BRDG REFUND:SPORTS-MINI-HAWKS MISC POOL SUPPLIES - CRC ABANDON PRPTY WELL DESTRUCTION REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT OCT SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT CRC WATER SLIDE SURFACING ROLL NOMAD EDGING KIT 1 3/4"X 12~ NO~L~D SE~JqING KIT 2"X10~ FREIGHT SALES TAX CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES PARKS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES OFFICIATING SVC:ADULT SOFTBALL OFFICIATING SVC:AOULT SOFTBALL TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REL RETENTION:PW99-210SD PRK OLD TWN MRKT/PUBLIC RELATIONS BUSINESS CARDS:MAYRA DeLaTorre SALES TAX BUSINESS CARDS:KB/SN/DU BUSINESS CARDS= JULIE DAUER BUSINESS CARDS:CLEMENT JIMENEZ SALES TAX SALES TAX BUSINESS CARDS:DON NILLBERG FOIL BUSINESS CARD=BRIDGHAM ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5261 190-2900 190-180-999-5261 001-110-999-5261 001-150-999-5248 190-183-999-5370 210-165-631-5801 190-183-4982 190-186-999-5212 165-199-999-5250 190-2900 001-101-999-5285 190-186-999-5242 190-186-999-5242 190-186-999-5242 190-186-999-5242 190-186-999-5242 190-182-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-187-999-5250 190-187-999-5250 190-183-999-5330 210-2035 280-199-999-5362 001-163-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-161-999-5222 001-165-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-165-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 165-199-999-5222 320-199-999-5250 ITEM AMOUNT 2,600.00 100.00 25.00 25.00 491.04 200.00 1,146.30 22.00 241.45 475.00 100.00 1,185.94 347.25 75.50 19.75 11.43 34.29 94.02 31.46 34.20 1,180.40 1~811.60 345.60 7,793.52 1,500.00 38.25 2.96 192.87 38.25 38.25 2.97 2.96 41.21 102.50 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 2,600.00 100.00 50.00 491.04 200.00 1,146.30 22.00 241.45 475.00 100.00 1,185.94 488.22 159.68 2,992.00 345.60 7,793.52 1,500.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5 11/22/00 10:18 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 66073 660T5 66074 66074 66075 66076 66076 66076 66076 66076 66076 66076 66077 66078 66078 66078 66079 66080 66081 66082 66083 66083 66084 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 66085 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 11/22/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 11/22/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 11/22/00 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING 11/22/00 000883 MONTELEOHE EXCAVATING 11/22/00 003039 MURRIETA VALLEY HIGH SC 11/22/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT 11/22/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT 11/22/00 002139 NORTH COUNTy TIMES- ATT 11/22/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT 11/22/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT 11/22/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT 11/22/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES* ATT 11/22/00 00396/* OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S 11/22/00 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPAN 11/22/00 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING C(~qPAN 11/22/00 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING CONPAN 11/22/00 OSANA-POMPHEY, YOLANDA 11/22/00 003735 PACIFIC BELL 11/22/00 003510 PALOMA VALLEY HIGH SCHO 11/22/00 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA 11/22/00 003218 PELA 11/22/00 003218 PELA ITEM DESCRIPTION FOIL BUSINESS CARD:KRUEGER SALES TAX VARIOUS DIRT ROADS BLADING REMOVE 51LT/DEBRIS:MURRIFIELD ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY AD:HONL-O-WEEN SPOOKTACULAR AD:HOWL-O-NEEN SPOOKTACULAR AD:HONL-O-NEEN SPOOKTACULAR DISPLAY ADS=CIP UPDATES DISPLAY AD:COHMI~SION POSITION CREDIT= SERVICE CHARGE CREDIT:OVRBILL CIP UPDATE RATE OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY MANAGER HOLIDAY SUPPLIES - TCSD HOLIDAY SUPPLIES - TCSD FREIGHT REFUND:GYMNASTICS-CHEERLEADERS MISC CELLULAR PHONE EQUIPMENT ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY RECREATION SUPPLIES-SR CENTER LDSCP PLAN CK & INSPECTION SVC LDSCP PLAN CK & INSPECTION SVC 11/22/00 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5250 320-199-999-5250 195-180-999-5402 001-164-601-5401 190-183-999-5370 280-199-999-5362 280-199-999-5362 190-180-999-5254 001-165-999-5256 001-120-999-5254 280-199-999-5362 001-165-999-5256 001-110-999-5220 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 190-183-4982 320-199-999-5242 190-183-999-5370 190-181-999-5301 190-180-999-5248 193-180-999-5248 001-2122 001-161-999-5260 001-161-999-5226 001-161-999-5261 001-161-999-5260 001-161-999-5222 190-180-999-5258 001-110-999-5278 190-181-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 190-183-999-5320 190-181-999-5301 001-2174 001-1280 190-185-999-5301 001-2174 001-162-999-5261 ITEM AMOUNT 102.50 15.89 1,050,00 3,150.00 300.00 240.00 28.54 185.59 572.77 146.30 3.48- 85.59- 170.60 38.60 1.65 7.95 55.00 102.53 300.00 137.04 900.00 1,125.00 154.60 15.06 3.50 5.00 5.50 7.76 49.59 4.07 30.13 41.69 14.47 15.40 30.21 45.16 27.79 45.52 50.00 CHECK AMOUNT 578.61 4,200.00 300.00 1,084.13 170.60 48.20 55.00 102.53 300.00 137.04 2,025.00 154.60 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6 11/22/00 10:18 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH 66085 11/22/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMERT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMERT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260 31.19 001-110-999-5278 7.11 001-164-601-5250 6.71 001-150-999-5265 97.22 001-101-999-5280 16.99 001-101-999-5280 22.00 001-2174 5.00 190-185-999-5301 46.20 190-185-999-5301 36.29 001-165-999-5260 10.98 001-165-999-5260 20.60 001-164-604-5260 20.60 001-21~ 7.97 001-150-999-5265 6.43 001-150-999-5250 7.53 001-150-999-5250 2.16 001-163-999-5260 47.95 001-164-602-5260 23.00 190-180-999-5301 4.56 001-162-999-5261 50.00 190-181-999-5301 17.96 879.30 66087 11/22/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 66087 11/22/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 66087 11/22/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 66087 11/22/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 66087 11/22/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 66087 11/22/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 66087 11/22/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAH 66088 11/22/00 0027/6 PRIME MATRIX INC 66088 11/22/00 0027/6 PRIME MATRIX INC 66089 11/22/00 003697 PROJECT DESIGN CONEULTA 66090 11/22/00 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK A 66090 11/22/00 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK A 66091 11/22/00 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER OIST 66092 11/22/00 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE 66093 11/22/00 000266 RIGHTWAY 66094 11/22/00 001365 RIVERSIDE CO ENVIRONMEN 66095 11/22/00 004278 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIF 66096 11/22/00 001288 SAN DIEGO BUSIHESS JOUR 66097 11/22/00 003734 SHERWOOD, ALAN K. RECRUIT ADS:VARIOUS POSITIONS 001'150'999'5254 RECRUIT ADS:VARIOUS POSITIONS 001-150-999-5254 DISPLAY ADS:CIP UPDATES 001'165'999'5256 DISPLAY ADS:CSD SPECIAL EVENTS 190'180-999'5254 DISPLAY ADS:TRAILS COMM WKSHP 190'180'999-5254 DISPLAY AD:COMMISSION POSITION '001-120-999'5254 DISPLAY AD:HOWLOWEEN SPOOKTAC OCT CELLULAR SVCS:SR VAN OCT CELLULAR SVCS:CITY VAN OCT DESIGN SVC:PAUBA RO PH BUSINESS PARK ASSOC. DUES BUSINESS PARK ASSOC. DUES 280-199-999-5362 190-180-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 210-165-606-5802 001-164-604-5226 340-199-701-5226 INSTALL WATER METER:PALA LDSCP 210-165-631-5804 WEED ABATEMENT:WINCHESTER RD 001-164-601-5402 NOV EQUIP RENTAL-RIVERTOH PARK 190-180-999-5238 HEALTH PERMIT:TEMEKU HILLS PRK 190-180-999~5250 004278 GARNISH 001-2140 ANNUL SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 001-111-999-5228 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 1,721.93 5,633.52 1,014.30 225.00 325.50 342.00 270.00 9,532,25 48.25 26.13 74.38 20,479.92 20,479.92 269.59 219.84 489.43 5,588.00 5,588.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 62.89 62.89 65.00 65.00 196.20 196.20 69.00 69.00 168.00 168.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7 11/22/00 10:18 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 66098 11/22/00 003506 SHIVELA MIDDLE SCHOOL B 66099 11/22/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 66099 11/22/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 66099 11/22/00 000537 SO CAL]F EDISON 66100 11/22/00 000519 SOUTH COUNTy PEST CONTR 66101 11/22/00 SQUIRE, ROW 66102 11/22/00 004207 STEINY & COMPANY INC 66102 11/22/00 004207 STEINY & COMPANY 66103 11/22/00 000574 SUPERTONER 66104 11/22/00 003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS 66104 11/22/00 003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS 66104 11/22/00 003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS 66105 11/22/00 000305 TARGET STORE 66106 11/22/00 003665 TELEGLOSE BUSINESS SOLU 66107 11/22/00 000311 TEMECULA VALLEY HIGH SC 66108 11/22/00 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURIT 66108 11/22/00 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURIT 66109 11/22/00 THOMAS, DENICE 66110 11/22/00 003508 THOMPSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 66111 11/22/00 003507 TOMAS RIVERA MIDDLE SCH ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMSER AMOUNT AMOUNT ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY 190-183-999-5370 2-13-079-2377 HGHWAY 79 TC 2-19-488-2627 PlO PICO RD 2-19-999-9442 VARIOUS METERS 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5319 PEST CONTROL SVC: CITY HALL 340-199-701-5250 REFD:LD99-O54GR TR 3929 DEPST 001-2670 OCT PRGSS:TRFFC SIGNAL PW99-13 210-165-709-5804 OCT RETENTION:TRFFC PW99-13 210-2035 9 - LASERJET TONERS 320-199-999-5221 LATERAL FILE FOR DEPUTY DIRECT 190-180-999-5601 DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION FEE 190-180-999-5601 SALES TAX 190-180-999-5601 RECREATION SUPPLIES-SR CENTER 190-181-999-5301 OCT LONG DISTANCE PHONE SVCS 320-199-999-5208 ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY 190-183-999-5370 LOCKSMITH SVCS: CRC LOCKSMITH SVCS: CRC 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 APA ANN'L CF:THOMAS:9/16-19/O0 001-161-999-5258 ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY 190-183-999-5370 ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY 190-183-999-5370 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66112 11/22/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 66113 11/22/00 000389 U S C M WEST COBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 66113 11/22/00 000389 U S C M WEST COBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 66113 11/22/00 000389 U S C M WEST COBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 66113 11/22/00 000389 U S C M WEST COBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 66113 11/22/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 66113 11/22/00 000389 U S C M WEST COBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 192-2080 193-2080 194-2080 280-2080 300-2080 320-2080 340-2080 001-2160 165-2160 190-2160 193-2160 280-2160 320-2160 200.00 192.02 103.88 953.35 56.00 5,000.00 21,793.00 2,179.30- 996.59 1,443.21 125.00 121.54 30.58 1,809.74 300.00 25.07 147.12 145.75 200.00 200.00 9,781.81 101.16 1,790.65 3.74 91.67 18.76 101.16 83.33 1,333.32 190.00 2,331.64 89.58 867.88 21.04 25.24 56.34 200.00 1,249.25 56.00 5,000.00 19,613.70 996.59 1,689.75 30.58 1,809.74 300.dO 172.19 145.75 200.00 200.00 13,495.60 VOUCHRE2 11/22/00 10:18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME CITY OF TEMEDULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE 8 ITEM ACEOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 66113 11/22/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBlaJ~) 000389 PT RETIR 330-2160 51.10 66113 11/22/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 340-2160 10.12 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 001-2120 281.75 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 165-2120 11.00 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 190-2120 31.10 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 192-2120 .04 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 193-2120 1.90 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 194-2120 .36 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 280-2120 3.50 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 300-2120 1.25 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 320-2120 9.00 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 330-2120 4.00 66114 11/22/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 340-2120 .60 66115 11/22/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 66115 11/22/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA ~115 11/22/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA WEST VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL WESTCON ELEVATOR INC YEE, FRANK 66116 11/22/00 66117 11/22/00 003970 66118 11/22/00 004211 66119 11/22/00 000348 NOV XXX-O07'3 GENERAL USAGE NOV XXX-O074 GENERAL USAGE NOV XXX-3564 ALARM LINE 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 ELECT LGHT PARADE BAND ENTRY 190-183-999-5370 ELEVATOR MNTC FOR NOV 2000 190-185-999-5250 TRFFC CNTRL DEVICE SOFTWARE 001-164-602-5248 REIMB:TREE LGHT/PARADE SUPPLIE 190-180-999-5301 1,760.53 258.19 55.27 300.00 120.00 'rso.oo 185.36 ZIGLER, GAIL 3,452.94 344.50 2,073.99 300.00 120.00 ~0.00 185.36 TOTAL CHECKS 198,791.97 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8 11/30/00 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOO SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 300 INSURANCE FUND 310 VEHICLES FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 51,291.33 7,221.15 18,407.98 11.66 3,882.62 99.02 496.93 327,940.48 128.28 33,081.40 5,134.05 10,376.62 2,986.73 TOTAL 461,058.25 VOUCHRE2 11/30/00 15:13 VOUCRER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 66120 11/28/00 66121 11/29/00 66124 11/30/00 66125 11/30/00 66126 11/30/00 66127 11/30/00 66128 11/30/00 66129 11/30/00 66130 11/30/00 66130 11/30/00 66131 11/30/00 66132 11/30/00 66153 11/30/00 66134 11/30/00 66154 11/30/00 66135 11/30/00 66136 11/30/00 66137 11/30/00 66137 11/30/00 66137 11/30/00 66137 11/30/00 66137 11/30/00 66137 11/30/00 66137 11/30/00 66138 11/30/00 66138 11/30/00 66138 11/30/00 66138 11/30/00 66138 11/30/00 11/30/00 66140 11/30/00 66140 11/30/00 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 004384 DOUVILLE, GEORGE 004215 C A L B 0 ACCELA.GOM 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION PUBLIC SAFETY STUNT SHOW 11/18 POST DISASTER ASSESSMENT:Il~30 SIERRA COMF:4/30-5/4:ALVAREZ TEAM PACE RESALE MERCHANDISE AUTRY MUSEUM OF WESTERN TCSD EXCURSION: 45 TICKETS BARBIE'S DOGS 002541 BECKER, WALTER KARL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 004072 BUTLER, MICHAEL G. 004072 BUTLER, MICHAEL G. 003976 CAIRNS & BROTHER REIMB:REFSHMNTB @ SAFETY EXPO REPAIR BRICK COLUMN:SOLANA WAY REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT FACADE IMPR PRGM:CLOCK TC)WER FACAOE IMPR PRGM:CLOCK TOWER CAIRNS IRIS HELMETS BATTERIES 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATIO MEMBERSHIP DUES:PHYLLIS RUSE 001155 CALIF PUBLIC SECTOR 2001 PUBLIC SECTOR DIRECTORY 002520 CALIF T'S BY TRANSCEND SWEAT SRIRTS:PW MNTC CREWS 002520 CALIF T~S BY TRANSCEND SALES TAX 002534 ~TERERS CAFE REFSHMNTS:CM MTG 11/21/00 001193 COMP U S A INC MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES:INF SYS 002147 CO~4PLIMENTS COMPLAINTS 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS TCSD ENTERTA1NMENT:Z~BIE DAVE TCSD ENTERTAINMENT:BUTTERFLY TCSD ENTERTAINMENT: GODMOTHER SANTA SUIT-DEC 1 PARADE MS CLAUS SUIT-DEC 1 PARAJ)E SANTA SUIT-DEC 16 BFST W/SANTA SALES TAX 000442 C~PUTER ALERT SYSTEMS 000442 CC~qPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS DOUBLE MAGNET DOOR:CITY HALL LABOR TO INSTALL SALES TAX FIRE PANEL BATTERIES:RECORDS SALES TAX COSTCO WHOLESALE REFUND: PA99-0376 OVRPYMNT 003059 COSTCO WHOLESALE 003059 COSTCO WHOLESALE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-110-999-5278 001-162-999~5261 001-161-999-5261 001-1665 190-183-999-5350 001-110-999-52~8 193-180-999-5212 190-2900 280-199-813-5804 280-199-813-5804 001-171-999'5215 190'180-999-5226 001-120-999-5228 001-164-601-5243 001-164-601-5243 001'161-999-5260 320-199-999-5221 280-199-999-5362 280'199-999-5362 280-199-999-5362 190'183-999-5370 190o183-999-5370 190'183-999-5370 190'183-999-5370 340-199-701-5215 340-199'701'5215 340-199-701-5215 340-199-701-5215 340-199-701-5215 001-2650 190'180-999-5226 001-140o999-5226 ITEM AMOUNT 1,550.00 145.00 350.00 169.00 191.25 45.50 475.00 100.00 2,290.00 1,486.00 415.25 125.00 408.95 379.00 29.37 12.60 469.60 150.00 150.00 400.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 17.43 653.10 65.00 50.62 70.00 5.43 388.00 35.00 45.00 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 1,550.00 145.00 350.00 169.00 191.25 45.50 475.00 100.00 3,776.00 415.25 125.00 408.95 408.57 12.60 469.60 942.43 844.15 388.00 80.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2 11/30/00 15;13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 66141 66142 66143 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 003315 COUNTRY REVIEW, THE CROWNE MEADOWS, LP 001393 DATA TICKET INC AD:DICKENS OF A X-MAS OLD TWN REFD:PAO0-0271/0272 OVRPYMNT OCT PRKING CITATION PROCESSING 280-199-999-5362 001-2650 001-170-999-5250 300.00 14.00 496.75 300.00 14.00 496.75 66144 66145 66145 66146 66147 66148 66149 66149 66149 66149 66149 66149 66149 66150 66151 66151 66151 66151 66152 66152 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 002990 003625 DAVIS, JOHN 003625 DAVIS, JOHN DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATE DE LA TORRE, FATIMA 004382 DEKRA LITE 002954 DIAMOND GARAGE 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC RETAIN ADVOCACY FIRM:FED FUND TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND: GYMNASTICS-RHYTHMIC LGHT STRANDS:DUCK PND/HICKS PK RES 1MPR PRGM: DAWKINS, ANN TEMP HELP W/E 11/17 SALAZAR TEMP HELP W/E 11/17 EBON TEMP HELP W/E 11/17 EBON TEMP HELP W/E 11/17 HANSEN TEMP HELP W/E 11/17 HANSEN TEMP HELP W/E 11/17 HANSEN TEMP HELP W/E 11/17 HANSEN 001-110-999-5248 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-4982 190-183-999-5370 165-199-813-5804 001-162-999-5118 340-199-701-5118 340-199-702-5118 001-164-604-5118 190-180-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-120-999-5118 002037 EXPANETS PHONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL 320-199-999-5215 000478 FAST SIGNS PRINTING SERVICES FOR P.D. 001-170-999-5222 000478 FAST SIGNS ENLARGED CK- RACE FOR THE CURE 001-111-999-5271 000478 FAST SIGNS BANNERS -RACE FOR THE CURE 001-111-999-5271 000478 FAST SIGNS ITEM #1 PAID BY RVSD CO.SHRFF 001-170-999-5222 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230 001-111-999-5230 2,000.00 80.00 60.00 38.00 598.01 780.00 964.46 680.40 226.80 233.91 111.87 976.32 488.16 54.00 245.67 64.13 628.75 90.51- 18.52 12.20 2,000.00 140.00 38.00 598.01 780.00 3,681.92 54.00 848.04 30.72 66153 66154 66155 66156 66157 66157 66157 66157 66157 66157 66157 66157 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/50/00 004310 003853 001135 001989 001989 001989 001989 001989 001989 001989 001989 FEDEX GROUND INC GROIJND EXPRESS PACMAGE SERVICE 001-111-999-5230 FENCING BY BUZZ RES IMPR PRGM:MARTIN,TAWNY 165-199-813-5804 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS 001-150-999-5250 FITZPATRICK CONSTRUCTIO REFUND: EXERCISE-HATHA YOGA 190-183-4982 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS 25~ PARALLEL PRINTER CABLE AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES:C.CHAMBER AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES:C.CHAMBER AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES:C.CHAMBER AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES:C.CHAMBER AUDIO/VIOEO SUPPLIES:C.CHAMBER 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES:C.CHAMBER 320-199-999-5242 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC AUDIO/VIOEO SUPPLIES:C.CHAMBER 320-199-999-5242 42.55 700.00 250.00 43.00 37.78 462.00 155.00 107.00 245.00 173.00 45.00 6.00 42.55 700.00 250.00 43.00 VOUCHRE2 11/30/00 15:13 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMOER DATE 66157 11/30/00 66157 11/30/00 66157 11/30/00 66158 11/30/00 66158 11/30/00 66158 11/30/00 66158 11/30/00 66158 11/30/00 66158 11/30/00 66159 11/30/00 66160 11/30/00 66160 11/30/00 66161 11/30/00 66162 11/30/00 66163 11/30/00 66164 11/30/00 66165 11/30/00 66166 11/30/00 66167 11/30/00 66168 11/30/00 66169 11/30/00 66170 11/30/00 66171 11/30/00 66171 11/30/00 66172 11/50/00 66172 11/30/00 66175 11/30/00 6617'5 11/30/00 66174 11/30/00 ~175 11/30/00 66176 11/30/00 ~176 11/30/00 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000173 GENERAL 81NDING CORPORA CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES:C.CHAMBER FREIGHT SALES TAX DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - TCSD SALES TAX DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - TCSD SALES TAX DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - TCSD SALES TAX LAMINATION SUPPLIES:COPY CTR 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES - POLICE DEPT 000177 GLENN[ES OFF[CE PRODUCT OFF[CE SUPPLIES -POLICE DEPT 004159 003640 003198 003198 003198 003198 004119 004281 004281 004104 004104 004371 004371 003448 001905 001384 001384 GOODENOUGH, DONNA GRAYNER ENGINEERING HESSE, JULIE HOLY TABERNACLE CHURCH HOME DEPOT, THE HOME DEPOT, THE HOME DEPOT, THE HOME DEPOT, THE HONE DEPOT, THE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS OCT/NOV DESIGN SVC:MERCANTILE REFUND:SPORTS-SKYHWK FLAG FTBL REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT TEAM PACE:HOLIDAY PRTY GIFT RES IMPR PRM:REESE,K:FRNT DOOR RES IMPR PRGM: DAWKINS, ANN RES IMPR PRM:REESE:WTR HEATER RES IMPR PRM:VASQUEZ:FRNT DOOR J T B SUPPLY COMPANY IN TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIP/SUPPLIES KTMK F.M. KTMK F.M. KINETIC SYSTEMS INC KINETIC SYSTEMS INC LOGIC SUPPLY SOLUTIONS LOGIC SUPPLY SOLUTIONS MELOOYS AD WORKS MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS BROADCASTING:OLD TWN 8/28-9/24 BROADCASTING:OLD TWN 9/25-9-28 REPLACE COMPRESSOR @ TCC REPAIR NVAC @ CITY HALL 14 FUJI TAPE CARTRIDGES SALES TAX OLD TOWN WREATH SUPPLIES TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS BUSINESS CARDS:MANSILLA SALES TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 520-199-999~5242 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 190~180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 001-170-999-5220 001-170-999-5220 190-183-999-5330 210-190-167-5802 190-183-4982 190-2900 001-2175 165-199-813-5804 165-199-813-5804 165-199-813-5804 165-199-813-5804 001-164'602-5242 280-199-999-5362 280-199-999-5362 190-104-999-5212 340-199-701-5215 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 280-199-999-5362 190-183-999-5330 001-171-999-5222 001-171-999-5222 ITEM AMOUNT 32.00 77.98 94.94 146.80 11.38 25.20 2.05 31.60 2.35 334.36 106.81 108.20 48.00 157.50 22.00 100.00 50.00 835.54 1,530.11 535.69 1,262.00 172.40 850.00 127.50 1,549.00 470.00 918.40 75.77 553.15 224.00 38.25 2.96 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 1,435.70 219.38 334.36 215.01 48.00 157.50 22.00 100.00 50.00 835.54 1,530.11 535.69 1,262.00 172.40 977.50 2,019.00 994.17 553.15 224.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4 11/30/00 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 66176 11/30/00 66176 11/30/00 66177 11/30/00 66177 11/30/00 66178 11/30/00 66178 11/30/00 66178 11/30/00 66179 11/30/00 66179 11/30/00 66179 11/30/00 66180 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66181 11/30/00 66182 11/30/00 66183 11/30/00 66184 11/30/00 66185 11/30/00 66186 11/30/00 66187 11/30/00 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 0013~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S 003964 OFFICE DEPOT GUSINESS S 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 000240 ORANGE COIJNTY STRIPING ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT GUSINESS CARDS FOR PLANNING QTY 3000 CORRECTION NTCS/G&S QTY 5100 BUSINESS LICENSE CERT SALES TAX OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR OM OFFICE FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-161-999-5222 001-162-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-110-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-164-601-5214 001-164-604-5214 001-1~-604-5214 REMV/REPLC PED BARRICADE:MARG. 001-164-601-5402 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES, RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PRES (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 002185 POSTMASTER - TEMECULA 003493 PRO-CRAFT OVERHEAD DOOR PROMENADE MALL, THE RADIO SHACK INC RAMSEY BACKFLOW & PLUMO RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 002612 000728 000262 001-2390 165-2390 190-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 001-2130 001-2390 165-2390 190-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 ANNUAL P.O. SOX FEE-TEM. P.D. RES IMPRV PRGM: CHAVEZ CERTIFICATE - HOLIDAY RAFFLE 001-170'999-5250 165-199-813-5804 001-2175 MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 VAR.SLOPE BCKFLW TESTS/REPAIRS 193-180-999-5212 VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999~5240 702.26 358.54 495.02 37.86 53.92- 21.95 61.03 42.11 917.88 1,581.71 565.00 25,351.94 651.49 4,652.00 11.61 371.83 98.66 282.59 127.82 1,066.72 206.19 581.34 140.96 85.80 1.87 18.42 .05 1.54 .36 .92 .46 3.72 1.39 2.65 194.00 825.00 100.00 19.35 75.00 1,059.77 1,102.01 532.88 29.06 2,541.70 565.00 33,660.33 194.00 825.00 100.00 19.35 75.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5 11/30/00 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 66187 66188 66188 66188 66189 66190 66191 66191 66192 66192 66192 66192 66193 66194 66195 66195 66195 66196 66197 66198 66198 66199 66199 66199 66200 66201 66201 66201 66201 66201 66201 66201 66201 66201 66201 66201 66201 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 11/30/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN HER 002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN MER 002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN HER REESE, KATHLEEN 000266 RIGHTWAY 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION 004186 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION- RIVERSIDE DIVISION-LEAG 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC 001097 ROADLINE PRODUOTS 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC 002226 RUSSOw MARY ANNE SBA, INC. 002670 SCHNEIDER-LJUBENKOV, JU 002670 SCHNEIDER-LJUSENKOV, JU 003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVI 003801 SELF~S JANITORIAL SERVI 003801 SELF'S JANITORZAL SERVI SLAYFd~KER, ROBERTA 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOiJNT VARIOUS WATER METERS 193-180-999-5240 2001 FORD TRUCK FOR B&S DEPT 310-1910 2001 FORD TRUCK FOR B&S DEPT 310-1910 SALES TAX 310-1910 REIMS: RES. IMPROVEMENT PRGM. RENTAL:PUBL.SAFETY EXPO:Il/18 165-199-813-5804 001-110-999-5278 OCT PARKING CITATION ASSESSMNT 001-2260 OCT PARKING CITATION ASSESSMNT 001-2265 OCT PRGS PMT#7:IST ST:PW95-08 RET.W/H PMT 7:1ST ST:PW95-08 CREDIT:CO#6-EXCEEDS % COMPLETE REVERSE RETENTION-CREDIT MEMO 280-199-807-5804 280-2035 280-199-807-5804 280-2035 RET.TO ESCROW ACCT:IST ST BRDG 280-1035 ANNWL CITY LEAS. DIVISION DUES REPAIR/MAINT PW STENCIL TRUCK FREIGHT SALES TAX TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 001-110-999-5226 001-164-601-5214 001-164-601-5214 001-1~-601-5214 190-183-999-5330 PERMIT OVERPAYMENT:PAO0~0257 001-2650 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS NOV CUSTODIAL SVCS:PARKS NOV CUSTODIAL SVCS:6TH ST NOV CUSTODIAL SVCS:TES/AOUATIC REIMB: K-9 SUPPLIES NOV 2-21-518-0340 HWY 79 NOV 2-21-518-0340 HWY 79 NOV 2-11-007-0455 6TH ST NOV 2-10-747-1393 VARIOUS MTRS NOV 2-14-204-1615 FRNT ST RDIO NOV 2-21-449~1854 VARIOUS MTRS NOV 2-21-506-2829 Hth' 79 NOV 2-18-937-3152 MORENO RD NOV 2-21~506-3736 HWY 79 NOV 2-21-491-4715 CAMPANULA TC NOV 2-21-981-4720 HWY 79 TPP NOV 2-02-351-4946 SR CTR 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-180-999-5250 001-164-603-5250 190-186-999-5212 001-170-999-5327 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5319 001-164-603-5240 190-180-999-5240 340-199-701-5240 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5319 190-185-999-5240 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5319 210-165-631-5801 190-181-999-5240 2,959.25 16,540.70 15,351.00 1,189.70 99.45 710.25 1,189.00 412.50 324,790.17 32,479.02- 3,439.85- 343.99 32,135.03 100.00 54.00 5.00 4.19 700.00 620.00 93.60 124.80 3,440.00 210.00 210.00 87.25 209.25 376.72 304.82 29.02 19.44 171.27 44.46 416.55 44.56 93.55 50.61 724.34 4,019.02 33,081.40 99.45 710.25 1,601.50 289,215.29 32,135.03 100.00 63.19 700.00 620.00 218.40 3,860.00 87.25 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6 11/30/00 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 66201 11/30/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 66201 11/30/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 66201 11/30/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 66201 11/30/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 66201 11/30/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 66201 11/30/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 66202 11/30/00 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 66202 11/30/00 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 66202 11/30/00 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 66202 11/30/00 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 66202 11/30/00 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 66202 11/30/00 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 66203 11/30/00 001972 STANLEY R HOFFMAN ASSOC 66204 11/30/00 000465 STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN 66204 11/30/00 000465 STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN 66205 11/30/00 000574 SUPERTONER 66206 11/30/00 SWEENEY, TARA 66207 11/30/00 003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS 66207 11/30/00 003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS 66207 11/30/00 003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS 66208 11/30/00 000305 TARGET STORE 66208 11/30/00 000305 TARGET STORE 66208 11/30/00 000305 TARGET STORE 66209 11/30/00 66210 11/30/00 001672 66211 11/30/00 003067 66212 11/30/00 000307 66212 11/30/00 000307 66212 11/30/00 000307 66212 11/30/00 000307 66213 11/30/00 000919 66214 11/30/00 0043?-3 66215 11/30/00 66216 11/30/00 003847 66217 11/30/00 004261 TEM.POLICE EXPLORERS PO TEMEOULA DRAIN SERV & P TEMECULA R V TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED U S FOOD SERVICE UCR/CALF.MUSEUM OF PHOT V R M - MAXIMUS INC VERIZON CALIFORNIA ITEM DESCRIPTION NOV 2-21-56D-5874 MARGARITA TC NOV 2-18-348-6315 MARGARITA RD NOV 2-18-049-6416 FRONT ST PED NOV 2-21-911~7892 O.T.SO.PKLOT NOV 2-19-171-8568 WED.CHAPEL NOV 2-21-487-8746 CAMPANULA ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5319 001-164-603-5319 210-165-828-5804 190-185-999-5240 190-180-999-5319 REFRESHMENTS:TURKEY BONL:11/05 001-2175 ADD'L REFRSHMNTS:TRKY BWL:11/5 001-2175 SALES TAX 001-2175 SALES TAX 001-2175 REFRSHMNTS:RACE FOR CURE:Il/15 001-150-999-5265 REFRESHMENTS:PARADE MTG:11/15 190-180-999-5260 FISCAL IMPACT MODEL/USER GUIDE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS MISC PRINTER SUPPLIES 001-140-999-5248 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 320-199-999-5221 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 OFFICE WALL PANEL FOR GIS ROOM LABOR SALES TAX TCC REC SUPPLIES SR CTR REC SUPPLIES SENIOR CENTER REC SUPPLIES REIMB:PUBLIC SAFETY EXPO:Il/18 PLUMBING SVCS:GTH ST RESTROOMS REPAIR/MAtNT P.D.COMMAND POST NAMETAGS:MILES/DE LA TORRE NAMETAGS:MILES/DE LA TORRE NAMETAG:MCBRIDE TCSD RECOGNITION PLAQUE:TAYLOR AUG PW VEHICLE MAINT. SVCS REFRESHMENTS:SAFETY EXPO 11/18 17 PHOTOGRAPHS FOR MUS.EXHIBIT ANN'L SOFTWARE SUPPORT SVC PLN NOV XXX-2626 P.D.SATELLITE STN 001-161-610-5601 001-161-610-5601 001-161-610-5601 190-184-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 001-110-999-5278 001-164-603-5250 001-170-999-5214 001-163~999-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-171-999-5222 190-180-999-5250 001-164-601-5214 001-110-999-5278 190-185-999-5250 320-199-999-5211 001-170-999-5229 ITEM AMOUNT 44.75 142.82 202.71 13.82 68.23 40.35 100.00 35.66 7.75 9.69 85.09 79.58 2,000.00 512.00 228.00 213.31 100.00 215.14 215.00 33.34 36.53 58.57 86.96 106.00 55.00 581.49 9.34 4.67 7.00 19.40 90.13 2,026.18 200.00 795.00 296.75 CHECK AMOUNT 2,997.27 317.77 2,000.00 740.00 213.31 100.00 463.48 182.06 106.00 55.00 581.49 40.41 90.13 2,026.18 200.00 795.00 VOUCRRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7 11/30/00 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOUS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 66217 11/30/00 66218 11/30/00 66219 11/30/00 66220 11/30/00 66221 11/30/00 66222 11/30/00 66223 11/50/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 66224 11/30/00 VENDOR NUMBER 004261 001342 004134 000339 004268 VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER VERIZON CALIFORNIA WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY [ WESCO PLUMBING WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY WESTERN FIRE COMPANY WESTWAY MARKETING 003756 WHITE HOUSE SANITATION 000345 XEROX CORPORATION 8ILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION SILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILL! NOV XXX-3526 FIRE ALARM 320-199-999-5208 MAINT FAC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 340-199-702-5212 CRC WOMEN'S R.R. REPAIR/MAIRT. 190-182-999-5212 CITY HALL LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 001-120-999-5228 FIRE SYSTEM SVCS - LIBRARY 210-199-129-5802 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 NOV CLEANING SVCS:BTRFLD STAGE 190-180-999-5250 OCT BASE CHARGE - 5343 COPIER OCT LEASE DCCSSO COPIER OCT INTEREST DCCSSO COPIER OCT USAGE DCCS50 COPIER OCT BASE CHARGE 5830 COPIER SEP LEASE 5365/DC240 COPIERS SEP LEASE 5021 COPIER 330-199-999-5217 330-2800 330-199-999-5391 330-199-999-5217 330-199-999-5217 330-2800 190-184-999-5239 SEP INTEREST 5365/DC240 COPIER 330-199-999-5391 SEP POOLED MAINT/SUPPLIES 330-199-999-5217 SEP LEASE 5800 COPIER 330-28D0 SEP MAINT/SUPPLIES 5800 COPIER 330-199-999-5391 ITEM AMOUNT 82.48 161.95 325.00 150.04 275.00 100.00 50.00 242.77 251.49 237.45 87.47 80.31 1,688.22 120.54 492.28 4,3?3.22 1,718.45 663.02 CHECK AMOUNT 379.23 161.95 325.00 150.04 275.00 100.00 50.00 9,955.22 TOTAL CHECKS 461,058.25 VOUCHRE2 11/30/00 15:58 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 2 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS AMOUNT 39,479.93 65,964.26 40,898.24 TOTAL 146,342.43 ¥OUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1 11/30/00 15:58 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 66227 12/12/00 66228 12/12/00 66228 12/12/00 66229 12/12/00 66229 12/12/00 66230 12/12/00 66230 12/12/00 66231 12/12/00 VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION OCT 2000 PLAN CHECK SVCS 001-162-999-5248 001719 L P A IRC OCT PRGSS:LIBRARY DESIGN PRJT 210-199-129-5802 001719 L P A IRC REIMBURSABLES 210'199'129'5802 004370 MICROAGE OF SACRAMENTO MICROSOFT OFFICE 2000 UPGRADE 320-1980 004370 MICROAGE OF SACRAMENTO SALES TAX 320-1980 003576 S Y S TECHNOLOGY INC 003576 S Y S TECHNOLOGY INC 6 -VIEWSONIC VP151 MONITORS 320-1970 SALES TAX 320-1970 O03T~O WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN CITYWIDE TREE TRIMMING SERVICE 001-164-601-5402 ITEM AMOUNT 17,945.13 65,555.75 408.51 30,102.60 2,332.95 7,854.00 608.69 21,534.80 CHECK AMOUNT 17,945.13 65,964.26 32,435.55 8,462.69 21,534.80 TOTAL CHECKS 146,342.43 ITEM 4 CITY ~ DIRECTOR OF CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance December 12, 2000 City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2000 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director William B. Pattison, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2000. 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 October 31, 2000. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of October 31, 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2000 2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of October 31, 2000 3. Fund Equity Detail by Fund as of October 31, 2000 Cash Activi~ for the Month of October Cash and Investments as of October 1, 2000 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as of October 31, 2000 $ 52,591,116 4,574,167 (4,169,838) $ 52,995~445 Maturity/ Termination T~e of lavestment Institution Yield Date Petty Cash City Hall n/a $ General Checking Union Bank Sweep Account Union Bank 5.200 % (Money Market Account) 0qighmark U.S. Treasmy) Benefit Demand Deposits U~ion Bank n/a Local Agency Investment Fuad State Treasurer 6.517 % Certificate of Deposit Community Bank 5.860 % (Retention Escrow) Various U.S. Bank Various (Retention Escrow) Ch ecl~ng Account Union Baak n/a (Parking Citations) Trust Accounts- CFD 88-12 U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 5.860 % (Money Market Account) Reserve Account- CFD 88-12 CDC Funding Corp 5.430 % 9/1/2017 (Investment Agreement) Delinq. Main. Re~erve Account - CFD 88-12 CDC Funding Corp 5.422 % 9/1/2017 (Investment Agreement) Trust Aceounis- CFD 98-1 U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 5.860 % (Money Market Account) Reserve Account- CFD 98-1 State Treasurer 6.517 % (Local Agency Investment Fund) Trust Aceounts-TCSD COPs U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 5.860 (Money Market Account) Reseree Aeeount-TCSD COPs Bayerische Landesbank 6.870 % 10/I/2012 (Investment Agreement) Trust Accounts-RDA Bonds U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 5.860 % (Money Market Account) Reserve Aecotmt-RDA Bonds Bayerische Landesbank 7.400 % 2/1/2013 (investment Agreement) 1,500 $ (793,594) 537,502 4,745 47,727,451 149,009 244,067 4,368 191,873 1.531,469 500,000 15,997 929,000 429 502,690 1,500 (793,594) (1) 537,502 4,745 47,727,451 (2) 149,009 244,067 4,368 191,873 1,531,469 500,000 15,997 929,000 429 502,690 1,448,920 $ 52~995~445 (1)-This amount is net of outstanding cheeks. (2)-At October 3 l, 2000 total market value (including accrued interest) for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) was $40,716,443,764. The City's proportionate share of that value is $47,714,955. All investments are liquid and currently available. The City of Temecula's portfolio is in compliance with the investment policy. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of thc City of Temccula for the next six months. City of Temecula Schedule of Azsets, Liabilities, and Fund Balances Aa of October 31, 2000 city (1) Community Communit~ Services Redevelopment Facilities District A~ncy Districts (2) To~al $ 38,717,598 $ 1,293,223 $ 9,397,307 $ 3,587,317 $ 52,995,445 7,644,123 5,663 2,252,597 6,621 9,909,004 1,432,987 19,220 5,059 1,457,266 530,40l 2,103,053 2,633,454 51,550 51,550 382,868 382,868 1,147,079 1,147,079 $ 49,906,606 $ 1,318,106 $ 13,752,957 $ 3,598,997 $ 68,576,666 Liabilities and f~nd equlW: Liabilities: Dee to other funds Other liabilities Deferred revenu~ Total liabilities Fund equity: Contributed capital Retained eamlngs Fund balances: Reserved (3) Designated (3) Undesignated Total fund equity Total liabilities and fired equity 1,452,207 $ 5,059 $ 1,457,266 7,324,379 $ 139,312 $ 573,500 3,557,990 11,595,181 489,301 1,007,464 1,496,765 9,265,887 139,312 1,580,964 3,563,049 14,54~,212 1,281,781 1,281,781 1,152,220 1,152,220 8,975,187 1,313,165 12,347,868 22,636,220 2~180,010 242,795 35,948 29,458,753 51,521 (377,166) (175,875) (501,520) 40,640,719 1,178,794 12,171,993 35,948 54,027,454 49,906,606 $ 1,318,106 $ 13,752,957 $ 3,598,997 $ 68,576,66~6 (1) Includes General Fund, CIP Fund, Gas Tax Fund, and other special revenue fimds. (2) Includes CF1) 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) and CFD 98-1 (Winchester Hills). (3) Reservations and designations of fund balance are detailed on the following pages. ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTO~f--- CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance December 12, 2000 Financial Statements for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Direct~r~ William B. Pattison, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Financial Statements for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000. DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the City for the three months ended September 30, 2000. Please see the attached financial statements for an analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2000 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Combining Balance Sheet (Internal Service Funds) as of September 30, 2000 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings (Internal Service Funds) for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Combining Balance Sheet (Community Facilities Districts) as of September 30, 2000 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance (Community Facilities Districts) for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2000 and the Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings For The Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) Prepared by the Finance Department City of Temecula Combinin~ Balance Sheet As otSeptember 30, 2OOO Cash and inveslments Receivables Due from other funds Advances to other funds Deposit~ Land held for resale Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Liabilities: Due to other funds Other current li~ilities Deferred revenue Total liabilities General Gas Tax Dev Impact CDBO Fund Fund Fund Fund $ 12,711,462 $ 7,706,875 3,782,263 $ 97,781 229,134 7,987 2,668,892 5,368 530,401 $ 19,698,386 $ 97,781 $ 7,943,996 19,220 5,029,087 410,851 $ 78,450 5,459,158 78,450 5,036,296 9,202,932 $ 97,781 7,865,546 14,239,228 97,781 7,865,546 Fund balances: Reserved Designated Undesignated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances $ 19,698,386 $ 97,781 $ 7,943,996 Please note that these balances are unaudited City of Temecula Combln~n~ Balance Sheet As o£,%Tnembcr 30, 2000 Cash and investments Receivables Due fi~m other funds Advancez to o~het funds Land held f~x resale Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Total~abilifies Marg Rd AB 2766 Iv~asure "A" CIP Rcim Dist Fund Fund Fund Fund Total $ 33,420 $ 2,132,425 $ 12,848,079 $ 35,432,261 14,338 183,489 3,181,861 7,488,866 7,987 2,668,892 377,500 382,868 530,401 $ 47,75~8 $ 2,315,914 $ 16,407,440 __$ 46,511,27.~_5 47,114 $ 3,474,820 $ 7,987 $ 27,207 8,551,021 489,301 47,114 3,474,820 7,987 9,067,529 Fuad balance: Re~'ved Designated Total fund balances 4,246,683 9,282,979 $ 47,758 2,268,800 8,685,937 28,168,754 (7,987) (7,987) 47,758 2,268,800 12,932,620 (7,987) 37,443,746 $ 47,758 $ 2,315,914 $ 16,407,440 $__ $ 46,511,27~5 Please note that these balances are unaudited Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual General Fund For the 'Hu'ee Months Ended September 30, 2000 Sales tax $ 15,500,000 Developmental services: planninE 458,500 Building & ~'ety 1,887,700 Land development 1,800,000 Fire 347,000 Cnnmts 128,000 AB3229 (COPS) 111,900 Mo~ vehicle in lieu 2,460,900 Propexty tax 1,544,000 Prope~y traasfet tax 335,000 Franchi~ fees 1,334,500 Transient occupancy tax 1,330,000 Reimbursements 191,800 Reimbursements from TCSD 162,000 Reimbursements from RDA 225,000 Reimbum:ments from CIP 1,205,690 Iavestn~mt interest 928,000 Business licenses 205,000 Vehicle code fmes 525,000 Parltin~ citation~impound fees 85,300 Operating transfers in 937,700 Total Revenues YTD Percent Activity of Budget 3,802,777 25% 91,264 20% 505,066 27% 247,256 14% (1) 60,316 17% (1) 118,598 93% (2) (3) 29% (4) 2o% (5) 16% (6) 24% 17% (7) 25% 25% 16% (8) 42% (9) 9% (10) 6% (11) 19% 29% 9% (12) 709,361 67,840 207,112 316,081 33,227 40,500 56,250 193,896 391,528 18,265 3o,26~ 13,525 24,963 88,625 31,775,490 $ 7,016,716 (1) 22% City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual General Fund For fine Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Expenditures: Annual Amended YTD Budget Acfivity YTD Activity Percent Encumbr. + Encumbr of Budget City Council $ 282,210 $ 70,876 Community Support 459,638 56,209 City Manager 608,225 125,649 Economic Development 805,580 269,896 City Clerk 598,900 124,064 City Attorney 347,500 78,706 Finance 1,111,141 243,399 Human Resources 319,290 71,609 Planning 2,626,210 419,061 Building & Safety 1.788,990 384,499 Engineering 1,137,601 206,097 Public Works 4,172,119 817,218 CIP Admin 1,507,110 269,347 Police 7,440,135 1,338,821 Fh-e Dept 2,581,576 624,170 Animal Conlml 80,000 28,317 Non-departmental 3,159,000 760,392 Total Expenditures (Excluding Transfers) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures $ 1,814 $ 72,690 26% 206,333 262,542 57% (13) 23,381 149,030 25% 4,866 274,762 34% (14) 15,404 139,468 23% 78,706 23% 7,475 250,874 23% 11,828 83,437 26% 97,533 516,594 20% 144,361 528,860 30% 19,341 225,438 20% 693,307 1,510,525 36% (15) 50,469 319,816 21% 26,972 1,365,793 18% 59,818 683,988 26% 28,317 35% 760,392 24% 29,025,225 . 5,888,330 1,362,902 7,251,232 25% 2,750,265 1,128,386 4,099,700 4,000,000 (1,349,435) (2,871,614) 17,110,842 17,110,842 Operating Transfers Out Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures ;md Operating Transfers Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 $ 15,761,407 $ 14,239,228 Notes: (1) The variance in Community Development revenues is due to lower than anticipated development activity, staffanficipates several substantial projects may be submitted before year-end. (2) The variance in grant revenue is due to receiving a state grant for police-related techno ogy in the amount of $118,598. (3) The City's annual apportionment of AB2339 revenue funds was received in October. (4) Property tax revenue is primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (5) Property transfer tax only represents Iwo months of revenue received during the first quarter. (6) The variance in franchise fees is due to several entities that have annual payments due in later portions of the fiscal year. (7) The annual Booking fee reimbursement was received from the state in November. (8) The variance in CIP reimbursement revenue is partially offset by budget savings in the CIP Administtation department budget. (9) The vahance in invesanent interest is due to a higher than anticipated cash balances. (10) The variance in business license revenue is due to the processing of renewals in December and January each fiscal year. (11) Only one month o£ vehiale code fine revenue is reflected. In addition, the variance in vehicle code frae revenue is compounded due to erroneous data provided by Riverside County that was used to develop the current revenue estimate. This revenue estimate will he. reduced by approximately $150,000 at mid-year. (12) The variance in operating transfers in is due to the transfer of available cash from the Gas Tax fund at the end &the first qum, ler. (13) The variance in Community Support is due to encumbrances for libra~ support and glassy winged sharpshooter research. (14) The variance in Economic Development is due to the annual funding commitments that have been paid in lhe first quarter. (15) The variance in Public Works is due to fine encumbrances for annual slun7 seal and street striping conttacts. City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Gas Tax Fund For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Section 2105-2107 Investment interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Operating transfers out Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 Annual Amended YTD Budget Activity $ 933,200 $ 184,881 4,500 1,525 937,700 186,406 937,700 88,625 97,781 $ $ 97,781 Total Percent Encumbr. Activity of Budget $ 184,881 1,525 186,406 88,625 20% (1) 34% 20% 9% (1) The Gas Tax revenue represents only two months receipts during the first quarter. City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in ~ Bulallee - Budget and Actual Devalopme~t Impact Fund For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Budget Activit~ Quimby $ 81,900 $ 27,972 Street improvements 1,883,800 295,960 Traffic signals 341,800 56,136 Parks 1,059,800 335,653 Coqxnate facilities 313,300 82,918 Fire protection 103,800 20,052 Libraxy 258,200 70.458 Public facilities 8,997 Investment interest l18,11M Total Revenues 4,042,600 1,016,330 Exp~ditur~s: Operating tnmsfers out 8.132,900 Total Percent Encumbr. Activit~ of Budget $ 27,972 295,960 56,136 335,653 82,918 20,052 70,458 8,997 118,184 1.016,330 34% 16% O) 16% (1) 32% 26% 19% 27% 25% (2) Revonues Over/(Under) Expenditures (4,090,300) 1,016,330 Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 6,849,216 6,849,216 F~.di.~ Fund Balance. Sept~nber 30, 2000 $ 2,758,91~6 $ 7,865,546 Notes: (l) The variance is due development occurring within the City with developers who have Development Impact Fee reduction agreements with the City. (2) The variance in operating transfers out is due to the timin~o of when DIF funded CIP projects are started and coats are incurred. City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures mad Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Community Development Block Grant For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Annual Amended YTD Budget Activity Grant revenue $ 735,700 $ 7,709 Total Revenues 735,700 7,709 Expenditures: Other outside services 45,700 Operating t~ansfers out 686,300 7,709 Total Expenditures 732,000 7,709 Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures 3,700 Beghming Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 $ 3,700 $ Total Percent Encumbr. Activity of Budget $ 7,709 7,709 7,709 7,709 (1) The variance is due to the Senior Center Expansion and Sports Park Tot Lot Upgrade projects not being reimbursed for costs incurred until the projects are complete. 1% (1) 1% 1% 1% City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual AB 2766 Fund For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget AB 2766 $ 41,000 $ 13,911 h~vestment interest 427 Total Revenues 41,000 14,338 Expenditures: Operating transfers out 38,400 Total Expenditures 38,400 Revenues Over/(Undar) Expenditures 2,600 14,338 Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 33,420 33,420 Ending Fm~d Balance, September 30, 2000 $ 36,020 $ 47,758 $ 13,911 34% 427 14,338 35% Notes: (1) The variance in operating transfers out is due to the timing of when various projects are started and costs are incurred. City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Measure "A" For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Investment interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Debt service - principal Debt service - interest Operating transfers out Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Begianing Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 $ Annual Amended YTD Budget Activity Encumbr. Total Activity 1,298,000 $ 484,094 32,409 1,298,000 516,503 $ 484,094 32309 516,503 382,100 95,189 184,500 46,153 2,501,000 3,067,600 141,342 (1,769,600) 375,161 1,893,639 1,893,639 95,189 46,153 141,342 124,039 $ 2,268,800 Percent of Budget 37% 40% 25% 25% 5% (1) (l) The variance in operating transfers out is due to the timing of when various projects are started and costs are incurred. City of Temecala Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Capital Improvement Projects Fund For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Revenues:O) Operafmg transfers in Grants Reimbursements Investment interest Arlicle 3 (SB 821) Total Revenues Expenditures:O) Rancho Ca Rd interehauge Murrieta creek bridgn/Overinnd Ext Pala Rd Interim Improvements Overland overerossing Offramp widening at Rancho Ca Rd Intersection monitoring system Pauba Rd Improvements II Rainbow Canyon Interehangn Rancho Ca Rd Wide/Ynez Rd Santa Grtrds creek bfidgn/I-15 Santiago/Ynez Iht Improvements Ynez Rd Interim Improvements Traffic signals But~effielWRancho Ca Pala Rd. bridge Diaz realignment Signal interconnect system Pavement management Jefferson pavement improvement 115/79S interehangn (ultimate) Pala Road improvements Flashing beacons 2000 Flashing signals schools Diaz road extension at Date street Margarita widenMg/Overland extension I15/Winchester Road ramp improvements Traffic signals Pala/Loma Linda Traffic signals Pala/Wolf Valley Date street/Cherry Overpass I 15/Santiago interchange Margarita improvements Plo Pico/79S Murrieta creek bridge R.C./Winehestar Traffic signal controller upgrade Murrieta creek bridge widening R.C. Traffic signal equipment installation Traffic signals Margnrita/DePortola Traffic signals Margnrita/Stonewood (continued) Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Badl~et Activity Encumbr. Activiw of Budget 16,632,570 $ 4,007,710 1,244,100 3,927,450 39,226 175,000 21,979,120 4,046,936 4,007,710 39.226 4,046,936 24% 18% 22,573 210,000 1,500,000 232,748 2,700 936,999 175,000 250,000 220,000 635,000 200,000 57,500 2,868277 56,640 21,436 2,171,844 715,000 325,408 527,914 31,000 450 1,670,000 33,700 160,629 117,300 112,800 250,000 11,999 63,432 470,737 39,000 500,000 210,000 4,500 1,641 $ 9,933 59,792 5 2,045 298 347,191 14,292 305,868 8,760 4,629 102,120 264 1,726 14,822 29.715 2,226 6,921 1,403 20,932 222,871 2,700 89,787 87,541 495 544,014 42,347 21,436 276,092 27,552 341,895 45O 33,436 160,629 10,273 48,610 39,015 23,444 359,867 4,566 4,500 22,573 232,804 2,700 89,787 147,333 500 2,045 298 891,205 56,639 21,436 581,960 8,760 32,181 ~44,015 450 33,700 160,629 ll,999 63,432 68,730 25,670 366,788 5,969 4,500 100% 100% 100% 10% 84% 0% 0% 0% 31% 100% 100% 27% 1% 10% g4% 100% 100% 10o% 100% 100% 15% 66% 73% 5% 100% l0 City of Temecala Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Capita/Improvement Projects Fund For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Woodside landscaping Fiber optic conduits Date/Cherry Street S.B. offramp 1-15 onramp widening (~ Winchester Margarita/Winchester intersection imp. Pujol st. sidewalk improvements Old Toxvn south parking lot Starlight Ridge sidewalk Murricta Creek multi-purpose trail ADA sports park Multi-trails system Maintenance facility modification Maintenance facility parldng lot Children's museum Civic center Community theater Calle Aragon park drainage Chaparral HS swimming pool Desiltation pond Margarita community park fencing Northwest sports complex Sports park field lighting Sports park parking lot rehabilitation Trails master plan Sports park culvert deslga City hall improvements Library Annual Amended YTD Total Budset Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Total Expenditares (Excluding Transfers) 78,292 78,292 78,292 100% 120,000 250,000 321 321 0% 670,000 200,000 257 257 13,091 13,091 13,091 100% 435,432 8,019 370,059 378,078 87% 175,000 128 128 200,000 111,453 71,629 37,951 109,580 98% 94,595 94,595 94,595 100% 670,200 3,286 4,190 7,476 1% 135,000 616,224 25,431 19,358 44,789 7% 1,662,992 813,155 20,170 833,325 50% 75,000 2,108,850 16,675 89,406 106,081 5% 90,435 85,870 3,541 89,411 99% 2,484,433 48,926 190,792 239,718 10% 151,247 2,142 1,503 3,645 5,778 5,778 5,778 100% 4,904,716 1,695 95,207 96,902 2% 477,394 2,079 8,400 10,479 2% 220,365 182,280 10,178 192,458 87% 80,221 20,382 54,841 75,223 94% 60,000 1,986 1,986 7,516 7,516 7,516 100% 791 79I 791 100% 696,376 137,206 406,850 544,056 78% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures 31,833,782 2,340,896 3,869,183 6,210,079 Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 (9,854,662) 1,706,040 11,226,580 11,226,580 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 $ 1,371,918 $ 12,932,620 (1) The variances in CIP Fund revenues and in project expenditures are due to the timing of when the various projects are actually started and costs are incurred. 20% City of Temeeula Statemeat of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Margarita Road Reimbursement District For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Annual Amea~led YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Total Revenues $ 7,585 Total Expenditures Revenues Ovex/(-O'nda') Expenditures 7,585 13e~_~..~,,~ Fund BaUu~e, ~u~y ~. 20OO $ 05,572) 05,572) E~dine Fund Bala.nc, e, September 30, 2000 $~ $ (7,987) The deficit fund balance ia being reduced by reimbursements paid by the Temeku Hills development when building permits are issued. Reimbua~eats are expected to be completed within the next year. 12 Intenml Service Funds Comblnln~ B~n~ Sheet As of September 30, 2000 Receivables 1%'paid ~ssets Property, plant and equipment (net of accumulated depreciation) Total assets Liabili6~ and fund equity: Liabilities: Cummt liabilities Capital leases payable Fund cquiW Conlributed capital Retained earnings Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity Information Support Insmaace Vehicles Systems Services Facilities Fund Fund Ftmd Fund Fund Total 1,295,957 $ 126,296 $ 458,029 $ 196,352$ 96,416 $ 2,173,050 25,831 1,508 5,353 2,745 980 36,417 44,637 6,913 51,550 338,339 593,797 169,556 1,101,692 $ 1,~366,425 $ 473,05~65 __1,057,179 $ 368,653 $ 97,39~65 3,362,709 452,907 $ 1,270 $ 53,510$ 23,307 $ 24,920 $ 555,914 177,799 177,799 452,907 1,270 53,510 201,106 24,920 733,713 500,000 214,539 473,065 94,177 1,281,781 413,518 257,247 530,604 73,370 72,476 1,347,215 913,518 471,786 $ 1,366,42.~_55 473,05~6 1~03,669 167,547 72~76 2,628,996 $ 1,057,179 $ 368,65~35 97,3965 3,362,709 Please note that these balances are unaudited. City of T~necula Statement of Revanues, Expense~ and Chan~es ill Retained For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Information Support Insurance Vehicles Systems Senrices Facilities Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total Charges for se~ices $ 40,581 $ 41~241 $ 283,902 $ 46,408 $ 83,558 $ 495,690 Investment inte~st 20,452 1,507 5,353 2,745 980 31,037 Miscellaneous 50 5,700 144 5,894 Total Revenues 61,083 48,448 289,399 49,153 84,538 532,621 ~xpen~: Salaries & wages 6,693 61,015 19,472 42,656 129,836 Operating expenses 57,840 1,296 115,279 15,883 43,884 234,182 Intexest 2,562 2,562 Dq~eciation 34,328 94,135 11,568 140,031 Total Expca~s 64,533 35,624 270,429 49,485 86,540 506,611 Net Income (Lo"..s) (3,450) 12,824 18,970 Retained Earninga, July 1, 2000 416,968 244,423 511,634 Retained Eam~n_o~, September 30, 2000 $ 413,51~$ 257~.47 $ 530,6045 (332) (2,002) 26,010 73,702 74,478 1~321,205 73,370 $ 72,476 $ 1,347,215 14 Community Facilities Disui~ts ComblnlnE Balance Sheet A~ of September 30, 2000 Receivables Total assets Liabilili~ ~d f~ad balances: Liabih'fics: Cunent Total liabilities Fund balances: Total fund balaflccs Total J~s and fired balances · CFD 88-12 CFD 88-12 CFD 98-01 CFD 98-01 Admin Debt Debt Admin Expeose Se~ice Service Expense Fund Fund Fund Fund Total $ 23,105 $ 2,419,740 $ 1,017,186 $ 3,460,031 7,185 10,395 10,753 $ 5 28,338 $ 30,290 $ 2,430,135 $ 1,027,939 $ 5 $ 3,488,369 6,744 $ 2,430,135 $ 1,027,939 $ 5 S 3,464,823 6~744 2A30,135 1,027,939 5 3~64,823 23,546 23,546 23,546 23,546 $ 30,290 $ 2,430,135 $ 1,027,939 $ 5 $- 3,488,369 City of Temccah Star, mcat of Rcvcaucs, £xpead~mms and Changes ia Fund Balaac~ Commuai~ Facilities Disaicts For thc Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Total Revenues Total £xpemlRu~s R~w, mes Over/(Under) EXl~mditare. s BeEi~i-g Fund Balanoe, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 CFD 88~12 CFD 88-12 CFD 98-1 CID 98-1 Admin Dcbt Debt Admln Expen.~ Service Scndco Expen~ Fund Fund Fund Fund Total $ 564 $ 32,760 $ 5,703 $ S $ 39,032 204 204 98,461 98,461 768 131,221 5,703 5 137,697 3,552 $ 3,552 11,000 $ 6,050 17,050 $ 610,000 $ 165,000 775,000 459,194 381,802 840,996 14,552 1,069,194 546,802 6,050 1,636,598 (13,784) $ (937,973) $ (~1,~ $ (6,045) $ (1,498,901) 37,330 $ 23,~ 16 ITEM 6 APPROVAL ~2~',~"- CITY ATTORNEY /r~,,v~.~ ~ DIRECTOR OF FINAI~C~..~ CITY MANAGER gglYF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Anthony J. Elmo, Chief Building Official ~ December 12, 2000 Contract Inspection Services for Building and Safety RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve: A First Amendment to an Agreement for Consultant Services with P & D Consultants, in an amount of one hundred and eight thousand ($108,000) dollars to provide supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department. 2. A ten (10%) contingency in the amount of $10,800. DISCUSSION: On July 11, 2000 the City Council approved a contract for $60,000 with P&D Consultants for supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department. The City continues to experience a high level of construction activity. Staff research indicates this trend will continue to the end of the fiscal year. This request is for continuance of contract inspection assistance provided to the City by P & D Consultants for the balance of the fiscal year. P & D Consultants has provided this service for approximately two and one-half (2 ~) years to date. The amount of this First Amendment is $108,000 and a ten percent contingency in the amount of $10,800 which will bring the total contract amount price to $178,800. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are currently available in Account No. 001-162-999-5118, "Temporary Help", for this purpose. Expenditures from this account are offset by building permit revenue collection. No further appropriation of funds will be necessary for this purpose. AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETVVEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND P&D CONSULTANTS INC. THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of December 12, 2000 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City" and P&D Consusltants ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as foJlows: '1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On July 12, 2000 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Consultant Services" ("Agreement"). B. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4a of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 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, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed an additional amount of one hundred eight thousand ($108,000) dollars. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amended amount ($108,000) and not to exceed $10,800. 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 amount not to exceed a total of one hundred seventy eight thousand eight hundred dollars ($178,800) and in the manner as agreed by City Council and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. 3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT BY: P&D Consultants NAME: TITLE: BY: NAME: TITLE: ITEM 7 APPROVAL-/~zzx/ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF ClTY MANAGER~(itl? TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Herman Parker, Director of Community Services~ December 12, 2000 Agreement for Use of Flood Control Property RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFWCD), for use of approximately 33.5 acres of property located adjacent to Jefferson Avenue. BACKGROUND: The process to design and construct the Temecula Sports Complex, which has been proposed to be constructed at the Northwest Sports Complex, property begins in November of 2000. In an effort to ensure that the Temecula Town Association (TTA) has a location to continue to provide their community wide special events, such as the Tractor Race, the Community Services Department has drafted the attached agreement for use of 33.5 acres of property adjacent to Jefferson Avenue. This property is currently owned by RCFCWCD. It would be the intent of this agreement to utilize a portion of this property for the TTA to continue to host their annual events and programs, and provide another portion of the property for equestrian park uses. Through several discussions with RCFCWCD, the RCFCWCD is willing to enter a License Agreement with the City to allow the City to utilize this 33.5 acre parcel. The land is located adjacent to Jefferson Avenue and bordered to the north by Cherry Avenue and to the south by the Santa Gertrudis Creek. The property is where the RCFCWCD intends at some point, to develop a large detention facility. Until they move forward with the development of this detention facility, RCFCWCD is willing to allow the City to use this property for park property and special events. The agreement would be for a 10 year period, concluding June 30, 2010, or terminated sooner if RCFCWCD should commence the development of their detention facility. The agreement can be terminated by either party with a 6 month written notice. The City would be required to provide all necessary liability insurance naming the RCFCWCD as additional insured. The City would be required to pay for all maintenance costs associated with the facility and ensure the facility is properly maintained and kept in good condition. Both our City Attorney and Riverside County Legal Counsel have reviewed and approved the agreement in its present form. The Community Services Commission approved the agreement at the November 13, 2000, Community Services Commission meeting. R:~IGLERG~REPORTH21200 CC RCFCWCD Proper~y.doc FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. If the City should sublease a portion of the property to the TTA or other entity, that entity would then be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property pursuant to an agreement. Weed abatement maintenance of the site is estimated at $3500 per year. R:~IGLERG'~REPORT~121200 CC RCFCWCD Property.doc LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR APPROXIMATELY 33.5 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO JEFFERSON AVENUE AND SOUTHERLY OF CHERRY STREET THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a public agency ("District") and shall be dated for convenience of identification as of _, 2000. In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The District is the owner of approximately 33.5 acres of unimproved real property (a portion of a larger parcel) located in the northwest area of the City of Temecula which property is legally described and depicted on Exhibit A., attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full ("Property"). b. The District and City desire to enter into this Agreement to provide the terms and conditions upon which City will use the Property for park and recreational purposes, including, but not limited to, operating and staging cultural, artistic, entertainment and recreational events, including, but not limited to, tractor races, the rodeo and equestrian activities, the chili cookoff, musical events, and other related activities, on the Property. c. As used in this Agreement, "District Engineer" shall mean the General Manager-Chief Engineer for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and "Director" shall mean the Director of Community Services of the City of Temecula. "Risk Manager" shall mean the County of Riverside Human Resources Division Risk Manager. 2. Grant of License. a. District hereby grants to City a license to use the Property on the terms and conditions and for the uses hereinafter specified in this Agreement. b. Except as specifically provided hereinafter to the contrary, City shall have the exclusive right and obligation to use the Property for park and recreational purposes, including, but not limited to, operating and staging cultural, RSZIGLERGLXAGREEMN~RCFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 1 artistic, entertainment and recreational events, including, but not limited to, tractor races, the rodeo and equestrian activities, chili cookoff, musical events, and other related activities, and the reasonably necessary office and storage purposes connected therewith. City shall not use the Property for any other purpose without the prior written consent of the District Engineer and the Risk Manager. c. Not later than November 1 of each year, City shall provide the District Engineer and the Risk Manager with a schedule of all events for the succeeding calendar year. Should the District Engineer or the Risk Manager object to the schedule, the District Engineer shall notify City of such objections within twenty (20) days of receipt of the schedule. City shall promptly respond to District Engineer's objections and set forth a plan to mitigate and resolve the objections to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 3. Use Permits. City shall procure all permits and licenses required by the City of Temecula or other governmental entities to conduct special events. City shall comply with all governmental rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances and conditions of approval of permits, including any environmental evaluations required for a specific use. 4. Term. This Agreement shall commence as of January 1, 2001, and shall terminate on June 30, 2010, unless sooner terminated. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by providing six (6) months prior written notice of termination. 5. Improvements. City may install, at its own cost and expense, such temporary improvements to the Property as necessary to conduct the events and uses described in this Agreement including, without limitation, bleachers, fencing, grading for tracks, food facilities, or restroom facilities. City shall submit plans for such improvements to the District for prior to commencement of the work and District shall not object if said plans do not adversely impact the District's flood control facilities. City shall own such improvements as it may install upon the property and shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing said improvements during the period it uses the Property. City shall be responsible for compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations as respects the construction, accessibility and safety of any improvement they may add to the land and, in addition to any other indemnifications that may be in this Agreement, the City will pay any fines, penalties or fees on behalf of the District or the County of Riverside that may result from additions to the land. 8/21/00 6. Ordinanees~ Regulations and Conditions Governing Use of Property. City, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers, shall at all times conduct themselves in a professional manner and that they will conform to all state and federal regulations, ordinances and regulations of the District, as amended, applicable to the Property and the special Use Conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. City shall maintain a staff`adequate to operate, maintain, repair and administer all facilities located on the Property in a safe and orderly manner. 7. Third Party Agreements. R:kZIGLERGLXAGREE~CFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 2 a. City may, in conjunction with its operation and use of the Property, enter into agreements with third parties concerning, among other things, advertising and signage at the Property, operation of the concessions, sale of food, beverage, and concession items at the Property. District hereby grants City the authority to enter into a sublicense agreement with the Temecula Town Association to allow the Association to use the property for the same uses as allowed by this Agreement. All such third party agreements and the sublicense shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. b. All contracts with such third parties shall clearly provide that this Agreement controls all activities of such persons on the Property. c. All contracts with such third parties shall contain insurance provisions for the protection of the District, the County of Riverside, its Board of Supervisors, Directors, Officers and Employee of such nature and amount as approved by the District Engineer in writing prior to City entering into the third party agreement. At a minimum such policies shall contain the provisions set forth in this Agreement and may contain higher policy limits or additional types of insurance depending on the nature of the use. d. The District and the Risk Manager reserves the right to review any and all such third party agreements entered into by City for compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 8. Security and Traffic Management Plan. a. City shall be responsible for providing security, safety and managing traffic for the Property during an event. b. City shall not permit any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances or persons using profane or indecent language, or engaging in boisterous or loud conduct to remain in or about the Property and will call upon the aid of peace officers to assist and maintain peaceful conditions on the Property. c. City shall provide for and staffan Emergency Aid Station consistent with the size of the crowds for all of City's events on the Property to provide emergency medical aid to all persons on the Property. All persons staffing the Emergency Aid Station shall, at a minimum, be currently certified in first aid and CPR. d. City shall prepare a Security and Traffic Management Plan ("Security and Traffic Management Plan") setting forth the public safety, parking and traffic plans to be used to hold any authorized event at the Property. The Security and Traffic Management Plan must minimally meet all local ordinances and rules, state and federal laws and regulations and use the most current procedures to protect the public, vendors and employees. The Security and Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared and delivered to the District Engineer R:kZIGLERGLXAGREE~CFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 3 not later than ninety (90) days prior to the first event for each calendar year. City shall provide all measures as may be required under the Security and Traffic Management Plan at its sole cost and expense. e. The City agrees to have the direct involvement of a recognized sanctioning body for any event involving vehicle racing on county land. 9. Damage Provisions. City shall pay for the repair and/or replacement of, including but not limited to, all damaged structures, equipment, facilities and land in areas occupied or used by City which are damaged through any act of City, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers, subcontractors, sublicensees, and persons attending or participating in any City event. This Section applies to, but is not limited to such items as exterior fencing, structures, drinking fountains, water spigots, irrigation equipment, trash cans, landscaping, including turf, trees, scrubs and any other facilities, improvements or equipment on the Property. In the event the City decides not to repair a damaged item of property, the City will have the property disposed of and removed from the land in a manner that is in compliance with all local, state and federal regulations. 10. Liens. City shall not directly or indirectly, create or permit to be created or to remain, and will promptly discharge, at its expense, any mortgage, lien, encumbrance, charge, or pledge of the Property or fixtures or furnishings, or any part thereof. 11. Return of the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement, City shall retum the Property in as good as condition and repair as the Property existed, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 12. Indemnification. To the maximum extent permitted by law, District, County of Riverside, Board of Supervisors, Directors, Officers, and Employees shall not be liable for any loss, damages, or injury to person or property of any person occasioned by or arising out of any act of City or of anyone holding under City, nor the occupancy or use of the Property or any part thereof by or under City, nor directly or indirectly from any state or condition of said Property or any part thereof during the term of this Agreement, including but not limited to any State or Federal proceedings involving environmental issues.. City shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold District, County of Riverside, Board of Supervisors, Directors, Officers, and Employees harmless from any and all damages arising out of any act or omission of City, its officers, employees, agents, sublicensee, subcontractors, volunteers and persons attending City events on the Property, except to the extent such damages may arise from the District's willful and gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct (or that of District's agents or employees). 13. Liability Insurance. District acknowledges that City may become self insured at some time in the future and accepts and agrees that upon City becoming self-insured, to the extent such self-insurance is equal to or greater than the coverage stated below, City will not be required to procure the insurance described in this Section, RSZIGLERGLXAGREEMN~CFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 4 but that sublicensees and other permitees using the Property shall be required to procure insurance in conformance with the terms of this Agreement. ExcePt for events in which the City is the sole sponsor, City shall require any sublicensee or other person receiving written permission from the City to use the Property, to procure and maintain for the duration of its use of the Property, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the use of the Property by City, its agents, representatives, employees or sublicensees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the following coverages and any updated insurance industry standard policies: no less than: (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 1 (any auto); (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance; (4) Liquor liability coverage;. (5) Independent Contractors; and (6) Vendors Liability. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. City shall maintain limits (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Special events involving the use of automobiles or vehicles shall require general liability insurance in an amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) to ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) as determined by the City Manager. (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. (4) Liquor liability coverage of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Risk Manager. RSZIGLERGXXAGREEMI'~RCFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 5 d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The District, County of Riverside, its Board of Supervisors, its Directors, 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 City; products and completed operations of the City; Property owned, occupied or used by the City; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the City. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the District, County of Riverside, its Board of Supervisors, its Directors, officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this Agreement, the City's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the District, County of Riverside, its Board of Supervisors, its Directors, officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the District, County of Riverside, its Board of Supervisors, its Directors, officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the City'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 District, County of Riverside, its Board of Supervisors, its Directors, officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The City'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 or any other material modification except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the District. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers, that are California admitted, with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VIII, unless otherwise acceptable to the District. f. Verification of Coverage. City shall furnish the District 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 District. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the District before work comanences. As an alternative to the District's forms, the City's insurer R:~IGLERG~XAGREE~CFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 6 may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. g. Failure to Comply with Insurance Requirements. In the event the City fails to submit the required documentation for insurance to the District Engineer within the times required by this Agreement or the District Engineer receives notice or is made aware of the termination of any required insurance policy, the District Engineer may immediately suspend City's right to use the Property and shall cause a notice of&fault to be issued to the City. 14. Assignment and Subletting. City shall not assign its interest in this Agreement or in the Property to any person or entity without first obtaining the District Engineer's written consent, except that consent shall not be required for the City to assigned this Agreement to either the Temecula Community Services Agency or to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula.. Any assignment or sublicense without the District Engineer's prior written consent shall be voidable and, at the District Engineer's election, shall constitute a default. No consent of the District Engineer should be required for agreements with vendors, concessionaires and advertisers at the Property, or booking or other performance agreements with entertainers. In the event of any assignment City understands and agrees that it shall remain liable with respect to any and all obligations and duties contained in this License Agreement. 15. Default and Right to Terminate. a. If City should fail to perform, keep or observe any of the terms, conditions or covenants as set forth in this Agreement, District shall give City notice to correct the failure within said thirty (30) days, and if such action is not cured by City within thirty (30) day period, City shall be in default of this Agreement and City's rights hereunder shall at the option of the District, be terminated and forfeited. Such election to terminate shall not be construed as a waiver of any claim the District may have against City, consistent with such termination. If, however, any failure is of such nature that it cannot be physically remedied within thirty (30) days, except for the payment of money, and if City hall have commenced the elimination of such failure promptly after the receipt of such notice, and shall continuously and diligently proceed in good faith to eliminate such default, then the period for correction shall be extended for such length of time as is reasonably necessary to complete such correction. The failure of City to fund the necessary corrections shall not justify an extension of the time to cure beyond the initial 30 day period. b. Upon any termination of this Agreement, City covenants and agrees to surrender and to forfeit this Agreement, and deliver up the Property peaceably to the District immediately upon any such termination. If said City shall remain in possession of said Property after any termination of this Agreement, City shall be deemed guilty of an unlawful detention of the Property. RSZIGLERGLXAGREE~CFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 7 c. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the District shall not be deemed to be in default until thirty (30) days after notice of default is given by the City to the District. If such default cannot be cured within such thirty day period, the District shall not be deemed to be in default provided that, within such thirty (30) day period, the District shall commence and thereafter diligently prosecute efforts to cure the default. 16. Legal 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 the notice of&fault as provided in this Agreement. Any such action shall be filed in Riverside County, Califomia. The prevailing party in a court action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 17. Use Restrictions. City agrees to maintain the Property in a clean and neat condition, free and clear of garbage, weeds and debris. No dumping, storage of hazardous or toxic waste, nor the maintenance of any nuisance, public or private, shall be permitted. No rights across any adjacent District property is granted by this Agreement and City agrees to secure all such property from trespass and control access to property at its sole cost and expense. 18. Utilities. City shall pay for all utility costs incurred for the periods when City is using the Property. 19. Notice. 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: City: CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: City Manager District: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 Market Street Riverside, California 92501 Attention: District Engineer 20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and the documents attached hereto or mentioned herein, contain all of the agreements of the Parties hereto with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement, and no prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. R:~ZIGLERGLXAGREE~CFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 8 21. Amendments. 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 on ., 2000.. CITY OF TEMECULA Jeffrey Stone Mayor ATTEST: Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney RSZIGLERGLXAGREEMN~RCFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Recommended for Approval By: James A. Venable, Chairman Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors By: David P. Zappe General Manager-Chief Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By: Dated: Joe S. Rank Assistant County Counsel (Seal) By: Deputy R:XZIGLERGLXAGREE~CFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 10 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY R:~ZIGLERG\XAGREEMN~RCFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 1 1 Murrietn Creek Parcel 7020-508A Being a portion of the Murrieta portion of the Temecula Rancho, as shown by the map of the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, records of San Diego County, California, as described in Instrument No. 426234, dated Janum-y 23, 1996, reenrds of Riverside County, California, described as follows: A 680 foot wide strip of land lying Southwesterly of, adjoining to, parallel' and concenUic with the Southwesterly fight of way of the new ali~mament of Jefferson Avenue, as described in said instrument. The Northwesterly terminus of said strip to termlnnte at the centerline ~f Cherry St~t as described in said iustmment and the Southeasterly termimls to terminate at the Northwesterly line of Parcel Map 19582-2, Parcel Map Book 147, Pages 3 through 6, inclusive, records of Riverside County, Califorma. EXP. ~-30-02 NO. 6290 MAR~' .lAY KELI_.I~I~/ / l. and Surveyor No. 6290 Signed For: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Date: :5''''- ~3 -OO PARCEL 7020-508A BEING A PORTION OF THE MURRIETA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO, AS SHOWN BY THE MAP OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN OIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXHIBIT A II ¢-%~ I,,~ I '-' ~'1 i INSTRUMENT ,*426234. I PARCEL I OATED 1/23/1996 \ 7020-508 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ~x~.~//~1¥ ~ THE PARCEL(S)DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IT IS NOT A PART PREPARED BY; G.L.P. OF THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION THEREIN. ~--.-'~ ~ SCALE; NO SCALE SHEET I OF I EXHIBIT B USE CONDITIONS FOR PROPERTY RSZIGLERG\XAGREEMN~9,CFCWCD 33.5 acres. DOC 12 EXHIBIT B NO USE CONDITIONS AT THIS TIME ITEM 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OFFINANCE..,./:~:~:::: CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council ./~' William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer December 12, 2000 Parcel Map No. 29895, located south of Dendy Parkway, East of Winchester Road and North of Remington Avenue PREPARED BY: ~/r Ronald j. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works - v Gerald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer- Land Development RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve: 1. Parcel Map No. 29895 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 2. Subdivision Improvement Agreement; and 3. Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. BACKGROUND: Pamel Map No. 29895 is located south of Dendy Parkway, east of Winchester Road and north of Remington Avenue. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29895 was approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Director on September 28, 2000. The developer has met all of the Conditions of Approval. Parcel Map No. 29895 is a one (1) parcel industrial subdivision. The site is currently undeveloped. The following fees have been deferred for Parcel Map No. 29895: -D~-~lopment Impact Fee due pri6r to issuance of utility permit or until June 30, 2001, whichever is sooner. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Development Fee Checklist Fees & Securities Report Project Vicinity Map Parcel Map No. 29895 1 R:'~,GDRPT~2000\ 1212~PM29895,MAP.DOC CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO. PM 29895 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. FEE Development Impact Fee CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL To be paid prior to issuance of utility permit or until June 30, 2001, whichever is sooner CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP NO. 29895 DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2000 IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL MATERIAL & LABOR MONUMENT PERFORMANCE SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY Street and Drainage $ 356,000 $ 356,000 $12,500 Flood Control Water Sewer TOTAL $356,000 $356,000 $12,500 DEVELOPMENT FEES City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFCD (ADP) Fee Development Impact Fee SERVICE FEES Planning Fee Comprehensive Transportation Plan Plan Check Fee Monument inspection Fee Fees Paid to Date Balance of Fees Due $ 0.00 $ N/A $ TBD* $ 55.00 $ 4.O0 $ 770.00 $ 250.00 $ 1,079.00 $ 0.00 To be determined at building permit 3 Dend VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ITEM 9 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City ManagedCity Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager December 12, 2000 Consideration of Amendment to Boys and Girls Club Loan RECOMMENDATION: Approve an amendment to the loan to the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, Inc. that would provide for funding of approved programs in lieu of cash loan payments. BACKGROUND: In 1993, the City provided a loan to the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, Inc., which allowed them to construct a permanent facility in Temecula. The loan was in the amount of $374,846, and is structured so that the loan is repaid at the rate of $1500 per month in cash, and the balance of the monthly payment ($1578 per month) is paid through in-kind services to the community. The loan balance is currently $322,287, and this loan is scheduled to be fully repaid in the year 2015. At your last City Council meeting, the Council approved in concept the idea of restructuring this loan to allow "in-kind" funding in lieu of the required cash payment in certain circumstances. As a result of Council's discussion, the City Attorney's office has prepared an amendment to our current loan agreement that would provide for the following: 1. The Boys and Girls Club would purchase a van to provide transportation to its before-and- after school programs. This van would exclusively serve students of the Temecula Valley Unified School District. 2. This van would need to be purchased and operational by February 1,2001. 3. Quarterly reports would be required to verify program compliance. 4. In-kind funding in the amount of $1500 per month would be permitted for a three-year period, beginning January 1, 2001. 5. After that period the Council may approve in-kind funding on a year-to-year basis. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment would result in an impact of $1,500 per month to the Community Support Department budget in the General Fund. Adequate reserves p:sta ndard\staffreport.shell I are available to fund the impact of this amendment. Staff will bring forward the necessary budget adjustments as part of the FY 2000-01 mid-year budget. ATTACHMENT: Proposed Amendment to Boys and Girls Club Loan p:standard~staffreport.shell 2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT LOAN FUNDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF TEMECULA, INC. THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of December 12, 2000 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, Inc., a California non-profit corporation ("Club"). In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties agrees to be tree and correct: On July 22, 1993, the City and Club entered into that certain "Agreement Loan Funds for Public Purposes" ("Loan Agreement"). Concurrently, with the approval of the Loan Agreement, the Club executed a Promissory Note for $323,846 in favor of the City ("Promissory Note"). The purpose of the Loan Agreement was to provide funds to the Club to have a permanent facility in the City of Temecula so as to enable it to provide programs for youth in Temecula. Pursuant to Section I.B. of the Loan Agreement, the twenty (20) year loan repayment period commenced on July 1, 1995, the date the Boys and Girls Club facility was dedicated and open for operation. Pursuant to Section I.B.2.(b) of the Loan Agreement, the Club is currently obligated to pay to the City the sum of $3,078.00 per month on the loan. Of this monthly amount, Section I.B.2 currently requires the Club to pay $1,500.00 of the month payment in cash and the balance in of the monthly payment in in-kind services, calculated pursuant to subsection (a). The City and the Club have determined that the pubic purposes of the loan would be enhanced and the youth of the City of Temecula would receive additional public benefits by expanding the in-lieu services which the Club could perform in order to receive credit for its monthly loan payments. The Club can provide greater service to the youth of the City by establishing transportation to and from Temecula schools to the -1- Boys and Girls Club facility on Pujol Street for before and after school programs. Section I.B.2 of the Loan Agreement is amended to read as follows: Repayment of the principal and interest of the loan commenced on July 1, 1995, which is the date the facility was dedicated and open for operation. Repayment shall be fully amortized over a twenty (20) year period from said date with an interest rate of seven and eight tenths percent (7.8%). Monthly payments on the loan shall be three thousand seventy eight dollars ($3,078.00) for the balance of the loan. "(a) Commencing on January 1,2001, the City agrees to accept payments of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) per month in cash and the balance of the monthly payment in in-kind services. "(b) In-kind service hour credit shall only be available for services provided to youth that are residents of the City of Temecula. Club shall provide programming to youth based on a rate of one dollar and five cents ($1.05) per child per hour. "(c) During the period of January 1,2001 through December 31, 2003 only, the $1,500.00 cash payment portion of the monthly payment shall be deemed satisfied by the following actions of the Club: "(1 ) Club shall purchase and operate a 15-person transportation van which shall be used for the transportation of Temecula youths to Club programs. The van shall be operational for Club programs on or before February 1, 2001, unless such date is extended by the City Manager "(2) Club shall purchase and maintain automobile liability insurance for the van in a policy amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) and subject to the terms of Section IV.D. of the Loan Agreement. "(3) Club shall maintain the van in a neat and clean condition and in accordance with manufacturers recommended maintenance schedules. -2- "(4) Club shall be responsible for all costs of insurance, gas, and maintenance of the van. "(5) Club shall provide City reporting of its use of the van, children using the van and compliance with the terms of this subsection (d) to verify in-kind payments on a quarterly basis in a form and manner acceptable to City's Director of Finance. "(e) After December 31, 2003, the City will consider other in- lieu funding for the $1,500 portion of the monthly payment, provided that no in-lieu funding alternative shall be effective until such time as a further amendment to this Loan Agreement is duly approved and executed by the City and the Club." 3. Section IV.A. of the Loan Agreement, the notice provision, is amended to change the addresses of the City and the Club as follows: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Attention: Director of Finance Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley, Inc. 28790 Pujol Street Temecula, Ca. 92589 Attention: Executive Director 4. Except as otherwise set forth in this First Amendment, all other terms of the Loan Agreement and the Promissory Note remain in full force and effect. -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed on behalf of the parties as of the date first written above. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF TEMECULA VALLEY, INC., a California non-profit corporation By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: [Signatures of two corporate officers required.] CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation · Jeffrey Stone Mayor Attest: Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved as to form: -4- Peter M. Thorson City Attomey -5- ITEM 10 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN~C~E~I::;y~ C TY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council Grant M. Yate~/Assistant to December 12, 2000 the City Manager Emergency Managers Assistance (EMA) Grant Receipt PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider appropriating $11,505.99 to purchase emergency management communication equipment. BACKGROUND: City staff applied for a competitive grant to purchase emergency management communication equipment during the 3r~ quarter of this year. This grant is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant that is administered by Riverside County Emergency Manager's Assistance (EMA). The terms of the grant are that FEMA will pay 51% and the City is to match 49%. The City of TemecuIa was awarded $5,868.06 (51% of total request) to purchase 2-way radios for the primary Emergency Operations Center (EOC)-Fire Station 84, secondary EOC~Community Recreation Center and for the SW Detention Center. These 2-way radios will be specifically designated for communication between the City and the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). In addition to this radio equipment, this grant will fund a portable satellite phone for the primary EOC on Pauba Road. This is another backup communication system to ensure the City will be able to communicate with State and Federal emergency management agencies in the event of a disaster. This communication equipment is essential in maintaining a properly equipped emergency management operation. FISCAL IMPACT: $5,637.93 of this appropriation request will come from the Unreserved General Fun~, Balance. This amount will supplement the $5,868.06 in grant funds already received frorff/EMA for a total amount of $11,505.99. This appropriation will be to the Emergency Management account 001-110-999-5278. ~UG-23-O0 ~D 14:50 F¢~ NO. 9099558940 P. 03 OBJECTIVES To develop an enhanced emergency management sy.,,tem by fulfilling thc communication capabilities and promoting information gathering/di:~scmination throughout the Operational Area. This will be accomplished by: Purchase equipment that is essential to suppo:d emergency operations throughout thc operational area. The purchase and inst~llation of 2-way radios will provide eommunicalion between the City of Temeeula and the Temecala Schools. 6/30/00 Installation of 2-way radios at primary Eec (Fire station 84) Price includes installation and all malerials and labor to provide radios, with powersupply, aut~ maas and cables. $1,635.76 6f30/00 Installation of 2-way radios at secondary Bec (CRC) Price includes installation and all materials and labor to provide radios, with powersupply, antennas and cables. $2,271.32 6/30/00 Installation of 2-way radios at SW Detention Center Price includes installation and all materials and labor to provide radios, with powersupply, antennas and cables. $2,206.27 The radios will be installed working and ready to co~nunicate with the schools on their emergency communications plan. They will include a two year limited warranty. Arrangements have been made for the school district to provide the necessary licensing, 6/30/00 Purchase of l-Satellite Phone- Westinghouse F-1000SPL (SKUgt0051) Satellite phone will include ~raasceiver, antenna electronics unit, telephone handset, AC pcw~r supply, and fixed site antenna Tellular Telephone interface for F- 1000SPL (SKU#34408) Interfaces standnd telephone line to Westinghouse unit so multiple phones can have aeces~ To the satellite telephone Standard fixed site installation $3,425.00 $ 625.00 $ 500.00 *Above prices includes training on the use and function of ~atellite .vy~tv, m. ~o4z '~_x_~x,~ EMA REIMBURSEMENT WORKSHEET OPERATING EXPENSES AND EQUIPMENT Equipment 2-Way Radios for Prima~y EOC 2-Way Radios for Secondary EOC EMA Local Total Share Share $1,635.76 $834.24 ~ 801.52 $2,271.32 $1,158.37 $1,112.95 2-Way Radios for SW Detention Center $2,206.27 $1,125.20 $1,081.07 Westinghouse D-1000HF Transmobile Unit Includes: Chassi Inse~t, Pelican Case, Transceiver Unit, PTT Microphone, Mid-gain Dome Antenna, Shielded Beam Steering Unit, Magnetic Mount For Antenna $4,346.64 $2,21'6.79 $2,129.85 SUIVfMARY Operating Expenses & Equipment Indirect Cost (Overhead) @ 10% GRAND TOTAL: $10,459.99 $1,046.00 $11,505.99 $ 5,334.60 $ 533.46 $ 5,865.0~ $ 5,125.39 $ 512.54 $5,637.93 Day Wireless Systems ~070 Waplm slmet 8.~-452-025o fax 858.452-7401 Inv~i~ NO. ~41'68 ,,---- P~tment Deta[l~ ' ~ 0 ca.~ ~ Ohed~ 0 Credit Card INVOICE ,-- ,-- 1 J Unit F'~oe' TOTAL ' '~ ~,O~.m ~,o~.~ Shilling & Har~dliAg · Tax "~OTA[, 1 Tha~x You for y~ur Pa~nage $~1 TAHYA ~UIT~H. USA ~ 21,2000 City of Te, a~eculat Atto: LOPff0A ~ CRC '. Mat3~iab $12~&00 TAX · 98./'/ Labor .~40.00 Total Cot of Projttt ' ~113~ ~ at.ye p~;cc h~cludcs all ma~'riaIs ~nd ~ to p~oYMc r~d~os, ~,,~t h po~ vasupply, antennas and c~lcs:..'~.~ radios will b~ installed wod~h~g smd zr. ady tO coum~u~lcate wlflt Ihe sehool:~ mt tlgir em=getty comtmmir, ifions plan. Tho/' will include · t~o ye~ lin3lt~d wamul~'. I have an'anted for tl~ schooIs to i~ovido for ~o ncc. c~ I~nsing. IDcliv~: Two weeks ARC) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT NOVEMBER 28, 2000 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:46 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Comerchero presiding. ROLLCALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, 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 November 14, 2000. 2 Award of Construction Contract'for Rancho California Sports Park Field Lighting - Project No. PW00-19CSD RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 2.2 Award a contract for Rancho California Sports Park Field Lighting - Project No. PW00-19CSD to MacKenzie Electric, Inc. (MEI, Inc.) for $494,990.00 and authorize the President to execute the contract; Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $49,499.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 2.3 Approve an appropriation in the amount of $105,000.00 from the Community Services District Fund Balance. (Director Naggar abstained with regard to this Item.) Minutes.csd\112800 1 MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 2. The motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Director Naggar who abstained. PUBLIC HEARING 3 Tract Map No. 23513 - Service Level B - Proposed Residential Street Lighting Rates and Charges RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 18, 200t REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23513 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 200t -2002 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6, OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 3.2 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of the ballots; 3.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. Community Services Director Parker presented the staff report (of record). President Comerchero opened the public hearing. There being no public input, the hearing was closed. District Secretary Jones advised that staff had not received any written protest regarding the matter. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Director Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Tract Map No. 29036 - Service Level B - Proposed Residential Street Lighting Rates and Charges (Continued from the November 14, 2000, City Council meeting) RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: Minutes.csd\l 12800 2 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JANUARY t8, 2001 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 29036 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 200t-2002 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6, OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 4.2 Approve the election notice, ballot, and procedures for the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots; 4.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. (President Comerchero abstained with regard to this Item.) Vice President Pratt opened the public hearing. There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. District Secretary Jones advised that staff had not received any written protest with regard to this item. MOTION: Director Mayor Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of President Comerchero who abstained. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No additional comments. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT Community Services Director Parker invited the community to the upcoming Holiday Tree Ceremony on Friday, December 1, 2000, at 6:00 P.M., at the Duck Pond as well as the Parade Festivities immediately following the tree lighting at 7:30 P.M. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. Minutes,csd~112800 3 ADJOURNMENT At 8:20 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President A"FFEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Minutes.csd\112800 4 ITEM 2 TO: FRO M: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL,. ~.....--- CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA/N'(~E CITY MANAGER TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT General Manager/Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services~ ~~v December 12, 2000 Tract Map No, 29286 - Service Level B, Service Level C and Service Level D Rates and Charges (Located on the southeast corner of Date Street and Margarita Road,) PREPARED BY: Barbara Smith, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: 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 SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 29286 BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 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 landscaping maintenance and refuse collection services to numerous residential subdivisions within the City of Temecula through Service Level "B", Service Level "C" and Service Level "D". The boundaries of the TCSD are coterminous with the City, and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD. Tract Map No. 29286 is a future 38 lot residential development. The development consists of approximately 11.7 acres of vacant property located on the southeast corner of Date Street and Margarita Road. The property owner has requested that the TCSD establish the future parcel charges necessary to provide ongoing revenue for residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection services within this development. R:\smi~b\Elecdom\29286 Election\Staff-Notice of Hearing.doc 11/22/2000 Beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the following TCSD rates and charges are proposed for residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection services within Tract Map No. 29036: Service Level B $ 25.68 per residential parcel Service Level C $ 116.00 per residential parcel Service Level D 72.§6 per occupied parcel Pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 218, the TCSD is required to hold a public hearing and obtain voter or property owner approval in order to establish certain new rates and charges. In addition, a report must be prepared and filed with the Secretary/City Clerk which identifies all of the affected parcels and the amount of the proposed rates and charges. A notice is mailed to the property owner identifying the proposed rates and charges and date of the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing is held at least 45 days after the mailing of the notices. If the proposed rates and charges are not rejected pursuant to a written protest, then the TCSD will conduct a mailed ballot proceeding not less than 45 days after the public hearing. The proposed rates and charges for Service Level B and Service Level C cannot be imposed unless the property owner has approved the new charges. In accordance with Proposition 218, property owners shall receive notice of the proposed charges for Service Level D, however, mailed ballot proceedings are not required to impose rates and charges for refuse collection services. Staff recommends ~hat the Board of Directors adopt the resolution to accept the filing of the report on the proposed residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance and refuse collection services rates and charges for Tract Map No. 29036 beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and schedule a public hearing concerning this issue for February 13, 2001. Staff will then proceed with noticing the owner of Tract Map No. 29036 regarding the proposed rates and charges and the public hearing date. If there is no majority protest against the rates and charges on February 13, 2001 staff will then proceed with the mailed ballot process for Service Level B and Service Level C. FISCAL IMPACT: If voter approved, upon buildout of the development, the proposed rates and charges of $25.68 and 116.00 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $975.84, for the Service Level B and $4,408.00 for Service Level C. The proposed Service Level D charge of $172.56 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $6,557.28. (Pursuant to Proposition 218, this amount may be increased by the TCSD for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 after conducting an additional public hearing. However, mailed ballot proceedings are not required to increase Service Level D rates and charges.) Actual costs for providing long-term residential street lighting and perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance services within Tract Map No. 29036 will be absorbed into Service Level B and Service Level C upon installation of said improvements. The owner of Tract Map No. 29036 has paid the administrative and mailing costs associated with the public notices and ballot information required per Proposition 218. ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map TCSD Landscape Maintenance Area Resolution of Intention R:\smithb\Elections\29286 Election\Staff-Notice of Hearing.doc 11/22/2000 L~ N.T,S. CONSULTING T.C.S.D. MAINTAINED SLOPE AND LANDSCAPE AREAS FOR TRACT NO. 29286 Vicinity Map 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 SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 29286 BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 AND SE'I-rING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE 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 District ("TCSD"), to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction. Section 2. The TCSD provides long-term residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and .slope landscape maintenance, and refuse collection services in numerous residential developments within the City of Temecula. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for residential street lighting (Service Level B), perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance (Service Level C), and refuse collection (Service Level D) 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, its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive. Section 3. The TCSD hereby initiates proceedings to provide residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection services within Trac{ Map No. 29286 and its subsequent phases beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD has caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD, (Exhibit A) which Report contains a description of the real property and the proposed amount of the Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service Level D rates and charges required for residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection services provided to each parcel within Tract Map No. 29286 and its subsequent phases beginning fiscal year 2001-2002. The TCSD proposes to collect the rates and charges at the same time, in the same manner, by the same persons and together with and not separately from, the property taxes collected within the TCSD. These rates and charges shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such property taxes. 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. However, if for the first year the charges are levied, the real property to which the charge relates has been transferred or conveyed to a bona.fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes appear on the roll, then the charge shall not result in a lien against the property, but instead shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection. R:~smithb\Elections~29286 Election\Resolution of Intention.doc 1 11/22/2000 Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby acknowledges the filing of the Report, and appoints the day of February 13, 2001 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 Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service Level D 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 hearing from time to time. Section 5. The Secretary of the TCSD is hereby directed to give notice of the filing of the Report and of the time and place of hearing on the Report pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 61765.2 and Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Section 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District this December 12, 2000. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/District Secretary for the Temecula Community Services District, do hereby certify that Resolution No. CSD 00- was duly and regularly adopted by the board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at a regular meeting thereof held on December 12, 2000 AYES: BOARD MEMBERS NOES: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS R:\smithb\Elections ~29286 Election\Resolutio n of Intention.doc 2 ~. ! / 22 / 2000 Exhibit A CITY OF TEMECULA TRACT MAP NO. 29286 INITIAL LEVY REPORT Service Levels B, C and D Te/necula Community Services District (TCSD) Commencing Fiscal Year 2001/2002 INTENT MEETING: PUBLIC HEARING: December 12, 2000 February 13, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula ("City'), effective December 1, 1989, voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD") to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction previously provided by the County of Riverside ("County"). The boundary of the TCSD 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 TCSD. The TCSD collects property-related fees and charges ("Charges") in order to provide services and maintain the improvements within the TCSD. The TCSD was formed, and Charges are set and established, pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Title 6, Division 3 of the California Government Code ("CSD Law"). Each fiscal year, an Annual Levy Report is prepared, filed and approved by the Board. This Annual Levy Report describes the TCSD, any changes to the TCSD 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 TCSD. The services provided by the TCSD 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 TCSD 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 TCSD. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD 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 TCSD, 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 Initial Levy Report ("Report") is prepared and presented to the Board to prescribe Service Level B, Service Level C and Service Level D Rates and Charges for the parcels and territory identified as Tract Map No. 29286 beginning in FY 2001-2002. The ~erfitory and properties identified and described in this Report includes all parcels within the Tract Map No. 29286, a future residential subdivision that consists of 11.7 acres of vacant property located on the southeast comer of Date Street and Margarita Road, with 38 planned residential units. The owner of record (sole property owner) has requested that the TCSD establish the parcel charges necessary to provide ongoing revenue for residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection services within this future residential subdivision. Pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution ("Proposition 218") and CSD Law, the TCSD is required to hold a protest hearing (the "Public Hearing") and a ballot proceeding in order to establish certain new rates and charges. In addition, a report must be prepared and filed with the District Secretary/City Clerk that identifies all of the affected parcels and the amount of the proposed rates and charges. A notice is mailed to the property owner identifying the proposed rates and charges and the date of the Public Heating. The Public Hearing is held at least 45 days after the mailing of the notices. If the proposed rates and charges are not rejected pursuant to a majority written protest, then the CSD will conduct a mailed ballot proceeding not less than 45 days atSer the Public Hearing. The proposed rates and charges for Service Level B and Service Level C cannot be imposed unless the property owner has approved the new charges. Ballot proceedings are not required to impose rates and charges for refuse collection services, Service Level D. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. General Description of TCSD Services The TCSD provides certain property related services consisting of four (4) separate Service Levels to parcels throughout the TCSD. Each parcel within the TCSD is charged for the proportional cost of the 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. The Service Levels are identified as follows: · Residential Street Lighting · Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance · Refuse Collection · Road Improvement and Maintenance (Not applicable to this Development) TRACT MAP NO. 29286 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Being a subdivision of a portion of Lot 168, together with portions of vacated Date Street and John Jay Avenue adjoining said Lot, all as shown on a Map of the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, records of San Diego County, Califomia. Description of Service Levels The proposed services applicable to parcels within Tract Map No. 29286 for which the charges will be imposed beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002 include: residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; and refuse collection. Service Level B, Residential Street Lighting - includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the TCSD provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of local street lighting improvements. The current rate for Service Level B is $25.68 per residential parcel and shall be applied to parcels within Tract Map No. 29286 beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance - includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the TCSD 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 each development. The landscaped areas associated with this particular development include, but are not limited to, perimeter slope and landscaping, as follows: Rear slope area easements and/or access easements associated with Residential Lot Nos. 1 and Lots 25-38. Total slope area consists of 27,380.37 square feet. The level of maintenance required and the associated operating costs will be at an established rate level within the Service Level C Rates and Charges. Rate Level C-3 is at a rate of $116.00 per residential parcel and shall be applied to parcels within Tract Map No. 29286 beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 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 TCSD. The current rate for Service Level D is $172.56 per single family residential home (developed residential parcel) and will be applied to all parcels within Tract Map No. 29286 that have been identified as developed with a residential home, beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Pursuant to Proposition 218, the rate and charges for this service may be increased by the TCSD after conducting and additional protest heating on the matter. Mailed ballot proceedings are not required to establish Service Level D rates and charges. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT The cost to provide services within Tract Map No'. 29286 will be fairly distributed among each assessable property by the same methods and formulas applied to all parcels within the various Service Levels of the TCSD. The following is the formula used to calculate each property's TCSD charges and is applied to Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting); Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance); and Service Level D (Refuse Collection): Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcels (in Service Level) = Parcel Charge The following tables (Table I through III) reflect the levy calculations for each Service Level. TABLE I Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level B Parcel Charge Per Parcel Property Type Unit X Parcel = Charge Multiplier Single family residential 1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel Single family vacant 1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel A charge is imposed on all residential parcels developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space areas, easements and non-buildable parcels are not assessed. TABLE II Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level C Property Type [ Single family residential Parcel Charge per Unit X Parcel = 1.00 $116.00 Parcel Charge Multiplier $116.00 Per Parcel A charge is imposed on all residential parcels developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space areas, easements and non-buildable parcels are not assessed. TABLE III Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level D Property Type Single family residential Parcel Unit X 1.00 Charge per Parcel Parcel = Charge $172.56 $172.56 Multiplier Per Parcel This charge is imposed only on developed single-family residential parcels (with a residential home). Pursuant to Proposition 218, this amount may be increased by the TCSD after conducting an additional protest hearing. TCSD LEVY SUMMARY AND PROPOSED CHARGES Each Service Level within the TCSD provides different and specific services to various parcels within the TCSD. The rates and charges prescribed for each service and level of service are proportionately spread to only those parcels that are provided each respective service (Service Levels). Table IV below provides general levy information for the various Service Levels within the entire TCSD for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. TABLE IV TCSC Budget and Service Level Summary For Fiscal Year 2000-2001 TCSD Budget and Charges Adopted in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 SERVICE LEVEL Total Levy Charge Per Total Levy Budget Levy Unit Units Service Level B Residential Street Lighting $351,944 $25.68 13,705 Service Level C Local Landscaping and Slopes Rate Level #1 (C-i) $47,886 $46.00 1041 Rate Level #2 (C-2) $93,340 $89.00 1060 Rate Level #3 (C-3) $191,516 $116.00 1651 Rate Level #4 (C-4) $226,100 $175.00 1292 Rate Level #5 (C-5) $0 $70.00 0 Rate Level #6 (C-6) $0 $225.00 0 Service Level D Refuse Collection $2,551,817 $172.56 14,788 Service Level R Road Maintenance Rate Level #1 (C-l) $7,146 $115.26 75 Rate Level #2 (C-2) $4,572 $121.92 56 Service Levels proposed for Tract Map No. 29286 beginning Fiscal Year 2001- 2002. TABLE V Proposed Service Level Charges For Tract Map No. 29286 Estimate Budget and Charges for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 SERVICE LEVEL Total Levy Charge Per Planned Total Budget Levy Unit Levy Levy Units Units Service Level B: Residential Street Lighting $975.84 $25.68 38 38 Service Level C: Local Landscaping and Slopes $4,408.00 $116.00 38 38 Rate Level #6 (C-6) Service Level D: $6,557.28 $172.56 38 38 Refuse Collection The "Total Levy Units" and the resulting "Charge Per Levy Unit" (shown in Tables IV and V), reflect a method of apportionment that most fairly apportions the costs of the services to the parcels in that Service Level. APPENDIX A - LEGAL DESCRIPTION Land Use: Single Family Residential Subdivision Parcel Map Books - 911-640-003 Final Map No. 29286: Being a Subdivision of a portion of Lot 168, together with portions of vacated Date Street and John Jay Avenue, Adjoining said Lot, All as shown on a Map of the Temecula Land and Water Company on File in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, records of San Diego County, California. EXHIBIT I TO GRANT DEED Legal Description 27289X PARCEL A: THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING LOTS 136 THROUGH 139, 143 THROUGH 145. 161. 162, 167 AND 168 (TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF VACATED DATE STREET, CHERRY STREET, MONROE AVENUE, LINCOLN AVENUE, JACKSON AVENUE. FRANKLIN AVENUE, HANCOCK AVENUE AND JOHN JAY AVENUE ADJOINING SAID LOTS), ALL AS SHOWN BY MAP OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE 359 OF MAPS. RECOKDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 137, THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL MAP NO. 19677 ON FILE IN BOOK 135 PAGES 85 AND 86 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; ALSO, EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 138 AND 139, THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN PARCEL MAP NO. 21361 ON FILE IN BOOK 139 PAGES 89 AND 90 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; ALSO. EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 138, THE SOUTHEAST 165.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST 330.00 FEET (MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF JACKSON AVENUE - VACATED) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-HALF OF SAID LOT. ALSO, EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 138, THE NORTHEAST 330.00 FEET (MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF CHERRY STREET - VACATED) OF THE SOUTHWEST 330.00 FEET (MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF JACKSON AVENUE - VACATED); ALSO, EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT t 39, THOSE PORTIONS LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SANTA GERTRUDIS FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 375618 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AND/OR AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 89 PAGES 83 THROUGH 86 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY. RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CAI.IFORNIA: ALSO. EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 167, THOSE PORTIONS LYING EASTERLY OF THE CENTERL1NE OF MARGARITA ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN A DECLARATION OF DEDICATION RECORDED JULY 3, 1974 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83317 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; 272~9~ ALSO, EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 162, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE AND DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY THEREFROM 330.00 FEET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING DISTANT SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 660.00 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER_LINE OF CHERRY STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF CHERRY STREET 330.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE 396.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF CHERRY STREET 330.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE 396.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AI.SO. EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 162, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE AN DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY THEREFROM 330.00 FEET, SAID POINT BEING DISTANT SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 1056.00 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF CHERRY STREET, AS SHOWN BY SAID MAP: THENCE sOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF CHERRY STREET 330.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE 264.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF CHERRY STREET 330.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTERLINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA, BE DEED RECORDED MAY 6, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 155071 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF LOT 162 OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND IN TEMECULA RANCHO RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE(S) 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BE(iI.~ING AT A POINT IN A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE HANCOCK 27259~ AVENUE AND DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY THEREFROM 330 FEET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING DISTANT SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 660 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER LINE OF CHERRY STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF CHERRY ST. 330 FEET TO A POINT; TItENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE 396 TO A POINT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF CHERRY STREET 330 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE, 396 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBST.ANCES IN AND UNDER SAID LAND TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT AT ALL TIMES TO ENTER UPON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LANDS AND TO BORE WELLS AND MAKE EXCAVATIONS, AND REMOVE ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES THEREOF, AND TO EXECUTE LEASES AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF SAID OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES BY OTHERS, AS RESERVED BY FIDELITY REALTY CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED MAY 22, 1929 IN BOOK 815 PAGE 21 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF LOT 162 OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND IN TEMECULA RANCHO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY", ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE 359 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE AND DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY THEREFROM 330 FEET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING DISTANT SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 1056 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER LINE OF CHERRY STREET, AS SHOW'N BY SAID MAP; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF CHERRY STREET. 330 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE. 264 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF CHERRY STREET 330 FEET, TO A POINT: TtIENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLELING THE CENTER LINE OF HANCOCK AVENUE, 264 FEET. MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; 272591 EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN AND UNDER SAID LAND TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT AT ALL TIMES TO ENTER UPON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LANDS AND TO BORE WELLS AND MAKE EXCAVATIONS, AND REMOVE ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES THEREOF, AND TO EXECUTE LEASES AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF SAID OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES BY OTHER, AS RESERVED BY FIDELITY REALTY CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED MAY 22, 1929 IN BOOK 815 PAGE 214 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL D: THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF PdVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 142. 163 AND 166 OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY AS SHOIgN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE(S) 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 142 LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF MARGARITA ROAD (110.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED JULY 3. 1974 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83317 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A" OF A GRANT DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 375618 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AND BEING BOUNDED IN PART ON THE SOUTH BY THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF A CURVE SHOWN AS BEING CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66° 37' 13" IN SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID MARGARITA ROAD CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1255.00 FEET; THENCE RADIALLY FROM SAID CURVE SOUTH 87° 52' 07" EAST 55.00 FEET TO SAID CENTERLINE OF MARGARITA ROAD. TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF SAID LOTS 163 AND 166 LYING NORTHWESTER- LY OF SAID CENTERLINE OF MARGARITA ROAD (110.00 FEET WIDE). APPENDIX B - PARCEL LISTING (FY 2001-2002) The actual parcels subject to rates and charges for Service Level B, Service Level C and Service Level D beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002 shall be those parcels within Tract Map No. 29286 identified on the Riverside County Secured Roll at the time all TCSD rates and charges are submitted to the County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the tax roll for that fiscal year. The rates and method of apportionment outlined in this Report are consistent with the rates and methods previously approved by the TCSD Board of Directors for each applicable Service Level contained herein. However, all rates and methods described in this Report are subject to revision and modification within the prescribed parameters of the law. The actual rates and charges applied on the tax roll each fiscal year shall be apportioned and submitted according to the rates and method described in the final TCSD Annual Levy Report presented and approved by the Board of Directors at an annual Public Hearing. The following pages encompass a complete listing of all parcels within Tract Map No. 29286 subject to the TCSD Service Level B, Service Level C and Service Level D rates and charges beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002. The rates and charges applied to each newly subdivided residential parcel will reflect the services provided and the development of each respective parcel at the time the rates and charges are applied. The table below provides a summary of the total proposed rates and charges for all properties within Tract Map No. 29286 based on the existing rates and charges per subdivided single-family residential unit: Charge per Total Levy Total Levy SERVICE LEVEL Levy Unit Units Budget Service Level B: Residential Street Lighting $25.68 38 $974.84 Service Level C: Local Landscaping and Slopes $116.00 38 $4,408.00 Rate Level//3 (C-3) Service Level D: Refuse Collection $172.56 38 $6,557.28 ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER ~- TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: General Manager/Board of Directors Genie Roberts, Director of Finance December 12, 2000 Financial Statements for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Direc[or'~'/ William B. Pattison, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive and file the Financial Statements for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000. DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Community Services District for the three months ended September 30, 2000. Please see the attached financial statements for an analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2000 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2000 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) Prepared by the Finance Department Temecula Cnmrmmity Services District Combining Balance Sheet Aa of,September 30, 2000 Cash and investments Receivables Due from other funds Parks & Service Sendce Service Recreation Level A Level B Level C $ 856,597 $ 15,058 $ 303,850 127,010 $ 8,670 5,957 1'5,673 19,220 $ 1,002,82'7 $ 8,67~0 $ 21,01.~_5 $ 319,523 lfmbilities and fund balances: I~mbilities: Other cun'ent liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Total fund balance~ Total liabilities and fund balances $ 179,871 $ 32 $ 51,776 179,871 32 51,776 650,525 219,307 172,431 $ 8,670 20,983 48,440 822,956 8,670 20,983 267,747 $ 1,002,S27 $ 8,67~0 $ 21,01~5 $ 319,52.~_3 Please note that these balances are unaudited Temeoda ¢~mm~mity Services District Comblnln~ ]~qlaace Sheet As of September 30, 2000 Cash and investments Receivables Due from other fimds Total assets Se~ce Service Debt Level D Level R Service Total $ 161,033 $ 16,748 $ 503,037 $ 1,856,323 42,086 1,136 8,631 209,163 19,220 $ 203,119 $ 17,884 $ 511,668 $ 2,084,706 Liab'dities and fund balances: Other cun'ent liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Total fund balances Total liabilities aad fund balances $ 166 $ 1,050 $ 4,180 $ 237,075 166 1,050 4,180 237,075 1,050 506,870 1,377,752 202,953 15,784 618 469,879 202,953 16,834 507,488 1,847,631 $ 203,11.~.~__9 $ 17,884$ 511,668 $ 2,084,706 Please note that these balances are unaudited Tem~la Community Services Did-itt cit~i& O~a~on~ Stat~nont of Revanues, Expenditurea and Chanle3 ill Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For lh~ Threa Months Ended Scptombor 30, 2000 Encumbr. Special tax TCSD I~lmin f~ credit~REST~ Recreation programs Investment intac~ Miscellaneous Operating Uansfor in Total Percant Aetivi~ of Budget 2,486,100 1,729,000 $ 432,250 $ 432,250 523,200 179,587 179,587 25,000 14,125 14,125 168,900 38,385 38,385 30,673 30,673 Total Revonues 4,932,200 695,020 695,020 Expenditures: O) 25% 34% 57% 23% Park& medioz, z and ~erial street lighting Seniors Community Recreation Ccntor (CRC) Recreation programs Temecula Community Ceator (TCC) Aquatics Sports 14% Rcvcnu~ Ovcr/(Undar) Expenditures (301,771) (319,136) Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 1,142,092 1,142,092 Fading Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 $ 840,321$ 822,956 Notes: (1) Special tax is primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (2) The variance is primarily due to seasonal personnel co~s for recreation programs. Total Expenditures 5,233,971 1,014,156 565,149 1,579,305 30% 3,216,801 648,375 $ 500,699 1,149,074 36% 146,800 24,263 8,275 32,538 22% 345,670 70,842 24,574 95,416 28% 327,510 107,763 11,510 119,273 36% (2) 143,780 23,232 8,200 31,432 22% 177,800 42,011 5,132 47,143 27% 249,380 62,183 6,759 68,942 28% 163,230 35,487 35,487 22% 463,000 Temecula Community Services District Service Level A Arterial Street Lights and Median Maintenance Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Tkree Months Ended September 30, 2000 Special tax Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures: Operating Transfers Out Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(lJnder) Expenditures Begiuning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 Annual Amended YTD Total Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity $ 30,673 $ 30,673 30,673 30,673 (30,673) $ 39,343 39,343 39,343 $ 8,670 Percent of Budget Note: All activity in Service level A is now recorded in the Citywide Operations Fund. 4 T~n~cula Community Services District Service Level B R~idential Street Lights Stat~ncnt of Revenues, Expenditures and Clmages in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Asse~men~ lnveslment inte~st Street lighting fees Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditares: Salaries & Wages strut ~i~ting Misc~lleneens Total Expenditures l~venu~s Ov~r/Ct~nd~r) Expenditures 1]c~innin~, Fund Balance, lilly 1, 2000 Fading Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 Annual Ameaded YTD Total Budget Activit~ Encumbr. Activity 34s,4oo $ 872 $ 872 15,600 6,210 6,210 12,000 400 400 376,000 7,482 . 7,482 3,150 506 506 345,000 84,067 84,067 19,700 367,850 84,573 84,573 98,074 98,074 $ 98,074 $ 20,983 Percent of Budget (1) 4(PA 3% 2% 16% 24% O% 23% (1) Special tax is Inimarily received in January and May each fiscal ye. ar. Temecula Community Services District Service Level C Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For lhe Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Annual Amended YTD Total Budget Activity Encumbr. Activib/ Ass~ssme~t~ $ 559,8O0 Investment interest 14,000 $ 6,090 $ 6,090 Plan check and inspections 25,000 6,661 6,661 lvliscellaneous 12,000 400 400 Total R~veaues 610,800 13,151 13,151 Percent of Budget (1) 44% 27°/o 3% 2% Salari~ and wages 120,820 20,767 20,767 17% Landacapemaintenanee 307,900 66,759 $ 194,952 261,711 85% (2) U~lities 138,100 50,625 50,625 37% (3) Othex expenditures 138,330 8,240 24,355 32,595 24% Total Expeaditure~ 705,150 146,391 219,307 365,698 52% R~venuea Ovex/(Undcr) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 (94,350) (133,240) 400,987 400,987 $ 306,63.~_75 267,74.~_7 Notes: ( 1 ) Assessments are p~marily received in Januaxy and May each fiscal year. (2) The variance is p~madly due to encumbrances that are recorded for landscape maintenance services for the eatire year. (3) The variance is p~mar[ly due to the seasonal utility usage (water). 6 Teme~ula Community Services Dislrict Set~iee Level D Refuse Collection, Recycling and Slreet Sweeping $~ of Revanues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Acttml For the Three Months Ended Septembe~ 30, 2000 Grants Investment interest Total Revenues Expenditu~: Refu~ h*ading Other Total Expenditu~s Revenues Over/COnder) Expanditures Begi~'nning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 $ Encumbr. Total Activity 2,597,960 $ 14,279 14,000 5,678 2,611,960 19,957 24,990 4,779 2,597,960 14,910 7,738 2,637,860 12,517 (25,900) 7,440 195,513 195,513 169,613 $ 202,95:5 P~eent of Budget 14,279 5,678 19,957 4,779 7,738 12,517 (1) 41% 1% 19% (2) 52% 0% Notes: (I) Assessments are primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (2) Refuse hauling payamants are made semi-annually (in January and July). Temecula Community Services Dis~ict Service Level R Streets and Reads Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Assessments $ 11,600 Investment interest 500 $ 270 Total Revenues 12,100 270 Expenditures: Emergcllcy street mainteuance 17,080 1,050 Other ~ditures 80 Total Expenditures 17,160 1,050 Revenues Ovcr/(Undcr) Expenditures (5,060) (780) Beginning Fund Balance, ~'uly 1, 2000 17,614 17,614 E~dln~ Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 $ 12,554 $ 16,834 Total Percent Encumbr. Activity of Budget $ 270 270 1,050 1,050 (1) $4% 2% 6% 6% ( 1 ) Assessments are primarily received in lenuaty and May each fiscal year. Temecula Community Services District Debt Service Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Cha%,es in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Three Months Ended 8¢pteanber 30, 2000 lnvesime~t interest Total Revenues Expe~titures: Debt service - principal Debt service - interest Other expenditures Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures ]~'nnln~ Fund ]~alallce, Suly 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, 8epteraber 30, 2000 Activity Percent of Budget $ 463,000 35,600 498,600 210,000 281,700 6,300 $ 4,180 498,000 4,180 6oo (4,18o) 511,668 511,668 $ 512,26~8 S 507,48.~_8 O) (1) 66% 1% ( 1 ) l~bt ~er~ie~ payments are made in October and April each year. ITEM 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPrOVAl ~-~//~ City attornE~ ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANC~ ~_~_.~ GENERAL MANAGER ~' TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT General Manager/Board of Directors Herman Parker, Director of Community Services December 12, 2000 Completion and Acceptance of Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrade- Project No. PW00-04CSD PREPARED BY: /~WWilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Laura Bragg, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Accept the project "Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrade - Project No. PW00- 04CSD" as complete. 2. Authorize the Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. 3. Accept the Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 2000, the Board of Directors awarded the subject project to McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc. of Temecula, California in the amount of $92,187.00. The project is located at the Rancho California Sports Park, south of Rancho Vista Road and west of Margarita Road. The project improvements consisted of the 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 The Contractor completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction retention for this project will be released on, or about, 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: The "Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrade" project, PW00- 04CSD is a Capital Improvement Project funded by Community Development Block Grant and Development Impact Fees - Park & Recreation for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The original contract amount was $92,187.00. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 210-190-145-5804 for the total project cost of $94,610.85. Contract Change Order No. 1 was approved by the General Manager in the amount of $2,295.81. Contract Change Order No. 2 was approved by the General Manager in the amount of $128.04. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit 1 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 Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrade, Project No. PW00-04CSD 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 December 12, 2000. That upon said contract the United States Fidelity and Guaranty 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. PW00- 04CSD. 6. The street address of said property is: Rancho Vista Road and Margarita Road. Dated at Temecula, California, this 12~ day of December 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 12t~ day of December 2000. Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk R:\cip\projects\pw98~pw98-OS\completNAUX.not CITYOF'TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PWOO-O4CSD RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE McLaughlin EngSneering 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, se~vicas, 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 NO. PW00- 04CSD, RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE, situated in the City of Temecula, State of Califomia, more particularly described as follows: RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE 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 N/A ~/A 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; 11/27/00 ~~" Inc. Fred Perkins, Director Print Name and Title RELE~E R:~CiF,~PRO JECI'SLqg~9.16'im,~OO4CSD BID (toilet) EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BOND #B291 55 61-A MAINTENANCE BOND PREMIUM INCLUDED IN PERFORMANCE BOND PROJECT NO. PWOO-O4CSD RANCHO CADFORNIA SPORTS PARK TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT: McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING & MINING INC., 41934 MAIN STREET #107, TEMECULA CA 92590 NAME AND ADDRESS coNTRACTOR'S a CALIFORNIA CORPORATION , hereinafter called Principal, (F~rl J~ whether · RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, 4275 EXECUTIVE SQUARE, #700, LA JOLLA CA 92037 and 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 NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETEEN AND NO/100 ........................... DOLLARS and ........................... CEI~ I$ ($ 9.219.00 ) in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten (10%) o! 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 Princigal entered into a certain Contract with the OWNER. dated the 9TH day of MAY, 2000, ~l~ __, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PWO0- 04CSD. RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Pnncipal will furnish a boncl 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 comp. l.~ted, and was the final estimate approved on NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH. that if wilhin 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. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified, costs and reasonable expenses and fees shall be included, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City of Temecula in successfully enforcing this obligation, ail to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The 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 c~ange, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work, ar to the Specifications, Signed and sealed this __17?ti _ day of _ (4AY _, 200~0. (Seal) INGRID ~RIKA CROSBY {.Name) ATTO -ZN- ACT APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney PRINCIPAL Wayne ~ite (Name) By: [Name) (Title) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Riverside SS. On 5/9/00 , before me, personally appeared Wayne ~ite Carol M. Schlitz, Notary Public _~Xpersonally known to me ~ 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(les), 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 seaJ. OPTIONAL Though the informelion below is not required by law. il may prove valuable lo persons relying on the documenl and could prevent fraudulent removal and reatlachmenl of this form lo another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Maintenance Bond - City of Temecula/Tot Lot Document Date: 5/9/00 Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: · ' Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer S gner's.ame: Wayne ite " Individual Too cf :~umo here ~ Corporate Officer-- Title(s): Vice President Partner- :_- Limited !_ General Attorney in Fact Trustee . Guardian or Conse~ator Other: ~ Signer Is Representing: McLau~hlzn Eng~neer~n~ & M~nzng STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUN/'f OF SAN DIEGO SS. On 17 MAY 2000 before me, WENDY H. DOWNS, NOTARY PUBLIC PERSONALLY APPEARED INGRID ERIKA CROSBY personally known to me for proved to me on the basis of satisfactorv evidence) to be the person(~') whose name6g) is/er-e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowl- edged to me that h~she/thcy executed the same in l,~s/ her/'tl,¢',, authorized capaci.tytlc:}, and that by .h4~/her/ their signature(~) on the instrument the person(~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. This area ,for Official Notarial 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 [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER DESCRIPTION OF ATt'ACHED DOCUMENT [] PARTNER(S) ~] LIMITED ~ GENERAL [] ATtORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: SURETY SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ~ITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA POWER OF AT'rORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized unde~ the laws of the State of Delaware, and that RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, are corporations duly organized under the lsws of the Commonwealth d PennsyNania and that RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the ~ of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively celled "the Companies") and that the Companies by virtue of signature and seals do hereby make, constitute and apfloint La~y D. Cogdill, Ingfld Erlka Crosby, Brooke Lafrenz, Michael W. Thomas, Wendy H. Downs, of San Diego, Catlfo~nla their tn~ end isw~l Attorney(s)-in-Fact. to make. execute, seal and deliver for and on their b~helf, and as their as~ and deed ar~ and all bon~s and undertakings of suretyship and to bind the Companies thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and undertakings and other writings obltgato~/in the nature thereof ~ere signed by an Executive Officer of the Companies and seals¢l and attested by one other of such officers, and hereby retinas and coflfln'ns all that their said Attomey(s)-in-Fact may do in pursuance hereof. This Power of Attorney is granted un,er and by the authority of A~cie Vti of the By-Laws of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY which provisions are co~ in full force end effect, reading es follows: ~q'IC[E ¥~i - EXECUTION OF BOf~OS N~D UNDERTAKINas IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused these presents to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed, this August 24, 1999. ®® RElIANCE SURETY COMPANY RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY UNFI'ED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY ~d for the State of Washifl~g~--- Residing at Puyallup ~, Robyn Layng, Assistant Secretary of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMP- ANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is s true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney execute~ by said Companies, which is still in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Companies this ]. 7 T}~ay of 2000 Assistant Secretary its duly authorize~ officer. In witness whereof. I hereunto set my hand and official seal. STATE OF Washington } COUNTY OF Kin~ } ss. On this, August 24, 1999, before me, Laura L. Santos, pereonally appeared Mark W. Alsup, who aO. nowledged himself to be the Vice President of the Reliance Su~ty Company, Reliance Insurance Company, United Pacific Insurance Company, and Reliance National Indemnity Corndany and that as such, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the pulpose therein contained by signing the name of the corporation by himself aa ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services~, December 12, 2000 Consultant Agreement - Childrens Museum Exhibit Design and Installation RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directore: A) Approve in its substantial form, the Consultant Services Agreement with Sparks Exhibits and Environments in the amount of $550,000 for the exhibit design, conceptual drawings, exhibit fabrication and installation, and tenant improvement drawings, and B) Approve a 10% contingency for the project in the amount of $55,000. BACKGROUND: In September of 2000, the Community Services Department prepared and released a Request for Qualifications to qualified firms to provide the exhibit design, tenant improvement drawings, conceptual drawings, exhibit fabrication and installation for the Children's Museum Project, which will be built in the Old Town area. The project attracted a great deal of interest from prospective consultants and the Community Services Department received eleven responses from firms interested in providing these services. A review committee consisting of Council Member Ron Roberts, Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Comerchero and staff reviewed the proposals and selected the three (3) top ranked firms for interview. At the conclusion of the interview precess, the review committee ranked and selected Sparks Exhibits and Environments as the most qualified firm to provide the exhibit design fabrication and installation services for our childrens museum. Staff did a background check on Sparks and visited other exhibits that Sparks has developed at other museums. Staff has found their references to be good and indications that the quality of their work is outstanding. Over the past several weeks staff has been working with Sparks in the development of the agreement and Scope of Services which is attached for your review. The consultant will lead the Children's Museum Project committee through a series of planning meetings, conceptual meetings, community workshops and a museum tour, to develop consensus on the conceptual design and exhibits that will be on display in the Childrens museum. The design process is expected to conclude in May and the construction process is estimated to be concluded by December 2001. R:~.IGLERG\REPOR'iA121200 Childrens Museum Contract.doc FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the Childrens Museum exhibit design fabrication and installation contract is $550,000 and will also require a 10% contingency of $55,000. These funds are currently available in ClP account 210-190-165-5802. ATTACHMENTS: Consultant Services Agreement Scope of Services CIP Project Description R:~.IGLERG\REPORT~121200 Childmns Museum Contract.doc CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES CHILDREN'S MUSEUM EXHIBIT DESIGN, FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of December 12, 2000 between the City of Temecula Community Services District ("District") and Sparks Exhibits and Environments ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on December 12,2000, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than March 31,2002, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultants 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 District 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. This amount shall not exceed Five Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand Dollars ($550,000.00) 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 District'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 Fifty Five Thousand dollars ($55,000.00). 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 District disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. R:\ZIGLERG~XAGREEMN~cMIdrcnS museum exhibit design-sparks.doc 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The District 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 ail work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the District 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 District shall pay to Consultant the actual services performed in accordance with this Agreement up to the time of termination. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the District 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, District shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his designee 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 or such further period as the City Manager may approve in writing. Consultant shall not be in default if the delay in completing the work is due to facts beyond the reasonable control of Consultant, including without limitation, natural disasters, severe weather conditions, fire, or strikes,. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the District 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 District that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of District or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give District the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit District to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property R:LZIGLERG~XAGREEMNXcIfiIdrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc of the District and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the District without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the District, upon reasonable written request by the District, 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 preperty damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, pretect and hold harmless the District, 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 District, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the District. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contrect insurence 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 Insurence. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurence Services Office Business Auto Coverege form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the Generel Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurence as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurence 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: Generel Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurence or other form with a generel aggregate limit is used, either the generel 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. R:\ZIGLERGXXAGREEMN\chi~drep~s museum exhibit design-sparks.doc (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: One million ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the District, 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: (1) The District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities pedormed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles o~wned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the District, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insured maintained by the District, 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 District, 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 District. 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 District. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. R:\ZIGLERG~AGREEMN~childrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the District 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 District. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the District before work commences. As an alternative to the District'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 District a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither District 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 representthatitoranyofitsofficers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the District. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against District, or bind District 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, District shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for District. District 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 District, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without District'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 District notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify District 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. District 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 District and to provide District with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, District's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by District to control, direct, or rewrite said response. R:\ZIGLERG\XAOREEMNXchildrcns museum exhibit design-sparks.doc '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 District: 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: Sparks Exhibits and Environments 7755 Center Avenue Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 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 District. District recognizes and consents to Tri Star Development serving as a subcontractor to Consultant for the work. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Robert Mendoza and Steve Anderson of Sparks and Zac Henson of Tri Star Development Group, acting as a sub-contractor shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Robert Mendoza, Steve Anderson and Zac Henson may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide District fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Robert Mendoza or Steve Anderson from Consultant's employ or Zac Henson from sub-consultation. Should any of them leave Consultant's employ or sub-consultation, the District 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 District 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 flied by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. R:\ZIGLERGLXAGREEMN\childrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc 17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the pedormance of its obligations hereunder. R:\ZIGLERG\XAGI~EMN\cI~Idre~ museum exlfibit design-sparks.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: Name: Jeff Comerchero, President Title: Attest: By: Name: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Title: (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney R:LEIGLERG\XAGREEMN~childrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED R:\ZIGLERG~AGREEMN~childrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Located in the city of Temecula California, the proposed project is an approximately 7,500 square foot children's museum. The intended facility is a one-story building located within the city's Old Town area. While similar in basic content to other children's museums, a specific list of exhibits, activities and theme concepts will be developed through a community input process. A development budget has been prepared by the City of Temecula and will be utilized in the programming process. SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work is inclusive of initial programming, four meetings with the steering committee, two community workshops, presentations to Community Services Commission and City Council/Temecula Community Services District for final approval, concept/schematic design, facility architectural/engineering documents and art direction/construction administration, to include fabrication, construction and installation of exhibits. PHASE 1: CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION - January 2001 Facility · Document existing site plan/floor plan. · Review existing utilities and structural systems. · Determine site/facility constraints and opportunities. · Determine preliminary facility impacts (accessibility, restroom requirements, office space, gift shop, general tenant improvements). Steering Committee Meeting #1 · Discuss goals and objectives and potential outcomes. · Discuss site constraints. · Discuss comparable children's museums. · Develop general concepts of exhibits and attractions. · Discuss potential themes. · Schedule Steering Committee bus tour. Steering Committee Meeting #2 · Bus tour to three existing Children's Museums. 1.2 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 - February 2001 Pre-workshop · Prepare research photo boards · Develop spatial allocation plan (bubble diagram) · Develop meeting agenda of discussion topics. · Discuss potential themes. Post-workshop · Document input and results. R:\ZIGLERGkXAGREEMN\childrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc · Develop operational criteria. · Discuss information and findings with staff. t.3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - March 2001 Theme · Develop written storyline narrative. · Prepare image research · Storyboard showing design intent · Develop 2 - 3 overall theme sketches. · Develop 2 - 3 logo concepts. · Review and update budgets. Exhibits and Activities · List of exhibits and activities with visual examples. · Prepare circulation diagrams and layouts. · Develop preliminary implementation budget. Steering Committee//3 · Present timings from Community Workshop, bus tour and steering committee meetings. · Finalize the theme. · Finalize goals and objectives. · Present preliminary exhibit designs and facility layout. 1.4 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - March 2001 Preliminary Concept · Review exhibit and attraction list. · Discuss thematic direction. · Incorporate workshop input to plan. · Present overall museum design direction and theme. 1.5 MARKETING MATERIALS - April 2001 Presentation Package · Approximately 24" x 36" presentation rendering. · Colored presentation floor plan. · Supporting image research boards. Sponsorshil) PackaEe · Large format presentation book with renderings, plans, exhibit design, etc. · Story narrative. · Operational and demographical information. · Power Point presentation. PHASE 2: SCHEMATIC DESIGN R:\ZIGLERGkXAGREEMN\childrens musema exhibit design-sparks.doc 2.1 CONTENT DEVELOPMENT- April 2001 Exhibit design · Develop technical diagrams and information. · Develop theme enclosures. · Signage and graphic design. · Prepare facility impact information (power, compressed air and electronics). · Review budget. Thematic Design · Develop activity and functional floor plan. · Develop interior theme design (floor, walls, and ceilings). · Finalize preliminary building signage design. · Develop show lighting requirements. 2.2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING g4 - April 2001 · Final review and approval of design for production. · Final review and approval of marketing material and packets and logo. 2.3 PRESENT TO COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION - May 14, 2001 2.4 PRESENT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL - MAY 22, 2001 PHASE 3: FACILITY CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 3.1 IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS - June 2001 · Prepare architectural and engineering tenant improvement drawings (See attached worksheet marked as Exhibit B). · Submit for agency review and incorporate comments. (Maximum two plan checks.) 3.2 EXHIBIT DESIGN DRAWINGS - June 2001 · Develop equipment and technical shop drawings. · Develop equipment theme enclose shop drawing. · Prepare final budget. · Review and adjust as needed. PHASE 4: CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION & ART DIRECTION 4.1 FABRICATION OF EXHIBITS - September 2001 · Fabrication and construction of exhibits · Installation of exhibits as fabricated to specifications. 4.2 CONSTRUCTION - December 2001 · Weekly site visits during construction. R:~ZlGLERG\XAGREEMNXchildrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc · Prepare and issue supplemental instruction. · Respond to written RFI. · Review of shop drawings. · Construction quality and art direction as requested. Provide consensus building and peer review at the aforementioned meetings. Facilitate the process and secure the desired consensus from the stakeholders. Development management and project direction shall be included in all phases. R:\Z1GLERG~XAGREEMN~childrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc EXHIBIT B Budget For Design and Fabrication Services The budget for the design development shall be $100,000. The budget for fabrication and installation of approved exhibits, shall be $450,000. Construction of tenant improvements which may be required are not included in this Agreement. The specific portions of the budget for design development and fabrication and installation of exhibits are set forth below: 1.1 1.2, 1.3 1.4, 1.5 2.1 -2.4 3.1, 3.2 4.1 4.2 Background Information $ 15,000 Community Workshop #1, Concept Design $ 30,000 Community Workshop #2, Marketing Materials $ 20,000 Content Development, Steering Committee Meeting $ 15,000 #4, ,Presentation to Commission and City Council Implementation Documents, Exhibit Shop Drawings $ 20,000 · Fabrication/Installation of Exhibits $ 412,000 Construction $ 38,000 Total Design and Fabrication Budget: $ 550,000 It is Consnltant's responsibility to complete the required design and fabrication work within the above described budgets unless directed otherwise in writing by the City Manager. PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE Consultant shall charge the following rates for personnel working on the project: Standard Rates Overtime Rates Sr. Principal Principal Project Architect/Manager Expediter Planner Field Manager CAD Operator III CAD Operator II CAD Operator I Clerical $156.00 per hour $117.00 per hour $104.00 per hour $ 84.50 per hour $ 78.00 per hour $ 78.00 per hour $ 63.50 per hour $ 52.00 per hour $ 37.00 per hour $ 32.50 per hour $169.00 per hour $127.50 per hour $113.50 per hour $ 93.00 per hour $ 87.00 per hour $ 87.00 per hour $ 74.00 per hour $ 66.00 per hour $ 60.00 per hour $ 40.50 per hour Overtime rates shall not be' charged without the express written consent of the Director of Community Services. Consultant shall bill the District pursuant to Section 8 of the Agreement. Invoices shall be organized by each budget category described in Exhibit A and shall describe: (1) The employees who worked on the on that portion of the Project; (2) the hours worked by each R:\Z1GLERG\XAGREEMN~childrens museum exhibit design-sparks.doc employee; (3) and the employee's class and rate. Invoices shall include the actual costs of materials and equipment utilized for the work. Invoices shall include a cumulative total of billings for each budget category. R:\ZIGLERGXXAGREEM~childrcns museum exhibit design-sparks.doe 00000 000~0 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER 28, 2000 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:20 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts 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 November 14, 2000. MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Stone and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Members Naggar and Roberts who abstained. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No additional comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS Chairman Roberts invited the public to enjoy Christmas festivities such as A Dickens of a Christmas in Old Town Temecula. R:\Minutes\112800 1 ADJOURNMENT At 8:22 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Chairman A"FI'EST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:\Minutes\112800 2 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTO~ CITY MANAGER ~/ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members Genie Roberts, Director of Finance December 12, 2000 Financial Statements for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director ~ William B. Pattison, Senior Accountant ~ RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members receive and file the Financial Statements for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000. DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Redevelopment Agency for the three months ended September 30, 2000. Please see the attached financial statements for an analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2000 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2000 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) Prepared by the Finance Department Temecula Redevelopment Agency Combining Balance Sheet As of September 30, 2OOO Assets'. Cash and investments Receivables Laml held for ~-~sal~ Total assets Low/Mod CIP Debt Fund Fund Service Total 4,214~45 $ 3,441,915 $ 2,013,651 $ 9,669,811 1,838,447 438,498 142,316 2,419,261 2,103,053 2,103,053 $ 6,052,692 $ 5,983,466 $ 2,155,96'1 $ 14,192,12~5 Liabilities and fuad balances: Liabilities: Other turret lial~dities $ 155,799 $ 834,914 $ 990,713 Deferred reve~u~ 845,405 162,059 1,007,464 Total liabilities 1,001,204 996,973 1,998,177 Fund balances: Designated Undesignated Total fund balances Total liab'dities and land baiances 5,051,488 5,883,249 $ 1,448,920 12,383,657 (7O7,O47) 707,O47 (189,709) {189,709) 5,051,488 4,986,493 2,155,967 12,193,948 $ 6,052,69~2 $ 5,983,466 $ 2,155,967 $ 14,192.~,125 Please note that these balances are unaudited City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Redevelopment Agency LowfModerate Income Housing For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Property tax inc~mont $ 1,583,000 Investment interest 180,000 $ 70,526 Rental income 10,000 750 Miscellaneous 2,700 7,250 Total Revenues 1,775,700 78,526 Total Percent Encumbr. Activit~ of Budget $ 70,526 750 7,250 78,526 39% (2) 8% 269% 4% Expenditures: Salaries and wages 215,320 Operating and admini~ative expenditures 295,460 Homebuyet programs 300,000 Res'ld~tial rehal~ditatien programs 1,050,000 Housing development & acquisitien 4,000,000 Affordable housing / future obligation 305,000 36,721 $ 717 37,438 17% 39,269 18,050 57,319 19°/o 24,000 24,000 8% 44,214 21,216 65,430 6% 1,949 1,949 0% 305,000 305,000 100% (3) Total Expenditures 6,165,780 451,153 39,983 491,136 Revenues Over/(Undex) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 (4,390,080) (372,627) 5,424,115 5,424,115 $ 1,034,0355 5,051,48~8 Not~: (1) ~operty tax increment is received in ~anuary and May each fiscal year. (2) The variance is due primarily to greater than anticipated cash balance at the beglnnin~ of the fiscal year. (3) TI~ variance i~ due to the ennual payment to Temeenla Gardens L.P. being issued in the first qusrter. City of Temecola Redevelopment Agency Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Chun~es in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Redevelopment Agency-ClP For thc Three Months Ended Septembex 30, 2000 Annual Amended ~ Total Budget Activit~ Encombr. Activit~ Invest~t interest $ 40,000 $ 60,006 Rental income 36,796 Loan interest 15,200 4,177 Reimbursements 986,630 Operating transfers in 955,000 270,000 Total Revenues 1,996,830 370,979 $ 60,006 36,796 4,10 270,000 370,979 Capital Projects (4): Public Restruems Adjacent to O.T. First Street bridge Front Street widenin~ Old Town streetscapa Old Town central parbing Operations end Maintenance: Ol:~rating ~ ~iministrative ~tures Owner participation agrecn~-~ts Old Town plan implementation Old Town development incentives Old Town building facades Banner program Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, .luly l, 2000 Ending Fund Balance, September 30, 2000 25,000 5,100,647 1,050,609 $ 3,419,762 4,470,371 850 850 850 3,100 3,100 3,100 175,000 Percent of BudE~et 150% (1) (2) 27% (3) 28% 19% 88% 100°/0 I00% 74,750 13,235 13,235 18% 303,230 44,748 12,826 57,574 19% 310,000 (5) 63,450 21,198 26,358 47,556 75% 200,000 299,399 18,104 123,749 141,853 47% 1,000 173 173 17% 6,556,426 1,148,067 3,586,645 4,734,712 (4,559,596) (777,088) 5,763,581 5,763,581 1,203,985 $ 4,986,49.~__3 72% (1) The variance is due to ~rcator than anticipated cash balance at the beginning of the fiscal year. (2) The variance is due to delays in the pending sale of the Jefferson Avenue 'Reeves" property. R~al income continues to be collected monthly. (3) Reimbursements are collected as costs are incurred on capital projects 0*imi Street Bridge) to date no reimbursable costs have been incurred. (4) The variances in CIP project expenditures and operating transfers out are due to the timing of when the various (5) The Costco owner participation agreement is not paid until April of each fiscal year. City of Temccula Redevelopment Agency Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Chan~es in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Redevelopment Agency- Debt Service For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2000 Budget Activit~ Prope~y tax inc~om~t $ 6,334,000 Inveslme~ interest 150,000 $ 39,299 Advance~ from other funds 75,750 18,937 De fo'r~ pa~llxough 1,582,000 Total Revenues 8,141,750 58,236 Percent of Bud~et (1) 26% 25% (2) 1% Passthrongh agreements Debt service - principal Debt service - interest Trustees t~ttmin fees Ol~rating mil:rs out Total Expenditures Revextu~ Ovar/(Undar) Expenditures Begioning Ftmd Balonce, July 1,2000 End~g Fu~l Balance, September 30, 20OO 4,733,1100 878,000 1,028,050 379,582 7,500 4,703 2,184,270 270,000 8,830,820 654,285 (689,o7o) (596,o49) 2,752,016 2,752,016 $ 2,062,94.~_6 $ 2,155,96'/ (2) (3) 37% (3) 63% 12% ( 1 ) Proparty tax in~,rauent is received in Jonon~ ond May cech fiscal year. (2) Passthrengh* are recognized when the property lax incxement is received (see note 1). (3) Debt service payemonts on the tax allocation bonds are made in August and February each year. ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORN EY__~_~_~ FINANCE CITY MANAGER.~ TEMECULAREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members John Meyer, Redevelopment Director..~-~/VI December 12, 2000 Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Vision's West RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Board authorize staff to enter into an agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Vision's West for the demolition of five single-family residences for the construction of future affordable housing projects not to exceed $38,060. BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency purchased several properties along Pujol Street over the summer and fall of 1999. These properties are designated for future affordable housing projects. While the Agency's partners are preparing their proposals, staff is taking the necessary steps to make the properties ready for development. As part of this effort it is necessary to remove five single-family structures. The Agency went through the standard selection process and has chosen Vision's West to complete the demolition of these structures. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost of this service is $34,600 plus a 10% contingency of $3,460. The total amount of $38,060 has been allocated in this year's housing set-aside budget (Account 165- 199-999-5250). R:~HO USIN G~,ngden~.doc REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR ASBESTOS ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, made and entered into as of October 18, 2000 by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, and Vision's West ("Contractor"). In consideration 6fthe mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF WORK. Contractor shall construct and install all of the work described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. ("Work") and shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessa~ tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the Work. All of said Work to be performed and materials to be furnished for the Work shall be in strict accordance with the specifications set forth in the Scope of Work. The Work shall be completed within the time set forth in the Scope of Work. Contractor shall not commence the Work until such time as directed in writing by the City of Temecula. 2. COST OF WORK. For the Work described in Section 1. of this Agreement Contractor shall receive the sum of Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($34,600.00) payable in accordance with the Schedule of Payments, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. This mount, Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred Dollars and No Cents, shall not exceed the attached scope of work unless additional payment is approved as provided by this Agreement. Contractor 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. Contractor shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed by the City Manager and Contractor at the time City's writ-ten authorization is given to Contractor for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (I 0%) 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. 3. PAYMENT. Contractor 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 non- disputed fees. If the City disputes any of contractor's fees it shall give written notice to Contractor within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 4. PERFORMANCE. Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Contractor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. Contractor shall cause a full time experienced Superintendent to be present on the site during all construction and to oversee and supervise the Work. 5. CITY APPROVAL. A II labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed subject to the approval of thc City or its authorized representatives, and the quality of the worl(manship shall be guaranteed for one year from date of acceptance. R:~Agreement~\Vision's West.doc 6. CHANGE ORDERS. The City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed 10% of the Agreement. Change orders exceeding these limits shall be approved by the City Council. 7. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making final request for payment under Paragraph 2., above, Contractor shall submit to the City, in writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out of this contract; the acceptance by Contractor of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims against the City under or arising out of this Contract except those previously made in writing and request for payment. Contractor shall be required to execute an affidavit, release and indemnify agreement with each claim for payment. 8. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor 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 Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisinns 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. 9. 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 Contractor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Contractor will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 3. 10. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR. a. The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor 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 Contractor 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. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, 2 R:~Agrcements\Vision's West.doc demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Contractor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 12. LIABILITY INSURANCE. Contractor 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 Contractor, 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 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 Califomia and Employer's Liability Insurance. b. Minimum Limits oflnsurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (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 Contractor 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 the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or hutomobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) R:L&gr eements~Vision's West.doc For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the .City, its officers, officials, 3 employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor'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 Contractor'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. (s) 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 oflnsurers. 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. fi Verification o~. Contractor 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 District before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. g. Contractor, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies: "I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every. employer to be insured against liability for Workman's Compensation or undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract." 13. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this Contract. 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor 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 Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither the City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor 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. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind the City in any manner. No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, the City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for the City. The City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury, or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 15. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Contractor shall keep itself informed of State and Federal 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 Contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity, occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this section. 4 R:~Agr eements\Vision's West.doc 16. CONTRACTOR'S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. No plea of ignorance of conditions that exist or that may hereafter exist or ofconditinns of difficulties that may be encountered in the execution of the work under this Contract, as a result of failure to make the necessary independent examinations and investigations, and no plea of reliance on initial investigations or reports prepared by the City for purposes of lctxing this Contract out to proposal will be accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the Contractor to fulfill in every detail all requirements of this Contract. Nor will such reasons be accepted as a basis for any claims whatsoever for extra compensation or for an extension of time. 17. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the Work contemplated by this Contract, Contractor shall file with the City Manager his affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors on the Work have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the project for either labo~'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. 18. BOOKS AND RECORDS. Contractor's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the City. 19. UTILITY LOCATION. The City acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility facilities pursuant to California Government Code Section 4215. 20. REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS. Contractor agrees to contact the appropriate ..... regional-notification center in accordance with Government Code Section 4215. 21. INSPECTION. The Work shall be subject to inspection and testing by the City and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plans of Contractor and any of its suppliers. Contractor shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the Work. The Work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable lime after completion of the Work. 22. 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. 23. WRITTEN NOTICE. 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: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula P O Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Executive Director To Contractor: Vision's West 28993 Avenida De Las Flores Quail Valley, CA 92587 (909) 244-3050 24. ASSIGNMENT. The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any --part.thereof~nor any-monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City of Temecu a. 25. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 26. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this 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 jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. 27. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a tocal 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, 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 Ternecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party, at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 )commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California. 28. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties retating 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 R;~AgreemenlsWision's West.d~c 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. 29. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor 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. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE Shawn D. Nelson, Executive Director ones, CMC~ CONTRACTOR VISION'S WEST 28993 Avenida De Las Flores Quail Valley, CA 92587 (909) 244-3050 Bob Earlywine / R:~Agreemen~s\Vision's West.doc EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK ABESTOS ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION R:LAgreemen[s\Visioffs West.doc .09/26{20~0 11:42 9892448359 VISION'S WEST PAGE 81 Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 City of Temeeula - 4s2~ Don Hillberg Phone: 909-694-64 Fax: 909-694-1999 From: Vision's West - ~a~93 Avm~. mim no~, o..a V~y cA 92M7 Bob E~lc~e Phone: 909-244-3050 F~: 909-2~-8359 *** CSLB: 727732 09/30~2 Pages: 1 Subject: 42291 6th Street, Temecula CA - Rear Structur.. .Asbestos Abatement Remove and dispos_e_o_f asbestos containing material from the above noted job site described in the comprehensive asbestos survey report providedby the City of Ternecula and performed by Hi-Tech Environmental, report number: 73295, dated 8/24/00. Demolition Remove and dispose of rear structure, foundation and debris. Cap sewer and rough~ grade lot. Sincerely, Total: $4,600~00 approv~ Date: To: From: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 City of Temecula - 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula CA 92589-9035 Joyce Powers Phone: 909-693-3918 Fax: 909-693-3903 Vision's West - 28993 Avenida De Las Flores, Quaff Valley CA 92587 Bob Earleywme Ph/Fax: 909-244-3050 Pages: __ 1__ Subject: Demolition of three single-familiv residences Abatement Scope Remove and dispose of asbestos containing material from the following sites as described in the comprehensive asbestos survey reports provided by the City of Temecula performed by Hi-Tech Enviromental. Demolition Scope Remove and dispose structure, foundation, and debris. Cap sewer system and rough grade. 1. 28516 Pujol Street, Temecula CA ............ Total: $6,900.00 2. 28496 Pujol Street, Temecula CA ............ Total: $7,700.00 3. 28640 Pujol StreeU-T-emecula-CA .......... --.. .Total: $7,800.00 Thank you for the opportunity given to present our price to you for the above work. need anything further, we will be more than happy to assist you. If you .00/iB/20~0 18:42 BOB2a483SB VISION'S WEST P~GE 01 Dat~: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 To: City of Temeeula - Don Hillberg, Mangement Assistant Phone: 909-694-641 Fax: 909-694-1999 From: Vision's W~..t - ms ,~ m ~ nm,, o~-" v~ ca 92/$$7 '"* CSLIB; n7732 09~ Bob Earleywme Phone: 909-244-3050 Fax: 909-244-8359 Pages: 1__ Subject: Asbestos Abatement/Demolition of two single-family reside.nc~ Asbestos Abatement Remove and dispose of asbestos containing material from the following sites as described in the comprehensive asbestos survey reports provided by the City of Temeeula and perfo./~ed by Hi-Teeh Environmental. Demolition Scope Remove and dispose of su'ueture, foundation and debris. grade. Cap sewer system and ro~ I. 42230 6th S~'eet, Temec.ula (report No.:73296, 8/24) . Total: $7,600.00 2. 42291 6th Street, Temecula (report No.:73295, 8/24) Total: ~' """ n~ We can start these projects immediately after we have received verbal authorization from the City of Tcmccula and the 14 day waiting period for SCAQMD has been exhausted. Sincerely, .. ¥~ISION'S WEST EXHIBIT A Start Date and Completion date of the demolition and Asbestos Asbestos Start Date: 11/20/00 Demolition Start Date: Tentatively schedule for 11/27/00 Pending clearance by fire department that exercise are through. ITEM 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ,~' .~'~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCI~ CITY MANAGER ,~' TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Agency Board John Meyer, Redevelopment Director A~/ December 12, 2000 First Amendment to Owner Participation Agreement and Restrictive Covenant RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Board adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TERMINATING THAT CERTAIN "OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND OLD TOWN PLAZA PARTNERS, LLP," DATED DECEMBER 14, 1999 BACKGROUND: In December 1999, the Agency entered into an agreement with Old Town Plaza Partners (Partners) to rehabilitate the Old Town Plaza. Per the Agreement, the Agency was to provide a $25,000 grant and $55,500 loan to provide architectural upgrades to the retail center. The partners were to also contribute $25,000 for a total funding package of $105,500. In a letter received from the Partners they stated that the bids received to do the work reached $170,000. At this time they are requesting to terminate the Owner Participation Agreement and work within the parameters of the standard Fa(;ade Improvement Program to repair and repaint the center. They have also received Old Town Local Review Board approval for a uniform sign program for new tenant signage. FISCAL IMPACT: Program. The $75,500 will be reprogrammed into the Fa(;ade Improvement FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENT: Resolution First Amendment to Owner Participation Agreement and Covenant Restrictive R:\Oldtown\staffrepor[s\OTPlazarest rictivecovenant,doc 1 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 09 - A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TERMINATING THAT CERTAIN "OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND OLD TOWN PLAZA PARTNERS, LLP," DATED DECEMBER 14, 1999 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and declare that: (a) The Agency is currently implementing the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1-1988 originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 1988 prior to the incorporation of the City and subsequently approved and transferred to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula on April 9, 1991 and amended on December 20, 1994 (the "Plan"). (b) On December 14, 1999, the Agency and Participant entered into that certain agreement entitled "OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND OLD TOWN PLAZA PARTNERS, LLP FOR FA(~ADE IMPROVEMENT TO OLD TOWN PLAZA" ("Owner Participation Agreement"). © Participant is the owner of real property, hereinafter called the "Property," located in Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 of the Redevelopment Plan City of Temecula. The Property is located at 28410 Front Street, Temecula, California. The Property is legally described on Exhibit A. (d) As part of the Owner Participation Agreement, the parties also entered into that certain agreement entitled "Restrictive Covenant" in order to implement certain requirements of the Owner Participation Agreement. The Restrictive Covenant affects the Property and was recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2000-258138 on December 14, 1999. (e) Participant and Agency have determined that the improvement proposed to be constructed pursuant to the Owner Participation Agreement are no longer financially feasible. Accordingly, the parties desire to terminate the obligations of the Agency and Participant under the Agreement so as to allow Participant to proceed with other options for renovation of the Property. Section 2. The Board of Directors hereby approves the First Amendment to "Owner Participation Agreement by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Old Town Plaza Partners, LLP" on December 14, 1999. Section 3. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution ad shall send a certified copy of the resolution to the Participant, at the address set forth in the OPA. R:\Oldtown~staf~eports\OLDTWNPLZARESOLUTION.doc 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula on this 12th day of December 2000. Ron Roberts, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE Secretary/City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Oldtown~staffreports\OLDTWNPLZARESOLUTION.doc 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution No. RDA 00- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on November 28, 2000 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARDMEMBERS: SUSANJONES, CMC AGENCY SECRETARY R:\Oldtown~staffrepor~s\OLDTWNPLZARESOLUTION.doc 3 OLD TOWN PLAZA PARTNERS, LLP, a California limited liability partnership By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: R:\OIdtown~staffreports\OLDTWNPLZARESOLUTION.doc 4 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic Ron Roberts Chairperson Attest: Susan Jones, CMC Secretary Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson Agency Attorney R:\Oldtownkstaffrcports\OLDTWNPLZARESOLUTlON.doc 5 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Attention: City Clerk FREE RECORDING REQUESTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE ' 6103 FIRST AMENDMENT TO OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND OLD TOWN PLAZA PARTNERS, LLP, TERMINATING THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND TERMINANING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of November 28, 2000, by and between, OLD TOW~ PLAZA P^RTNe}~S, LL?, (hereinafter called "Participant"), and the R~DEVELOPME~qT ^Ge~qCY OF THe CITY OF TeM~CUL^, a public body, corporate and politic (hereinafter called "Agency"). In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. This First Amendment is entered into with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, which each party acknowledges to be tree and correct! A. Participant is the owner of real property, hereinafter called the "Property," located in Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 of the Redevelopment Plan City of Temecula.. The Property is located at 28410 Front Street, Temecula, California. The Property is legally described on Exhibit A. B. On December 14, 1999, the Agency and Participant entered into that certain agreement entited "OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND OLD TOWN PLAZA PARTNERS, LLP FOR FAq2ADE IMPROVEMENT TO OLD TOWN PLAZA" ("Owner Participation Agreement"). C. As part of the Owner Participation Agreement, the parties also entered into that certain agreement entitled "Restrictive Covenant" in order to implement certain requirements of the Owner Participation Agreement. The Restrictive Covenant affects the Property and was recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2000-258138 on December 14, 1999. D. Participant and Agency have determined that the improvement proposed to be constructed pursuant to the Owner Participation Agreement are no longer financially feasible. Accordingly, the parties desire to terminate the obligations of the Agency and Participant under the Agreement so as to allow Participant to proceed with other options for renovation of the Property. RSAgrecments\Old Town Plaza Terminate OPA.doc 1 E. Participant warrants and represents to Agency that: (0) Participant has duly authorized the execution of this First Amendment and that the persons executing it on behalf of Participant are duly authorized to do so; and (1) Participant has not assigned, conveyed or otherwise transferred the Owner Participation Agreement, the Restrictive Covenant or any portion thereof, to any person as of the date this First Amendment is executed; 2. The parties hereto mutually agree to terminate their respective rights and obligations pursuant to the Agreement and the Agreement shall be terminated and of no further force and effect as of the date of this First Amendment. 3. The parties hereto mutually agree to terminate their respective rights and obligations pursuant to the Restrictive Covenant and the Restrictive Covenant shall be terminated and of no further force and effect as of the date of this First Amendment. IN WITNESS WHlgREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written above. OLD TOWN PLAZA PARTNERS, LLP, a California limited liability partnership By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: RSAgreemcnts\OId Town Plaza Terminate OPA.doc 2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic Ron Roberts Chairperson Attest: Susan Jones, CMC Secretary Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson Agency Attorney R:XAgrcemcn~s\OId Town Plaza Terminate OPA.doc 2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY -4- EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: (APN 921-070-006) THat PORTION OF LOTS 17 THROUGH 32, INCLUSIVE; TOGETHER WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY 10.00 FEET OF FRONT STREET ADJOINING SAID LOT -12, ALL IN BLOCK 23 OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA, [N THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGE 726 OF MAPS, RECORE;S DF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; AND THAT PORTION DF LOT 6 OF BLOCK 2 AB SHOWN BY THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION OF PAUBA LAND AND WATER COMPANY, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 11 PAGE 507 OF MAPS. RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF FRONT STREET (86.00 FEET WIDE) AND THE CENTERLJNE OF CONSTRUCTION OF MORENO ROAD (88.00 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 5790 ON FILE IN BOOK 81 PAGES 31 THROUGH' 35, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, THE CENTERLINE OF FRONT STREET BEING A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLy, HAVING'A RADIUS OF 1~500.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 52° 47' 50' WEST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° 39' 16' AN ARC DISTANCE OF 69.49 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 50° 08' 34' EAST, 44.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF FRONT STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT NO. 5790 AND MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON RIGHT OF WAY MAP 802-V ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, BEING ALSO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF FRONT STREET, NORTH 06e 12' 10' EAST 33.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF MORENO ROAD AS SHOWN BY THE MAP OF SAID TRACT NO. 5759 AND RIGHT OF WAY MAP NO. 802-V; THENCE ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LiNE OF MDRENO ROAD NORTH 52° 15' EAST, 22.84 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 244.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ON SAID CURVE. THROUGH a CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18° 26' 38' AN ARC DISTANCE OF 78.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68o 52' 18" EAST, 2.6.42 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.78 FEET, SAID POINT BEING ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MERCEDES STREET (60.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE iN A DEDICATION AND EASEMENT OECD RECORDED APRIL 22, 1969 AS DOCUMENT NO. -"9504 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAIO POINT BEARS SOUTH 1_!* 55' ~8~ WEST; Parcel 2: (APN 922-023-019) AN EASEMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT PURPOSES OVER THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, TRACT 23925 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 209 PAGES 21 THROUGH 23 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE C.OUN_'[~__, ...... CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET AND 6TM STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 45° 30' 01" WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF FRONT STREET, A DISTANCE OF 178.98 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4.4.° 30' 50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FRONT STREET, (A 30 FOOT HALF WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY) SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 45° 30' 01" WEST, ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1.00 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE QF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 44° 25' 45" EAST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 393.96 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.0 FEET AND A RADIAL WHICH BEARS SOUTH 14.° 50' 06" WEST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID LOT LINE, SAID LINE BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MERCEDES STREET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O0° 18' 06", AN ARC: LENGTH OF 0.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44.° 21' 50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 394..28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THIS HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 305.5 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. ITEM 11 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR.OF FINANCE ~,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.~/~xL..,' CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/C~it~,~il Debbie Ubnosk~,Director of Planning December 12, 2000 Temecula Ridge Reconsideration RECOMMENDATION: 1. ADOPT a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 00-._ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENT PROJECT, REDESIGNED TO 220 DWELLING UNITS, TWO AND THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO, 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 BACKGROUND: On October 10, 2000 the City Council heard PA99-0317 (Appeal of the Temecula Ridge Development Plan). The Temecula Ridge project consists of 246 multiple family two and three story units with a pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot on 20.88 acres generally located on the south side of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road. After hearing testimony, both in support and opposition, the City Council denied PA99-0317 and directed the City Attorney to bring back Findings for Denial to the City Council meeting on October 24, 2000. R:\D P\99~)317 Temecula Ridge Apts\staffrpt. cc 12-12~0.doc 1 At the October 24, 2000 meeting, the Council again heard additional testimony and recommended that the item be continued to allow the Council time to meet with the developer to discuss a re- design of the project. Since that meeting, the developer has met with some of the Council members and the following changes are being proposed by the developer: *A reduction in the number of units from 246 units to 220 units, which will generate the same number of daily vehicle trips that a single family project at the lowest end of the density range would generate; *Removal of the third floor from Type 1 buildings; *Reduction in the size of the recreation center to accommodate the tot lot at this location; *Lowering the elevation of the site by 5 feet at the back to reduce potential view impacts. The site plan will remain almost identical and will still maintain 43% open space. In addition, staff has received a copy of a letter addressed to A.G. Kading from the Temecula Valley Unified School District wherein the District has committed to providing an additional bus due to the additional students generated by the Temecula Ridge project. This bus will not only service the students living in the Temecula Ridge project, but also students living in the surrounding developments who currently have to walk to the bus stop at the "Duck Pond" to board a school bus. At the November 28, 2000 meeting, the Council requested that the project be advertised to be heard on December 12, 2000. Additionally, the Council discussed the landscaping along the southern slope. During the project's review process, staff had voiced concern with the interface of the project to the single family residential homes at the end of the Levande cul-de-sac. To address this concern, the applicant provided a 112-foot separation from the property line to the nearest building. The buildings were sited to have the narrower ends of units face south and be limited to two stories, consistent with adjacent single family homes. Berming and a four-foot high screen wall was added, and particular attention was given to the plantings provided along the slope. The attached Exhibit 'AA' identifies slope details. It should be noted that Code requires 44 trees in this area, and the applicant provided 118 trees. According to the City Landscape Architect, the proposed acacias will grow very quickly, providing a decent screening within two to three years. The proposed redwoods will grow approximately three feet each year. With the addition of evergreen shrubs along with these trees, a reasonable screen can be provided. The project is conditioned that final shrub species selection and placement is subject to review and approval by the City. The Council also discussed the noise impacts from Rancho California Road. The Noise Analysis prepared for the project by Mestre Greve Associates indicated that no mitigation measures were necessary to meet interior and exterior noise standards, however, it recommended that prior to the issuance of building permits, additional review be conducted to confirm that noise barriers are not required. The Analysis further stated that in order to meet the interior maximum at worst case, some of the windows would need to be closed. However these windows are not required to be fixed; sliding windows would offer the tenant a choice. Lastly, TCSD has reviewed the new plan and recommends the following revisions and additions to Conditions: Condition No. 101: The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees, based upon the Parkland Dedication Formula in the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. S,~,., ...... ~:^~ .... '~..~;~: ....... ~'~^-~ ~ ~;~ ~'~ Fees shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of each building permit requested. R:\D P\9941317 Temecula Ridge Apts\staffrpt. cc 12-124~0.doc 2 Add: Condition No. 102: Landscape plans for the proposed raised median shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. Condition No. 103: Installation of the landscape improvements within the median shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. Condition No. 105: Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: The landscape improvements within the raised landscape median shall be completed to TCSD standards prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. FISCAL IMPACT: N~, ATI'ACHMENTS: Letter from the Temecula Unified School District dated November 13, 2000 - Blue Page 4 Section A-A of the Preliminary Landscape Plan - Blue Page 5 City Council Resolution No. 00-~approving Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Blue Page 6 a. Exhibit A- Revised Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7 City Council Resolution No. 2000-__ denying Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Blue Page 8 City Council Staff Report dated October 10, 2000 - Blue Page 9 City Council Minutes excerpts from October 10, 2000 - Blue Page 10 R:\D P\99q)317 Temecula Ridge Apts\staffrpt.cc 12-124)0.doc 3 ATTACHMENT 1 TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2000 R:kD P\99~)317 Temecula Ridge Apts~staffrpt.c¢ 12-12~)0.doc 4 9096957341 11/1~ '00 18~18 N0.570 02/03 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERIN I LNUENT IIOARD OF CDUr~A1 ION Richard Sharer November 13, 2000 VIA F~.~IMILE AND U.S. MAIL A.G. Kading 35411 Paseo Viento Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 RE: Temecula Ridge Apartment Pruject Dear A.G. Kading: Th,-mk you for contacting my office to review your proposed project and the impact it might have on student safely and transportaiion. While the Temecula Valley Unified ,School District has not taken a formal position on lhe proposed -project,-there-are'several impacts the project will have on the District. The elementary sv.~denis residing in the proposed apartment complex would attend Vail Elementary Sd~ool. Although the project is within the walking distance for students attending Vail Elementary ~:hool, because of t, nsafe walking routes, the District will provide bus tranaportalion. The District cnrrently has a Vail Elementary School bus stop at the "Duck Pond" that serves the students of existing multi-family residences in this area. The additional studenL~ living in your proposed apartment complex, induding the existing student populalion, will result in the need for the District to acquire an additional bus. The proposed Temecula Ridge Apartment Project will result in the connection of Moraga Road with Via Los C01inas. This connection will facilitate bus traffic flow in the area and will allow the Distr. ict to place bu~ stops at other locations than the "Duck Pond." Ultimately, safe walking roules need to be provided to eliminate costly District provided transportation to an area within walking distance to Vail Elementary School. This can occur by the construction of off-site walkways along Rancho California Road to Cosmic Drive. An alternative would be the construction of walkwayS connecting existing sidewalks along Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Drive. The completion of these walkways will provide a continuous walkway from exLsting and proposed projects to Vail Elementary School, resulting in a safe route, thereby elimh'tath~g the need for bus transportation. 31350 Rancho Vista Road ! Ternect~k% CA 92592 1 (905)§7~5-2661 9096957341 11/13 '00 18:19 N0.570 03/03 Temecula Ridge Apartment Project November 13, 2000 Page 2 of 2 Your assistance, as well as flu'iL of the City of Temecula, in getting these necessary walkway connections installed, will be greatly appreciated. .... ~'~sistan t Superintendent ..... Busin~.~. s Support Services J O:~ (ms \ ww '~ mcmv~01 \Temc~:ulaRidgvAptprvjectl 11300) CC: David B. Allmen, Superintendent Governing Board Shawn Nelson, City Manager, City of Temecula City Cotmcfl, City of Temecula ATTACHMENT 2 SECTION AA - OF THE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN RSD P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~stalTrpt.cc 12-12-00.doc 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2000- APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 R:\D P\99~317 Temecula Ridge Apts\staffrpt.cc I2-12~0.doc 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 03t7 (DEVELOPOMENT PLAN), THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENT PROJECT REDESIGNED TO 220 UNITS, TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section t. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: a. AGK Group LLC filed Planning Application No. 99-0317, Development Plan, for the development and operation of the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project consisting of 220 units in a two and three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse workout building, and tot lot on a 20.88 acre site located on the south side of Rancho California Road southeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 944- 290-011 (the "Project"). b. The Project has been processed in accordance with State law and the provisions of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. c. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Project on May 3, 2000, June 7, 2000, July 5, 2000, and August 16, 2000 at which time the Applicant, its representatives and members of the public had the opportunity to address the Planning Commission on the Project. d. At the conclusion of the public hearing on August 16, 2000, the Planning Commission duly considered the material in the administrative record before it and the testimony received at the public hearings and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 00- which approved the Project. e. Thereafter, on August 24, 2000, Temecula Council Member Michael Naggar duly filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Section 17.03.090 specifically authorizes members of the City Council to file appeals from Planning Commission actions and Council Member Naggar's appeal complied in all respects with the requirements of Section 17.03.090. f. On October 10, 2000 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing at which time the Applicant, its representatives and members of the public had the opportunity to address the Council on the Project. The hearing lasted into the R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Approving Tem Ridge ApB.DOC early morning hours of October 11, 2000. Following the conclusion of the public headng, the City Council duly considered the administrative record before it and the testimony received at the public hearing. The City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying the Project and upholding the appeal of Council Member Naggar by a vote of 4-1, with Mayor Stone dissenting. g. On October 24, 2000 the City Council of the City of Temecula, while considering the resolution for denial, again heard testimony from the Applicant, its representatives and members of the public. The City Council continued the item to allow a redesign of the project. h. On November 28, 2000 the City Council of the City of Temecula, again heard testimony from the Applicant, its representatives and members of the public. The City Council directed staff to prepare a notice of public hearing to consider the modifications proposed by the Applicant. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby further find, determine and declare that: a. The proposed Project is in conformance with General Plan for the City of Temecula and specifically with the density requirements of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. (1) The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site of the Project as "Medium Density" which according to Table 2-2 of the Land Use Elements allows a range of seven to 12 dwelling units per acre. The redesigned project is at 10.5 dwelling units per acre. (2) Section IV.A. 1. of the Land Use Element of the General Plan provides that the "[d]etermination of precise density, development location, and lot coverage on any residential property is a function of: · Opportunities and constraints present by natural, cultural or scenic features; Policies and implementation programs of the General Plan intended to maximize public safety; achieve high quality site planning and design; provide sufficient levels of public service; retain significant natural resources; ensure compatibility between uses; and encourage development of village centers. Building and development standards contained in the Development Code, public works standards, and other regulations and ordinances." (3) Policy 5.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states: "Include in the Development Code [Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code] and through other ordinances a package of incentives to encourage development to include: R:~D P\99~0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Approving Tern Ridge ApB.DOC 2 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. Additional active parkland Development of parkland and trails Preservation of historic building or sites Additional open space Preservation and enhancement of natural habitat Additional public or community facilities Additional or improved public spaces or plazas for community use Additional amenities in multifamily developments Transit facilities and/or additional right of way along future transit corridors. Housing that meets the needs of very Iow and Iow income households. Provisional of cultural facilities. (4) On March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted the "Growth Management Program Action Plan" as authorized by Section ll.B. of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element of the Temecula General Plan. The Growth Management Program Action Plan is applicable to the Project because at the time of the adoption of the Growth Management Program Action Plan, and through the present, no permits of any nature have been issued for the Project and, therefore, no vested rights to proceed with the Project have been established. The fact that the application for the Project was "deemed complete" by the Planning Department Staff means only that the documents necessary to enable the Staff, Planning Commission and City Council to review the Project had been received by the City and does not establish any vested rights to proceed with the Project. (a) The first paragraph of the Growth Management Program Action Plan provides that "It]his Action Plan is intended to serve as the City Council's policy for the study and implementation of growth management measures for the City of Temecula. Each development project shall be studied by Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council in light of the concerns expressed in this Plan, and its action programs. Each project shall be considered on its own merit and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws and under the City's General Plan and zoning ordinances." (b) Section 2.B.1. of the Growth Management Program Action Plan provides: "Direct the Planning Commission to consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category. The Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project provides onsite or community amenities." (5) Based upon the factors set forth in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Growth Management Program Action Plan for determining the allowable density for a site, the following factors have been considered by the Council as justification: residential project. (a) The Project has many features which make it an attractive (b) The number of units has been reduced from 246 units to 220 units, which will generate the same number of daily vehicle trips that a single family project at the lowest end of the density range would generate. R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Approving Tem Ridge Apts,DOC 3 (c) The proposed density of the Project has been reduced from 11.7 dwelling units per acre as originally proposed, to 10.5 dwelling units per acre. (d) The third floor as originally proposed has been removed from Type I buildings. Therefore, the height and bulk of Building Type 1 has been reduced. Siting has been modified in order to retain important natural ridgelines and natural features of the Project site. (e) The size of the recreation center has been reduced from that originally proposed to accommodate the tot lot at this location. (0 The elevation of the site has been lowered by five (5) feet from that originally proposed at the back to reduce potential view impacts. (g) The Project provides landscaping on 43.2% of the site. (h) The swimming pool shall be used by Project residents and local swim teams. (i) The Project provides garages under the apartment units (j) The Project offers a clubhouse, workout facility, spa, sun deck, arbor, outdoor fireplace, barbeque, tot lot, corner monumentations, enhanced entries, and greenbelt (k) The improvements to the Moraga Drive and Rancho California Road intersection which are in excess of those needed to mitigate traffic generated on the site are the type of amenities contemplated by the General Plan Land Use Element and the Growth Management Plan for the establishment of an appropriate density for the Project (I) The improvements to Rancho California Road, including a raised landscaped median, sidewalk and street lights, and bus turnout, enhance the streetscape and pedestrian usability of this area. b. The proposed Project protects the public health, safety and general welfare. (1) The intersections of Rancho California Road at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps, at the 1-15 Northbound Ramps and at Ynez Road are operating at level of service D. The traffic generated by the high density of the proposed Project will contribute to the continuation of level of service D at these locations. (2) Noise levels at the exterior of the apartments closest to Rancho California Road will exceed 60.7 CNEL at the first floor units and 64.9 CNEL at the second floor units. The required exterior noise levels is 65 CNEL and the required interior noise level is 45 CNEL for residential units. The mitigation measures proposed to meet these noise standards consist of sound insulation and solid exterior walls facing Rancho California Road and mechanical ventilation in the event windows are closed. (3) The proposed density of the Project creates a large school age population. Bussing by the Temecula Valley Unified School District is available, and the R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Approving Tern Ridge Apts. DOC 4 extension of Via Los Colinas to Moraga Road provided by the Project facilitates bus traffic flow in the area, allowing the District to place bus stops at locations other than the "Duck Pond." The proposed Project is consistent with General Plan of the City of Temecula. Section 3. Based on the findings set forth in Section 1., above, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this twelfth day of December, 2000. Al-rEST: Jeffrey Stone, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OFTEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, 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 regular meeting thereof held on this twelfth day of December, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Approving Tem Ridge Apts. DOC 5 EXHIBIT A REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\D P\994)317 Temecula Ridge AptskstaflSpt.cc 12-124)0.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised- December 12, 2000 Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula Ridge Apartments Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a 246 220-unit, two and three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot on approximately 21 acres Development Impact Fee Category: Assessor's Parcel No, Approval Date: Expiration Date: Residential Attached, $2,167.83 per unit 944-290-011 December 12, 2000 December 12, 2002 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 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 permittee/applicant shall indemnity, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an 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 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 1 said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused podions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate this land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. If phasing of the project is proposed, the applicant shall submit a Phasing Plan, with appropriate filing fees, to the Planning Manager for review and approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "El" through "E4" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. The Site Plan shall show a bus turnout on Rancho California Road, at a location approved by the City Engineer and the Riverside Transit Agency. The design of the swim facility shall be modified to include a Junior Olympic-sized swimming pool (25 yards in length X 6 lanes in width). (Added and modified by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "HI" thru "H3" (Landscape Plan) or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Ligustrum or other large evergreen shrubs approved by the City shall be used to screen parking areas and shall be spaced at no more than 3' on center to provide a screen in a reasonable time period. All parking areas shall be fully screened using evergreen shrubs that can be maintained at a minimum height of 3'. All plantings shall be compatible with adjacent existing plantings as approved by the City. All parking row ends shall be provided with a minimum 5' wide planting area. This planting area shall be clear of any hardscape and shall be provided with a minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground cover. R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 2 Queen Palms, Canary Island Date Palms or other City approved palm shall be used in place of Washingtonia robusta. Final shrub species selection and placement is subject to the review and approval of the City. City approved substitutes shall be provided for Lantana species and Myoporum pacificum. These species are subject to freeze in the Temecula area. All off-site graded areas shall be planted and irrigated to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect to provide erosion and dust control. All off-site slopes graded or created by this project shall be planted and irrigated and shall meet code planting requirements for slope areas. AI.~I utilities shall be shown on the landscape construction plans. All utilities shall be screened as approved by the City Landscape Architect. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. The applicant shall plan planting beds and design around utilities. Code requirements for slope plantings and irrigation shall be met. Code requires slope banks 5' or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 to be landscaped at a minimum with an appropriate ground cover, one 15 gallon or larger size tree per 600 square feet of slope area, and one 1 gallon or larger shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area. Slope banks in excess of 8' in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also be provided with one 5 gallon or larger tree per 1,000 square feet of slope area in addition to the above requirements. All requirements of the City water efficient ordinance, Chapter 17.32, shall be met. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "Fl" thru "F7" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "J" (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning Manager. Material Color Building walls -Color One -Color Two Garage Doors -Color Three Trim -Color Four Trim -Color Five Roof -Premium Slate Tile Ledger Stone "Kabuki" "Burgundy" "Eldorado" Sinclair #CM8550 Sinclair #CM8510 Sinclair #CM8509 Sinclair #S-3-33T Sinclair #966 Monier Life #5733 (Modified by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000.) R:'~D P~99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,doc 3 10. The applicant shall allocate 2% of the apartment units for seniors, Iow or very Iow income residents. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). 11. The project swim facility shall be made available to the local Temecula Swim Club for practices and workouts. The apartment management shall coordinate and schedule regular access and make arrangements with the Swim Club, for use of the facilities for the duration of the Temecula Ridge project. (Added and modified by Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. 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. 13. Prior to any ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall address the impacts to coastal sage scrub or any other sensitive resource, as required by the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) incidental take permitting process. The applicant shall acquire compensatory mitigation offthe project site, or complywith any other requirement by the FWS, and shall provide the City a copy of the incidental take permit issued for the proposed development, prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit. 14. The applicant shall arrange for a qualified Native American Resource expert to conduct a complete walkover of the project site, and to prepare and submit a report with findings and recommendations to the Planning Manager, pdor to the issuance of grading permits for any ground-disturbing activities. If any cultural resources or human remains are identified, a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). 15. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the applicant for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils, cultural resources or human remains. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided by the applicant to collect, curate and report these resources in accordance with standard archaeological management requirements. 16. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department to accelerate the modifications to the traffic signal at Moraga Road, or provide an alternative plan to minimize the impacts on Rancho California Road of truck hauling activities during construction. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). 17. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. R:'~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 4 18. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "E," "F," "G," "H," "1" and "J" (Site Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Landscape Plan, Grading Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "J" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Exhibit "H-3" shall be revised to reflect an 8-foot decorative wrought iron perimeter fence along the south property line. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000) (Deleted by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000) Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 20. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 21. A noise review letter shall be submitted to the Planning Manager for review and acceptance as confirmation that noise barriers will not be required to mitigate noise impacts from Rancho California Road, as identified and discussed in the Preliminary Noise Analysis prepared by Mestre Greve Associates dated February, 2000. Mechanical ventilation shall be installed in those dwelling units closest to Rancho California Road which require that windows remained closed iri order to meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. Mechanical ventilation shall be noted on plans. 22. The developer shall limit construction activities to the hours between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction can occur on Sundays or holidays. 23. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 5 d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 24. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. An Administrative Development Plan application for a comprehensive sign program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager. 25. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 26. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 27. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000.' In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 28. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. R:~D PL.q9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,doc 6 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 29. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 30. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 31. 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. 32. All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median 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. 33. Lot "A" shall be restricted to dght in/right out vehicular movements. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 34. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 35. The Developer shall post secudty 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. 36~ A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of 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 pavement sections. 37. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 38. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 7 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed substantially in conformance with the conceptual grading plan. The Drainage Study shall investigate whether the storm drain shall enter empire creek upstream or downstream of the existing concrete lined sewer line crossing. Improvements in the southeast region of the development shall be constructed in such a manner as to not increase flows into the existing Tract 8369-1 storm drain structure at any of its entry points. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners as specifically shown in the conceptual grading plan for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows into the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review. All on-site drainage improvements shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the conceptual grading plan, which calls for a storm drain system designed for the 100 year storm. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department b. Department of Public Works The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to approval of the grading plan, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 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. R:~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 8 Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 49. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline 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 of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula[;s Standard No. 113. g. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section. h. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. 50. i. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. j. 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. k. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: Improve Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RAN) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. Improve Moraga Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of full-width at the intersection with Rancho California Road and then transitioned to half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). The Developer shall design and construct a 14-foot wide raised landscape median on Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) from Moraga Road to Lot '%" (along property frontage). The Developer is eligible to receive Development Impact Fee credits for one-half width of the raised landscaped median. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. R:~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 9 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. d. Modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Moraga Road/Rancho California Roadfrom a three way to four way signal to include signal interconnect. ^ traffic signal plan shall be prepared by a registered engineer or traffic engineer and approved by the Director of Public Works. e. The Developer shall acquire an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along the west side of Moraga Road between Rancho California Road and 200' north of the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California Road along with required construction easements. The additional right-of-way is necessary to accommodate a through lane to access the site as part of required offsite improvements. If the Developer cannot acquire the right-of-way, then the Developer shall petition the City to acquire the needed right-of-way in accordance with the terms of Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act and Condition 18 of these Conditions of Approval even though this is not a final map. f. The Developer shall connect Moraga Road to existing pavement section of Via Las Colinas to the west of the development as approved by the Director of Public Works. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines e. Traffic signal modification at the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California Road The Developer shall improve Lot "A", private road and shared vehicular access easement, to include installation of half-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 horizontal alignment shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Lot "Aw driveway opening from Rancho California Road shall be constructed per City Standard No. 207A. b. No parking shall be allowed along Lot "A". "No Parking" signs shall be posted. The Developer shall obtain an easement on Lot "A" over the adjacent property for ingress and egress and emergency vehicles. The Developer shall grant an easement to the adjacent property for ingress and egress and emergency vehicles on Lot "A'. The Developer is responsible for constructing a minimum 24-foot wide driveway, completely within his property, in case he is unable to get permission from the adjacent property owner to construct the east half of Lot "A". The driveway shall be designed to meet Fire Department and City Standards. R:~D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 10 56. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of 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. 57. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for Rancho California Road. 58. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works. 59. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 60. 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 a Certificate of Occupancy 61. As deemed necessarY by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 62. a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 63. All public improvements, including raised landscaped median on Rancho California Road and modification to the signal at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.. 64. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 65. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 66. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. R:',D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 11 67. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 68. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 69. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 70. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 71. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 72. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 73. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 74. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 75. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 76. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 77. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 78. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 79. Show all building setbacks FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 80. 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. 81. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2250 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,doc 12 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. total fire flow of 2650 GPM with a 2 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) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-I. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x 4"x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an 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). As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 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 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord 460) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 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) 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) Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 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 RAD P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 13 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 ) 92. 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) 93. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commemial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) 94. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. 95. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 96. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 97. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) 98. 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 flrefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The TCSD has reviewed the Development Plan for the aforementioned project and conditions the project as follows: General Conditions: 99. Prior to installation of arterial street lighting, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lighting into the respective TCSD maintenance program. 100. All parkway landscaping and slope areas adjacent to the development shall be maintained by the property owner. R:~D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,doc 14 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits: 101. The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees, based upon the Parkland Dedication Formula in the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. S ...... ~. ...... ,. .......c: ........ Fees shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of each building permit requested. (Modified by the City Council, December 12, 2000). 102. Landscape plans for the proposed raised median shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. (Added by the City Council, December 12, 2000). 103. Installation of the landscape improvements within the median shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. (Added by the City Council, December 12, 2000). Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 104. Any damages caused to the existing Class II bike lane on Rancho California Road as a result of construction shall be repaired or replaced, as determined by the Department of Public Works. 105. The landscape improvements within the raised landscape median shall be completed to TCSD standards pdor to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. (Added by the City Council, December 12, 2000). OTHER AGENCIES 106. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated August 26, 1999, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 107. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittals dated August 19, 1999 and March 22, 2000, copies of which are attached. 108. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districts transmittal dated August 18, 1999, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of ^pproval. 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 Name R:~D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 15 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief En~:ineer City of Temecula Planning Department Post Off~e Box 9033 Temecuta, California92589-9033 Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 9250l 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180. l RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL;' -;' ' . ..... AND _WATER C_ONS ER~LATIO~N_DIS TRI cT Re: _ 03/7 The Distdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities..The District, also do.es not,plan check_db/tand use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other r~ood hazaro reports rot sucn cases. L~istnct comments/recommendations ror such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the Distdct including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and draina,~e facilities which could be considered a logical componentor extension of a master plen s)/stem and Distdct Area L~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature s provided. The .D. istdct has n.otr.ev, iew. ed the p.mposed.project in. det.a? and the fo!lowing checked comment.s do not in any way constitute or imply uistric~ approval or enoorsemen[ of rne proposeo project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: ~ This pr.oject would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves Distdct Mastar Plafi~facilities. The Distdct'will accept ownership of such facilities on wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct stancards, and Distdct plan check and insp.ecti,on will be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be requ~reo. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage,Plan. The District woul8 consider accepting ownership ct such tac~l~es on written request of the City. Fa~fities must be constructed to Distdct standards, and D~stdct plan check and inspection w II be required for uistdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. V/ This project is located within the limits of the District's J~U/~,~£?~I ~,~;,,./7~ ~4J/. ~ ~ ct,,~ ~ Area Drain.age Plan for .which .drainage fees have been adopted; applicable reefs shoulcl be paia ..Dy cashier's checK or money o.roer only to me Flood Control Distdct pdor to issuance of building or graoingpermits whichever comes ~rst. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actua permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This projectJna)' r.e~uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from th~ State Water Resources ~ontro~ uoard. Clearance for grading recordation, or other final approva[should not be given until the C ty has determined that the project has been granted a perm t or s shown to be exempt. If this project inv..olves a Fedem. ! Emergen~j Management Agency (FEIV'~)mapped flood plain, then the City should require the appficant to provioe all studies, calculations, plans and other reformation re_quired to meet FEMA requirements, and sho.ul.d further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor to gracing, recornat on or other l~nal approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Ar, reement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water ACt Section 404 Permit from the'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exe, mpt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Cert~cation may be required from the ~ocal California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. · SKf,1 Very truly yours, Senior Civil Engineer County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: August 19, 1999 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT'IN;. St~9~'Griffiii FRO REGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0317 11:.: : 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0317 and has no Objections. Sanitary,' sewer and water services are available in tlfis area. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOtVING ITEMS tVILL BE REQUIRED: a) "Will-serve" letters from the watering and sewering agencies. b) Tin'ce complete sets of plans ibr the swinuning pool/spa will be submitted, in order to ensure Compliance with the California Administrative Code, California Health and Safew Code and the Uniform Building Code. GD:dr (909) 955-8980 stand3a.doc [Tues~y April ~,~ 190~0 I~:~an~ -o Page 21 . ;. , '! County of Riverside D~T~m or nqmomn*r~ ava ..................................... DXTEi ~'22, 2000 TO: CITY OF TEMF. LqJLA PLANNINO DEPARTMENT ATI?N: Stc~ Oliffin; Ploject planner ~G~R DELLEN'BACH, Enviromneatal Health $1~ciali~t IV FROM: RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA ,9,9,-0317 1. D~ment of Ew, ironmental Health has m:eived and reviewed th~ Plot Plan No. PA99- 0317 and ba~ no objections. Sanita~j sewer and water services may b~ available in th~ ama. 2. PRIOR TO PI..4N CHECK SUBMIITAL, updated %viii-serve' letters from the sewefiag __agency._will be_required ..... OD:dr (909) 955-8980 Doug Kulberg Csaba F. Ko Steve Griffin, Case Planner City of Temecula ~;:,. ................ Planning Department ~:'"~::::~: ................ 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS PORTION OF LOT NO. 23 OF TRACT NO. 3334 APN 944-290-011 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0317 Dear Mr. Griffin: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would' be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 99~SB:mr144W012-T6~FCF ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2000- DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 R:~D P\99-0317 Tcmecula Ridge Apts~staflYpt. cc 12-12-00.doc 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A 220-UNIT' APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section '1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: a. AGK Group LLC filed Planning Application No. 99-0317, Development Plan, for the development and operation of the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project consisting of 220 units in a two and three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse workout building, and tot lot on a 20.88 acre site located on the south side of Rancho California Road southeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 944- 290-011 (the "Project"). b. The Project has been processed in accordance with State law and the provisions of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. c. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Project on May 3, 2000, June 7, 2000, July 5, 2000, and August 16, 2000 at which time the Applicant, its representatives and members of the public had the opportunity to address the Planning Commission on the Project. d. At the conclusion of the public hearing on August 16, 2000, the Planning Commission duly considered the material in the administrative record before it and the testimony received at the public hearings and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 00- which approved the Project. e. Thereafter, on August 24, 2000, Temecula Council Member Michael Naggar duly filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Section 17.03.090 specifically authorizes members of the City Council to file appeals from Planning Commission actions and Council Member Naggar's appeal complied in all respects with the requirements of Section 17.03.090. f. On October 10, 2000 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing at which time the Applicant, its representatives and members of the public had the opportunity to address the Council on the Project. The hearing lasted into the early morning hours of October 11, 2000. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council duly considered the administrative record before it and the testimony received at the public hearing. The City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying the Project and upholding the appeal of Council Member Naggar by a vote of 4-1, with. Mayor Stone dissenting. R:~I) P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Denying Tem Ridge Apts. DOC 1 g. On October 24, 2000 the City Council of the City of Temecula, while considering the resolution for denial, again heard testimony from the Applicant, its representatives and members of the public. The City Council continued the item to allow a redesign of the project. h. On November 28, 2000 the City Council of the City of Temecula, again heard testimony from the Applicant, its representatives and members of the public. The City Council directed staff to prepare a notice of public hearing to consider the modifications proposed by the Applicant. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby further find, determine and declare that: a. The proposed Project is not in conformance with General Plan for the City of Temecula and specifically with the density requirements of the Land Use Element of the General Plan because of the following problems: (1) The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site of the Project as "Medium Density" which according to Table 2-2 of the Land Use Elements allows a range of seven to 12 dwelling units per acre. (2) Section IV.A. 1. of the Land Use Element of the General Plan provides that the "[d]etermination of precise density, development location, and lot coverage on any residential property is a function of: · Oppor/unities and constraints present by natural, cultural or scenic features; Policies and implementation programs of the General Plan intended to maximize public safety; achieve high quality site planning and design; provide sufficient levels of public service; retain significant natural resources; ensure compatibility between uses; and encourage development of village centers. Building and development standards contained in the Development Code, public works standards, and other regulations and ordinances." (3) Policy 5.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states: "Include in the Development Code [Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code] and through other ordinances a package of incentives to encourage development to include: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Additional active parkland Development of parkland and trails Preservation of historic building or sites Additional open space Preservation and enhancement of natural habitat Additional public or community facilities R;XD P\99-0317 Tcmecula Ridge ApB\CC Resolution Denying Tem Ridge Apts. DOC 2 7. Additional or improved public spaces or plazas for community use 8. Additional amenities in multifamily developments 9. Transit facilities and/or additional right of way along future transit corridors. 10. Housing that meets the needs of very Iow and Iow income households. 11. Provisional of cultural facilities. (4) On March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted the "Growth Management Program Action Plan" as authorized by Section ll.B. of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element of the Temecula General Plan. The Growth Management Program Action Plan is applicable to the Project because at the time of the adoption of the Growth Management Program Action Plan, and through the present, no permits of any nature have been issued for the Project and, therefore, no vested rights to proceed with the Project have been established. The fact that the application for the Project was "deemed complete" by the Planning Department Staff means only that the documents necessary to enable the Staff, Planning Commission and City Council to review the Project had been received by the City and does not establish any vested rights to proceed with the Project. (a) The first paragraph of the Growth Management Program Action Plan provides that "[t]his Action Plan is intended to serve as the City Council's policy for the study and implementation of growth management measures for the City of Temecula. Each development project shall be studied by Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council in light of the concerns expressed in this Plan, and its action programs. Each project shall be considered on its own merit and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws and under the City's General Plan and zoning ordinances." (b) Section 2.B.1. of the Growth Management Program Action Plan provides: "Direct the Planning Commission to consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category. The Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project provides onsite or community amenities." (5) Based upon the factors set forth in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Growth Management Program Action Plan for determining the allowable density for a site, the density of the proposed Project is too high and should be at the lowest density of the Medium land use designation. (a) The Project does not have amenities sufficient to support the highest density proposed. The Project has many features which make it an attractive commercial project, but few features beyond those required to support its commercial viability or required to adapt to the site. (b) The increased landscaping is not an amenity sufficient to support the Project proposed density on this site because the landscaping is both required by Chapter 17.03 of the Temecula Municipal Code and is necessary due to the hilly topography of the Project site. R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Denying Tem Ridge Apts. DOC 3 (c) The 25-yard pool is not an onsite or community amenity sufficient to support the proposed Project density on this site because its use is limited to Project residents with some use by local swim teams. While providing some benefits in theory to the swim teams which may use it, the actual benefits to the community are minimal due to the inherent confiict between residential apartment residents and swim teams practicing between 4:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. each morning. (d) Garages under the apartment units is not an onsite or community amenity sufficient to support the Project density proposed on this site because such garages are part of good planning for such a project and would have been considered as part of the architectural review of the Project. The garage under the units creates a three-story building which obscures the natural ridgeline and terrain of the site and creates buildings of such height and bulk as to be incompatible with the natural terrain of the site. (e) The clubhouse, workout facility, spa, sun deck, arbor, outdoor fireplace, barbeque, tot lot, car wash area, corner monumentations, enhanced entries, bus turnout, and greenbelt are all features of the Project which are necessary to mitigate direct impacts of the Project, or to comply with requirements of the design review under Chapter 17.03. These features are typically found in similar projects, but do not qualify as amenities that warrant increased density. Therefore, these features of the Project are not onsite or community amenities sufficient to support the Project density proposed on this site. (f) The improvements to the Moraga Drive and Rancho California Road intersection which are in excess of those needed to mitigate traffic generated on the site are the type of amenities contemplated by the General Plan Land Use Element and the Growth Management Plan for the establishment of an appropriate density for the Project. The benefit of the additional improvements to the Moraga/Rancho California Road intersection, however, are not sufficient b~' itself to support the high density of the proposed Project. b. The proposed Project does not protect the public health, safety and general welfare because of the following problems: (1) Extensive grading of the site will be required to support the proposed Project density. Nearly 200,000 cubic yards of soil material will need to be moved to create the cut and fill slopes, with remedial measures such as butresses and stabilization fills required for such grading. (2) The intersections of Rancho California Road at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps, at the 1-15 Northbound Ramps and at Ynez Road are operating at level of service D. The traffic generated by the high density of the proposed Project will contribute to the continuation of level of service D at these locations. The traffic analysis does not adequately take into account the traffic expected to be generated on Rancho California Road by projects being developed in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County east of the City of Temecula which will utilize Rancho California Road. R:\D P\994)317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Denying Tern Ridge ApB.DOC 4 (3) Noise levels at the exterior of the apartments closest to Rancho California Road will exceed 60.7 CNEL at the first floor units and 64.9 CNEL at the second floor units, which readings do not take into account the increase in traffic expected along Rancho California Road due to the extensive development of residential units in the unincorporated areas of the County to the east of the City of Temecula. The required exterior noise levels is 65 CNEL and the required interior noise level is 45 CNEL for residential units. The mitigation measures proposed to meet these noise standards consist of sound insulation and solid exterior walls facing Rancho California Road with no windows or windows which do not open. These mitigation measures are not acceptable as they create more problems with aesthetics, ventilation, and quality living spaces than they solve. (4) The proposed density of the Project creates a large school age population. The transportation alternatives and available walking routes for the number of children likely to reside in the apartments at the proposed density is inadequate. Bussing by the Temecula Valley Unified School District is not available. Children will be forced to walk along busy traffic routes and through heavily traveled residential areas. (5) The analysis of traffic impacts is not complete as it fails to adequately take into account the increasing traffic from projects approved and expected to generate substantial traffic along Rancho California Road from the unincorporated area of Riverside County east of the City of Temecula. (6) The proposed density of the Project and the height and bulk of the buildings obscures important natural ridgeline and natural features of the Project site. The nearly 200,000 cubic yards of grading will destroy the natural ridgeline and features of the Project site without adequate mitigation of the destruction of these resources. c. The proposed Project is inconsistent with General Plan of the City of Temecula because of the following additional problems: (1) Open Space (2) Buffer to adjacent uses (3) Design Element Section 3. Based on the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby upholds the August 24, 2000 appeal of Council Member Naggar of Planning Application No. 99-0317 and denies Planning Application No. 99-0317. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Denying Tem Ridge Apts. DOC 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this twelfth day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Jeffrey Stone, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, 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 regular meeting thereof held on this twelfth day of December, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Resolution Denying Tern Ridge Apts. DOC 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 10, 2000 R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~staflYpt.cc 12-12-00.doc 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR.OF FINANCE CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning October 10, 2000 Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Appeal of Development Plan)-Temecula Ridge Apartments, located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Carole K. Don~hoe, AiCP, Associate Planner The Community Development Depadment recommends that the City Council: - Planning Division ADOPT a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, 'I'~NO AND THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-01 t, 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, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. BACKGROUND: On August 16, 2000 the Planning Commission approved the Temecula Ridge Apartment project, after first hearing the case on May 3, 2000. Subsequent continuances to the May hearing followed on June 7, 2000 and July 5, 2000. On August 18, 2000 the Notice of Determination was filed on the R:\D P\994)317 Temecula Ridge ApI.s\CC Appeal - Staff Report - 10-104)0.doc 1 project by the Riverside County Clerk. On August 24, 2000, Councilman Mike Naggar appealed the Planning Commission action stating that a project of this magnitude warranted City Council review. DISCUSSION: At their May 3, 2000 hearing on this case, the Planning Commissioners indicated that they favored the project's design, but were concerned that the project density was not at the lowest allowable density_range, and_therefor, e might_not be consistent with the Growth Management Plan Action Program. The Commission expressed the need for further clarification of the types of "amenities" which should be considered under Section 2.B.1. of the Growth Management Plan Action Program in deciding upon an appropriate density for a project within the range set forth in the General Plan. In an effort to provide further direction to the Commission, staff held meetings with the City Attorney and the Council General Plan Update Subcommittee. The full City Council discussed the matter further and scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on August 1,2000. At the joint meeting the Council directed the Commission to consider each project on a case-by-case basis and to determine what factors make the project a valuable asset to the community. The Council noted that there were no hard-and-fast rules regarding these factors, and understood that the Commission would employ creativity, flexibility and subjectivity in their decision-making. FISCAL-IMPACT: The 246-unit Temecula Ridge Apartments will be assessed $545,138 given the current Development Impact Fee (DIF) for single family attached residential units. No DIF credits have been applied to this project. ...... ATTACHMENTS: City Council Resolution No. 2000- denying the Appeal of Planning Application No. 99- 0317 (Development Plan), and upholding the approval by the Planning Commission -Blue Page 1 a. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 2 2. Appeal filed by Councilman Naggar- Blue Page 3 3. Correspondence- Blue Page 4 a. Stan Wright, dated August 15, 2000 b. Robb VanKirk, undated Meeting Minutes - Blue Page 5 a. Draft Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2000 b. Joint Planning Commission / City Council Meeting Minutes of August 1, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Reports - Blue Page 6 a. August16,2000 b. July 5,2000 c. June 7,2000 d. May 3, 2000 R:\D P\99q)317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Appeal - Staff Report - 10-10-00.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. t CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), AND UFYH~LDI-N~ THE AIsPRoV~,L OF-TH~OJECT-BY-THE- PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, 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, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, AGK Group, LLC filed Planning Application No. 99-0317 in accordance with the City of Temecula'General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 99-0317 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. 99-0317 on May 3, 2000, June 7, 2000, July 5, 2000 and August 16, 2000, at duly noticed public hearings 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 hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 99-0317; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to the Appeal of Planning Application No. 99-0317 on October 10, 2000, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. 99- 0317; WHEREAS, the City Council received a draft copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding Planning Application No. 99-0317; BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 1. Findings. The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. 99- 0317 (Development Plan), hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes a density of 11.78 units which is within the range specified. It is in R:~D P\99-0317 Temecula Pddge Apts\City Council Reso to deny appeal.doc 1 conformance with the policies as stated in the General Plan and with all applicable requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City including the Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. B. __ The overall.development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The ty~e o~-mp-rov-~rffs ii not likely ~o Cause se~iSfi§ public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Growth Management Program Action Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with the documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Access and circulation are adequate for the general public and for emergency vehicles. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study (lES) was prepared for this project, which determined that the proposal could potentially affect land use and planning, geology and soils, water, biological resources, noise, and cultural resources. However, these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures previously agreed to and incorporated into the project. The lES for the project was sent to the Governor's office of Planning and Research, in order that the State Clearinghouse circulate the document for public review for a 30-day period. Additionally, the lES and Mitigation Monitoring Program were revised to address correspondence received from the State Department of Fish and Game and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Agency. Staff concluded that both revisions to the lES are not considered substantial because no new or avoidable significant effect was identified. The new information added merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. On the basis of such inclusion, any potentially significant impacts are mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels. Accordingly the Planning Commission adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the project. Section 3. Conditions. The City of Temecula city Council hereby approves Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan), for the design, construction and operation of a 246-unit, two and three-story apartament complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot on 20.88 net acres, located on the south side of Rancho California Road southeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011, subject to the project specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. The August 24, 2000 Appeal of Councilman Naggar is denied. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this tenth day of October, 2000. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor R:\D P\99~)317 Temecula Ridge Apls\Ciiy Council Peso to deny appeal.doc 2 ATTEST: Susan_W._Jpnes, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, 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 regular meeting thereof held on the tenth day of October, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:~D P\99~)317 Tcmecula Ridge Apts\City Council Reso to deny appeal.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA ..... CONDITIONS OEAPPRO_VAL __. Final Revisions - August 16, 2000 Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) -Temecula Ridge Apartments Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a 246-unit, two and three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot on approximately 21 acres Development Impact Fee Category: Residential Attached, $2,167.83 per unit Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 Approval Date: Expiration Date: August 16, 2000 August 16, 2002 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 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 permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an 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 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit R:\O P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,doc 1 said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold ..... harmless_the_City,_any_agency_or_instrumentality the[eof, oEany-of its officers,_emp!oyees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate this land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. If phasing of the project is proposed, the applicant shall submit a Phasing Plan, with appropriate filing fees, to the Planning Manager for review and approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "El" thr'..' through "E4" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. The Site Plan shall show a bus turnout on Rancho California Road, at a location approved by the City Engineer and the Riverside Transit Agency. The design of the swim facility shall be modified to include an Junior Olympic-sized swimming pool (25 meters in length X 6 lanes in width). (Added and modified by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "HI" thru "H3" (Landscape Plan) or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Ligustrum or other large evergreen shrubs approved by the City shall be used to screen parking areas and shall be spaced at no more than 3' on center to provide a screen in a reasonable time period. All parking areas shall be fully screened using evergreen shrubs that can be maintained at a minimum height of 3'. All plantings shall be compatible with adjacent existing plantings as approved by the City. All parking row ends shall be provided with a minimum 5' wide planting area. This planting area shall be clear of any hardscape and shall be provided with a minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground cover. R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,doc 2 Queen Palms, Canary Island Date Palms or other City approved palm shall be used in place of Washingtonia robusta. Final shrub species selection and placement is subj_ect to the review and approval of the City. City approved substitutes shall be provided for Lantana species and Myoporum pacificum. These species are subject to freeze in the Temecula area. All off-site graded areas shall be planted and irrigated to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect to provide erosion and dust control. All off-site slopes graded or created by this project shall be planted and irrigated and shall meet code planting requirements for slope areas. Alii utilities shall be shown on the landscape construction plans. All utilities shall be screened as approved by the City Landscape Architect. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. The applicant shall plan planting beds and design around utilities. Code requirements for slope plantings and irrigation shall be met. Code requires slope banks 5' or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 to be landscaped at a minimum with an appropriate ground cover, one 15 gallon or larger size tree per 600 square feet of slope area, and one 1 gallon or larger shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area. Slope banks in excess of 8' in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also be provided with one 5 gallon or larger tree per 1,000 square feet of slope area in addition to the above requirements. All requirements of the City water efficient ordinance, Chapter 17.32, shall be met. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "Fl" thru "F7" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "J" (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning Manager. Material Color Building walls -Color One -Color Two Garage Doors -Color Three Trim -Color Four Trim -Color Five Roof -Premium Slate Tile Ledger Stone "Kabuki" "Burgundy" "Eldorado" Sinclair #CM8550 Sinclair #CM8510 Sinclair #CM8509 Sinclair #S-3-33T Sinclair #966 Monier Life $ #5733 (Modified by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000.) R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 3 10. The applicant shall allocate 2% of the apartment units for seniors, Iow or very Iow income residents. 11. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). The project swim facility shall be made available to the Tocal T~-~ul~-S~i~-Cl~b-foi' practices and workouts. The apartment management shall coordinate and schedule regular access and make arrangements with the Swim Club, for use of the facilities forthe duration of the Temecula Ridge project. (Added and modified by Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. 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. 13. Prior to any ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall address the impacts to coastal sage scrub or any other sensitive resource, as required by the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) incidental take permitting process. The applicant shall acquire compensatory mitigation off the project site, or comply with any other requirement by the FWS, and shall provide the City a copy of the incidental take permit issued for the proposed development, prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit. 14. The applicant shall arrange for a qualified Native American Resource expert to conduct a complete walkover of the project site, and to prepare and submit a report with findings and recommendations to the Planning Manager, pdorto the issuance of grading permits for any ground-disturbing activities. If any cultural resources or human remains are identified, a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). 15. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the applicant for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils, cultural resources or human remains. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided by the applicant to collect, curate and report these resources in accordance with standard archaeological management requirements. 16. The applicant shaft work with the Public Works Department to accelerate the modifications to the traffic signal at Moraga Road, or provide an alternative plan to minimize the impacts on Rancho California Road of truck hauling activities during construction. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). 17. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 4 18. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "E," "F," "G," "H," "1" and "J" (Site Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Landscape Plan, Grading Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color.prints of approved Exhibit "J" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be-readable on the photographic prints. Exhibit "H-3' shall be revised to reflect an 8-foot decorative wrought iron perimeter fence along the south property line. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000) (Deleted by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000) Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 20. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 21. A noise review letter shall be submitted to the Planning Manager for review and acceptance as confirmation that noise barriers will not be required to mitigate noise impacts from Rancho California Road, as identified and discussed in the Preliminary Noise Analysis prepared by Mestre Greve Associates dated February, 2000. Mechanical ventilation shall be installed in those dwelling units closest to Rancho California Road which require that windows remained closed in order to meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. Mechanical ventilation shall be noted on plans. 22. The developer shall limit construction activities to the hours between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction can occur on Sundays or holidays. 23. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, g,enus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 5 d. Total cost estimate of plantings'and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plarm). Prior to the Iss~i::-nce of Occupancy Permits 24. An Admini"~trative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage n(~t included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. ,&. ~eparate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the apl~roved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. An ~,dministrative Development Plan application for a comprehensive sign program sha II be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager. 25. All requirec:l landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. l-he plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 26. 27. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscapin~ and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk;. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Un authorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface ide ntification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 28. All of the fo regoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OI~ PUBLIC WORKS 29. Unless oth,erwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Goverr~ment Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 6 plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements ....... 30. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of anyconstruction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 31. 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. 32. All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median 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. 33. Lot "A" Shall be r(~stricted to right in/right out vehicular movements. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 34. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion-control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 35. 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. 36. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of 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 pavement sections. 37. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 38. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 39. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed substantially in conformance with the conceptual grading plan. The Drainage Study shall investigate whether the storm drain shall enter empire creek upstream or downstream of the existing concrete lined sewer line crossing. Improvements R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,doc 7 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. in the southeast region of the development shall be constructed in such a manner as to not increase flows into the existing Tract 8369-1 storm drain structure at any of its entry points. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners as specifically shown inJhe conceptual grading plan for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows into the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review. All on-site drainage improvements shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the conceptual grading plan, which calls for a storm drain system designed for the 100 year storm. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department b. - Department of Public Works - The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to approval of the grading plan, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 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. R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 8 Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 49. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. FIowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall c~rn~ i~ t~e applical~le City o~Temecuia-Stand~-rd No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in ' - accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400.401and 402. e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula s Standard No. 113. g. All reverse curves shalt include a 100 foot minimum tangent section. h. All street and driveway centertine intersections shall be at 90 degrees. 50. i. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. j. 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. k. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: Improve Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. Improve Moraga Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of full-width at the intersection with Rancho California Road and then transitioned to half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). The Developer shall design and construct a 14-foot wide raised landscape median on Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RAN) from Moraga Road to Lot "A" (along property frontage). The Developer is eligible to receive Development Impact Fee credits for one-half width of the raised landscaped median. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 9 51. d. Modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Moraga Road/Rancho California Roadfrom a three way to four way signal to include signal interconnect. A traffic signal plan shall be prepared by a registered engineer or traffic engineer and approved by the Director of Public Works. --e. The Developer shall acquire-an~dditional-10-feet-of-dght-of-way atong~hewes~side of Moraga Road between Rancho California Road and 200' north of the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California Road along with required construction easements. The additional right-of-way is necessary to accommodate a through lane to access the site as part of required offsite improvements. If the Developer cannot acquire the right-of-way, then the Developer shall petition the City to acquire the needed right-of-way in accordance with the terms of Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act and Condition 18 of these Conditions of Approval even though this is not a.final map. f. The Developer shall connect Moraga Road to existing pavement section of Via Las Colinas to the west of the development as approved by the Director of Public Works. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. 52. a. _._S_tr_eet_ improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines e. Traffic signal modification at the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California Road The Developer shall improve Lot "A", private road and shared vehicular access easement, to include installation of half-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 horizontal alignment shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Lot "A" driveway opening from Rancho California Road shall be constructed per City Standard No. 207A. b. No parking shall be allowed along Lot "A". "No Parking" signs shall be posted. 53. The Developer shall obtain an easement on Lot "A" over the adjacent property for ingress and egress and emergency vehicles. 54. The Developer shall grant an easement to the adjacent property for ingress and egress and emergency vehicles on Lot "A". 55. The Developer is responsible for constructing a minimum 24-foot wide driveway, completely within his property, in case he is unable to get permission from the adjacent property owner to construct the east half of Lot "A". The driveway shall be designed to meet Fire Department and City Standards. R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 10 56. 57. 58. 59. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of 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. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for Rancho California Road. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final'SoiIReport addressing compaction and site conditions. 60. 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 a Certificate of Occupancy 61. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 62. a. _Rancho California_ _Wa_ter District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 63. All public improvements, including raised landscaped median on Rancho California Road and modification to the signal at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 64. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 65. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1996 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 66. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 67. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 68. Qbtai_n all_build_ingplans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 69. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 70. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 71. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 72. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 73. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 74. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 75. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 76. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 77. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 78. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 79. Show all building setbacks FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 80. 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. 81. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2250 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 12 total fire flow of 2650 GPM with a 2 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) 82. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an 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). ' .... 83. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of th'e building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 84. 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 902.2.2.2.3 and Oral 460) 85. 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) 86. 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 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 87. 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 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 88. 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) 89. 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) 90. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 91. 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 R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLANldOC 13 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) 92. P_dor_t_o issuance of a Cediflcate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 93. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suiteidentification on a contrasting background. In Strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) 94. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. 95. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 96. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 97. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) 98. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The TCSD has reviewed the Development Plan for the aforementioned project and conditions the project as follows: General Conditions: 99. Prior to installation of arterial street lighting, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lighting into the respective TCSD maintenance program. 100. All parkway landscaping and slope areas adjacent to the development shall be maintained by the property owner. R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 14 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits: 101. The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees .... ~"~'~* '~ ~ ~'" ...... ~ ~-'-'~'" based upon the r-;,,,,,. ,~. ......... , ~ o~ ......... Parkland Dedication Formula in the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. Said requirement includes a 50% credit for private recreational opportunities provided on-site and shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of each building permit requested (Modified by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000). Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 102. Any damages caused to the existing Class II bike lane on Rancho California Road as a result of construction shall be repaired or replaced, as determined by the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 103. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated August 26, 1999, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or -money order, prior to the issuance of a grading-permit-(unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 104. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittals dated August 19, 1999 and March 22, 2000, copies of which are attached. 105. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districts transmittal dated August 18, 1999, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\D P\99q]317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 15 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer City of Temecula Planning Department Post Of'~e Box 9033_ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL _AND WATER_CONSERV_ATION DISTRICT 1995 MAKKET STKEET PdVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: PR ftc/_ 12317 The Distdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.. The District, also .do.es not plan check_city land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other l[ood hazaro reports ror sucncases, uistnct comments/recommendations lot such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and draina,qe facilities which could be considered a logical componen[or extension of a master plan system, and District Area urainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has n. otrev, iew. ed the proposed,project in detail and the fo!lowing checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply uistrict approval or enoorsement of the proposeo project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: / This pr.oject would not b,e impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regionm ~nterest proposeo. This project involves ~stfictMa.,ster-Plafi'facilities.'- The Distfict-will'accept ownership of such facilities on wdtten request of the uity. Fachities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership ot such fatalities on wntten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards and District plan check and inspection will be required for u strict acceptance. P an check, nspection and adm n strat ve fees wi be required. This project is located within the limits of the District's ~"~UKfVf.?FI ~.J~E.~,~./~"£ffff.,r. dJL, l~ ~J'fH.t.~f.Are. a Drainage Plan lot which drainage fees have been adopted applicable fee[~ should be paid by Cashiers check or money order only to me Flood Control District prior to issuance of building or grading permits, whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION Th s project may r.e~]uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from th~ State Water Resources Contro~ uoard. Clearance for grading recordation, or other final approva/should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a perm t or s shown to be exempt. f this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEIV'~,)mapped flood plain, then the City should requ re the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requ rements and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other rna approva of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and -~ Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Enoineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies nd caring the project is exempt from these requlraments.'A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: August 19, 1999 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT -- XTTNCSteve Griffin FRO/~.F~ ~'GREGOR~' / DELLENBACH '~: .... ~'''' ::;' " ': ' ' '~' ";: ' ~'' ,. EnvironmentaI Health Specialist iV-:' .... RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0317 i: :i: · 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0317 and has no Objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ~4qLL BE REQUIRED: a) "Will-serve" letters from the watering ,and sewering agencies. b) Tlu'ee complete sets of plans fbr the swimming pool/spa will be submitted, in order to ensure compliance with the California Administrative Code, California Health and Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code. GD:dr (909) ~55-8980 stand3a.doc April &~ 1900 8:~am -- Page County of Riverside o~,~,r~m oF mv~oN~wr~ mU.T. DATE: March 22~-2000- TO: CITY OF TElvlF. CUI. A PLANNINO DEPARTMENI AT1-N: Steve G'dffin: Project pla,n~x ~G~R DELLENBACH, Environmeatal Health Specialist IV FROM: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0317 l. . Department of En,,Sxonmental Health has received and reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99- 0317 and has no objections_ Saaitmy sewer and water services may be available in this area. o PRIOR TO .PLAN CHECIf SIfBMIITAL, updated "will-serve' iettem fxom the sewering __ agertq_will bexequired .......... OD:dr (909) 955-8980 August 18, 1999 Steve Griffin, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS PORTION OF LOT NO. 23 OF TRACT NO. 3334 APN 944-290-011 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0317 Dear Mr. Griffin: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California .Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 99\SB:mr 144W012-T6~FCF ATTACHMENT NO. 2 APPEAL FILED BY COUNCILMAN NAGGAR City of Temecu Comm.nity Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula · CA · 92590 P.O. Box 9033, Temec-ln · CA · 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 · FAX (909) 694-6477 Appeal Original Case Number(s) /> qJ-- ~):?> The purpose of l~e 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. FILING REQUIREMENTS 1. Development. Appli_cafi?. 2. Appeal Form. 3. Filing Fee. C. NOTICE OF APPEAL - TIME LIMIT A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by him ~ in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be acted upon unless filed within fifteen (15) calendar days after service of written notice of the decision. D. NOTICE OF APPEAL - CONTENTS Appealing the decision of: . (Specify Director of Plznning or P]annln5 Commission Alql) Action Da~e) Reason or justification to support the apgeal. 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). Desired action to be taken: In the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then II the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant II shall be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to refile the notice of appeal. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CORRESPONDENCE STAN WRIGHT, DATED AUGUST 15, 2000 8-15-2000 City of Temecula Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92591 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, The reason that I am writing is because I am in opposition to project 99-0317 or the Temecula Ridge Apartments pmpesed to be constructed at the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California Roads. I have lived in Temecula for approximately 20 years and have witnessed most of the growth, good and bed in our area. It is clear to myself and other citizens that the above project will bdng the following to our community: 1. Increased traffic - an additional 800 to 1000 care will definitely make gridiock worse in our city. In the immediate area you might almost double the projected increase because of the visiting vehicles going in and out of the complex for vadous reasons. A traffic study bought and paid for by a developer, although by a so called independent company, will report what ever is necessary to sell the project off to the city. After all, it is paid for by the developer. 2. Overcrowding of already packed school classrooms - Let's face it, our school class rooms are already over crowded at all levels. This trend leads to less education and lower test scores for our students. Apartment houses, rather than single family home developments, hurt the community when it comes to our childrens' education. 3. Lower property values to neighboring single family homes - Some people, depending on when they purchased their property, paid a premium for their home based on view and considered peace and privacy for location of their purchase. In this general area, some people purchased their home with an existing Arabian horse ranch on their side thinking that apartments could never be built in such a place or ruin their view of our gorgeous valley. If a project such as the one proposed is built, the current residents will view apartments rather than the valley and no potential buyer will want to purchase a single family home located next to huge and dense apartment complex no matter how 'High End' they are. Property values are sure to plummet in the Alta Vista ffact. This is cert~nly not fair or wiss planning for our citizens. In fact, it is illogical, poor in thought and criminal to allow a project of any kind to ruin property values of any adjoining property in our town. It Is the planning commissions job to plan our community to be desirable as well as attractive to ail rathar than meet the special interest needs of a few. I do not feel that any member of the planning commission would want a 35 foot tall apartment building and complex within 150 feet of their single family home. 4. Increased Crime - Let's face it, apartments are historically the worst areas of cities over time. In this city, a significant portion of our cdme is centered around the existing apartments. Apamnents will increase noise in general to the neighboring area which is a violation called 'disturbing the peace". Other crimes associated with apartments include drug dealing as well as easy access and get away form neighboring single family homes for burglary. The proposed project, in design, has the following characteristics which is a detriment to the community and neighboring properties. 1. The project only has the developers interest in mind. This is evidenced by the following: A. This project has always been proposed for maximum density rather than minimum density. This violates our current planning regulations now in force. Too much density ruins nice rural areas like Temecufa. The current zoning laws stressing less is more is correct. B. The buildings themselves, at 3 stories, g!ve an Embassy Suite or Hotel approach to building. This is unsightly to the community but increases the developers profit with more units in a confined space. This mom than violates normal height restrictions in all cities where view is a premium. I feel that view is a premium in our area and should be respected, valued and enjoyed by all. C. The project was stated by the developers representative, Mr. Larry Markum, to be invisible to Rancho Califomia Rood. As proposed this is true. It is true because the develocer is avoidina the oradino costs to move the omiect down the hill and away from adioinino sinole family homes, The project is invisible to the frontage road but it is in the face of the neighboring residents. The developer designed the buildings to be no mom than 150 feet from an adjoining single family residence. People do not realize that looking at a 3 story building from 150 feet away is very imposing. For comparison, an average flag lot ddveway in the Alta Vista housing tract is 150 feet long or the same distance of the design setbacks to the apartment complex. This is outrageeus planning and architectural violation to the adjoining properties and neighborhood. A projected view by the developer at one meeting showed a building roof at least 2 stories taller than a neighboring house· The apartment dwellers would look down on such a residence and the home would view the side of a building. This is not good and ruins the privacy of a single family home. Mr. Markum tried to make comments about 'View Shed". It is clear that the only people with a view would be the apartment building dwellers rather than neighboring homeowners. In fact, the apariTnents with a view would rent for more. Imagine thaL D. The landscape plan shown by the developer is very mature. I am sure that 'Mature landscaping" is promised for "show and tell" to sell the project concept to the city but will not be planted due to cost. One of the more illogical facts about the above project is the stated or proposed rents as well as the description of the proposed residents. A $1,200 a month rent is roughly equivalent to a house payment on a $180,000 property. This is the price range of the adjoining neighborhood of single family homes. Why would the average person rent at that price when they could buy ? Is this because they are transient which leads to the original problems stated ? Why would a higher income family rent around a lower income residential neighborhood ? Usually higher income families want to rent in upscale neighborhoods such as in our own Santiago Rancho area. · Another illogical fact about this project is that there are no considerations for rezoning the whole general area where this project is currently proposed. We have too many apartments in Temecula already. We have a disproportionate amount of apartments in this general area as well as a disproportionate amount of apartments as compared to a city like Murrieta. The new community plan cells to preserve the 'open spaces' left in our city. Where are these "open spaces". We have a dedicated sports park but how about a large dedicated redional Dark in this entire proposed area where people can have a picnic, throw a frisbee, take a nap under a tree on a free afternoon, have a barbecue or conduct a Iow impact workout in a safe environment ? What about nice single family homes to blend in with the adjoining homes ? Just because an old and outdated master plan from KACOR or Bedford Proper'des had this area dedicated and zoned for apartments does not make it right. Changes to old zoning that does not work for the community is good. Not changing bad zoning based on the current needs of the community or repeating pest zoning mistakes is bad. Allowing these apartments is a mistake for the community and there are other viable alternatives for the land use. Local Politicians are elected by a stated platform. Did those platforms state that the elected officials will promise to let population planning run amuck, increase traffic gridlock, overpopulate the schools, increase cdme and lower our property values ? I do not think so. These are the hot buttons of the local peo~e and the politicians promised to fix these problems if elected. The planning commission, I understand, gets direction from the city council. So why would this project be allowed if it contributes to the ovemrowding of our city, increases gfidlock, contributes to the overcrowding of our classrooms, ad~l~to-the crime rate and' lowers proper[y values ? This project is illogical and not right for the community and should not be approved. I have observed several meetings regarding this proposal. In my opinion Mr. Markum is hired to say and do whatever it takes to get this project approved. He has had a few local people with special interests directly related to the project speak as well as several ~)~t of area Deoole with no ties to our cornmunitv soeak in favor of this project. Other than the purported esthetics of the design and the fact that it is the best "apartment" proposal ever proposed, I was not shown or convinced of any positive effect or positive influence that such a proposal would offer the community, in contrast, every local citizen that I have talked to that lives in this area and owns a home in this area is opposed to such a project for the four major reasons stated in the beginning of my letter. Sadly enough, the busy schedules of common citizens keeps them from coming to voice their views. Developers count on this se opposition is not voiced. It is also sad that the planning commission would be wooed by so called esthetics rather than the desires of the local citizens as well as the concept of rezoning the area to a more beneficial zone for the community. Based ~)n-~ o~s~:~ ge~neral Condu~'and tactics of Mr. Markum, it is illogical to me that he has any credibility at all with the members of the planning commission. I beg cf you to please not let the special interests-of ~hired-gun and an out of area deveioper'who-could not even get approval for this project in his own city, due to height restrictions, ruin our city. Too many apartments ruined other areas of the Inland --Empire, such-as'Moreno'Valley;-and-l-beg~of'you to-not let this happen to-our'beautiful City of Temecula. Esthetics or not there is nc positive effect or benefit to the community offered by this project. Therefore there is nc need. Thank you for reading this letter to the attending audience. Sincerely, Stan Wright ' Ordinary and common citizen of Temecula for 20 years. ROBB VANKI_RK, UNDATED Dear Councilman Naggar, I am writing in regards to the Temecula Ridge Apartments project. Although I am not one of the homeowners living adjacent to the proposed project, I am, nonetheless, cencemed about the impact this-project will-have onthem: I attended the recent Planning Commission hearing, and heard many concerns expressed about density, traffic, visual impacts, etc. While many of these types of concerns are repetitive at any Planning Commission hearing, I am in particular agreement with those individuals who paid premiums for view lots and will have those views destroyed by a 3-story apartment complex. From what I was able to glean from the headng, the parcel to be developed is of significant depth; yet, it appears that the apartment units are being placed well to the rear of the lot. If these apartments are as beautiful and_well.designed as their proponents claim, it would seem reasonable to me that they should be placed further forward on their lot. This will enhance the streetscape, while helping to mitigate the visual impact to those view lot homeowners whose houses sit a mere 150' feet away. I too, live on an elevated view lot (at the end of a cul-de-sac), but Richmond Amedcan Homes, the developer of the land immediately behind me, did a superb job of placing structures so as to minimize intrusions into my lines of sight. No one who has paid a significant sum of money for a view lot ever wants to lose the enjoyment and value of their view. And it doesn't seem fair for the homeowners who were there first, and paid for their views, to have them taken away through subsequent development - especially, if through thoughtful planning, those views can be significantly preserved, or adverse impacts to them mitigated. In my opinion,~he burden.should_fall more heavily on_the~follow~-on developers to preserve the views boughl by prior homeowners. It just seems fundamentally dght to me that the dghts of those who came first should have priodty over the dghts of those who come late!' qn. _ It would also make a lot of sense to me that the visual impact of a 3-story apartment could be reduced by making the parking garages subterranean. Then there would only be 2 stodes above grade. Of course, I can understand that the developer doesn't want to do this because of the additional costs of excavating and hauling dirt. But as I stated eadier, this should be one of the potential [isks assumed by follow-on developers- particularly if they are proposing a development which impacts existent views previously purchased by abutting homeowners. Alternatively, excavation and hauling costs for subterranean parking garages can be eliminated if there is sufficient room on the parcel to build free-standing carports separate from the apartments, which is the way apartment parking is typically constructed. And in this case too, the apartments themselves would still be only 2 stodes high. in closing, may I ask you, as you give thoughtful consideration to the merits of this project, to also weigh carefully the impact that this development, as currently designed, will have on the dghts of the adjacent homeowners? Very truly yours, Robb VanKirk 41756 Humber Ddve, Temecula, CA (909)699-9269 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST '16, 2000 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST t6, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday August 16, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, City Attorney Thorson, Associate Planner Donahoe, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 16, 2000. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Review and approve the minutes of June 21, 2000. 2.2 Approve the minutes of July 5, 2000. O~5~' ruction Panning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) The design, const ' and operation of a 246-unit, two and three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot on approximately 21 acres, located on the south side of Rancho California Road southeast of the intersection of Rancho California RoadandMoraga Road -~Carole_Donahoe RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99- 0317; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-03t A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-03t7 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS) - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246- UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR°S PARCEL NO. 944-299-0'11, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda Item, and therefore left the meeting at 7:09 P.M. Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the proposed project (of record); provided an overview of the meetings and discussions related to the Growth Management Plan and its relation to this project, reiterating the Council's direction to the Planning Commission with respect to making a determination based on the proposed amenities in relation to the proposed densities; noted the inclusion in the staff report of the data related to this particular project's proposed densities and amenities; relayed that with respect to the rear yard fencing, the applicant has agreed to increase the size of the wrought-iron fence from six feet to eight feet; with respect to the correspondence received from the Pechanga Cultural Resources Supervisor regarding their desire for a "walkover' at the sight, noted that the initial study and the Mitigation Monitoring Measure have been revised to include provision for the "walkover;" regarding the Conditions of Approval, noted the following corrections: with respect to Condition No. 6B, relayed that the phrase Olympic-sized swimming pool should be replaced to reflect Junior Olympic-sized swimming pool, 25 meters in length and six lanes wide; with respect to Condition No. 9 (regarding the colors and materials), noted that the "$" denotation should be corrected to indicate "If;" with respect to Condition No. 99, noted that the existing factors should be removed, adding the folio ' g language after the phrase "through the payment of in-lieu fees": in w~n accordance with the parkland dedication formula in the Ternecula Subdiw'sion Ordinance; and relayed that the applicant has provided the colored drawings which had been presented at the May 3=Planning Commission meeting (via supplemental agenda matedal),_bdefiy reviewing_the renderings. With respect to Condition No. 10 (regarding the agreement with the local swim club), Commissioner Chiniaeffqueried whether this condition should.be, more:cleady defined; Commissioner Mathewson queried whether the reference to the local swim club should be more specific as to a specified entity. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe - relayed that to the best of her knowledge there was solely one swim club in the City of Temecula, advising that the applicant would provide additional information with respect to the agreement with the Swim Club. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified the modification with respect to Condition No. 99 (regarding the parkland requirements); and confirmed that the Resource Agencies had reviewed the Environmental Assessment. For the record, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that a letter dated August 15, 2000 from Mr. Stan Wright, noting his opposition and concerns with respect to the project had been copied and distributed to the Commission; and for Chairman Guerriero, provided Mr. Wright's address. For the record, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he had participated in ex-parle communications with Mr, Markham (the applicant's representative). Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the applicant's discussions with the Swim Club's representative, noting the modification of the size of the pool in order to satisfy the request of the Swim Club, relaying that a fee would be charged for the maintenance of the facilities, advising that in conjunction with an aquatic approval board the days and hours of use would be arranged; for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that a length of time for the Swim Club Agreement had not been specified, noting that the applicant would be willing to establish specifications; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, provided additional information regarding the export of 42,000 yards of material, relaying that the material would be exported off-site; with respect to area proximate to A Street, advised that the applicant has worked with the adjacent property owner to develop an agreement that would entail the developer who first proceeds with development in this area to provide the other with reciprocal ingress/egress utility easements; with respect to the proposed landscaping on the slopes, provided additional information regarding the landscape plan on the southerly property line which has been coordinated with Mr. Oder (the adjacent property owner) relative to his concerns with respect to drainage, erosion, screening, and security; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Mathewson noted his concern with respect to the grading quantities of 200,000 cubic yards. With respect to the exported material, Chairman Guerriero relayed concern with respect to the number of truck trips, and the route to be utilized, noting his concern regarding traffic disruption on Rancho California Road. In response, Mr. Markham relayed that the developer would have to obtain permits, which would require submittal of a route plan, times and days of operation, and traffic provisions, in accordance with the Public Works Department. For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero commented on the lack of adequately trained flagmen_on_altemate_projects_w th n_the City. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that at the Moraga Road/Rancho California Road proposed signal site, staff would investigate the timing of the installation with respect to aiding in the construction truck traffic. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the extension of La Colina to Moraga Road, relaying that the direction of truck travel had not been established, advising that the applicant would be willing to add a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff to ensure a safe travel route, noting that if this required accelerating the four-way signal at Moraga Road or placing the signal under manual control, that the applicant would be agreeable; and provided additional information regarding the grading plah. With respect to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the corner monumentation, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the proposed extensive monumentation program, noting the enhanced landscaping along Moraga and Rancho California R6~,~ls in drder to §creen the buildings fror~-the ~r~)adway; and confirmed that the applicant has been conditioned to improve_the existing landscaped median. For Commissioner Mathewson, with respect to the habitat issues, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the applicant's current process to acquire off- site mitigation lands, noting that there were no Checkerspot Butterflies sited in either season; and with respect to the grading issues, noted the applicant's assiduous efforts with staff to develop the project which was now before the Commission, providing additional information regarding the issues that have been addressed. The following individuals relayed their opposition to the project: Mr. David Michael Ms. Pamela Miod (representing Citizen's First of Temecula Valley) [3 Mr. Don Leonard [3 Mr. Charles Rich 30300 Churchill Court 31995 Via Saltio 31336 Paseo De Las Olas 42403 Carino Place The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: Concern with respect to the proposed densities, increased traffic, and the impact on the schools. Challenged the credibility of Mr. Markham (the applicant's representative), stating that his interest was solely involved with the project's development. Queried which amenities were for the provision of community benefits. 8 · Noted the negative impact with respect to the existing residents' view. Queried the rationale for the lack of consideration regarding the neighboring residents' comments. Concern regarding the availability of water and utilities due to the existing shortages. Relayed that numerous residents located in the City of Temecula to avoid dense development, and to enjoy a more rural lifestyle, Concern regarding the impact the project would have with respect to lowered property values. Noted that the standard of living for the existing neighboring residents would decrease. The following individuals were proponents of the project: Mr. Lon Brusegard Dr. Robert Wheeler (representing EMA and the Resources Conservation District) Mr. Bob Oder Ms. Helon Oder Mr. Robert Oder (representing the Mira Loma Apartments) Ms. Evie Hughes 23766 Via Madrid, Murrieta 29090 Camino Alba, Murrieta 29911 Mira Loma Drive 29911 Mira Loma Drive 29911 Mira Loma Drive 27727 Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons: · The need for affordable housing in the City of Temecula. Noted the importance of a mix of different types of housing developments within the overall City development. Relayed the importance of constructing apartments within the City rather than solely in the rural areas. Noted the economic need for this type of housing, referencing the Husing Report. Opposed a "No Growth Policy," relaying the negative impacts. Relayed that this high quality proposed project was a far greater project than previously proposed projects at this site. Noted that the applicant worked diligently with the neighboring property owners, addressing the concerns. Advised that this was an overall superlative apartment project plan, which would enhance the community. 9 Relayed strong opposition to the previously proposals at this site. Via overheads, compared the densities of alternate apartment complexes in this area. - ....... Relayed a desire for an apartment development with attached garages, noting the ~safety issues associatedwith the:provision~.~ .... - ~-~-- '-.- -. Mr. Samuel AIhadeff, representing the applicant, thanked staff and the Commissioners who have worked diligently with respect to this matter; for the record, noted that this project has been under review for approximately two years; sited various goals, policies, amenities, and Land Use Elements represented in the General Plan; provided an overview of the amenities that this project would provide in the community; relayed the need for apartment housing in the City of Temecula, siting a one-percent (1%) vacancy factor in existing units; and provided additional information regarding the Growth Management Plan and its relation to this project. In rebuttal of the community comments, Mr. Markham addressed Mr. Leonard's concerns,.with respect to the water and_utilities issues,-relaying that this project would be immensely more water efficient, and energy conserving than existing older developments; with respect to the neighboring residents' view, via overheads, displayed the existing topography, and the proposed landscaping with the proposed project, noting the efforts of the applicant to address the viewshed issue; relayed that there were three community meetings held in order to hear the concerns of the residents; and provided an overview of the previously proposed project and subsequent approval at this site, noting the reduction in the current proposed densities, and the improved site and design plans. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Alhadeff, and Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the community meetings, which the applicant held regarding the project. Mr. Tom Dodson, CEQA consultant representing the applicant, provided an overview of the analysis of the energy consumption, water consumption, and waste water generation issues, providing additional information regarding the ability to meet water and energy demands, additional information regarding the existing and proposed power plants which would provide the electricity to supply power for the long-term range, and additional data regarding the waste water treatment systems. The Commission relayed concluding remarks, as follows: For informational purposes with respect to the residents who had expressed concern with the development of a project proximate to their neighborhood, Commissioner Telesio relayed that some growth was inevitable unless one purchased the surrounding properties; noted that in his opinion, the applicant had addressed the concerns of the neighboring properties, specifically commending the landscape plan; commented on the previously proposed projects for this parcel, relaying that this project far exceeds previous proposals; commented on the timing of the Growth Management Plan's (GMP) adoption in relation to this project which has been in the review process for approximately two years; advised that this project supercedes the 10 City's requirements; with respect to amenities, noted that the quality of the project would be an asset to the community; relayed that this particular project would, additionally, improve the view along Rancho California Road (i.e., per the landscape plan); noted the availability of the pool for community use; and referenced Councilman Naggar's comments relayed at the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop. at which time he stated that if you are going to increase the density above the minimum, make sure it is a "darn good project," advising that in his opinion, UThis was a dam good project." Commissioner Mathewson relayed that his concern was not based on the quality of the project, the diversity of housing provisions, or the comparison between alternate projects proposed for this site; relayed that his focus was to determine the following: 1) whether this project on this site was appropriate, meeting the criteria of the General Plan, the GMP, and "good planning sense," and 2) whether it met the cdteria of that site based on the current Land Use regulations; with respect to the proposed amenities qualifying for the criteria to grant the density bonus, noted that in his opinion the proposed amenities do not warrant the densities proposed per the GMP, acknowledging that this determination was subjective; noted his rationale in drawing this conclusion was based on the following: 1) that garages were proposed as an amenity, while acknowledging the positive-visual aesthetic element, and the safety provisions, advised that in his opinion this was not a qualifying amenity, 2) the development of three-story buildings on the site would have significant negative impacts on viewsheds (i.e., from Rancho California Road), 3) with respect to the pool being available to the Swim Club, noted that in his view, this was a limited community benefit, relaying that it was an on-site amenity, advising that in his opinion a qualifying amenity would be a community benefit over and above what would normally be associated with the development, noting that the tot lot, the barbecues, and the pool/spa area were standard amenities for this type of project, relaying that the developer would get a credit for these on-site amenities relative to the Quimby requirements, providing additional information regarding the lack of reciprocity, 4) with respect to the additional landscaping proposed, relayed that in relation to the significant amount of grading and degradation of the natural environment it was not his opinion that the landscape plan balanced this significant impact, and 5) with respect to the monumentation and decorative elements, relayed that these features did not supercede alternate development's proposals; and in conclusion, advised that due to the previously mentioned rationale in his opinion this project did not qualify for a maximum density under this land use designation. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with respect to the pool issue, that the availability of the pool to the Swim Club was a community benefit; with respect to the provision of the on-site amenities (i.e., the pool, tot lots, barbecues), noted that these proposals would lessen the impact on the community parks and recreational facilities; with respect to the proposed garages in lieu of carports, relayed that this amenity aided in the creation of an upscale project, providing a multi-housing opportunity that has not been provided with alternate similar projects (siting one exception); with respect to the viewshed issue, concurred with Commissioner Telesio that there was no guarantee that when one purchased property that the adjacent property would remain undeveloped, noting the rights of the property owner to develop their property, advising that grading was a part of this aspect of the property owner's rights; relayed that this project would be an attribute to the community, providing numerous amenities as denoted in the General Plan; and advised that he would support the project. 11 Chairman Guerriero relayed that when the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop was held that he had referenced this project numerous times .since in his opinion this project merited exactly what the General Plan stated, as in Policy 5. 1 (regarding the denoted amenities), advising ~hat after queries to the_Council..for direction, it had been confirmed that the General Plan's denotations for amenities were acceptable, relaying that the GMP was not in contradiction with the General Plan; advised 'that the reason .for people locating *in the City of Temecula was due to the diligent efforts thus far in developing the City; clarified that it was not the City of Temecula's desire to change property rights; commented on the City's efforts to address a multitude of issues when development proceeds (i.e., water and electricity needs); noted the desire of the City to provide housing for all income levels; relayed that he would request the applicant to provide one-percent (1%) of the project for senior housing, and/or Iow-income housing; applauded the developer for increasing the size of the pool to accommodate the Swim Club, advising that the availability to swim clubs should extend for a specific duration (i.e., the life of the project) rather than for a short duration; commented on the loss of view, relaying that this was inevitable with growth in a community, advising that this project had addressed this issue; commended the applicant for the increased landscape plan, advising this was a community amenity; applaudedJhe-developer for the proposed monumentation at the intersections; and relayed that he would support the project, noting that this was a great project; and reiterated his recommendation for the applicant to provide one to two per(~ent (1-2%) of the project for Senior Housing and/or Iow income housing units. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following: Add- The amended conditions recommended by staff (see page 6 of the minutes, specified in Associate Planner Donahoe's staff report presentation). That the applicant work with the Public Works Department in accelerating the modification of the signal at Moraga Road to provide for traffic control for truck traffic. That the applicant's agreement with the Swim Club continue for the life of the project, modifying the arrangement in order to not negatively impact the use for the residents. That the applicant provide two percent (2%) of the units for either Senior or Low/Moderate Income Housing. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion.(Ultimately this motion passed; see page '13.) Mr. Alhadeff noted that he had a handicapped son, and advised that without reservation the applicant has relayed that he would be agreeable to the two percent (2%) provision of housing for seniors and/or iow-moderate income levels; with respect to the pool, relayed the applicant's commitment to make the pool available to the Swim Club; and for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that the applicant would work with staff regarding the 12 specificity of the Agreement recommendations. with the Swim Club in order to address his At this time voice vote was taken, reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster_ who abstained and Commissioner Mathewson who voted n_9o. COMMISSIONER REPORTS No input. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the American Planning Association (APA) would be holding a Planning Commissioners Forum on September 9, 2000, noting that she would have additional information regarding the forum on August 20, 2000. B. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that there would be a tour of developments in Orange County to review developments similar to what was being proposed in ....... the_Harveston Specific Plan;_and invited.two Commissioners to attend the tour. For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Senior Planner Rockholt had resigned, noting that the staff was holding interviews, seeking individuals to fill the position. ADJOURNMENT At 9:32 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, September 6, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, -Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, -- Director of Planning 13 PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DATED AUGUST '1, 2000 l0 2 Growth Manaqement Plan RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff on the density and amenity issues associated with the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Deputy City Manager Thomhill provided an overview of the Council's adoption of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), noting the implementation of the program, relaying that staff and the Commission desired to have additional clarification with respect to Policy No. 2, Section B (regarding the Planning Commission's approval of projects above the lowest densities if the project provided onsite or community amenities), specifically regarding what constitutes an amenity;, and relayed Councilman Naggar's query with respect to the Council's and Commission's view regarding tentative tract and parcel maps that have been previously approved, and are now requesting time extensions. Chairman Guerriero relayed that on the Commission there was not a consensus with respect to what the Council viewed as an emenity; and referenced the General Plan, page 222, Section 5.1 regarding this issue which sited examples of amenities. Mayor Pre Tern Comerohero cladfied that with respect to the Planning Commission's approval of the lowest density-levels,-that~he GMP-pertained to Specific-Plans and large development plans; noted that the Council was seeking, in terms of amenities, major infrastructure impr~o_vements, and community benefits; clarified that the policy was not a mandate to approve projects solely at the lowest density range, noting his concern if there was no flexibility in the approval process; and recommended that although guidelines were necessary, each project should be approved on a case-by-case basis. Councilman Naggar relayed that his recommendation would be to not add additional specificity to the guidelines, but that the Planning Commission should initially consider the minimum densities in relation to the project's benefits to the community; advised that he had every confidence that the Planning Commission could adequately make the determination whether the qualifying amenities were certain road improvements, or other community assets; concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's comments, that the City did not desire to limit development stdctly based solely on the lowest densities (siting Mayor Pre Tern Comerchero's example that if a developer proposed a project with higher densities while offedng to build a City Library), and that the City did not desire to remove all flexibility, basing approval only on the lowest end of the density range if the project had alternate medts. In addition to referencing the amenities denoted in the General Plan, Chairman Guerdero provided examples of amenities that had been presented to the Commission on previous projects (i.e., a community pool which was increased in size and permitted via wdtten agreement to be utilized by the Swim Team, and specific road improvements); clarified that the Commissioners' opinion differed with respect to qualifying amenities, relayed that in his opinion additional landscaping should be a qualifying amenity, siting a project that had been presented which proposed a forty-seven percent (47%) landscape plan in lieu of the twenty percent (20%) requirement, advising that at this time there was no data to support this asset as a qualifying amenity. Referencing the GMP, and the General Plan, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried that vadance in the language of the documents, noting that the General Plan reflected that the target density was mid-range, while the GMP reflected that the target range was the lowest range, questioning R:PlanComm~tinutes~080100 5 whether the General Plan needed to be amended to reflect the GMP guidelines. In response, City Attorney Thorson advised that the GMP indicated that each project shall be considered on its own medt in accordance with the General Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance, confirming Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments that the direction of the GMP in Section 2, B, was for the Planning Commission to consider approval with these guidelines; specified that the direction was for the Planning Commission to focus on whether or not the density was creating a negative impact, and whether or not there could be Findings under the_General .Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to address this factor;, clarified that the GMP was not an amendment to the General Plan, and therefore could not compel the Commission or the Council to solely approve a project at the lowest density; and provided additional information regarding staffs direction to developers. Referencing the General Plan which stated that Future residential development is expected to occur at the target levels of density, as stated in the table (which denoted mid-range densities), Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that if this was not the City's desire, that the General Plan should be amended. In response, City Attorney Thorson clarified that the General Plan did not state that the density would be mid-range, but that it was expected; relayed that on a case- by-case basis each project would be reviewed in order to determine if the densities proposed were appropriate under those certain cimumstances, and to determine the impacts to the community. Councilman Naggar relayed that with respect to the General Plan density table figures which were previously referenced, that he interpreted that to mean that these figures would represent the expected average densities with Citywide development; noted that he viewed the GMP as a philosophy that the Council was communicating to the Planning Commission, relaying that upon review of_development proposals the Council would begin with the concept of approving projects in the lower density level, but would take into account other aspects of the project. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the General Plan was specific in that the expected density was the mid-range, based on the previously mentioned table, advising that a process was followed with the development of that language in the General Plan at that point in time; and reiterated his recommendation that if there was a change in the Council's philosophy, that the new policy ought to go through the same process. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the referenced density range (via the General Plan) did not apply to medium and high density, advising that it was it was the desire to not discourage the development of affordable housing. In light of the desire to not discourage development of affordable housing, Commissioner Mathewson queried how a high density development proposal that would have rents not qualifying for affordable housing should be viewed; and queried whether the target range would be applicable in a case such as this. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero relayed that in the past, the Commission had questioned whether an applicant would be willing to designate a portion of a development for senior housing or iow-income housing, advising that if the applicant was not agreeable that this would eliminate one of the amenities that the City was seeking. Chairman Guerriero advised that the Commission desired to have a more definitive direction with respect to the specific amenities that would qualify for approving a higher density, or to incorporate a General Plan amendment. R:PlanComm~Vlinutes~080100 6 Councilman Pratt advised that in his opinion the Planning Commission was qualified to struggle with these issues in determining whether or not a project should be approved; and noted that since the future held additional growth in the City there would need to be plans for improvement with respect to transportation issues. For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thomhill clarified the density levels represented on the referenced table in the General Plan, noting that due to the calculations the City utilized in the circulation modeling that there was a buffer, since the medium and high-density projects have never been developed at the highest level; relayed that if it was the desire of the Council to amend~the,General Plan-in .order to' revise the target density-levels, that there would still be flexibility within that range during the approval process; recommended processing an amendment to the General Plan prior to the update process in order to create clarity with respect to targeted densities, noting that staff needed information in order to direct applicants who would begin planning projects that could encompass a one to one-and-half year pedod of time. Mr. Robert Oder, representing Mira Loma Apartments, relayed his concern with the lack of definition of what the Council considered an amenity with respect to an apartment complex, or rental housing; advised that there was a universal understanding in the industry that an amenity was an asset to the property which enabled the property owner to receive higher rents (i.e., swimming pool, recreation center, microwave ovens); referencing the Temecula Ridge project, noted that this proposal had multiple amenities; and concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments that the GMP appears to state that the lowest density range was the desire of the Council, whereas the General Plan codifies what has to be-done, relaying that he would be more comf~)rtable applying the GMP if it was submitted to the same review procedure as the G_eneral Plan ...... In response to Mr. Oder, and for informational purposes, Councilman Naggar commented on the Temecula Ridge Project, noting that this proposal was near the high end of the density range; and relayed that he could support changing the term amenity, noting that in his opinion the amenities the Council were seeking were for the purpose of attaining community value. Councilman Roberts relayed that in his opinion, amenities could refer to internal amenities that would reduce the generation of traffic (i.e., a proposed 25-meter pool, a large tot lot, and barbecues) which would reduce the need to leave the complex. Mayor Pre Tern Comerchero relayed that it was clear to him that the term amenity was not viewed the same by the Council as it was by the apartment development industry, advising that it might be appropriate for the GMP to change the word amenity;, and noted that the Council, when adopting the GMP, was seeking major community Citywide amenities, relaying a desire to clarify this issue. In response, Mr. Oder relayed that an apartment complex with multiple amenities-created-a-higher~quality-of-lifeyandthereby was an-improvement to the community. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Oder relayed that it was his opinion that including affordable housing in a luxury apartment project (i.e., the Temecula Ridge Project) would not be appropriate, noting that it was his opinion that Iow income housing was better suited in single detached dwellings. Mr. William Griffith, representing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, viewed the GMP as an implementation document via growth management (i.e., balancing the issue of establishing roads, and ensuring adequate traffic circulation); noted that the General Plan was a legislative document providing density ranges, identifying amenities, trade-off elements, and housing R:PlanCommV~'linutes~080100 7 elements; noted his difficulty with Section B1 of the GMP due to the application process, the environmental review, and the design of infrastructure; noted the confusion with respect to when a development application was deemed complete, relaying the process; noted that per an anonymous phone call to staff, it had been relayed that the densities were to be at the lowest end of the range in future development proposals; provided an overview of the proposals in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, noting the planning period of approximately two years; and recommended that the GMP andthe General Plan be disconnected, reiterating that the GMP was solely an implementation tool. -~Mr;' Barton Buchalter, 300(90 Block of. Rancho:Califomia~Road? relayed~that from a developer's standpoint, if it was the desire of the Council to approve projects at the lowest densities that the General Plan should be amended, noting that there was certainty needed which would affect property dghts, and the individual's due process; opposed the inconsistencies between the GMP and the General Plan, reiterating his recommendation that the General Plan be amended in order to create an equitable situation for developers; noted that required amenities should be differentiated on smaller sites; relayed the acceptable density ranges in alternate areas (i.e., the City of Irvine); and advised that the City may lose quality development if this issue was not resolved. Councilman Pratt relayed his support of the GMP, noting the importance of the community's comments with respect to the issue of growth management. Councilman Naggar relayed that he did not view the GMP as inconsistent to the General Plan, .'noting-that if the viewedinconsistency had been_the_target density, that this issue had been clarified; with respect to Mr. Griffith's queries, recommended that when preparing a project for .the-approval process~that_the_developer ensure_that.if_the densities were higher than the lowest range that there be an accompanying excellent project package (i.e., road improvements, fire stations, libraries); and reiterated that the GMP was a philosophy, relaying that if growth was not managed it could create a crisis situation especially in light of the County's developmental impacts on the City of Temecula. in response to Councilman Roberts, City Attorney Thorson relayed that the GMP specified that each project must be determined on its own merit in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and with State and Federal Law, advising that there was not a conflict with the General Plan, noting that it would not create legal liability issues. Mayor Pro Tem Comerohero concurred with Councilman Naggar, noting that he did not view the GMP as inconsistent with the General Plan, clarifying that the language of the GMP stated direct the Planning Commission to consider, advised that the Council's direction to the Planning Commission was that the Council trusted the Commission to make the decisions within the parameters of the direction provided; clarified that the direction was for the Planning -' C~-mmission to initially consider development at the Iow end of the density range and to take into account proposed community benefits; with respect to the amenities represented in the General Plan which Chairman Guerriero had presented, noted that he concurred that those denotations as acceptable amenities; and relayed that the target density level could still be the mid-range if thera were community benefits proposed with the project. Chairman Guerriero clarified that the density issue was not the issue needing clarification, advising that the matter of confusion was with respect to a clear definition of qualifying amenities; noted that if the Council desired to utilize the 11 amenities denoted in the General Plan, that the Planning Commission could move forward with a clearer understanding; recommended adding an additional qualifying amenity to the list: an increased percentage of R:PlanComrn~Minutes~080100 8 landscaping, relaying that in his opinion if a project proposed an approximate fifty percent (50%) landscape plan this amenity should qualify as a community asset. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mayor Pm Tern Comerchero advised that the Council did not desire to limit the qualifying amenities, directing the Commission to determine whether a proposed amenity qualified as a community benefit. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that with respect to the amenity of proposed increased landscaping, that there would need to be a balance on a case-by-case basis, advising that there :may be projects'that-have significant:impacts on the site(i.e.~-significant grading impacts), reiterating the need for a balancing effect; relayed that he could move forward with the Council's direction, noting that the GMP did not state shall consider, but may consider, advising that there was flexibility; and with respect to qualifying amenities, concurred with Councilman Roberts' comments that a reduction in the generation of vehicular trips should be considered an amenity, while noting that some amenities (i.e., a swimming pool ) could reduce trips for residents not needing to leave the complex, that if the facility was open to the public it could also be an attractor of traffic. Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred that a reduction in vehicular trips was a public benef'~; relayed that it was his opinion that there was a lack of information available to the development community; noted that via the development community, roads, houses and commercial centers were.built in-a.community,-advisingthat in-his opinion-the City owed the developers a-fiduciary responsibility to have a degree of certainty as to a more specific direction with respect to densities; noted that the-General Plan was not clear if in the approval process the GMP was included; r-ei~r~ted that the General Plan specifically stated that the target density was mid- range, relaying that in exchange for special public benefits the Council and the Planning Commission might allow the densities to be between the target density and the maximum density; advised that due to the explicit direction in the General Plan, that if the densities desired have changed, the General Plan should be amended; noted that it was the Planning Commission's charge to enforce the guidelines and policies in the General Plan; relayed that in his opinion, the Council's direction was leaving the development community in a no-man's-land; and recommended that if the Council's desire was to have a Growth Management Policy it should be part of the General Plan. At Councilman Naggar's request, City Attomey Thorson noted the preceding policies of the General Plan which listed eight or nine policies to be considered; clarified that the General Plan addressed a range of densities, not specifying one density for each land use area; advised that the General Plan provided a mechanism to determine the manner that densities would be adjusted in the preceding policies; confirmed that it stated that the expected target density range was mid-range, advising that guidelines could be developed determining the evaluation of varying densities; and relayed that the General Plan was acceptable, as written, as a legal ~inimum. -- Advising that it was not his desire that anyone should be left in a no-man's-land, Councilman Naggar advised that any individual who was considering making a sizeable investment by virtue of development in this City, one should be able to bank on something, and to have a certain degree of certainty. Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated the lack of clarification with the direction for developers to pursue. R:PlanComm~linutes~380100 g In response to discussion comments, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that most of the apartment projects that have been constructed in the City of Temecula have been in the 14-16 units per acre range, advising that to the best of his knowledge there were no development projects close to the 20 units per acre range. In response to City Manager Nelson's queries with respect to the consistency of the GMP with the General Plan, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that While he concurred with City. Attorney Thorson's comments from a legal perspective, that from a planner's point of view it was his preference that there be certainty in the General Plan, and that the language of the General Plan*(which~was~the bible for development direction for developers) clarify,the basic policy standards; recommended that the language of the General Plan include additional specificity with respect to the amenities; and relayed that clarification would aid in staff's communication with the developers. _In response to Mayor Pm Tern Comerchero, Deputy City Manager Thomhill confirmed that if the amenities were more clearly defined there would still not be absolute certainty, but that the ambiguity would be reduced if there were no conflicts between the General Plan and the GMP; and advised that if the two documents (the General Plan and the GMP) were consistent, then the negotiations could begin with the amenities issue. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero suggested that there be development of a matrix, whereby 20 qualifying amenities could be denoted, and prioritized in order of the most important assets to the community, and then have that data be placed in the form of a table; noted that it could be __ specified that_for a certain amenity_t_here_ could a be certain percent increase in.density. In response' Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that this was a feasible concept, noting that _staff. could_work_with_the_CommissJon.and_bring fo~vard_to_theCouncil recommendations. Councilman Pratt commented on the importance of the concepts expressed from the community residents with respect to growth management. Councilman Naggar relayed that although the City Council could meet to determine additional specificity with respect to qualifying amenities, that it would reduce the flexibility the Planning Commission currently had, querying whether that was the desire of the Commission; and noted that he could support the concept of developing a matrix table as suggested by Mayor Pre Tern Comerchero. Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with respect to identifying specific standards, advising that General Plans were intended to be general; noted that there was subjectivity in the approval process; and relayed that if standards were further specified, the approval process may be bound to specifics that were not applicable for some projects, while clarifying that he would support expanding the list of qualifying amenities. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that while the General Plan did not have to have language that was specific, it should provide guidance with respect to siting the amenities that would be considered when approving densities above the densities outlined in the General Plan; and recommended that dudng the General Plan update process that there be revisions to reconcile the GMP with the densities, and to provide what community benefits (i.e., trip reductions) could be utilized to offset increase in densities. In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with clear direction in the General Plan, the approval process would still have flexibility. R:PlanComrn~linutes~080100 10 Commissioner Telesio relayed the desire to review the projects with definite guidelines on a case-by-case basis, with an element of flexibility; and advised that after discussion of this issue, he felt comfortable to move forward with the General Plan and GMP, as written. Mayor Stone relayed his complete confidence in the Planning Commission; reiterated that he was a strong supporter of property dghts and due process; noted that it was not his desire to limit the approval process with the development of a matdx table; concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff' comments that there was confusion with respect to the General Plan and the GMP, relaying that potential land buyers should be able to have certain expectations, advising that thero.was aconflict:betweenthe legal verbiage and expectations,* recommending that the language be clarified so that a potential land buyer could have provision of expectations within a certain range. Councilman Roberts relayed that he did not support the matdx concept, noting that the latitude in the approval process was necessary. Councilman Naggar commented on the balance between approving greater densities and the amenities a developer proposed; and recommended leaving that discretion to the Planning Commission. -- - In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's quedes, Chairman Guerfiero relayed that if it was ._the City_Council'.s. desire.to grant.latitude to the Planning Commission.to determine.whether the amenities proposed qualified for approving higher densities, that he could move forward with that direction. ..-- In concurrence with May_oF Stone's comme~nts, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that when the update process took place that clarification be added with respect to the relationship of the GMP to the General Plan; and relayed that he felt comfortable to move fonvard with the approval process with his interpretation of the GMP and the General Plan. Mayor Stone queried whether the Commission was clear that the Commission could grant a density incentive for an on-site improvement proposed to be utilized solely for the residents living in the project. In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could support granting density incentives for on-site improvements due to fact that a better quality development would be a benefit to the community. In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the discussion comments regarding provision of density incentives; and relayed the importance of the planning staff having a clear understanding of the development expectations since staff would be addressing -future applicants. Councilman Naggar commented on on-site amenities, clarifying that the City desired quality development and that in his opinion microwave ovens or tile floors would not be qualifying amenities. Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that within the subjective judgement of the Planning Commission, certain amenities would carry greater weight than others (i.e., an amenity that benefited the entire community rather than one that benefited solely the project's residents). R:PlanComm~Vlinutes~:)801 O0 11 Chairman Guerriero recommended that with projects that were highly visible in the community that there be consideration to require some type of a landscape monumentation or a statement element; and provided additional information regarding the visual buffer landscaping could provide. In response to Mayor Stone's previous query regarding a development's provision of an on-site amenity (i.e., a pool), Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would balance the amenity with how it benefited the community, as a whole. =lt was-noted-that-at 8:42. P:M. the,meeting recessed,-reconvening at' 8:59 P:M.,~- '. -' = · Deputy City Manager Thomhill reiterated the request for the City Council to provide direction with respect to requests for time extensions on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps; and provided an overview of the existing review process of granting the extensions. ~uur~iiman Naggar recommended that the Planning Director consider the GMP when considering the request of the time extensions. In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed opposition to changing allowable densities on a previously approved map, advising that the landowner would lose entitlements they had previously obtained; and noted that most likely numerous maps would expirewithrespect to the-ability-to-request-time extensions-during the next two-to-three year period. .... Co-unciiman Naggar advised that the landowner would be able to maintain the density level if __.theree_were.proposed_amenifies.(i.e.,_horse-trails) ....... Councilman Roberts, echoed by Mayor Stone, recommended that the process of approving the map time extensions remain, as is. In response to Councilman Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thomhill advised that when reviewing the time extensions that staff reviewed the projects with respect to the State Law that pertained to granting those extensions, considering whether it was consistent with the General Plan and whether there were public health and safety issues that may exist now that did not exist at the time of the approval, ensuring that the maps appropriately addressed these two issues. For Councilman Pratt, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed staff's efforts to ensure that trail easements were obtained on properties adjacent to the creeks. Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that if there were areas of concern in the review process that staff would bump up the approval process of the time extension request to the Planning Commission level. City Attorney Thorson relayed that the City could not condition a map extension, advising that it could either be granted or denied, while noting that the property owner could agree to a condition; provided additional information regarding the remaining lots; advised that when a request for a time extension was submitted, that there was an automatic 60-day extension per State Law, noting that the final map could be perfected during the period, bypassing the extension process altogether, noted that if the City requested trails, there would have to be Findings to justify the fact that there were different circumstances at this time that did not exist R:PlanComm~Jlinutes~080100 12 when the map was approved; and for Councilman Naggar, provided additional information regarding the trail system being added to the General Plan. 3 General Plan Progress Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Provide comments on the Elements (i.e. Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management) that should be examined during the update of the City's General~Plan. *'~,~..~'~ ~: ~-?,~;'~- :- .. --~--;~ ' '~ '-- ~ - -' -~ *' ...... ,7 -. Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the request for input from the Commission and the Council with respect to the General Plan update; relayed that the matters staff had preliminary identified for addressing were with respect to the following: 1) the landfill land issues, specifically with regard to the remaining vacant land, 2) the process of addressing Open Space preservation issues, 3) investigating alternate transit options, 4) addressing built-out traffic conditions, 5) investigating the effect of regional growth issues, and 6)ultimately to research the sustainability of the community; relayed that the new traffic analysis Would be conducted intersection-based rather than road segment-based; advised that staff would request the consultant to provide a ten-year infrastructure recommendation; relayed that there would be additional noise and air quality studies; and reiterated the request for the --Commission and the-Councillo.provide input.withrespect~to any. policies,-focuses,.or issues to address at this time in the updating process. Councilman Roberts recommended that there be a Transit Element investigated during the General Pla_n update process in order to consider the feasibility of the matter, noting that Councilman Pratt had made recommendations in the past regarding this issue. For Councilman Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thomhill confirmed that there was a transit corridor on Winchester Road, relaying that staff has been ensuring provision of those easements as development occurs. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed concurrence with including a Transit Element in the update, advising that it should be tied into the Land Use Element, specifically with regard to the relationship between the two; in response to Senior Planner Hogan's query, noted that it was his opinion that the General Plan should, additionally, address ar~ in public places. Chairman Guerriero recommended that there be investigation with respect to underground parking facilities (i.e., in the Old Town area, or in the second phase of the mall), and to investigate tunneling (underpasses) as opposed to overpasses (i.e., in the Highway 79 area); and recommended that the City develop specified truck reutes. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that Land Use, Circulation, and the Growth Management clarification be addressed, as well as the Community Design Element, specifically with respect to architecture, landscaping, and monumentation; recommended that the Open Space Element address recreational facilities; and with respect to the Housing Element, recommended investigating financial transfers to alternate communities in order to address the regional housing impacts, querying the Council for their input regarding this issue. In response to Mayor Stone, City Attorney Thorson relayed that staff could bring back the issue of financial transfers in order to provide the Council with additional background inforrnation. R:PlanComm~linutes~380100 13 W~th respect to the Western Bypass Project, Councilman Pratt recommended that in order to accommodate the area on the western portion of the creek, that there be a circular circulation route (creating a circular route around the City) whereby the Sport's Park would be accessible from alternate portions of the City without travelling through the center of town. Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding the Community Design and Architecture Element, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that while the larger projects were scrutinized with respect to this issue that there be closer attention paid to the smaller projects, as well; and recommended that a major issue needing to be addressed in the update was the of influence ....................... ' .....= ~ :- *- ~' .sphere~ : .~ ~ ~ -, _=~,..,..=.~,. ...... _ ...... In response to Councilman Naggar, with respect to transit issues, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while it was possibly too late for the planning of fixed routes, that there were numerous options for non-fixed routes. With respect to the process of updating the General Plan, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that there be efforts to incorporate citizen involvement (i.e., workshops in neighborhoods). In response, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that staff had involved the community during the last update, confirming that this was an integral part of the process, noting that staff would incorporate community involvement. -Councilman-Naggar relayed-the-importance of expediting the process of completing the update. Mayor Stone relayed that this Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop had been productive, recommending that the workshops be held at a minimum of twice a year. ADJOURNMENT At 9:28 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and Mayor Stone formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesday, August 8, 2000, 7:00 P.M., and to the next Planning~Commission regular meeting on Wednesday, Aul3ust 2, 2000, 6:00 P.M., City Coun(~il Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director R:PlanComm~lin utes~080100 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 16, 2000 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION - ~,~gu~t~6~2000 ~ Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission 1. ADOPT a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0317; 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS) THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. STATUS PA 99-0317 was heard by the Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 at which time the Commission continued the matter and asked staff to address their concerns with respect to the Growth Management Program Action Plan. While Commissioners favored the project's design, they were concerned that the project might not be consistent with the Growth Management Program Action Plan adopted by the City Council on March 21, 2000. The Action Plan directs the Planning Commission to consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category. The project's density of 11.7 dwelling units per acre is clearly not at the lowest allowable density range. However, the Growth Management Action Plan states that the Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project provides onsite or community amenities. Commissioners requested clarification as to exactly what was meant by "onsite or community amenities." F:~Depts~PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-O0.doc 1 In an effort to provide further direction to the Commission, staff held meetings with the Cit~ Attorney and the Council General Plan Update Subcommittee members. At the end of their May 30'" meeting, the Subcommittee requested that the Commission continue the matter to July 5, 2000. On June 27, 2000, the full Council discussed the matter further and scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. This_meeting was_held_on.A_ ugust _1_,. 20_0_0_,. at wh'~e Council directed the Commission to consider each project on a case-by-case basis and to determine what factors make the project a valuable asset to the community. The Council noted that there were no hard-and-fast rules regarding these factors, and understood that the Commission would employ creativity, flexibility and subjectivity in their decision-making. Density Analysis The General Plan designation for the site is M-Medium Density Residential, which has a density range of 7-12 dwelling units per acre. With a net acreage of 20.88, the site can support 146 units at the lowest range of 7 dwelling units per acre, and 251 units at the highest range of 12 dwelling units per acre. With 246 units proposed, the density for the project is 11.7 units per acre. While the proposed density is within the range of the Medium Density designation, it exceeds the target density for the designation. If the project were to meet the target density of 9.5 dwelling units per acre, it would have to propose 198 units, a decrease of 48 units. However, the General Plan states that the target density does not apply to the Medium and High designations, in order for the City to ensure consistency with the Housing Element. Project Assets 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 269 Fully enclosed garages for all units (no carports) 43.2% of the site is landscaped 7,880 square foot Clubhouse 2,162 square foot Workout facility Olympic-sized swimming pool, spa, sundeck and arbor Outdoor fireplace and barbecue Tot lot with play equipment, seating and passive open space Car wash area Comer monumentations Enhanced ledger stone entries with decorative pavement and arbors Enhanced slope and berm screening and security fencing adjacent to single family residences Widening of Moraga Road off-site to accommodate turning lanes Provision for a bus turnout on Rancho California Road in front of the project 115-foot Greenbelt along Rancho California Road Swim facility available to the local Swim Club for practices and workouts. Rear Yard Perimeter Fencin.q During the public testimony on May 3rd, the applicant indicated that he and the adjacent property owner to the south had agreed upon increasing the wrought iron fence height from 6 feet to 8 feet in order to reduce the amount of trespassing and vandalism in the area. Due to the location of the proposed fence line at the bottom of the project slope, staff concurs with the additional height and has added a condition of approval that the applicant provide a revised Exhibit H-3 reflecting this change. F:"~epts~PLANNING'~O P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT. PC 8-16-00,doc 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Environmental Study (lES) was prepared for the project, which determined that the proposal could potentially affect land use and planning, geology_and soils,_water, _biological ..... resources, noise, and cultural resources. However, these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures previously agreed to and incorporated into the project. On the basis of such inclusion, any:l~(St~ritially-~i[jnifi~ant impa-ctsfare mitigatbd and reduced to insignificant levels. Accordingly it is recommended the Planning Commission adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the project. The lES for the project was sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in order that the State Clearinghouse circulate the document for public review for a 30-day period. One response from the State Department of Fish and Game was received, and a response to that agency was prepared. As a result, the lES has been revised to include a minor revision regarding jurisdictional wetlands and a detailed discussion of alternatives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage scrub habitat. Subsequent to the close of the review period for the lES, staff received correspondence from the Pechanga Cultural Resources supervisor, John A. Gomez, Jr., dated May 3, 2000. He requested that a complete walkover of the project site be required as mitigation to identify any cultural or archaeological resources that may have been exposed during the twelve years of weather and erosion since the Archaeological Assessment was completed in 1988. Staff finds that this request is both reasonable and appropriate due to the ridge location of the property. When apprised of the request, the applicant's-representative had no objections. Staff has amended both the lES and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to include this measure. In accordance with Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption, of the California Environmental Quality Act's CEQA Guidelines, staff has concluded that the revision to the lES is not considered substantial because: 1) A new, avoidable significant effect has not been identified. 2) No new measures are required. 3) New information has been added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends approval of the project because it is consistent with the City's General Plan, ~)e~-el(~p-m~nt-Code and-Design-Guidelines; Analysis-of-the-project-with-regards to-access and circulation, inter/ace with adjacent properties, architectural design, signage, traffic and grading are described in Staff's Report to the Planning Commission dated May 3, 2000 (see Attachment 4). The design of the project, the amenities offered, the architecture and materials, and the landscaping proposed are equal to or superior to the previously approved project for the site, Plot Plan No. 10864. Concerns regarding the project's compatibility with adjacent properties, traffic impacts, and grading have been addressed by the design of the project, conditions of approval imposed upon the project, and by the revised mitigation monitoring program attached to the project as a result of the revised Initial Environmental Study. F:~Depts~PLANNING'~D P~99-0317 Temecuta Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.doc 3 FINDINGS 1. The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes a density of 1_!.78 ~hich is within the ra_nge_, s~pecified. It is in conformance with the policies as stated in the General Plan and with all applicable requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City including the Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 ~_- --~(Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Eandscaping Ordinance.-- The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. 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, Growth Management Program Action Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping Ordinances. 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. Access and circulation are adequate for the general public and for emergency ..... vehicles. Attachments: __1.__ PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 6 -2. __Re¥isedlnitial Environmental Study- Blue Page 7 3. Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 8 4. Staff Report dated May 3, 2000 - Blue Page 9 5. Excerpts from the Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 2000 - Blue Page 10 F:~DepIs',PLANNING~D p~99-0317 Temecuia Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT,PC 8-16-00.doc 4 ...... A'TTACHMENT NO::1 - PC RESOLUTION NO;-00- F:~epts~PLANNING~ PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 0g- A RESOLUTION _OF THE PLA ~NNLN_G_ C_OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS)-~-?.THE ..DESIGN, ..CONSTRUCTION AND- --*. OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD~-~,I~D-I~NowN AS A~-sESSOR'S PARCEL NO~ .... 944-290-011, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, AGK Group LLC filed Planning Application No. 99-0317 Development Plan (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the _P!_annin_g_C_ommission, at regular meetings, considered the Application, on M~y 3, June 7, JulyS, and August 16, 2000, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testi~ either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findin,qs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City including the Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes a density of 11.78 which is within the range specified. F:\Dep~s\PLANNING\D P\99~317 Temecula Ridge Apls~RES-Dp. Pc 8-16-00.doc 1 B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. 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, Growth Management Program Action Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with jih_ese documents and conditions of__ap_pr~oval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Access and circulation are adequate for the general public and for emergency vehicles. Section 3. Envircnmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study (lES) was prepared for the project, which determined that the proposal could potentially affect land use planning, geology and soils, water, biological resources, noise, and cultural resources. However, these affects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures previously agreed to and incorporated into the project. On the basis of such inclusion, any potentially significant impacts are mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels. Accordingly it has been recommended the Planning Commission adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the project. This Planning Commission hereby find that, on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and further that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgement and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project and further adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program related thereto. The records and · materials relied upon are within the possession of the Planning Manager of the City of Temecula. The lES for the project was sent ~o the Governor'~ Office of Planning and Research, in order that the State Clearinghouse circulate the doc_ument fo_r public review for a 30-day period. One response from the State Department of Fish and Game was received, and a response to that agency was prepared, which included a minor revision to the lES regarding jurisdictional wetlands, and a more detailed discussion of alternatives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage scrub habitat identified on the project site. Subsequent to the close of the review period for the lES, staff received correspondence from the Pechanga Cultural Resources supervisor, John A. Gomez, Jr., dated May 3, 2000. He requested that a complete walkover of the project site be required as mitigation to identify any cultural or archaeological resources that may have been exposed during the twelve years of weather and erosion since the Archaeological Assessment was completed in 1988. Staff finds that this request is both reasonable and appropriate due to the ridge location of the property. When apprised of the request, the applicant's representative had no objections. Staff has amended both the lES and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to include this measure. In accordance with Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption, of the California Environmental Quality Act's CEQA Guidelines, staff has concluded that the revision to the lES is not considered substantial because: 1) A new, avoidable significant effect has not been identified. 2) No new measures are required. 3) New information has been added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. This Planning Commission further finds that the amended mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program are the equivalent of, or more effective than, the originally prepared mitigation measures and conditions of approval I the mitigation of potentially significant effects on F:~Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~RES-DP.!~C 8-16-00.doc 2 the environment and further finds that the substitute measures will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4..Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally approves the Ap~p~lication for the design, construction and operation of a 246-unit, two and three story apartment (~omplex with pool, clubh~Ju-s~,workout buil~ling ~fi~l-t~t 15t~ appr~i~t~l~-2~c~eS, located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the intersection of Rancho Califomia Roadand Moraga Road, and known_as.Assessor?Paine! No. ?.~. 290-011, 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 sixteenth day of August, 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 sixteenth day of August, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: - PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Tcmecula Ridge Apts~RES-DP.PC 8- ! 6-00.dec 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 REVISED INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY F:~Depts~PLANNING~D PLUg-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 8-1~-00.doc 7 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist ....... Revised 7~5-00 Project Title Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula ....... Ridge Apartments - Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Carole Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location South side of Rancho California Road (RCR), at the southeast quadrant of RCR and Moraga Road extended (APN:944-290-011) Project Sponsor's Name and Address AGK Group, LLS 35411 Paseo Viento Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 General Plan Designation "M" Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre) Zoning "M" Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units per acre) Description of Project The design, construction and operation of 246 apartment units in two and three story structures, along with one-story garage structures and common recreation facilities including a clubhouse, pool, spa, work-out room and tot lot, all on 20.88 acres. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The property ~s an east-west trending ridge that fronts upon Rancho California Road. Existing apartments are located directly to the south and southwest, and on the opposite side of Rancho California Road to the north. Vacant land slated for office development is located to the east and west, and a single-family neighborhood abuts the southeast corner of the property. Other public agencies whose approval County Department of Environmental Health, County Flood Control is required and Water Conservation District, Regional Water quality Control Board, Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. F:\Depts~PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Hazards Population and Housing Noise Geology and Soils Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significanee X None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared V' 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. Date Revisions dated July 5, 2000: Signature: Carole ~. [3onahoe, AICP July 5, 2000 F:~/3epts~PLANNING\D p~9~0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 2 1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: ' V' a. Physically divide an established community? ,/ b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction oyer 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 mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or V' natural community conservation plan? Comments: 1 .a: The property is an in-fill site on a major thoroughfare and surrounded by existing and proposed urban development. The property is adjoining an existing single family neighborhood to the southeast, and is abutting areas developed with or slated for multiple family or office development to the east, west and south. The development of this site with apartments, along with other apartments, office development and associated uses a ong the Rancho C_ali_fom!_a Ro_a_d ~;orri_dor,.~has no_. potential to physically divide an established community. 1 .b: The project site is designated in the ~it-y o~-'¢eme-(~l~:(~e~eral PlAn and De~/elopment Code for Medium Density Residential development (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project is proposed at 11.78 dwelling units per a(Jre and is therefore within the use and maximum density parameters established by the underlying planning and zoning for the property. The project is subject to review by City Staff and approval by the City of Temecula Planning Commission to determine its consistency with other applicable policies, guidelines and standards of the General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. Review by Staff and approval of the project by the Planning Commission will ensure consistency with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations. 1 .C: The project site is located in the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan and will be required to pay applicable SKR mitigation fees prior to grading. The site is not identified as part of any other habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The payment of the standard SKR mitigation fee results in a less than significant impact. F:~Depts~LANNING\D P',99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. 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)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 2.a- The City General Plan designates the property for Medium Density Residential development. Since the project is consistent with this designation it will not induce population growth beyond that envisioned in the General Plan, and since it is an in-fill project with all major roads, utilities and other infrastructure in place; a less than significant impact is anticipated from the population growth resulting from the project. 2.b.c: The project site is presently vacant and unoccupied. Thus the project has no potential to impact or displace any housing or residents or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. F:\Depts~LANNING\D p~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00. doc 4 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) 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? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?. Comments: 3.a.i-iii: According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Temecula is in Groundshaking Zone ii which will experience moderate to intense groundshaking in the event of a major regional earthquake. The site, however, does not lie within or immediately adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor within or immediately adjacent to an identified Liquefaction Hazard Area. According to a Geotechnical investigation completed for the project by CHJ (June 1999) no active faults are shown on or in the immediate vicinity of the site on the published geologic maps, and no evidence of active faulting on or immediately adjacent to the site was observed during the geologic field reconnaissance or on the aerial photographs reviewed. Further, the potential for liquefaction is expected to be negligible provided the site is graded in accordance with the recommendations in the CHJ report. The potential for an adverse impact from groundshaking and liquefaction is therefore considered less than significant. 3.a.iv.b.c.d: According to the CHJ investigation, both cut and fill slopes on the property should be stable from landslides, although a small possibility exists that remedial measures such as buttress or stabilization fills may be recommended during grading if unfavorable geologic conditions are exposed in cut slopes. However, on-site soils are susceptible to erosion, subsidence and "medium" expansion. Loose to medium dense young alluvial soils within the drainages and colluvial soils on the hillsides will have to F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P',.99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 5 3oe: be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Also, on-site drainage will need to be designed and maintained so as to prevent water from running across site and slope faces and causing erosion, and unpaved surfaces should be planted immediately to stabilize the soils. With the incorporation into the project of these and the other recommendations in the CHJ report, including the requirement that grading operations be monitored by an Engineering Geologist, any potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. The project site will be served by a sewer collection system so there is no potential for the site to have adverse impacts related to use of subsurface wastewater disposal systems. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 6 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. 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 river, 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? h. Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. 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? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Comments: 4.a.f: The project will be required to obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and comply with the requirements of a 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 reduced to a level of insignificance. 4.b: The project site is located on a ridge which does not serve as a recharge location for surface runoff, nor does the project include the extraction of groundwater. Therefore, the project has no potential to adversely interfere with groundwater or groundwater recharge. The General Plan EIR addresses water demand from development in the City of Temecula. The GPEIR concludes that cumulative water F:\Depts~PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00,doc 7 demand within the City can be met by the City's two purveyors without having a significant adverse impact on the environment, including depletion of the areas groundwater supplies. Therefore, the proposed project will not contribute to a significant cumulative, indirect adverse impact on the area groundwater aquifers. 4.c.d.e: The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or result in 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. However, previous drainage patterns will be altered by grading and drainage structures, and previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by the construction of buildings and paved surfaces. While drainage patterns and absorption rates and surface runoff will be modified, potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the implementation of measures and/or improvements recommended by a Drainage Study which will be required as a condition of project approval. Potentially significant erosion and siltation issues will be addressed and mitigated through the implementation of the recommendations of the Drainage Study and the Geotechnical Report discussed under Geology and Soils directly above. 4.g.h.i: The project site is located on a ridge and is not located in the vicinity of any identified lO0-year flood hazard area nor dam inundation area. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards will occur from developing the project site as proposed. 4.j: Since the project is not near any water body and is located on a ridge, no potential exists for the site to be adversely impacted by inundation from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. F:\Depts~LANNING\D P~99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 8 5. 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: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. 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? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: 5.a: The land use designation is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan which has been integrated into the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG's) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Development of the project site with mitigation measures as outlined in the SCAQMD "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" will not conflict with any applicable air quality plan. 5.b: Air quality within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is improving, and development of the proposed medium density project in conformance with the RCPG and AQMP will ensure that the long-term air quality will not be violated. 5.c: The CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains a screening table for operations and construction impacts. The project falls below the threshold for potential cumulative significant air emissions and therefore does not have a potential to cause a significant impact within the basin. The project will be required to comply with standard City regulations to prevent nuisance impacts from grading and construction activities. 5.d.e: None of the activities at the project site will have a potential to generate significant volumes of pollutants or odors or create substantial pollutant or odor concentrations that could harm sensitive receptors or affect a substantial number of people. F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 9 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: i i ::~!}}:.....~!}?::::i i ?: :: i~;~:,~; ~ ~L~ ~ j~f8~.m~j~h ~i : i ii ii :: i i ::: :. i :::.: ii iii!!~ : :. :.ii~m~ ~:: :.::l~a~ ii :i :. ::i~{:.: a. 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? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. 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? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or 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: 6.a.b: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (Revised February 2000) for a project with a total of 454 multiple-family units (including the units constituent to the Temecula Ridge proposal) and a mixed-use retail and commercial village center on the project site and an adjacent 23± acre parcel to the east. The TIA concluded the following regarding the area circulation system impacts: "Under both year 2001 With and Without Project traffic conditions, the intersections of Rancho California Road at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps, at 1-15 Northbound Ramps and at Ynez Road are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., worse than LOS D) during the PM peak hour. With roadway improvements planned at these intersections, and with the opening of Overland Drive overpass ... the three intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, for both the Year 2001 Without Project and With Project traffic conditions." All of the intersection improvements noted above, as well as Overland Drive, have been completed. Consequently, project impacts are considered less than significant as they are within applicable General Plan LOS Standards, and therefore the TIA does not propose any specific measures to mitigate project traffic impacts. The developer will be responsible for extending Moraga Road south between Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas, and for payment of development impact (DIF) fees in accordance with the fee schedule established by the City in order to pay their fair share of area-wide traffic improvements. Based on the data and analysis contained in the TIA, with these measures the proposed project can be implemented without causing significant adverse impacts to the circulation system. F:\Depts\pLANNING\D p~99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 10 6,C: 6.d.e: 6.f: 6.g: The project site is not located near any airport and has no potential to adversely impact any air traffic patterns. Emergency access to the project site and areas directly to the west will be facilitated with the proposed extension of Moraga Road between Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas. Moraga Road will be designed to City standards and thus will not present a hazard resulting from a design feature. Internal circulation has been_designed-to-meet emergency_access~requi~ements ...... The applicant has provided adequate parking spaces to meet the City's Development Code require~nents. The D~velopment Cede requires 504 parking spaces, and 505 have been provided. The project will be conditioned to provide any necessary alternative transportation facilities consistent with the road improvements serving the project site. No conflict or adverse impact to adopted alternative transportation policies, plans or programs is forecast to occur from implementing the proposed project. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 11 Revised 4-12-00 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: ::::iii:.::::: ~li~. i:. i::: :.~ i~:.ii :. ~i~ :. ::i :: ~ : :. :: ! :: :: i:.:i~:l~or.~:.i :. iii~:: :: ::: :: i~l~::. :: 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 regulations1 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 V' biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat V' Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: 7.a: According to a Biological Constraints Report (BCR) prepared by Merkel & Associates (June 1999) the project site contains approximately 8.5 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) and a pair of California Gnatcatchers were identified during field surveys. Therefore, prior to grading the developer will need to obtain an incidental take permit from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in accordance with their correspondence dated September 22, 1999. Consultation with the Service has already been conducted by the applicant, and a determination was made that the applicant could provide mitigation under a project specific incidental take permit (Section 10a consultation) at a 3:1 ratio, including appropriate endowment. If either the AD161 Habitat Conservation Plan or the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan is in place, the applicant can provide mitigation in accordance with these plans. Compliance with the incidental take permit will reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance. A Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) Survey 45-Day Letter Report prepared by Merkel & Associates (June 1999) noted that three patches of potential QCB habitat but no Quino Checkerspot Butterflies were observed within the project area. No impact is therefore anticipated from the project. F:\Depts\PLANNING~D p',99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 12 7.b.c: According to the BCR, the project site does not contain any identifiable stream channels or streambeds. Therefore, development site does not contain any California Department of Fish and Game jurisdictional wetlands subject to 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreements. The project will not impact dparian or wetland resources. 7.d: The project site is surrounded by urban/suburban development and thus provides no regional or local habitat.links or_wildlife_corridors. Jts development~herefore_has no potential _tO. adversely_i_m_.pact wildlife movement, according to the BCR. 7.e: The project will not result-in,,an impact=to,locally designated .biological resources since there are no locally designated resources other than within Old Town Temecula. 7.f: The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Fee Area. The project is required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) which requires the payment of the SKR fee. Payment of the fee results in impacts which are considered less than significant. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 13 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. ' .. Result in the loss of availabiliiy Of a known rfiineral 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? Comments: 8.a.b: According to the General Plan, them am no mineral resources within the City that am identified by the State Department of Mines and Geology as being of regional or statewide significance, nor does the General Plan identify any local mineral resource recovery sites of significant economic value. No impacts are therefore anticipated as a result of the project. F:~Depts~LANNING\D P',99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 14 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the p~bli~: or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or . d sposal of hazardous materials? ................... b. 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? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. 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? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildtands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 9.a: The proposed project will consist of residential uses that do not involve any potential for routine transport or use of hazardous materials or routine generation of hazardous wastes. Therefore, the project has no potential to create a hazard to the public or the environment through its implementation. 9.b: Since no significant quantities of hazardous materials will be used or hazardous wastes generated on the site, no potential exists for significant impacts to the environment from upset or accidental release conditions. 9.c: Since no substantial quantities of hazardous materials or wastes will be handled on the project site, there is no potential to emit hazardous emissions in quantities that could cause a significant public health impact. F:\Depts~PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00,doc 15 9.d: 9.e.f: 9.g: 9.h: The project site is not identified as a contaminated site under Government Code Section 65962.5, and a Phase I Environmental Assessment conducted by DBM Environmental (August 1998) found no evidence of contaminated soil or hazardous materials on the site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip and has no potential to adversely impact airport operations. Rancho California Road is identified in the General Plan as a r~ajor east-west emergency and evacuation route. Although the project fronts Rancho California Road, it will not take direct access from that-roadway.. The project proposes to extend Moraga Road to the project entrance and to modify the existing traffic signal at Moraga and Rancho California Road from a three-way to a four-way signal to accommodate the project. Additionally, a secondary access roadway onto Rancho California Road will be constructed at the east end of the project, with limited right in-right out vehicular movements. As designed, the development of the proposed project wilt have a less than significant impact on the ability of Rancho California Road to function as an emergency and evacuation route. The project site does contain a minimal wildland fire hazard based on the presence of coastal sage scrub, but due to the surrounding urban development this fire hazard is not considered significant. The development of the project would eliminate what potential wildland fire hazard exists on the property. F:\Depts~PLANNING\D p~99-0317 Ternecuta Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00,doc 16 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. 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? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or pedodic increase ~n ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. 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? f, 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? Comments: 10.a.b.c: According to a Preliminary Noise Analysis (PNA) prepared by Mestra Greve Associates (February 2000), the project would be exposed to worst case noise levels from Rancho Califomia Road of 60.7 CNEL at the first floor units, and 64.9 CNEL at the second and third floor units. Both of these levels are below the adopted General Plan exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL. The PNA recommends that a noise review letter be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to confirm that noise barriers will not be required. The units closest to Rancho California Road will require that some of the windows remain closed in order to meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL as specified in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations. As a result, these units will require mechanical ventilation per the recommendations of the PNA. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, and the confirming noise review letter noted above, potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. 10.d: Construction noise levels will be above background noise levels, but the City requires construction noise mitigation by prohibiting construction activities between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays. No construction can occur on Sundays or holidays. With implementation of this measure the short-term noise impacts are not forecast to be significant to the surrounding land uses. lO.e.f: The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and has no potential to be exposed to significant airport operation noise impacts. F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~EA - Revised 7-5~0.doc 17 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: a. Would the.project result insubstantial adverse physi~l ....... : .... :- ~ impacts associates with the provision or need for new or physi~lly altered governmental facilities, the constru~ion of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable se~ice ratios, response times or other pedormance objectives for any of ~e public se~ices? ~ b. Fire protection? ~ c. Police protection? ~ d. Schools? V e. Pa~s? f. Other public facilities? V Comments: 11 .a.b.c.d.e.f: The project will have a less than significant impact upon the ,need for new or altered govemment facilities and services, including fire, police, schools, parks and recreation, or other public facilities. Although the project will incrementally increase the need for these services, the development will be required to contribute its fair sham for services and facilities through the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF), and the payment of school fees for the' provision of school facilities. Accordingly, a less than significant impact is anticipated. F:tDepts\PLANNING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 18 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: 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 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? f. . _Be served by. a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 12.a.b.e: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor significantly affect the capacity of treatment providers. Although the project will have an incremental affect upon existing systems, the General Plan EIR found that the implementation of the General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated from the project. 12.c: The project is not expected to require the construction or expansion of any facilities that would have a significant environmental effect. As a condition of project approval and prior to grading, the developer will be required to submit a drainage study for review and approval. The study shall identify all existing or proposed on- or off-site public or private drainage facilities, and include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading of drainage facilities necessary to convey storm water runoff, along with any other mitigation measures necessary to ameliorate associated impacts shall be provided as part of the project. 12.d: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing water systems, but the Genral Plan EIR states that the EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their service areas. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. F:\Depts~PLANNING~D p~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7~5-00.doc 19 12.f.g: The project will not result in the need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling programs that are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. F:~Depts\PLANNING\D p~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 20 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: : a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resoumes, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a State scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ,/ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: 13.a.b:The proposed project will in-fill an undeveloped area along the Rancho California Road corridor. The site is not considered to be within a scenic vista, nor is it located on a state scenic highway. Further, there are no major tree resources, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the project site. 13.c: The project site is a prominent ridge located adjacent to existing single- and multi-family dwellings. It is also located on Rancho California Road, which is a major gateway and corridor into and through the City. The project has been designed to increase the setback along Rancho California Road, and the closest unit is 115 feet from the right-of-way line. The project design also places two story units (rather than three stow) 112 feet from the property line adjacent to single family dwellings to the southeast. Design policies, guidelines, and standards have been applied to the project to achieve a less than significant impact on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. 13.d: The subdivision and grading of the property will have no effect on light and glare in the area. However, the development and operation of the project could have potentially significant impact on light and glare. The project is conditioned to comply with the City's Light Pollution regulations (Ordinance No. 655). With this standard mitigation in place, impacts are considered less than significant. F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P',99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 21 Revised 7-5-00 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: · a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 14.a.b.d: According to a Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment conducted by Jean Keller (December 1988) cultural resources were not observed within the boundaries of the project site and further research was not recommended. Correspondence from the author dated November 1, 1999, states that these findings "remain relevant and applicable to the currently proposed project." Nevertheless, the General Plan EIR identifies the project site as being within an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources. Due to the extensive amount of grading and excavation proposed and the potential for such resources to occur in the subsurface of the property, any grading will be conditioned upon the requirement that if any cultural resources or human remains are exposed during grading, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted, and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resources. If discovered resources merit long- term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources in accordance with standard archaeological management requirements. With these measures in place, effects upon cultural resources are anticipated to be less than significant. On May 3, 2000, subsequent to the close of the public review and comment period and prior to the start of the public hearing on the project, staff was handed a transmittal from John Gomez, Jr. Supervisor for F~echanga Cultural Resources. Mr. Gomez reviewed the Archaeological Assessment on file in the Planning Department and acknowledged the findings therein. However, due to the length of time since the Assessment, and the amount of erosion that has occurred at the site due to wind, rain and other factors, Mr. Gomez has requested that a field walkover be conducted before the issuance of grading permits for the project, in order to ensure that cultural and archaeological resources are not uncovered. Mr. Gomez requests, further, that a treatment plan and preconstruction agreement between the applicant and the tribe be required of the project, including the presence of Native American monitors during ground-disturbing activities. Staff has reviewed these requests and finds that the walkover prior to grading is both appropriate and reasonable. Staff has conferred with the applicant regarding this request and with their concurrence has added the walkover and compliance with the findings as a result of the walkover, as a mitigation measure for the project. With regards to the remaining requests by Mr. Gomez, staff believes that mitigation measures already placed upon the project (see above) are adequate given the results of the Assessment. F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00,doc 22 14.c.' The General Plan EIR sensitivity map for paleontological resources identifies the project site as being within a sensitive area for paleontological resources. Due to the potential for such resources to occur on the property, a paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations, and during grading and excavation activities a qualified paleontological monitor will be required to be present on site and shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of · .any-exposed paleontological_resources._lf_ paleontological_~esources a~:e_encountered,_a~equate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report on these resources to ensure the values inherent in the resources are adequately characterized and preserved. With these measures, potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P',99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 23 15. RECREATION. Would the project: ::.:::ii :::::i :: ~I ::::: :::::: :::::::: ::: :: ::::::::.::::: ~s~ ~ ~rlifig i~fe~ ~ ~ :.:: ! ii iii i :.:. :. ::. :: :::::::: :. i~PE~::.: :: a. Would the project increase the bse 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? Comments: 15.a.b:The proposed project includes on-site recreation areas as part of the project, including a clubhouse, swimming pool, spa, workout room and tot lot. All of these facilities are either centralized in the project, or in the case of the tot lot, buffered from surrounding uses in order to avoid any adverse impacts on surrounding uses. In addition, the developer will be required to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirements by the payment of an in-lieu fee with a credit for the provision of the private recreation facilities on-site. Any impacts associated with the provision or expansion of park and recreation facilities provided off-site to meet the needs of the residents associated with this project will be evaluated in conjunction with those off-site facilities. With these measures, less than significant impacts to recreational facilities is anticipated. F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 24 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. DOes the project hav~ the potential to degrade the quality .... ~V'- ~ - - of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish of wildlife species, ~use a fish qr ~ildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict ~e range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate impo~nt examples of ~e major pedods of California histo~ or prehisto~? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually V 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? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will V cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either dire~ly or indire~ly? Comments: 16.a: For the majority (ten of sixteen) of environmental issues discussed in this Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form (Population and Housing, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, and Recreation) no potential for significant adverse impact has been identified and no project specific mitigation other than standard conditions utilized by the City will be required. For the remaining seven issues, project specific mitigation will be required to ensure that implementation of the proposed project does not cause significant adverse physical changes in the environment. Specifically, mitigation is identified for Land Use Planning, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise and Cultural Resources. The specific mitigation measures are identified in the body of the checklist and restated in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. 16.b: The cumulative impacts from the project are considered less than significant because the site is proposed to be developed in a manner consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. All cumulative impacts from the land use and development scheme envisioned in the General Plan have been analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the project's consistency with the City's General Plan and General Plan EIR, cumulative impacts must be considered as less than significant. 16.c: No environmental impacts have been identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. Mitigation has been identified to reduce all environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. F:\Depts~LANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 25 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state-where-they are available4or_review.. b. 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 effedts were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. 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. Comments: 17.a: The City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report, a copy of which is available at the City of Temecula Planning Department. 17.b: Cumulative impacts from all of the issues discussed above were addressed and mitigated to one degree or another in the General Plan 17.c: Mitigation measures associated with the present project and analysis are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto. 2. 3. 4. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report City of Temecula Development Code South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1999 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey, Merkel & Associates, June 10, 1999 Biological Constraints Report, Merkel & Associates, June 4, 1999 Correspondence from Jim A. Bartel, Assistant Field Supervisor for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, dated September 22, 1999 Phase I Environmental Assessment, DBM Environmental, August 17, 1998 Preliminary Noise Analysis, Mestre Greve Associates, February 14, 2000 Geotechnical Investigation, CH J, June 8, 1999 Archaeological Assessment, Jean Keller, December 1998 Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, Wilbur Smith Associates, February 18, 2000 F:~Depts\PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecuia Ridge Apts~EA - Revised 7-5~0.doc 26 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM F:'~Depts~PLANNING~D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.d~c 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apartments Development Plan LAND USE PLANNING General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: ..... Responsible Monitor: Revised 7-5-00 Conflict with habitat conservation plans Compliance with the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long- Term Habitat Conservation Plan Payment of $500.00 per acre SKR mitigation fee Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works and Planning Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion Ameliorate hazards from unstable soils Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical report Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion Identify adverse soil conditions and implement measures to ameliorate impacts Submit a Soils Report for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit F:\Depls\PLANNING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MM P - Revised 7-5-00.doc Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: ' -E~os~-re {o-soil erosion ...... Stabilize slopes and unstable soils Submit an Erosion Control Plan/'or review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion Stabilize slopes and unstable soils Submit a Slope Planting Plan for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The degradation of water and/or waste discharge quality Compliance with water quality and waste discharge requirements Specific Process: Obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Board. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: General Impact: Create excessive runoff exceeding the capacity of existing facilities F:~Depts\PLANNING\D P~994)317 Temecula Ridge ApIs\MMP - Revised 7-5-00.doc 2 Mitigation Measure: Identify drainage impacts and implement measures to mitigate impacts 'Specific Process: Sfib-mit a Draimi-gk-Stia-dy for rexTi~-/~fi-d aippToval Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC General Impact: A increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and the capacity of the existing street system Mitigation Measure: Payment of fees to contribute to City-wide traffic improvements - -Specific Process: -Payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) for residential development Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Impact: An adverse effect on endangered or threatened species or sensitive habitats identified by the California Department of Fish and Game orthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Measure: Compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Specific Process: Obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits Responsible Monitor: Planning Department F:K)epts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MM P - Revised 7-5 -00.doe 3 NOISE General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to significant noise levels Compliance with the recommendations of the Preliminary Noise Analysis Provide mechanical ventilation for the units closest to Rancho California Road and submit a noise review letter Prior to the issuance of building permits Department of Building and Safety CULTURAL RESOURCES General Impact: Adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource Mitigation Measure: The developer shall arrange for a complete walk-over of the project site by qualified Native American Resource expert, to identify, recover, preserve and document resources of historical and amhaeological significance Specific Process: Condition the project to require a complete walkover be conducted and reported to the Planning Manager, as to findings and recommendations. If any cultural resources or human remains are identified, a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any ground- disturbing activities at the site. Responsible Monitor: Planning Department and Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Adverse change in the significance of a historical archaeological resource or Identify, recover, preserve and document resources of historical and archaeological significance F:~Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temeeula Ridge Apls\MMP - Revised 7-5-00.doe 4 Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Condition the project upon the requirement that if any cultural resources or human remains are exposed during grading, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted and a qu~ilifiYd-'~ff(~b3_-e61ff~i§t §h-fill-bebrou~ght-t~th-e--git~-t6' evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading operations Planning Department and Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Destruction of a unique paleontological resources Identify potential locations of and attempt to recover fossils Submit a paleontological assessment for review and approval and provide a qualified paleontologist to monitor grading operations with the authority to suspend work and undertake recovery operations. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during grading operations Planning Department and Public Works Department F:XDepts\PLANN ING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP - Revised 7-5-00,doc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 5, 2000 CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM ORIGINAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commi~,/' Debbie Ubnoske~,'Planning Manager July 5, 2000 Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula Ridge Apts. Planning Application No. 99-0317 was heard by the Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 at which time the Commission continued the matter and asked staff to address their concerns with the definition of "amenities" within the Growth Management Program Action Plan. Ongoing discussions regarding amenities have taken place between staff and Councilmembers since the May 3, 2000 hearing. On May 30Ih the Council General Plan Subcommittee asked that the Commission continue the Temecula Ridge case to July 5, 2000. On June 27, 2000 the City Council discussed the matter further and asked staff to arrange a joint meeting with the Planning Commission during the first week in August. In so doing, the Council also recommended that the Commission continue PA99-0317 until their second meeting in August. Staff concurs with the recommendation to continue this case to August 16, 2000. F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D PL99~)317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 7-5-00 Continuance.doc 1 ..... PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED JUNE 7, 2000 13 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM ORIels4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commis~io~ Debbie Ubnosl ,Pianning Manager June 7, 2000 Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) -Temecula Ridge Apts. Planning Application No. 99-0317 was heard by the Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 at which time the'Commission continued the matter and asked staff to address their concerns with one aspect of the Growth Management Program Action Plan. The clarification is needed because the applicant is requesting approval of a project at the higher end of the density range, and the Commission wanted to know what constitutes "onsite or community amenities." In an effort to provide further direction to the Commission, staff has been meeting with the City Attorney and the Council General Plan Subcommittee members. At the end of their May 30~h meeting, the Subcommittee asked that the Commission continue the pending Temecula Ridge case, in order to provide-an opportunity for the entire Council to clarify this issue. Staff concurs with the request and recommends that a 30-day continuance to July 5, 2000 be approved. F:'~-,pts'~PLANNING~D p~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 1 .... PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED MAY 3, 2000 14 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 3, 2000 Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Depadment - 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. PA00-0317, DEVELOPMENT PLAN THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND I~HREE---STQRY~APARTMENT~GOMPEEX--WITH POOL,' CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON -App ROXi MATEi-Y-21-ACRESTIOCATE D-© N-TH E-SO U~FH 'SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: A.G. Kading, AGK Group, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Markham, Markham & Associates PROPOSAL: To design, construct and operate a 246-unit, two and three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot. LOCATION: South side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road EXISTING ZONING: M Medium Density Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: H High Density Residential South: H High Density and LM Low Medium Density Residential East: PO Professional Office West: PO Professional Office and H High Density Residential F:\Depts\pLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc PROPOSED ZONING: N/A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Woodcreek and Portoflno Apartments Mira Loma and Rancho Apartments, and single family dwellings on Levande Place Vacant Vacant & Summer Breeze Apartments; Rancho California Medical Plaza beyond PROJECT STATISTICS Building Footprint: Landscaping Parking, Streets Hardscape 39 structures Total Area: Density: Max. Building Height: Parking Required: Parkihg Provided: 20.88 acres 11.7 units per acre 40 feet 268 covered 7 accessible 269 covered 32 accessible 181,156 square feet 393,586 square feet 248,280 square feet 86,230 square feet 909,533 square feet 236 uncovered 7 accessible 236 provided 8 accessible 20.0% 43.2% 27.3% 9.5% 100.0% --- 8 motorcycle 8 motorcycle BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA99-0317 was received on August 11, 1999, as a request to construct a 266-unit apartment project. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on September 16, 1999. Subsequent to the DRC comment letter dated October 5, 1999 a second submittal was received January 6, 2000. A third submittal was received on February 22, 2000. The project was deemed complete on March 14, 2000 and the Initial Environmental Assessment was sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, to circulate the document for a 30-day review period. Additionally, at the suggestion of the applicant, staff toured apartment projects in Orange County to view first-hand similar architecture, materials, product finish, circulation, entry statements, facades, parking clusters, amenities, open space, and density treatment as proposed by the project. Two neighborhood workshops on the project were noticed and held by the applicant on the evenings of January 14, 2000 and February 11, 2000. At the February workshop 20 residents attended who had concerns regarding the concentration of apartments in the area, the density of the project, size of structures, grading, traffic, and impacts to schools. Property owners in the vicinity had been previously invited to a community meeting on October 14, 1998 at City Hall, prior to the actual submittal of the project. At that meeting, two residents on Mira Loma Drive, three residents from Veradero and seven residents on Levande Place attended. F:\Depts\pLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT,PC.doc 2 The proposed site was the location of Plot Plan No. 10864, approved by the City of Temecula City Council on December 11, 1990 as a referral of an appeal from the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Plot P an NO. 10864 proposed a 260-unit condominium townhouse development, two and three-stor~ ir~-hei-g~t, Wi{h p0ol, ~pa, tot lot, a 4,00~ sqtJ~r~ ~0~ clubhou~,-i~door ra~iueiba; two tennis courts and 54,000 square feet of open recreation space. Plot Plan No. 10864 proposed a density of 11.70-dwelling units per acre, but it has since~expired. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Temecula Ridge Apartments are comprised of four different building types, 22 separate residential buildings, with dwelling units that range in size from 775 square feet to 1,380 square feet (including deck). Three of the building types offer ground-level, fully enclosed garages, with the dwelling units either in a single level or multi-level floor plan, in one, two or three stories. Additionally, there are separate, single or double wide garage structures. No carports are proposed within the project. Guest parking spaces are provided throughout the site. A portion of both the garages and guest spaces are handicapped accessible. The project offers a centrally located clubhouse that provides a recreation room, meeting room, and kitchen for tenants. It adjoins the leasing offices and is easily accessible from the two entrances to the site. A pool, spa and work-out room completes the activity area, which has connecting walkways that'link it to the residential buildings. Additionally, a tot lot with play equipment and seating adjacent to open space is provided at the southeast end of the site. ANALYSIS _Access and Circ. ulation The project has two entrances which take access from two roadways that each intersect with Rancho California Road. As a result of project development, Moraga Road shall be extended southward beyond its existing location, and shall matchup and connect to existing Via Las Colinas. Street "A" is proposed as a cul-de-sac along the east side of the site, extending from Rancho California Road southward. While the Moraga/Rancho California Road intersection will continue to be signalized, the intersection of Street "A" with Rancho California Road will not be signalized, and therefore, vehicular turning movements are limited to right in/right out only from this cul-de- sac. The project's vehicular circulation comes off a main west-east spine drive, and generally there are loop drive aisles around the garage structures. Both emergency vehicle access and handicapped accessibility was analyzed during the design of the project. Pedestrian walkways are provided throughout the site, adjacent to dwellings, through open space areas, and to garages. Interface with Adjacent Properties The project site is zoned for medium density residential, while adjacent property to the south is zoned for high density residential, as is a portion to the west, and property across Rancho California Road. The high-density residential areas have developed into the existing Mira Loma and Rancho Apartments to the south, Summer Breeze Apartments to the west and Woodcreek and Portofino Apartments to the north. As designed, the project inter[ace with these existing apartments is acceptable. F:\Depts\pLANNING\D p\99-0317 Temecuia Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 3 Of concern to staff was the interface with the single family residential homes at the end of the Levande cul-de-sac. To address this concern, the applicant modified the project to provide a 112- foot separation from the property line at this location to the nearest building. The buildings were sited to have the narrower ends of the units face south and be limited to two stories, consistent with adjacent, singl~e_fam_i!y homes. Bermingand a four-foot h!gh s~;reen wall was added at this ~ocation, and particular attention was given to the plantings provided along the slope. According to the City Landscape Architect, the proposed acacias will grow very quickly, providing a decent screening within two to three years. The proposed redwoods will grow approximately three feet each year. With the addition of evergreen shrubs along with these trees, a reasonable screen can be provided. The project is conditioned that final shrub species selection and placement is subject to review and approval by the City. Archite~ Staff worked with the applicant's architect to de-emphasize building mass. Large buildings and garages were divided into smaller clusters. Building orientation provides visual interest and variety. Building setbacks were varied along the perimeter of the project, and the meandering spine drive also varies the streetscape within the project. Building designs have varied heights and rooflines, strong vertical and horizontal articulation, and vaded and broken facades. Windows and entrances were extended or recessed. Enclosed stairwells were added. Monum~ The project proposes corner monumentation at both the Moraga and Street "A" intersections with Rancho California Road. Given the fact that the project sits on the ridge above Rancho California Road and these monuments will be visible at street level, and given the fact that it would be necessary for visitors to access the project from these intersections, the two monuments are appropriate and necessary. Additional entry signage is proposed at each of the two physical entry points to the project, in accordance with the "vehicular entry zone" concept as encouraged in the City's Design Guidelines for multi-family projects. Traffic The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for a 40-acre project proposal which includes the Temecula Ridge Apartments. The TIA was reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, who approved the revised document dated February 18, 2000 by Wilbur Smith Associates. The document analyzed peak hour traffic impacts at all signalized intersections on Rancho California Road between Margarita Road and Interstate-15. However, the TIA was prepared prior to the completion of roadway improvements at the Interstate-15 southbound and northbound ramps, the intersection of Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, and the Overland Drive overpass. The document states that with these roadway improvements, all intersections analyzed are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" (LOS) or better, for both the year 2001 with or without the project. Since all of the roadway improvements have now been completed and Overland Drive overpass is now open to traffic, project impacts are within applicable General Plan LOS standards. According to the City Traffic Engineer, the TIA adequately addressed the areas of concern and identified mitigation recommendations for the project for the year 2001, such as the extension of Moraga Road prior to occupancy, and the payment of Development Impact Fees for city-wide roadway improvements. In addition, the City Traffic Engineer has conditioned the project to widen Moraga Road, where it intersects with Rancho California Road, in order to provide the southbound through lane required by the project, while retaining the existing two left-turn eastbound lanes and singular right-turn westbound lane. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 4 An issue raised at the neighborhood workshop was a perceived high accident rate on Rancho California Road in front of the project site. The City Traffic Engineering Division prepared a "Traffic Collision History Report" from 1/1/91 through 1/1/00, between Moraga Road and Humber Ddve. The report indicates that there were a total of 25 collisions over the nine year period for the 0.43 mile segment. With an ~verage_ daily traffic count o~32,00_0, the. accid_e_nt_rat_e__(collis!_ons_p_gr mi!!i_o_n . vehicle miles) is 0.55. According to Caltrar~s in their analysis of roadways statewide, a rate of 2.4 is considered the basic average accident rate for a 4-lane divided roadway. Rancho California Road, at the project site, is less than l/~ the statewide average. -- Gradinq Because the project site is a prominent ddge that runs in an east-west direction, descending both to Rancho California Road to the north and to the residential developments along Mira Loma to the south, staff worked with the applicant to devetop an acceptable grading program for the project, utilizing the Hillside Design standards within the Community Design Section IV.G. of the General Plan. Staff asked that the applicant work as much slope into the interior portion of the project as possible, and to blend the land with existing conditions at the boundaries of the site. Staff asked that the applicant explore split-level units built into slopes, to minimize disturbance of the natural terrain. The applicant opted to construct an upscale project with certain amenities, particularly enclosed garages, which increased the need for graded pad sites. The applicant proposes to treat the site in similar fashion as other apartment complexes in the City, and to compete with comparable projects such as Tuscany Ridge and Solana Ridge Apartments. The -applicant provided additional site sections to-indicate the-amount-of slope throughout the project in relation to buildings, and in relation to existing topography. See Attachment 4.E. for these sections. Consistency with the Growth Manaqement Proqram Action Plan Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the Growth Management Program Action Plan adopted by the City Council on March 21, 2000. The Action Plan directs the Planning Commission to consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category. However, the Plan states that the Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project provides onsite or community amenities. The General Plan density range designated for the project site is 7-12 dwelling units per acre, and at 11.7 dwelling units per acre, the project is not at the lowest allowable density. However, the project does offer onsite amenities, and in particular, is the first of its kind to provide fully enclosed garages for all units (no carports). The project provides benefits to the community by constructing. traffic circulation improvements in the vicinity in conjunction with development. By providing multiple family housing, the project satisfies the need for equal housing opportunities for all existing and future residents of Temecula. Given the fact that several high density developments originally anticipated have been lost through the specific plan amendment process in recent years, the project assists the City in meeting its General Plan Housing Element requirements. The Growth Management Action Plan redirects urban development to urban areas. In this case, the project site is in an area of already existing high density development, some with a density range of 13-20 dwelling units per acre. F:\Depts\pLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 5 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Environmental Study (lES) was prepared for the project, which determined that the proposal could potentially affect land use planning, geology and soils, water, biological resources, noise,_a_nd~c_ultural resources. However, these affects are not considered to be significant due to the r~itigation measures ~;,o~ed~n the ~:oj~i c~si~-~r~-~)nditi0ns~f-~)pi'b~,~l;~,ny potentially~ significant impacts will be mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels. The lES for the project was sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in order that the State Clearinghouse circulate the document for public review for a 30-day period. One response from the State Department of Fish and Game was received, and a response to that agency was prepared, which included a minor revision to the lES regarding jurisdictional wetlands, and a more detailed discussion of alternatives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage scrub habitat identified on the project site. In accordance with Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption, of the California Environmental Quality Act's CEQA Guidelines, staff has concluded that the revision to the lES is not considered substantial because: 1) A new, avoidable significant effect has not been identified. 2) No new measures are required. 3) New information has been added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. GENERAL. PLAN-AND ZONING CONSISTENCY Existing zoning and General Plan designations call for Medium Density Residential development, with a density range of 7 to 12 dwelling units per acre maximum. The project proposes a density of 11.78 dwelling units per acre and is therefore within the density range and consistent with the General Plan. The project as designed and conditioned, is consistent with the Development Code, the General Plan and the Design Guidelines for the City. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Planning staff recommends approval of the project because it is consistent with the City General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. The design of the project, the amenities offered, the architecture and materials, and the landscaping proposed are equal to or superior to the previously approved project for the site, Plot Plan No. 10864. Concerns regarding the project's compatibility with adjacent properties, traffic impacts, and grading have been addressed by the design of the project, conditions of approval imposed upon the project, and by the mitigation monitoring program attached to the project as a result of the Initial Environmental Study. FINDINGS The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes a density of 11.78 which is within the range specified. It is in conformance with the policies as stated in the General Plan and with all applicable requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City including the Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 6 The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these doc~me_nts _a_nd qon~ditions o_f..a_p_p_r_ov_a!. _ha_ve been placed on the project accordingly. .... to assure that the development conforms to City Standa~ds~-Ac~ess-a~-~'~i~cul~i~)n are adequate for the general public and for emergency vehicles. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page Exhibits - Blue Page A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Surrounding Land Uses E. Site Plan -Elevations G. Floor Plans H. Landscape Plan I. Grading Plans J. K. L. Color and Materials Board (under separate cover) Color Elevations (under separate cover) Color Landscape Plan (under separate cover) F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS F:\Depts\pLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC,doc 11 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 VICINITY MAP F:~DEPTS~LANNING~D pLqg-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC.doc 11 CITY OF TEMECULA Apartments CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 SURROUNDING LAND USES F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC.doc 13 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - Medium Density Residential EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwellin~l units per acre maximum/ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT. PC.doc 12 CITY OFTEMECULA 'P.O.' ZONE VACANT 'H" ZONE ' . 'H" ZONE CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 SITE PLAN F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA SITE SECTION B SI?E SEC?ION A SITE PLAN CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-03'17 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 SITE PLAN F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC,doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA Rtl)t;I CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 ELEVATIONS F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC,doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA I I1~ ~--. CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA l BUILDING TYPE THREE o SECTION C CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 ELEVATIONS F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecu[a Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 ELEVATIONS F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA TRASH CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 ELEVATIONS F:\Depts\PLANNiNG\D P\99-0317 Temecuia Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 16 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 ELEVATIONS F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 16 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 ELEVATIONS F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT,PC.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA fiROUP CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 FLOOR PLAN F:\DEPTS\pLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA BUILDINO 'IYPE ONE - ROOF PLAN BUILDINO TYPE ONE - THIRD FLOOR PLAI~ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 FLOOR PLAN F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC,doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 FLOOR PLAN F:\D~PTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 17 CITY OFTEMECULA ~NIT lJ~ - FLOOR PLAN CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 FLOOR PLAN F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC,doc 17 CITY OFTEMECULA UNIT 2B · FLOOR PLA~ ~modlfled~ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 FLOOR PLAN F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning ApPlication No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 FLOOR PLAN F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLAN F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 LANDSCAPEPLAN F:\DEPTS~PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLAN F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PlAN CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 GRADING PLANS F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99~0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN ]'. .... ~ -.'~ ~ CASE NO, - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000 GRADING PLANS F:\DEPTS\PLANNiNG\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 19 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES EXCERPTS FROM OCTOBER 10, 2000 R:kD P\99~3317 Temecula Ridge Apts~staff~pt.cc 12-I2-00.doc 10 Public Works Director Hughes presented the staff report (of record). Ms. Juliet-Anne: Boysen, 44040 Margarita Road, relayed her concerns with regard to the widening of Margarita Road as it relates to access to her business as well as the reconstruction of her existing fence. Advising that the work in this area has been conducted by a private developer/contractor not the City, Public Works Director Hughes advised the City's contract with the developer includes a provision, requiring the maintenance of access at all times to adjacent properties. With regard to Ms. Boysen's fencing, Mr. Hughes noted that the fence currently encroaches into the public right-of- way for this widening project; that provisions for the removal of the fence are underway; and that once these provisions have been completed, the property owner will be contacted. City Attorney Thorson advised that Ms. Boysen's attorney has been contacted with regard to the issue, noting that the fence is located on City property and that he will further discuss the matter with Ms. Boysen's attorney. Speaking in support of Ms. Boysen's request to have her fence reconstructed, Mr. Dale Carothers, 44060 Margarita Road, requested that the matter be resolved prior to the Holiday season and that the fence be reconstructed in its existing condition. Mayor Stone requested that the matter be agendized for a Closed Session. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve the staff recommendation for Consent Calendar Item No. 8. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:37 P.M., the City Council reconvened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:46 P.M., Mayor Stone called a short recess and resumed the City Council meeting at 8:00 P.M. with regularly scheduled City Council business. PUBLIC HEARING 14 Planninq Application No.99-0317 (Appeal of Development Plan) - Temecula Ridqe Apartments (located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraqa Road) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Minutes\101000 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO- AND THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING, AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, 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, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO Advising that the project had been appealed by Councilman Nagger, Mayor Stone reviewed established ground rules for the applicant, members of the public, and City Councilmembers; noted that Planning Director Ubnoske will present the staff report; that the property owner and applicant and representatives will be given the opportunity to address the City Council; that members of the public who support the project will be given the opportunity to speak (limited to five minutes each); that then members of the public who oppose the project will be given an opportunity to speak (limited to five minutes each); and that the applicant and his representatives will be given the opportunity to rebut. Following each presentation or speaker, Mayor Stone advised that the City Councilmembers may address questions. Advising that the City Council has received two sets of objections from the applicant's attorneys, contending that the appeal is invalid because a Notice of Appeal does not comply with the provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code and that City Councilman Naggar should not participate in the appeal because he has filed it, City Attorney Thorson noted that having reviewed the correspondence from the applicant's attorneys and having researched the objections, his opinion would be that the Notice of Appeal complies with all the requirements of the Temecula Municipal Code for appeal and that Councilman Naggar may participate in the hearing because the Temecula Municipal Code specifically authorizes appeals by City Councilmembers and because Mr. Naggar's appeal does not express a position or opinion on the merits of the appeal. Mr. Thorson stated that this particular procedure has been utilized in two previous City Council appeals in 1997 and 1998. City Attorney Thorson noted that the record before the City Council is extensive; that it contains a study submitted to the City by the applicant, staff analysis of the project and its impacts, applicant's analysis of the project and its impacts, the Planning Commission minutes of the hearings of the project, and the recommended findings for approval and advised that the Temecula Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Commission action; that the Code also provides that the City Council may take any action that the Planning Commission may have taken on this project in the first instance. Whatever action the City Council may decide to take with respect to this project, Mr. Thorson stated that the City Council must justify its decision with written findings based on the facts which are contained in the record. R:\Minutes\101000 7 Mr. Thorson as well advised that copies of the following have been provided to the City Council and will be considered as part of the record: a copy of Mr. Alhadeff's letter dated May 8, September 25, and October 10, 2000; a copy of Mr. Edmonds letter dated October 5, and October 10, 2000; and a copy of Mr. Thorson's letter to the City Council responding to these concerns. Councilman Naggar reiterated that he had appealed this project because, in his opinion, a project of this magnitude should be considered by the City Council; stated that he has not made a decision on the project; and noted that after all the testimony has been presented, he will make an educated decision. At this time, Planning Director Ubnoske presented, in detail, the staff report (of record), noting the following: · That approximately 43.2% of the subject site will be landscaped; that the City's Development Code requires a minimum of 25% landscaping; · That the proposed project would be an extremely high-quality project; · That the applicant is proposing 11.7 units per acre; that the General Plan designation for this site is medium density with a range of 7 to 12 dwelling units per acre; that the proposed project would be at the lesser density range of any other approved apartment complexes in the City; · That at the Iow end of the density range, the site would accommodate 146 units and at the high end, the site would accommodate 251 units, noting that construction at minimum density would not be feasible for the developer; · That as per the General Plan, target density provisions do not apply to the medium/high density designations; · That the proposed use will be in conformance with the Zoning Code, noting that multi-family housing is permitted in medium residential and that the City does not currently have multi-family in existing medium density zones; · That the City's Housing Element has been based on a calculation at the high end of the medium density and the high-density zoning designations; · That the project was approved by the Planning Commission on August 16, 2000 with a 3-1-1 vote with Planning Commissioner Mathewson voting for denial and Commissioner Webster abstaining; · That those Planning Commissioners who voted in support of the project did so for the following reasons: o High quality project which will provide substantial amenities in conformance with the Growth Management Plan; o Swimming pool will be utilized by the Swim Club; o Other on-site amenities such as a tot lot, pool, barbeque area will lessen impacts on other City parks; o Provides diversity of housing and has been conditioned to provide for 2% of Affordable Housing; · That the Planning Commissioner speaking in opposition to the project noted the following concerns: o Amount of omsite grading; o Insufficient amenities to warrant higher density o View impacts from Rancho California Road In conclusion, it was noted that staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the project. R:\Minutes\101000 8 For Councilman Roberts, Planning Director Ubnoske noted that there are no other three-story apartments in the City of Temecula. In response to Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske provided information as to which amenities of the General Plan (Policy 5.1) are provided by this project, commenting on the additional amount of landscaping, Olympic-sized pool, widening and improvement of Moraga Road, three-way signal to a full signal, and a bus turnout. Ms. Ubnoske noted that she would have to check as to whether the proposed 2% of Affordable Housing will meet State requirements. With regard to the 50% Quimby Fee Reduction, Ms. Ubnoske noted that multi- family complex developments are entitled to a reduction in Quimby fees; that the Subdivision Ordinance refers to subdivisions; that subdivisions may be multi-family developments, which allow for higher density on small lots; that the Development Plan meets the Quimby requirements and, therefore, is entitled to a 50% credit because of the amount of open space and the amenities being provided, noting that an apartment would not be considered a subdivision. Deputy Director of Community Services Ruse provided information with regard to the City's Quimby Ordinance, which is an extrapolation of the State's Quimby Act, which reflects that any residential development may receive Quimby credit and must meet Quimby requirements. Ms. Ruse advised that other apartment complexes throughout the City have adhered to the same process and noted that the 50% Quimby fees for this particular project would amount to $135,000. Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that it would be difficult to request a project, such as the proposed - an in-fill development, to adhere to large-scale Specific Plan Development standards. In response to reseamh completed by staff at the request of Councilman Naggar, Ms. Ubnsoke noted that approximately 191 students will reside at this complex (131 Vail Elementary School students, 30 James L. Day middle school students, and 30 Temecula Valley high school students). Councilman Naggar expressed concern of how these students will travel to school, particularly to the elementary school, commenting on possible traffic impacts through Starlight Ridge to which Ms. Ubnoske noted that school capacity/availability/and travel route are issues that are addressed by the School District, not City staff. Providing a brief background on the reasoning of permitting multi-family housing in a medium residential zone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented on City staff efforts, during the recession, to work with developers on development alternatives, noting that by such action the City had reduced density by approximately 400 dwelling units. In light of the location of the particular site and its immediate adjacent properties (commercial and apartments), Mr. Thorhnill stated that staff was of the opinion that the proposed project would be appropriate, noting that this would be the City's fourth multi-family housing application since incorporation. In response to Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske addressed the following issues: · Noise impacts - because some of the proposed units are within close proximity to Rancho California Road, a noise study was completed and mitigation measures were provided to ensure interior compliance with the General Plan's provision of 45 decibels, noting that for a mixture of ground floor units (those closest to Rancho California Road) fixed windows (unable to open) will be installed; · Landscaping - landscaping requirement for this project would be 25%; · Traffic study- study addresses other developments on Rancho California Road. R:\Minutes\101000 9 At Mayor Stone's request, Planning Commissioner Mathewson articulated his concerns with regard to this project, commenting on the following: · Amount of grading · View impact of the three-story structure, noting removal of the bottom floor (garage) was discussed but it was mentioned that such removal would have impact on open space as well as on landscaping; removal of the garage level as well prompted discussion with regard to safety and carports; · Provisions of on-site recreation facility - amenities provided would not meet the criteria of the Growth Management Plan; · Quimby Fee requirements - applicant should provide 100% of the Quimby Fees to the City, noting that if the applicant were to pay 100% of the Quimby Fees, one of his concerns with regard to this project would be addressed; · Roadway improvements were discussed as an amenity; widening of Moraga Road would solely benefit the access to the project site; traffic mitigations proposed would not provide a community-wide benefit with the exception of some benefit to the immediate area behind the Medical Center · Growth Management Plan was a primary consideration in his denial of this project but another issue of concern would relate to view impact, referencing the existing ridgeline. With regard to the proposed amenities and how they relate to the General Plan, Planning Director Ubnoske, for Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, advised that staff would view the garages, the Olympic-sized pool, the amount of open space, the road improvements a City-wide benefit. For Councilman Pratt, Ms. Ubnoske noted that the proposed project would adhere to the height requirements of the zone as per the City's Development Code, noting that the General Plan does not address height requirements. With regard to the proposed three-story structure, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated that the Development Code identifies minimum ceiling height and advised that a three-story structure (garages on the bottom level) would minimize the impacts remaining area, noting that lowering the height and spreading the units out would significantly require more grading, lot coverage, and loss of open space. It was noted by staff that if this application were denied, the applicant could apply for a new application to develop a Iow-moderate income development and, thereby, construct one and a half times above the highest density allowed by the General Plan (18 units per acre). Confirming the above-noted comment, City Attorney Thorson advised that under the Density Bonus Statute of the Government Code, a Iow-moderate income housing project would be entitled to a density bonus, restricting the units to the affordability requirements of the Government Code, compliance with the Quimby Act requirements, and minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance but not require the construction of a recreation center, a pool, additional landscaping, barbeque pit, etc. Mr. Thorson stated that the City Council would as well be required to provide additional findings in denying a Iow-moderate income housing project and, thereby, making it more difficult to deny. In response to Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill addressed infrastructure, commenting on the City's General Plan indicates an approximate total of 112,000 units, noting that this figure has been reduced through City staff efforts and advised that in light of past reductions, the City is actually under the allowable units as per the General Plan. Although confident with the City's land uses, Mr. Thornhill did not display the same confidence with R:\Minutes\101000 10 County projects, noting that approximately 45,000 to 50,000 dwelling units are to be constructed in the French Valley area. City Attorney Thorson, for Councilman Pratt, clarified that this developer would not be required to set aside units for Iow and moderate housing. At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing and invited the applicant and his representatives to speak. Referencing his pamphlet entitled the proposed development Temecula Ridge Apartment homes (copies of which were presented to the City Council), Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 41530 Enterprise Circle South, counsel for the applicant, presented a copy of the pamphlet to the City Clerk as part of the record; addressed the City's procedural process for developing a piece of property within the City, noting that the applicant has adhered to this process and advising that it has been a two-year process. Further addressing the project, Mr. AIhadeff noted the following: · That the plan was originally submitted in June 1999 at which time after discussions with staff, redesigns, field trips, etc., it had been determined that the project would not be constructed as a Iow-moderate housing project; · That on March 14, 2000, the project application process was deemed complete; · That the Growth Management Plan was discussed on March 21,2000 by the City Council (a week after the project was deemed complete); · That on May 2, 2000, a memo to the Planning Department staff was sent, by Senior Management Analyst Brown, apprising them of the official version of the Growth Management Plan (two months after the completion of the project planning); · That on May 3, 2000, the Planning Commission begins its discussions with regard to the Temecula Ridge project; at which time, the issue of the Growth Management Plan was addressed; that the Commission continued the project in June and in July; that on August 1, 2000, a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting was scheduled at which time the City Council requested the Commissioners to exercise best judgment, exercise their discretion, and exercise their knowledge; that on August 16, 2000, the Commission discussed the project, followed the City Council's direction, added and extricated conditions, which resulted in a 3-1-1 vote for approval; that three members of the Planning Commission, after the joint meeting, thought this project not only qualified under the General Plan but also under the Growth Management Plan and zoning requirements; · That the proposed plan is now being scrutinized by the Growth Management Plan - a Plan which did not exist during the review process of this project and was adopted after the completion of this project's planning process; therefore, it raises the question of whether the Growth Management Plan should apply to this particular project, noting that the applicant is being required to meet the requirements of this Plan. Referencing the minutes of the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Alhadeff noted that each City Councilmember had a different opinion of the term amenity; commented on a verbatim transcript of the September 26, 2000, City Council meeting, Mr. Alhadeff further addressed the varying City Council views as it relates to amenities; and stated that the Growth Management Plan should be viewed as an action plan for the City Council to implement growth management techniques but that it should not serve as a mechanism to require projects to be constructed at the lowest density, noting that such action, would require a change in the General Plan and that a change in the General Plan would require a CEQA process. If this project were R:\Minutes\101000 11 denied, Mr. Alhadeff addressed the State's Bonus Density for Iow-moderate housing and advised that such housing would create one and a half times the number of proposed units. In response to Councilman Naggar's appeal as it relates to the magnitude of this project, Mr. Alhadeff noted that this project meets the General Plan requirements; that this project is a plot plan; and that this project was a consensual project. Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant, addressed the project, noting the following: · That vacant land to the east is zoned Professional/Office and another medium multi-family project further to the east; · To the south, there are existing duplexes - high density (12 - 20 units per acre); · To the west, Summer Breeze Apartments (12 - 20 units per acre); · Additional vacant land zoned Professional/Office; · Small commercial center with a car wash, existing church, elementary school; · Another apartment project (12 - 20 units per acre); · Portofino project which was approved by the County just prior to incorporation (12 - 20 units per acre); · · Project abuts two single-family lots, part of Alta Vista, which has been a major focus of staffs direction as to how to design this project. Providing additional background information with regard to this property, Mr. Markham stated the following: · Actually zoned for multi-family residential in 1985 by the County, which permitted up to 17.42 units per acre (386 units); · August 8, 1989, approval by the Planning Director for 335 units; project appealed by the Oder family but ultimately approved by the City Council as a 265-unit project; · Three or four other apadment projects have been approved in the City after incorporation; these projects were not built and ultimately were recycled as two of the new apartment projects plus the ultimate construction of the Portofino project; · Extensive research by the applicant, consultant, and staff including the review of similar projects as it relates to site design, grading, drainage, architecture; · Olympic-sized pool would be available to the Swim Club, specifics have not been finalized; Councilman Naggar suggested that the usage of the pool be regulated by the Community Services Department; Mr. Alhadeff advised that there will not be a fee associated with the usage of the pool with the exception of intense use of chemicals, etc.; · Public spaces provided to the residents of this project- recreation areas, tot lots, and barbeque spaces; · Added conditions - widening of the right-of-way on Rancho California Road and providing a bus turnout and widening of Moraga Road to provide an additional lane of traffic; · Planning Commission conditioned the 2% Iow/moderate and/or senior-income housing (5 to 6 units) and that the applicant had agreed; · Quimby Fee Reduction - a standard provision and qualitative by the Community Services Department; · School availability/location - applicant has no control of where the School District draws its boundaries, noting boundaries could change at any point in time; · In order to address staff's concerns relative to acoustics on the north side of the project and view shed on the south side, additional grading was necessary; R:\Minutes\101000 12 Would be willing to accept a condition lowering the roof pitch; Distance between the two single-family homes and the nearest three-story building would 250'; Initial traffic study was completed to encompass the proposed project as well as a proposed project to the east; that the project to the east has not come to fruition and, therefore, at staff's request, a separate traffic study was completed; that the extension of Rancho Way had not been considered in the traffic study for this particular project. Mr. Alhadeff addressed the legal aspects of nexus and noted that the applicant exceeded has exceeded his legal requirements. Addressing the nexus issue, City Attorney Thorson noted that he would split the issue, noting that some nexus requirements were met to accommodate the impacts of the project and other proposed road improvements will be above and beyond what would be required to mitigate the impacts of this project. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's request of the applicant to provide shuttle/bus service, Mr. Alhadeff advised that the applicant would be willing to accept an additional condition, requesting the applicant to work with the School District with City assistance to accommodate such a shuttle specifically to the elementary school. Concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's recommendation of a shuttle, Councilman Pratt noted that such traffic circulation solutions should be addressed with all future projects. At this time, Mayor Stone invited those individuals in support of the project to speak, noting that there will be a five-minute time limit. Commenting on the shortage of pools and pool time, Mr. Bruce Furniss, representing Unites States Swimming/Southern California Swimming, referenced his letter of support, dated May 2, 2000, to the Planning Commission and commented on the positive impacts sports has on an entire community. In response to Mr. Furniss, Councilman Naggar advised that two Olympic-sized pools are being constructed -- one by the City in conjunction with the School District and one is being considered by the County in Vail Ranch. Commenting on the need for apartment housing and on the long-waiting lists for such housing, Ms. Michelle Ash, 31370 Paseo de las Olas, as a single mom, spoke in support of the project. Ms. Evelyn Hughes, 27475 Ynez Road, senior citizen, commented on the amenities which the proposed project would provide in particular the garage; addressed the need for apartment housing within the City; and encouraged the City Council to support the project. Mr. John Fill, representing Southwest Riverside County Manufacturing Council, as well commented on the need for apartment housing and addressed the difficulty of businesses to attract certain types of employees because of the lack of available apartment housing. Referencing a letter, dated October 4, 2000, (copies were sent to the City Councilmembers), Mr. John Fill, an employee for Solid State Stamping, readdressed the difficulty in recruiting employees because of the lack of apartment housing, the reduction in the vacancy rate for affordable apartments, and the growth and average cost of rental property. Mr. Fill spoke in support of the project and requested the City Council to approve the project. R:\Minutes\101000 13 Although sympathetic to the need for additional apartment housing, Councilman Naggar noted that he would not view the proposed project as affordable housing and commented on the fact that two-thirds of the City's residents commute to their jobs. Addressing the Iow vacancy rate, Mayor Pro Tern Comemhero commented on the lack of apartment housing and, therefore, limiting places to live for individuals who work in the City, viewing that as a traffic generator. Mrs. Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, provided information with regard to previous denials with regard to this site; commended the City on its accomplishments; and relayed her support of the project. Mr. Robert Oder, 2911 Mira Loma Drive, spoke in support of the project and commended the applicant on the provided amenities. Mr. Robert Oder, Jr., 29911 Mira Loma Drive, (Oder family owners of the property to the south of the subject site) advised that the proposed project would be located immediately above his property; that his family would be the most affected property owners; commented on the need for additional apartment housing in the City; provided background information with regard to a previously proposed development for the subject site; addressed Iow-moderate income and associated impacts; and noted that the proposed project would not create a densely populated development; and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to approve the project. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42101 Moraga Road, representing the First Baptist Church, advised that the Church has taken no position with regard to this item. At 10:25 P.M., Mayor Stone called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 10:32 P.M. at which time, individuals in opposition of the project were invited to speak. Mr. Clark Kegley, 41796 Humber Drive, representing the Village Homeowners Association, relayed the Association's concerns with regard to the proposed density which would not be consistent with managed growth, impact on property values, local traffic, and schools. Although not opposing the development of the subject site, Mr. Kegley noted his preference for single- family homes or a development closer to the 7 units per acre range. Addressing the City Council as the current President of the Starlight Ridge Homeowners Association, Mr. Mike Burton, 30366 Santa Cecilia, relayed the Association's concerns with regard to the proposed project, as follows: · Site best suited in current medium-density residential use (Iow end of 7 dwelling units per acre, not 246 units); · Site best suited for single-family homes/condos or any other application than the proposed density for apartments; · Too many apartments within one mile of the proposed area; · Current impact of student access to Vail Elementary School on Starlight Ridge. Addressing the City Council as a resident, Mr. Burton noted the following concerns with the proposed project: · increased traffic and increased students attending Vail Elementary and, therefore, increased impact on Starlight Ridge; R:\Minutes\101000 14 · Too many apartments within one mile of the proposed area; opposes an apartment complex for the proposed site; · Current Vail Elementary traffic situation is a danger?us situation. Mr. Burlie Cole, 42567 Remora Street, representing Alta Vista Community Association, relayed the Association's concerns, noting the following: · Worsening of current traffic conditions and speeds; · Slope slippage/destruction of vegetation; · Children vandalism; · Trading amenities for high density is a no-win situation, Ms. Robyn Wright, 42415 Carino Place, addressed Land Use, referencing Chapter 2 (Preparation of Land Use Element) and Chapter 17.06 of the Temecula City Development Plan (criteria for acceptable public amenities in order to increase project density), noting that the proposed project violates policies of that Chapter as it relates to size, bulk, and configuration. She advised that the proposed apartments, in her opinion, would not meet the definition of medium-density housing per Chapter 17.06 of the Development Plan and stated that the proposed project would as well not comply with 1 '7.06.050 of the Development Plan (not meeting amenity requirements), noting that the project would only offer amenities to the occupants, that only 1% of the total occupants would be granted a reduced rate and, therefore, being of the opinion that the proposed project would only attract high-paying customers. Ms. Pamela Miod, 31995 Via Saltio, addressed the Open Space and Conservation Element (Chapter 5) of the City's General Plan, noting that this Element encourages the conservation and proper management of the community's resources and to ensure the provision of parks and recreation. Referencing figures 5-3, 5-6, and 5-7, Ms. Miod noted that the land site of discussion is a sensitive habitat to coastal sage scrub and is an archeological sensitive area. Referring to the Community Design Element, Ms. Miod discussed Goal No. 1 (land use and development decisions capitalize on and monitor the natural assets of a given location), noting that the preservation of the remaining hill sides and ridge lines of the City and of the surrounding area is important to many residents which results in a more enjoyable and satisfying urban environment. Ms. Miod proceeded with discussing Policy 1.1 (promote the development of a comprehensive system of trails and open space areas to connect schools, public recreation areas, residential areas, and commercial centers) and Policy 1.5 (maintain and incorporate natural amenities into the development project to protect the environment and provide natural landscaping, protect views, and to provide recreational opportunities). In conclusion, Ms. Miod stated that although the properly of discussion is zoned M (medium residential), it currently functions as a proper buffer for the single-family homes in Starlight Ridge and Alta Vista. Because of the unique topography and habitat of this property, it would be impossible for the developer to adequately mitigate the associated damages of an apartment complex, noting that the General Plan requires that all seven Chapters must be equally considered and noting that as per Government Code Section 65860 and 65567, one Chapter may not be mitigated over another. She, therefore, requested that the property of discussion be adopted into the Open Space and Conservation Plan as a protected area. Viewing it as a safety concern, Ms. Miod expressed concern with the proposed closed windows for those units facing Rancho California Road. Addressing Chapter 10 (Community Design), Mr. Scott Bruce, 41395 Rue Jadot, noted that the proposed project would not adhere to the existing goals and policies, specifically with regard to Goal No. 3 (Preservation of the character of the single-family neighborhoods and protection from intrusion from buildings that are out of scale and incompatible land uses and excessive R:\Minutes\101000 15 vehicular traffic); referenced Policy 3.2 (Preserve the scale and character of the residential development by creating appi'opriate transitions between lower density and rural areas and higher density development); and referenced Goal No. 5 (Protection of public view of significant natural features). Mr. Bruce noted that apartment complexes, in his opinion, never enhance the designs or character of a single-family neighborhood. Ms. Nyrene Smith, 30090 Lavande Place, addressed air quality issues as it pertains to Chapter 9, Goal No. 1, of the General Plan; referenced Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of Goal No. 1 (to minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors or single-family homes and to reduce air pollution emissions by mitigating air quality impacts associated with the development projects to the greatest extent feasible). Ms. Smith requested that the project be rejected and that the site of discussion be limited to single-family homes, a school, a park, a church, a horse ranch, or open space. Although not relevant to the matter, Ms. Smith requested that the City Council consider providing more entertainmentJnight life in the City for people her age. Addressing Chapter 8 of the General Plan with regard to noise and its affects on sensitive receptors or single-family homes, Ms. Nannette Kosonen, 30090 Levande Place, noted that, in her opinion, locating apartments next to single-family homes is a violation of Goal No. 1 of the General Plan. Ms. Kosonen referenced Policies 1.1 and 1.8 (discourages the placement of noise generators near sensitive receptors) and Goal No. 2 (control noise between land uses) and Policy 2.1 (limit noise between property lines). Noting that as per Goal Nos. 3 and 4, Ms. Kosonen noted that the Planning Department is required to protect single-family homes from noise impacts, stating that apartment complexes due to their structure and density could only be classified as noise generators. She requested that the City Council uphold the General Plan and reject the project and encourage the construction of single-family homes. Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, representing Citizens First of Temecula Valley, noted that the residents in the City of Temecula are not desirous of any future high-density developments and that the Planning Department has a responsibility to relay that to the developers in the early planning stages. Expressing concern with regard to zoning and housing types, Ms. Anderson referenced Chapter 17, Section 6, (e) of the General Plan (medium-density residential) and Chapter 17.06.020 (f) - high density which includes the term apartments. Because the site of discussion is reflected on the General Plan Map as medium density, Ms. Anderson noted that the developer should be required to build medium-density types, noting that apartment complexes are not reflected as medium density. She as well noted that there is no other three-story medium density type housing throughout the City. Mr. Nancy Rich, 42403 Carino Place, referenced Chapter 6 (Growth Management of public facilities - focusing on schools); referenced Goal No. 4 (a quality School System that contains adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula); referenced Policy 4.1 (provide information to Temecula Unified School District when considering General Plan amendments, Specific Plan, zone changes, etc. in order to support the District in providing adequate school facilities for students for new developments to the extent permitted by law); referenced Policy 4.2 (to promote and to encourage the phasing of project development so that the School District may plan finance and construction of school facilities intended to serve the development); Policy 4.3 (land use decisions); and referenced Goal No. 2 (orderly and efficiently patterns of growth within Temecula that enhance the quality of life for residents). Not opposing the project as a whole, Ms. Rich relayed her opposition to the location of the project. R:\Minutes\101000 16 Mr. Randall Kosonen, 30090 Levande Place, presented to the City Clerk a 395-signature petition in opposition of the Temecula Ridge Apartments and stated that he viewed the proposed site as inappropriate. Ms. May Lorah, 42189 Monte de Oro, referenced Chapter 3 (Circulation); referenced Policy 1.10 (City to pursue opportunities to locate higher-density housing with supporting commercial and public uses on west side of Interstate 15; referenced Chapter 4 (Housing), stating that the site of discussion should be controlled under the Transfer of Development Rights Program to ensure the proper compatibility of the open land and neighboring single-family homes; that the proposed structure would be inconsistent with the type of structures depicted for medium- density sites; that a three-story apartment structure would be inconsistent with currently existing apartment complexes; that the City has a responsibility to protect existing single-family homes from incompatibility and devaluation of property as the result of a high-density development; and that an appropriate use would be either condominiums, a park, or a bike trail. Mr. Bob Eilek, 42471 Carino Place, relayed issues of concern such as high density, increased crime, increased traffic, adverse impacts on school population and resources, restriction of views, and devaluation of property. To his understanding, Mr. Eilek noted that the approval of this project would indicate a violation of all nine Chapters of the City's General Plan. Mr. Eilek noted that the site of discussion has been zoned as medium density; that apartment complexes are not reflected as an acceptable building structure under the medium density zone; that if approved, it would violate Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.5 of the Community Design Element. In closing, he noted that a three-story structure would be inconsistent with high density areas for which apartments have been previously approved; that apartments would be imposing, intrusive, and out of scale; that approval would be in violation of Goal No. 5 of the Design Element, noting that apartments do not protect or enhance the views of the neighboring single- family homes; that privacy would be disturbed; that property would be devalued; and, therefore, requested that the proposed project be denied. Appreciating the steps the City Council has taken with regard to the Growth Management Plan, Mr. Gary Watts, 42163 Rubicon, stated that more people would mean more cars and that more cars would mean more traffic and, therefore, requested that the City Council deny this project. Rebuttal by the Applicant In response to Mr. AIhadeff, City Attorney Thorson reiterated that Councilman Naggar does not have to abstain from this matter; that the Planning Department has calculated the distance between his home and the proposed project; that it exceeds a distance of 2,500'; and that, therefore, as per the Political Reform Act and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, it has been determined that Councilman Naggar may partake in the proceedings. At the request of Mr. Alhadeff, Mr. Tom Dodson, Environmental Consultant, addressed environmental issues with regard to this project, noting the following: Noise issues - noise levels associated with this project reflect noise levels that may impact the project site from the traffic of adjacent roads, not noise being generated by this project itself; noted that noise levels within the apartment complex, because of the way the buildings are structured around the periphery, will be no louder than adjacent single-family residences; that fixed windows are being proposed only for those units which face Rancho California Road; that noise levels, within the complex, would not be significant; that if issues were to arise after construction, concerns could be mitigated at that point in time; therefore, would not view noise levels to be in conflict with the General Plan; R:\Minutes\101000 17 · Air quality - that insufficient residences for individuals working in the City will generate more air pollution; that the project site is designated for medium residential density; and that the proposed project, even at maximum density level, would not conflict or be inconsistent with the air quality management plan for the Basin; and that every three years, South Coast Air Quality Management District updates its General Plan; · Open Space - an issue reflected in the City's adopted Open Space and Conservation Element which addresses location of trails/parks/designated open space; that the subject site has not been designated as Open Space; and that it was intended to function as a medium density development; · Traffic- traffic study for this particular project had been prepared; that it has been determined that with the proposed short- and long-term improvements, there will be not significant, adverse impacts on the community as a result of the proposed project; · Endangered species and biological resources - that the proposed site is an in-fill parcel; that it is a degraded habitat; that discussions have occurred with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address the coastal sage scrub as well as the gnat catchers. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, referenced the Land Use Element, Table 2-8, particularly addressing allowable uses as per the General Plan (Residential/Housing Type Correlation) and the City's Development Code, noting that medium density is an allowable use. With regard to the noise study, Mr. Markham clarified that the study is project specific. As per the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), Mr. Markham advised that in 1989, when SWAP was adopted, the allowable units for the project site were reduced from 17.42 units per acre to a range of 8 to 16 units per acre. As to the Starlight Ridge development, Mr. Markham noted that the initial phase of construction began within the 1984 to 1986 timeframe at which time the subject site was still zoned at the higher density level of 17.42 units per acre and that the White Report would have indicated the parcel of discussion. In closing, Mr. Markham advised that he got involved with this project in May of 1999; that Mr. Alhadeff got involved in May of 2000; and that the swimming pool was added to the project in December 1999 or January 2000. In closing, Mr. Alhadeff noted that the Planning Commission used its discretion in determining the balance between greater density and amenities as was suggested by Councilman Naggar at the August 1, 2000, joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, briefly referencing Planning Commission discussion with regard to that issue. Mr. Alhadeff stated that the proposed project meets the City's rules, policies, and guidelines and thanked City staff on an outstanding job. City Council comments Although viewing the proposed project as a high quality project, Councilman Roberts referenced the adoption of the City's Growth Management Plan, stating that the proposed project would not adhere to this Plan. With regard to the proposed Olympic pool, Mr. Roberts noted that he would not view that as a community amenity and as to the landscaping, he noted that the topography of the site demands the amount of proposed landscaping. In his opinion, Mr. Roberts stated that he has not been able to determine the community amenities that are being proposed. Concurring with Councilman Roberts' concerns as they relate to the Growth Management Plan and also viewing it as a high quality project, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that in-fill parcels, such as the one of discussion, create serious conflicts with the Growth Management Plan, noting that the Plan was not formulated to address such projects and stating that this issue must be resolved. Mr. Comerchero relayed his desire for the development of a R:\Minutes\101000 18 condominium/townhouse project or a small lot single-family project in the range of 7 units per acre. Although it would be a School District issue, Mr. Comerchere relayed concern with bussing school children a substantial distance. Further addressing the project, Mr. Comerchero noted the following: · Expressed concern with the City's .5% vacancy rate for rental units; · Referenced statistics as it relates to rental units within the City and the comparison of other cities (approximately 17,007 City's housing stock of which 20.3% are apartments [3,451 units]); · Denial of the project may result in an affordable Iow-income housing project, noting that there are an insufficient number of multi-family units; · Project would meet the City's demographics · Project would not depreciate property values. Councilman Pratt referenced his Emergency Traffic Circulation Plan (ETCP) of record. Concurring with Councilmembers Comerchero and Roberts comments, Councilman Naggar stated that a Iow-income housing project would still be required to follow the Planning Department's approval process. Questioning what significant aspect of this project would warrant the increased density, Councilman Naggar stated the following as it relates to the project: · Impacts on school overcrowding and associated traffic · Encroachment on single-family residential not compatible with adjacent land uses; development on the hillside, destruction of the ridgeline; · Three-story structure not appropriate · Impact on property values · Incompletion of the Housing Element · Could support the project at the lowest medium density range · Encouraged exploration of a different use Mayor Stone reiterated that the density of the subject site prior to the construction of Starlight Ridge was at a higher density than what is being proposed at this time, referencing the White Report; viewed the Growth Management Plan as a tool to address large Specific Plans, not a 20-acre parcel; noted that adjacent land uses of the project site and Starlight Ridge are apartment buildings (multi-family) and office/professional; concurred that the view of the two homes in Starlight Ridge should be retained; reiterated that the applicant has agreed by way of grading and roof pitch to not affect the ridgeline for those two landowners; that traffic generation of the proposed multi-family site would not generate the number of trips that a single-family development of equal magnitude would generate; the site of discussion would not be, in his opinion, an appropriate location of single-family homes; and that the completed traffic analysis indicated levels of service C and D. Referencing consistency with the Growth Management Plan, Mayor Stone commented on the proposed traffic improvements. In order to make the proposed site viable, Mayor Stone noted that a Iow-moderate housing project may be presented for review to the City Council, advising that such a project would result in one and a half times the number of the proposed units and that no pool, recreational facility, tot lot, etc. would be provided. Being a supporter of the Growth Management Plan, Mayor Stone stated that the impetus of this Plan was formulated as a result of the development at the City's periphery (County) and not the City's development. In closing, Mayor Stone commented on the need for variable types of housing; addressed the goals of the City's General Plan; commented on how the proposed project would comply with the goals of the General Plan; and viewed the approval of this project to be in the City's best interest. R:\Minutes\101000 19 Although this project does conform to the City's General Plan, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that it does not comply with the City's Growth Management Plan; that the Growth Management Plan does not allow the construction of an in-fill project such as the one proposed; that, therefore, the City Council should not apply the Growth Management Plan to this project, address the project on a standard of quality, and determine whether or not the construction of this project would be an overall betterment to the community. MOTION: Councilman Pratt moved to deny the project and to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution and findings denying the project and upholding the appeal. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected approval of the motion as follows: AYES: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts NOES: Stone ABSENT: None 15 Planninq Application No. PA00-0261 - a request to amend the text of the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan, Planninq Areas 8, and 10/11/12 to increase the maximum size for the homes from 2,600 square feet to 3,700 square feet and to reduce the number of floor plans provided from five (5) to three (3) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the categorical exemption under Section 15061(b)(3) by making a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified per Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA; 15.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2000-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR VILLAGE B RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8 AND 10/1'1/12 GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE, AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NOS. 23100-6, -7, AN D -8 Deputy City Manager Thornhill presented the staff report (as per agenda material). At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing. Mr. Matthew Fagan, 42011 Avenida Vista Cordera, reviewed the request to increase the home sizes in the Specific Plan, clarifying that no lots are being added; that the lot coverage for a two- story residence would be approximately 35% to 40% and that the lot coverage for a single-story R:\Minutes\101000 20 ITEM 12 APPROVAL I~ .~ ,,~'~ CITY ATTORNEY //~'l/v"~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCff~_ CITY MANAGER ,/~ ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council 5~Susan W. Jones ',,..City Clerk/Director of Support Services December 12, 2000 Community Services Commission Appointment PREPARED BY: Cheryl Domenoe, Administrative Secretary RECOMMENDATION: Appoint one applicant to an un-expired term through October 10, 2001 and two applicants for throe-year terms through October 10, 2003 to serve on the Community Services Commission. BACKGROUND: The un-expired term of Commissioner Miller is open due to his resignation. The terms of Commissioners Edwards and Nimeshein expired on October 10, 2000. The City Clerk's office has followed the Council's established procedure for filling Commission vacancies by advertising the opening in two differont local publications. When the deadline was reached for roceiving applications, the applications wero forwarded to the subcommittee comprised of Mayor Stone and Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero for review and recommendation. Both Mayor Stone and Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero recommend the appointment of Janet Yorke and the ro- appointment of Thomas Edwards to serve full three-year terms through October 10, 2003 and the appointment of Felicia Hogan to an un-expired term through October 10, 2001. All applicants are rogistered voters of the City of Temecula. Attached are copies of the applications that were received by the filing deadline of November 16, 2000. ATTACHMENTS: Nine (9) Applications for Appointment Agenda Reports~Appointment Community Services CiTY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Check one: Planning Commission ;/Community Services Commission Public/Traffic Safety Commission 09-2?-00 A09:15 IN NAME: //-/~,'~ ~ ~' Z'~'~A~g'Z~-~ YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA / OCCUPATION:' EMPLOYER NAME: HOME PHONE: ~ ~ - ~-~ ~-~ ~ WORK PHONE: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: ~ ~ O W ~ ~J~/~::~ EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEV~" YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary): I undemtand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the mle~=~ of this information for public information purp~ Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 B~ess Park Drive (909) 694~6~ O~ Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Commissions~Application for vadous Commissions ]1-13-00 A1]:32 IN Application for Appointment to Commission Qualification Requirement: Registered voter and resident of the City of Temecula. Check one: Planning Commission Name: Address: X Community Services Commission __Publicffraflc Safety Commission Raul Hen'era Home Phone: Commercial Finance Executive Occupation: Employer Name & Address: Unemployed Years Resident ofTemecula: 1 Work Phone: n/a Educational Background/Degrees: Califomia State University Los Angeles, BS, Business Administration/Accounting List Any Riverside County or Other City Board, Committee or Commission On Which You Have Served and the Year(s) of Service: Riverside County Department of Mental Health Mid-County Regional Mental Health Board 2000 Organizations to Which You Belong: (Professional, technical, community, service) Fdends of the Temecula Library, Treasurer Briefly State Why You Wish to Serve On This Commission, and Why You Believe You Are Qualified for the Position. Be Specific. (Use additional paper if necessary) Please see second page. I understand that any or all informa~on on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. SIGNATURE: ~-'~O,.x,,-~ ~ DATE: November 11, 2000 Eetur~ to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Ddve (909) 694-6444 OR Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 ~ Application for Appointment to Commission Briefly State Why You Wish to Serve On This Commission, and Why You Believe You Are Qualified for the Position. Be Specific. My wife and I moved to Temecula in 1999 after a lengthy search for the "perfect" community to raise a family. Since moving here, we have only to come to love Temecula and its people more and more. I am so convinced that this is a great place to live that I convinced my mother and brother to buy a house across the street from us, sight unseen, and move here from Mississippi. I write this by way of introduction to show my intention to settle here in Temecula and put down deep roots. I wish to serve on the Community Services Commission as a way of making a strong personal contribution to this wonderful community. Growing up, in Los Angeles and Santa Uonica, California, I was the beneficiary of some wonderful Parks, Recreations and Community programs. I feel that my service on this commission would in a small way repay all those wonderful people running those community programs. I believe that many of the things that attracted me to make Temecula'my home are the results of many wonderful people here working together to make this a highly desirable place to call home. I would like to join in with the spirit I see everywhere in Temecula, and join the effort to make Temecula a wonderful community. I believe that I am qualified to serve on the Community Services Commission because I work well with people, I have a strong business background and I have a great enthusiasm for the well being of our community. I have an open mind and I am willing to patiently listen to and consider different points of view, before making up my own mind. I have worked on committees in the business world on tough and complicated problems and I have worked on volunteer committees that require great tact and respect for others. I believe that my background in finance, budgeting and accounting will be an asset to the Commission. But most of all, I believe that my heartfelt desire to make a positive contribution to maintaining and improving the community of Temecula, makes me qualified to be considered for service on the Community Services Commission. Application for Appointment to Commission - Raul Herrera - Page 2 ,,.,.. 09-28-0u POl:30 '~' CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Check one: Planning Commission ,/Community Services Commission Public/Traffic Safety Commission NAME: ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: OCCUPATION: YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA /~ /~'~ ~-- ~. ~'~'~ WORK PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: EDUCATIONALBACKGROUNDIDEGREES: LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMI¥¥~-E OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIE~ YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary): I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Return to: City Clerk'S Office, 43200 Business Par Drive (g09) 694-6444 Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Commissions~Application for various Commissions Community Services Commission Recreational and community activities are vital to an energetic and balanced community. They keep senior citizens young and provide the opportunity for youth and adults to be involved with each other. Temecula has set the benchmark for providing recreation and community activities for all its citizens. Based on my past experience and community spirit I want to contribute my time and energy to help the City maintain and expand its innovative and successful programs. I grew up participating in municipal swimming and aquatic programs and from that training learned to teach swimming and was able to put myself through college as a swim instructor and lifeguard for the Culver City Recreation Department. Later, I managed the aquatics program for Culver City for four years. I have been active as a volunteer, serving as the president of my Homeowners Association for 10 years, as a Board member of the Community Association Institute and as a Friend of Temecula Library. I appreciate the value recreation plays in our lives, be it sports, crafts, theater or just enjoying a warm day in the park. These activities help build character, keep us healthy and lower the stress of our daily lives. Time, energy, commitment, willingness to try new things and evaluate new ideas are some of the qualities that I bring as a volunteer for the Community Service Commission. Kathy~o~aglan/'~~ CITY OF TEMECULA 09-19-00 P01:Z5 i~, APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION ............................... Qda t on::Reau :rement,. Res ~ent o[~::Ctty.:o[ ::~:~ ..................................... III Ca : :, ..... ~ ................................................................................................. Chec~ one; ~ Planning Commission ~ Community Semites Commission PubliclTraffic Safety Commission LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, te. chn, iqal, comm.u~nity, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIE~C YOU ARE QUAL FlED FOR THE POSITION. BE~SPECIFIC (Use additional ~ap~r ~ neces,s~): of this information for public i~formation purposes. SIG NATURE~~ DATE: 'City g~', Offi~ 432~ ' ~eturn to: Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OR ~ail to: P.O. Box ~033, ~em~cula, Ca. ~25~9-S033 CommissionsLApplication for various Commissions J ECEIVED I0V - 7 200 Commission Qualification Requirement: Registered voter and resident of the City of Temecula. Check one: Home Phone: ~- Employer Name & Address: Educational ~ckgroundl~grees: Years Resident of Temecula: ~ Work Phone: List Any Riverside County or Other City Board, Committee or Commission On Which You -- Have Servedand the-Year(s) of Service: Organizations to Which You Belong: (Professional, technical, community, service) Briefly State Why You Wish to Serve On This Commission, and Why You Believe You Are --Quatified-for-the-Posifion.-Be~ecific~( ~lse-addi§ onal-pa per fi-necessary) I understand that any or all Info~met ion on this form may be verified. I co nsent to the release of this Information for Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OR Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. Application for Appointment to Commission Qualification Requirement: Registered voter and resident of the City of Temecula. Check one: __Planning Commission _X_Community Services Commission __Public/Traffic Safety Commission Name: Warren B Knox II Years Resident ofTemecula: 6 Months Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: 619-263-0436 Occupation: District Safety, Training, & Recruitment Manager Employer Name & Address: Sodexho Marriott 995 Gateway Center Way, Suite 207 San Diego, CA. 92102 Educational Background/Degrees: See Resume List Any Riverside County or Other City Board, Committee or Commission On Which You Have Served and the Year(s) of Service: None Organizations to Which You Belong: (Professional, technical, community, service) Sharp Healthcare Safety Committees: Public and Occupational Safety Committee Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Committee Sharp Management Safety Committee Sharp Environment of Care Committee Briefly State Why You Wish to Serve On This Commission, and Why You Believe You Are Qualified for the Position. Be Specific. (Use additional paper if necessary) I am a relatively new resident in Temecula. I moved here because I love the area and the community. I have Two children ages 4 and 2, and I want to ensure that they grow up in a Temecula that remains a model community in the years ahead. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. DATE: //-Oz-OC/ Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OR Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92689- 9033 Objective: Experience: 8/99-Present 3/99-8/99 7/97--3/99 2/9S-7/97 2/93-2/95 8t86-2/93 Warren B. Knox H To obtain an executive position based on previous experience & education. District Safety/Tralning/Recraitment Coordinator, San Diego CA. Responsibilities laelude: Workers' Compensation Management, Acoidant a'end trecking, Safety Trainin~ (MSDS, Chomioal, Electrical, Fig, Disaster Prep, Radiation, Infecfien Control, Ergonomios, Divo'sity, Patiant Rights & Seeurity), Safety Audits, Acoident Review Boards, New Employee Ofientafioa, Fecilitate Employ~ Safety Committees, Point man for all ootmspendance with insurance oarrier, Cunduot Monthly Insea~ces. Mcnnber of SHARP Healthcare Commiilees; Public & Occupational Health & Safety Committee, Safety Managemant Sub~ommiltee, Emergency & Disaster Preparedness Safety Committee, Environment of Care CommiRee. Responsible for recruitment of managglnent ,and hourly employees. District Includes: Food Service, Housekeeping, &Engiaeering DuparUnents, at seven hospitals, five in San Diego, two m the Los Aagoles area. (Approx. 1000 Full Time Employees.). Facilities Manager, St. Michael's Health Care, Texarkana TX. Responsibilities Included: Grounds Contract encompassing 63 Acres, Facilities, Environmental Services, Transport,Linen Distribution, Safety, Supervision of 3 Team Leaders & 65 FTE's. (725,000 Sq/Ft 260 Beds) Assistant Director, University Hospital EVS Dept. Denver CO. Responsibilities include: Supervising the Hospital Honsekeeping D~pt consisting of two Managers, and 120 employees (102 FTE's). Oversee ly~ining, linen services, scheduling, evaluations, p~al files, hiring, terminations, inspections, ordering supplies, budgeting, safety, project coordination, and facility cleanllness. (785,000 Sq/Ft., 365 Beds) U.S. Army NCOIC Storage & Receiving Responsibilities included: Running a Wal~hous~, valued at ovgr 28 million dollars. Supelx4sed sixtecll Soldiers who were ~sponsible for, shipping & receiving as well as processing shipments, customer survic¢, transportation & a myriad of soldiering duties. U.S. Air Force NCO, Medical Technician Supervised and delegated duties to eight staff, who were responsible for patient Care ia ICU, ER, L&D and patient wards. U.S. Air Force NCO, Inventory Management Specialist Responsibilities Inoluded: Supervision and delegation of duties to fourteen staff. Coordinating the ordering of supplies and materials from ninety ~ight companies such as McDonnell Douglas, Notthrup, and Lockheed. Monitored monthly updates for d~partm~nt allowances. Handled allowanc.¢ and authorization, invanto~y, stock control, and priority equipment requests. Wrote evaluations, scheduled 24 hour duty roster. Skills: Compme~ Education: HACCP Trained, Publio Speaking. F~miliar with Power Point, Excel, MS Word, Word perfect, Lotus, Outlook, & the Intemgt. Central Texas College, Ft. Polk LA. 1996-1997 Continuing Educetlon. (6Hfs) Northwestern State University, Ft. Polk, LA. 1995-1996 Continuing Education. (12Hfs) Community College of the Air Force 1986-1993 Contimfing Education. (42Hfs) University of Maryland (Germany Division) 1990-1991 Continuing Education. (3I-Lrs) St. Petersburg Junior College, Clearwater FL. 1992-1993 Continuing Education. (24I-Irs) Personal: DOB Maroh 13, 1968. Marital Status: Manied. Child~n: One daughter, one son. Health: Excellent. Interests: Stock Market, Politics, and F~mi~. Hometown: San Diego CA. 11_u9-.~0 P1~'15 :.!~ 43200 Business Park Drive Comm/ss/on Appo/n£ment Temecu a, CA 92590 App//Cat/on www,ci.temecula.ca.us (909) 694-6444 I For proper consideration, yOu'must currentlybe'ra resident °f the I City of Temecula and a'Registerecl~¥oter in the City of Temecula Please Check One: __~ Community Services_,,/../. __ Public Traffic Safety Planning Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident//~J~'~Are you a City Registered Voter?..Ly_4~ .AME: occuPAT, _. /'tv v ,., ~/ y DAYTIME PHONE:F/~'"-; ~J-~ ~'-4) EVENING PHONE: . EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYERADDRES;:~ Educational Background/De~ees: List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission onANhich y43u have served, and the year(s) of List~any ~'ganizations t(~ which you belong (p~fessional, technical, community service): State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. -Please be specific.(You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.) . . I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the r~lease of thi~/~n for pubUc information purposes. Please return to:%~ty Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Ddve (9'~9) ~4-6444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE PRESENTATION OF QUALIFICATIONS MARSHALL S. OTSEA Confidential Information MARSHALL S. OTSEA RESUME OF QUALIFICATIONS Telephone: ( SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS · Successful background in the hospitality industry totaling more than 25 years of experience. · Well-versed in developing strong customer loyalty, along with a high level of quality control and staff morale. · Able to improve day-to-day operations, including the turn- around of unprofitable clubs, to highly successful clubs. · Highly flexible to accommodate unexpected situations, including devising ways to seat over 100 customers above club capacity in a legal and safe manner. · Recognized within the industry as providing exceptional service, innovative social themes, and excellent menu choices. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1974 to Present 1973 to 1974 1968 to 1973 1965 to 1968 Social Activity Coordinator Various Home Owner Associations Coordinated and organized all aspects of breakfasts, brunches, lunches and dinners. Directed ticket sales, purchasing of all items_needed for functions, oversight of meal preparation, and coordinated all staffing. Created innovative theme parties., as well as traditional functions. Worked in a voluntary capacity and directed a volunteer staff. Wholesale Sales Representative Bay.Vintners Imports Sold and supervised the selling of imported and California wines. Conducted tastings, promotions, and sales meetings. Club Manager California Institute of Technology - Pasadena, California Managed day-to-day operations at the Faculty Club and Hotel. Provided food, beverage, lodging, entertainment and tennis for 1,700 members and their guests. Responsible for maintenance, front desk operation, set-up for official meetings and dinners, all personnel actions, budgeting and Profit and Loss statements. Provided excellent customer service and developed strong customer loyalty. Club Manager La Canada Country Club - La Canada, California Provided food, beverage, golf, tennis, swimming and entertainment for 600 members. Responsible for the maintenance of all facilities and the monthly Profit and Loss Statement. 1963 to 1965 While in continuous Active Duty for the United States Army, actinfi.as a Troubleshooter. Assigned to the following locations requtnng asststance: Club Manager - Carlisle, Pennsylvania Responsible for the operation of the Army War College Club and billeting facility requiring daily VIP service. All menu planning and support for conferences were included. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY (Continued) 1960 to 1963 1958 to 1960 1955 to 1958 General Manager of Clubs - Oahu, Hawaii Managed three golf clubs, Officer's Club and Beach Club.. Responsible for all maintenance, food and beverage servaces, personnel actions, financial statements, purchasing, scheduling, and budget preparation. Recreation Supervisor - Ft Lewis, Washington Managed all the recreational facilities, including two bowling alleys, golf course, 100 room hotel, two dining rooms, a football stadium, baseball stadium, beach and beach club. Responsible for all maintenance and scheduling, provided all support for meetings and conferences. Preparedbudgets and was required to show a profit for all activities. General Manager of Clubs - Kaiserslautern, Germany Managed seven clubs in Europe. Facilities included food, beverage, meeting rooms and lodging facilities. Responsible for budgeting, monthly financial statements, purchasing, personnel actions, entertainment and maintenance. Successfully converted non-profitable clubs to highly profitable facilities. PERSONAL BACKGROUND Education Other Studies Seminars Community Involvement University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota Course of Study: Physical Education Bismark Junior College, Bismark, North Dakota General Education · Correspondence Course in Commercial Correspondence · Business Management and Office Management · Food and Beverage Control/Cornell University · Logistics Course/Army Administrators School · Army and Air Force Post Exchange Manager School · I.B.M. Data Processing Supervisors Course Personnel Food a.nd Beverage Management ~ , Marketing Management and Executive 19evetopment The Human Side of Management Advanced Management Techniques Commissioner of Oceanside Recreation & Leisure Services Commission PERSONAL DATA Excellent Health...Non-Smoker...Married...~l~~It References Available Upon Request CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY December 10, 1973 Mr. Marshall S. Otsea Dear Marsh: I was unable to attend your farewell bash and I didn't get to express my appreciation for your really great work at the Athenaeum. As you know, I have been around Caltech for twenty-seven years and have had a great deal to do with programs of all sorts and I have had literally hundreds of occasions to use the Athenaeum and its facilities. In all honesty I can say that you gave me more, and more enthusiastic cooperation, than any of the people I worked with during all that time. iVIuch more important, your enthusiasm for your work and your real desire to find out what the members wanted and to do it have added a whole new dimension and tone to the Athenaeum and its operations. I think the Athenaeum will never again be the stodgy, moribund place that it had become during the late fifties. What I have just said, [nc[dentally, is not merely my own opinion. All of my friends share the view. I imagine it will be a relief for you to get away from the Athenaeum with its motley collect[on of eggheads but whether or not you miss us we will miss you. Thanks again for a great job well done. Sincerely, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 13, 1973 Mr. Marshall Otsea Athenaeum, 1-61 Dear Marshall: I want to take this opportunity to thank you for everything you've done to make our year so successful. Again, in spite of the adversity of having to work with numerous people in the Alumni office, plus the increased activity in the Public Relations area, you and the Athenaeum staff have responded admirably. I think the number of programs and people we've had this year reached an all time high and there,is very little one can find fault with in the Athenaeum's total operation of all programs for which we were responsible. I recognize how much work and effort it takes to run successful programs and I certainly ap- preciate it, not only on behalf of the Alumni Association, and Public Relations and Publications Office, but most importantly for the job you're doing for the total Institute community. In addition to everything you've done during the year, I want to give you a special thanks for the wonderful dinner and service we had last Friday night when Janet and I celebrated her mother's birthday. The cake was excellent, as was the service and total meal. Please extend to the members of your staff our congratulations on a job very well done this past year. We look forward to working with you and the Athenaeum staff again next year on a bigger and even better program. Ja~,~ B. ~lack ~ · Director ~o~ lhose lo whom lhese Shis ~s m ~erfify that ~.~. s. OTS~A . w'hi~h ha~e met for weeks iu lhe summer of I~ ~. September 1, Mr Richard Mueiler Kerststrasse 20 Kaiserslautern 17 April 1958 Com~nding Officer Kaiserslautern Sub-Area APO 227, US Forces Dear Sirt Upon my departure from the Club and Mess Section, Eaiserslautsrn Sub-Area, it ia my honest belieye to express my comments to you in behalf of Captain M. S. 0tsea. I have been employed with and working for this section since 1 September 1955. During this period of time, I have seen many officers take.:charge of this section, but without a doubt, Capt Otsea has been the most. qualified man in this position. He possessed the necessary under- standingand the complete knowledge of the overall picture of the operation made it a pleasure to work.with him. His patience in dealing with German employees,, i. e. explaining unclear and technical problems to the employees is outstanding. His prior experience and thorough knowledge, of the operation of a club was of great help to all concerned. I acquired a great deal of practical and technical knowledge that I feel will be of great help to me in time to come in my employment with the US Forces. Respectfully, RICHAI~D MUELLER HCQM Letter of Appreciation 23 MAY 1963 TO~ ~aJorMsrsha11 S. Otsea Chief, Supply Division Office of She ~uartermaster Un, ted States Arm~, Hawaii APO 9~, U S Forcee 1. The wholehearted cooperation and capable assisfm_.~e rendered by you and your food service pereonnel, W-1 D.n.t e W. Ledbetter, ~S~t Paul Sauchuckj and SFC Eugene Oeraldo, durin~ the Schofield Barracks Armed Forces Week Open House is reco~T~tzed as a contri~ut~ factor in the overall success of this pro,ram. 2. For the efforts expended by you andy our personnel, I add~ apprecintion and ~ks to ~at of Colonel ~l~van*s for a f~ne work performance. Please convey my ~ratitude to .11 who ....... assisted you ~l~e event, 1 Incl L~r of Appreciation Colonel, Q~C Quartermaster Copy ~nished: 201 f~le XAISERSLAUTERN 3UB-AREA APO ~'27 ~S AIt~Y Letter of Commendation Captain MARteAt $. OTtFA, 01 ~9 305 01ubs and Mess Officer ' He~dquartere~ E?is®relautern Sub-~rea I. Atthe tt~e of my impending departure from this command, it is ~ sinceTM pleasure to commend you for the highly outstanding attention ts duty and services you have rendered as ClUBs and MOSS .Officer of this 2. During your tenure as Clubs Officer there has taken place an ~bolievatle transformatio~, froi an ~Jn~deytately Ol~ratsd~n~J~Oo~ly guperviSed officers olub~ to one whSse over-all olMr~tion is now sut- 0tandin~ in evex"j respect. ... ~e Your thorough knowledge of clubsand mess opemtion~ you~ ~bility to org&nize ~ud supervise the numerous agensies and ~ area of opor~tions~ and your genuine desire to 'establish and ~$~!n outetand!~ clubs~ have all been of the highest order. ~heso viral factors have insured the smooth operation and successful completion FOur mission as Clubs and Mess Officer, 4. ~our outstan~ingworkhae~eenmarkod by t~o~ ~-& dipi°macy in d~ling vit~ mtlitax-y personnel and-dependents slike~ tngonuAty,al~ · ~d~Dtability in planning and exeCUttn~all phases of'club a~tivit!ese:' ~nd an attitude which has'inspired Oooperation from all individuals uni~,assoelated with you. My eonnendati0ns go to you fo~ a Job eo ~01I ~. · ~oPY of this letter will be made aPart Of your.E01 filej;. ~p, West ~olona,1, Command~ OPCSQM Otsea~ Marshall HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF PERSONNEL OPERATIONS WASHINGTON 25:. D.C. 8 July 1965 Major Marshall ,~. Otsea, ~J.1C Headquarters, US l~rmy Hawaii ^FO 957," Fran~t~sco, · L, al3~£ornla ,' Oear Major (.)tsea: Reference is made to our lette~, dated 26 April 1963, in which it was disclosed 'thet assig]ment instructions were beiug requested to assign you to the US Army Air Defense Center, Fort bl~so, Texas. --~ ~'==-This. wil~.-~'dvJ--se '~i~:your assign~n~~nt~ i~b%i-ng~'bh~ge~''~ you will n6~ill-a req~ire~e.nt a~ Carlisle Barracks for duty as ~ecre~a~y, Officers' ()pen ~';les~;, whJ. c)J suiq3orts the ,~rmy WaF College. This is a most j. mportant posi ~ion · I feel certain thst you will find this forthcoming pos.ition most reward~ ng. .... Sincerely .yours, Chief, Quartermaster Branch, OPD ~mriug the period I ,July 1962 to 20 July 1963, c~OR [,~RSIU%LL S. O'[~FA served Chief, Supply Division. ~ri~]g this per{pd, b~JOR ()TSF~ performed his duties {~ a distinctively outstanding nmnner. )~OR O~, through his executive abilities, effected pro}~ressive changes and impr~ements in Quarter~ster supply support and storage operations. He brought to ,, his Quarter~ster assignment an invaluable objectivity of approach gained from his previous assignmentS, and succeeded in infusing greater efforts of se~ice minded supply support among personnel of Supply and ~intenance Ceuter, Self-Se~ice Supply ' '-e Branch. He Centers, Clothing Sales Stores,, the Commissary and the Food Division in or en route to ~L~a~and wi~h application el. p[aas based on current liza~ion plans and policies. He sisnif[can~lY coordina~ed supply support to 3~/8 (continued on reverse) ,,,UUT, ' ibutions of ou~tanding significance by rendering ' accomplishment ot ~he quarterzm~s~er supply sulport · ' Ar~, Hawaii. Quartermaster QH. {L~ARI~kW. APO 957 Proposed C~tat:ion. ~eL'*',,&-" ,,-, PART V. Item 30 (Cunt"d) Holmes & Narver, as well as serving as QM Proiect Offlccr for supply support of the annual sununer encampments of the National Guard, the f;rmy Reserves and the USARPAC Rifle and Pistol Match competltlo · He was instrumental in the systematic occupancy and effective utilization of Navy cold storage facilities provided by NSC, Pearl Harbor, through an Inter- service Support Agreement, for 10,707 square feet of chi|.1 and freeze space to be used by Schofield Barracks Cou~ntssary for storage of perishable subsistence upon the loss of 21,000 square feet of cold storaze space ~t tl~e Wahiawa Cold Storage Plant. Through his resourcefulness and coordinated eff~rts, an agreement was made possible whereby Army avtstiqn gasoline requirements could be obtained through the Air Force rather than from eo,unercial sources, this agreement re- sulted in savings to the Army of approximate)y $30,000 annually. He initiated and encouraged weekly info[mat staff visits co ol~eratiag activities with particular emphasis directed toward improving supp]y support and to establish better understanding between staff .and operation. Acti.~.~s such as these have been significantly beneficial in readily identifying problem areas, the free exchange of ideas, and in keeping raanagement staff and operators abreast of the latest infor- mation and changes. During November 1962, he coordinated and supervised shipments of tents and bed- ding supplies to support tbs Guam emergency relief. 't~is spontai~eous and expedited support was initiated during nonduty hours and without benefit of past precedents or experience. Despite the handicaps, approximately ~o() t~ns of equipment were assembled from various locations, booked, delivered, and shipped within a day. His skillful 'supervision and decisiveness contributed greatly iq meeting the.many complex and unprecedented demands of ~he situation. Operational responsibility for. the Pohaku]oa '[¥ai~i.ng Area was transferred from the 25th Infantry Division to 1~ited States Army, Ilawaii in January of 1963. MAJOR OTSEA was instrumental in establishing SOP's and procedures in areas of QM supply "support, determining manpower requ~re~mnts, and obtaiuh~g initial supplies end services. His directives were noteworthy as they outlined policies and procedures which expedited work, and at the same Ltme, effected eco~'~omies of t~me, money, personnel~ and equipment. In order to meet continge~cies ~uvolvi~lR the conunand's mol, llJzaLi.on reserve stocks of subsistence and POI, supplies, MAJOE ()'?SEA assisted and coordinated the positioning and movement thereof to ].ess w~]merab]e and ~,ore accessible locations at Schofiteld Barracks. His supply knowledEe and abilit'ies ~n storage operations were particulorly helpful In ~ccomplishing this task with a minimum of effort and, disruption to the normal daily operations, iIis plans considered allocation of space based on types of umterial stored; the relative activity or turnover of specific items; the suitability of storage area ~in terms ut structural, fire and safety eonsiderationa, local{un of loading and on|oading p,,int's, and requirements for interns! trsnsportation and facilities. PART V. Item 3~) (Cont'd) During FY 63, one of th~ u~st i,ersistent probl,.~ms c.~n(:ernJng the Quarters and Installation Property Officer~ wan the shortage', of si Ipc.w~rs for q,,arters furniture and necessary funds for their p~rcimse. ~.~tl~: O'l~b[~ c,,ntacted ~es[ ssi.bls budget personnel and by telephone aod/or messages~ c~)nveyed t- the (~ersea Supply Agency in San Francisco and the Clothing and [.'~xt~le Age~cy in Philadelphia the i~ortance of these demnds. His' resourcefulness and ne~otiations co~tributed to the success in gaining support, and/or cooperation which resulted in allocation of $75.000 to purchase and fabricate much needed slipcovers- with the advent of the new req~[sitioning and issue procedures under blILS~IP i~ July 1962, he conscientiously analyzed the benefits o'f tl~e new system and constantly provided new techni, ques and iu~plemcuting policies to better meet the intent of the system. He eliminated unnecessary handling ~nd editi~,g, saving many nmnhours and reducing workload; he initiated and evaluaI.~,d order - ship time data to i~rove supply support from CONUS; he propose~* a system ,,f direct handli~g of certain requi- sitions by the Computer' Service System which wi[] save two to three days of processing time. His principles of supply ~nagement required that maximum supply actions and services be pr~ided with the minimum investr~ent cost, res~lted in reduction of the dollar value of inventories by more than 25 per cent at the Fort Shafter and Schofield ~rracks Clothing Sales Store-. '~%roughout the period fr,.~m I .Inly 1962 t,) 20 July l.:~62, ettrlbutes such as strong personal leader,;hip, professienal cumpetemce, sound jt~d~;meut, meticulous planning, reliable perforumnce in supply and storage functions, co,,~plete absorption and devcC~on to duty, characterized this ootsta~di.g perfo~'umncc o[ this officer, lie instilled in his suSordinates a strong desire to excel in every tasl; by his personal example, sound Judgment and sincere devotion to duty. ~e outstanding results achieved throul4b his leadership d~ring the periods indi- cated are considered adequate proof of his pcrforumnce and is deemed worthy of the highest praise and recognition. CITATION First Oakleaf Cluster Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant Captain }~rshall S. Otsea, 01~39305, QMC, rendered outstanding meritorious service as Oustodian of the Central Post Fund, Ft Lewis, Washington from 25 April 59 to 31 January 60. Through is professional knowledge and leadership he established improved management procedures and policy for the receipt, disbursement and accounting of nonappropriated welfsre funds and the mintenance and accounting of fund owned property. Through Captain O~sea's initiative and sound guidance the Central Post Fund successfully administered monthly to over 165 separate unit funds of active Arm~ units located in the states of Washington, Oregon and Montana. During the annual summer training months he was responsible for administering to an additional 275 17~ft funds of Army Reserve and National Guard Units. During the ~?mmer of 1959 Captain Otsea was instrumental in developing the Fort Lewis 5 year plan for the samlnistra~ion and use of nonappropreated funds. Captain Otseats untiring efforts and selfless devotion to duty reflects great credit upon himself and the military service. · City of Tcmccula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cLtemecula.ca.us (909) 694°6444 RECEIVED NOV - 2 2i~ Commiss/on Appo/ntmen£ Appl/cat/on For proper consideration, you must currently be a ~esident of the City of Temecula and a'Registered Voter in the City of Temecula Please Check One: Planning ~ Community Services Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident -2~ ~ Public Traffic Safety Are you a City Registered Voter? ~ ADDRESS: ~ :~'~' DA~IME PHONE: q~-~ EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: OCCUPATION:~'a?c~ EVENING PHONE: E-MAIL Educational Background/Degrees: ~.~.,,~o/u~ ~--~--~ ~)"~; ~ C~;~ X ~.~. ~or~ ~ro/,'~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~. ~., ~ ~ p.~,, ~. List any Ci~ or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have se~ed and the year(e) of se~ice: ~ / List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, community service): State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please-be specific,(You may attach a separate-sheet of-paper if-necessary.) I un~derstand that any or all information on th!s for~/~y~ ~enfied. I' consent to the release of this information for public information piirposes. Please return to: 'City Clerk s Office, 43200 Busb3ess Park Drive (909) 694-~444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF WILLIAM E. SANDINE Updated June 20, 2000 William E. Sandine is an emeritus Distinguished Professor of Microbiology at Oregon State University(OSU), Corvallis Oregon. He was born in Des Moines, Iowa and earned his Bachelor of Science Degree in Dairy Industry from Iowa State University in 1951. That year he was awarded a $1,000 Research Fellowship from the Dairy Industries Supply Association as a member of the championship Dairy Products Judging Team competing in Atlantic City, New Jersey. After two years in the Air Force he attended North Carolina State University and received the Master of Science Degree in Dairy Bacteriology in 1955. He then attended OSU, receiving his Ph.D. Degree in Microbiology in 1958. While at Oregon State he received the Phi Sigma Award as the outstanding graduate student in the biological sciences. He remained on the staff at OSU as an Instructor for one year and then moved to the University of Illinois to the laboratory of Dr. Harry Broquist for post-doctoral research on the biosynthesis of lysine in yeast. In 1961 he returned tO OSU where he taught lecture and laboratory courses in food microbiology and dairy microbiology and directed the research activities of 38 students for M.S. degrees and 39 students for Ph.D. degrees in Microbiology. He has been a member of the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA) since 1953 and has served on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Dairy Science as well on the Pfizer, Borden, Dairy Research Foundation, Award of Honor and Distinguished Service Award committees. He is a past member of the ADSA Board of Directors, and was vice president and president of ADSA in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Dr. Sandine has been a member of the Society for Industrial Microbiology(SIM), American Society for Microbiology (ASM), International Association of Milk, Food and Environmental Sanitarians (IAMFES), Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), Sigma Xi, Phi Kappa Phi, Gamma Sigma Delta and Alpha Zeta. He is a Fellow in the American Academy for Microbiology. He has over 200 publications in refereed scientific journals, has given 64 invited lectures in the United States and in several foreign countries, and has 26 patents in microbiology, at least two of which in the United States earn OSU a substantial income. He is author of Lactic Starter Culture Technology (1979), co-author of Microbiology of Foods (1980), and a chapter author in Dairy Starter Cultures published by VCH in 1996. In 1964 Sandine received the Pfizer Award and in 1979 the Dairy Research Foundation Award from ADSA; in 1980 he received the ASM Fisher Award for Applied Research and the Nixon Outstanding Professor Award from OSU. In 1982, Dr. Sandine and Pharmacy colleague Dr. James W. Ayres received the Industrial Achievement Award from the IFT; this award was given for the development and marketing of an innovative lactic acid bacterial cheese starter medium known as PHASE 4. During August of 1983, Dr. Sandine was sponsored by the ASM to teach two courses at the Institute for Lactobacillus research (CERELA) in Tucuman, Argentina and while there he received an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy Degree from the National University of Tucuman. During September of 1983 Dr. Sandine attended the First Interh~tib~l C6~f~nce off-L-a~ti~--A~id Bacteria in the Netherlands and lectured and consulted in Ireland where all Cheddar cheese manufacturing plants are using the Defined Strain Bacteriophage Resistant Starter Culture System developed in his laboratory and introduced to Ireland by one of his former students. In 1984, Dr. Sandine received a State of Oregon Legislative Award for Excellence in Research, Scholarship and Teaching; was awarded the Nordica __Rese_arch Award from the American Cultured Dairy Products Institute; and received the General Mills Educator Award for .... Demonstrated Educational Excellence and Effective Motivation of Students. In 1969 Dr. Sandine was on sabbatic leave at the Food Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada; in 1974-75 at the New Zealand Dairy Research in Palmerston North; and in 1984-5 at the University of Florida in the Department of Food Science in Gainsville. In 1984-5, he gave invited lectures in Seoul, Korea; Alexandria, Egypt and Toulouse, France. Dr. Sandine was the organizer and convener of the 1986 and 1991 SIM symposia entitled "Recent Advances in the Genetics of Lactic Acid Bacteria" and "Molecular Biology of Lactic Starter Cultures", respectively. In 1987 he was selected as the keynote speaker for the Second International Conference on Lactic Acid Bacteria in The Netherlands and in 1988 he received the Charles Thom Award from the-SI-M:~n-l-990w-l)r.-Sandine-was selected as-the ASM Food Microbiology Divisional Lecturer for the 1991 annual meeting in Dallas, Texas. That same year he received the IAMFES Educator Award as well as the OSU Gilfillan Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Microbiology. Dr. Sandine was recipient of the OSU Sigma Xi Research Award in 1992; in 1995 he was designated an OSU Distinguished Professor of Microbiology and also received a USDA Award of Honor presented by United States Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. Presently he is an editor for the Journal of Dairy Science and is a member of the editorial boards for the Egyptian Journal of Dairy Science and the International Dairy Journal. He is a frequent consultant to the dairy and food industries in the United States and is part owner of Bio Stimulants West, a company devoted to solving environmental contamination problems using natural bioremediation approaches. )~'v ~ ~- 2000 RECEIVED '~" '~ 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.ci.ternecula.ca.us (909) 694-6444 Comm/ss/on Appo/ntment Appl/ca£/on For proper consideration, y6u must currently be a resident of the City,of Temecula'and a Registered Voter in~the Ci, ty of Temecu]a.. Please Check One: Planning /~ Community Services Public Traffic Safety Number of years asa Oity of Temecu,a Resident J~ ^re you a City Registered Voter? NAME: '~'fl-/O~'~ ~, ~ OCCUPATION: ~l~' DAYTIMEPHONE: ~P~ -- ~T~ EMPLOYER.AME: ~/~' EMPLOYER ADDRESS: /L,//~ EVENING PHONE: Educatonal Background/Degrees. ~ -r-tom ~[~e~E:i?_- ~?,,,o.4 ~,,~,~ .~- List any Ci~ or CounN Board, Commi~ee or Commission on ~hich you have se~ed and the year(s) of List any organizations to which you belong (professional, techn.~ical, community service): State why you wish to sewe on this mmmission, and why you believe you are qualified Dr the position. Please be specific.(You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessaw.) +he ~a 5 ~ ~o '/~ "-- ~ee >, ~ ¢ ~e~ ~v g~ t'~'', ~ .f~,, ,~.~,~.~ Plea~tum to: C~ ~ s Office, 43200 Business Park Ddve (909) 694-6444 (OR~ Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE