The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About111897 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE NOVEMBER 18, 1997- 7:00 PM 5:30 PM - Closed Session of the City Councii/Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1) §54956.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiator, Property: 28725 Pujoi Street (APN 922-062-010); Negotiating Parties: .City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Bonnie Corbin; Under negotiation: price and terms of payment for acquisition of the property. 2) §54956.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiator, .Property: 28497 and 28485 Pujol Street (Sherwood Apartments); 28559 and 28565 Pujoi Street (Pujol Apartments); 28545, 28555, 28535 and 28534 Pujol Street (Agency Owned Property); Negotiating Parties: City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency ahd Affirmed Housing Group; Under negotiation: Terms of disposition and development agreement for sale of property and development of affordable housing project. 3) §54956.8, Conference. with Real Property Negotiator~ Property: 28545 Front Street (APN 922-036-031); Negotiating. Parties; City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Roy Black; Under negotiation; price and terms of payment for acquisition of the property. 4) §54956.8, Conference with Real Pro. perty Negotiator, Property: 28640 Pujoi Street (APN 922-053-020); Negotiating Parties: City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Mark Lawer; Under negotiation; price and terms of payment for acquisition of the property. 5) §54956.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiator, Property: 26631 Ynez Road; Negotiating Parties: City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Toyota of Temecula; Under negotiation: Terms and conditions of development agreement relating to the property. - 6) §54956.7(c), Conference with Legal Counsel, whether to initiate liti~lation, one matter. At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM. R:\Agenda\102897 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 97-21 Resolution: NO. 97-121 Prelude Music: Tanner Palmer Invocation: Rabbi Josef Germaine, Congression B'Nai Chaim of Murrieta Flag Salute: Councilmember Ford ROLL CALL: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS National Family Week Proclamation PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. R:\Agenda\102897 2 1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 28, 1997. 3 Resolution Approving List (~f Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Cit_v Treasurer's Re_port RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1997. Award of Construction Contract Public Works Department Maintenance Work Order 97-98- 007 - Rainbow Canvon Road RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 5.2 Award a contract for Public Works Department Maintenance Work Order No. 97-98- 007 to NPG Corporation in the amount of $11,850.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,185.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. R:\Agenda\102897 3 Award of Construction Contract Public W0rk~ Department M~intenance Work Order 97-98- 008 - Citywide P.C.C. Repairs RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Award a contract for Public Works Department Maintenance Work Order No. 97-98- 008 to Walter K. Becker in the amount of $27,964.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 6.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $2,796.40 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Completion and Acce_Dtance of the Constructi0n of FY97-98 Citywide A.C. Street Repairs, Project NO. PW97-11 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Accept the construction of FY97-98 Citywide A.C. Street Repairs, Project No. PW97-11; 7.2 7.3 File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of FY97-98 Citywide P.C.C. Repairs, Project NO. PW~)7-12 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 8.2 8.3 Accept the construction of FY97-98 Citywide P.C.C. Repairs, Project No. PW97-12; File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of completion if no liens have been filed. Completion and Acceptance of the Traffic Signal at State Route ,79 South and Bedford Court - Project NO. PW96-17 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept the traffic signal at State Route 79 South and Bedford Court, Project No. PW96-17; R:\Agenda\ 102897 4 10 11 12 13 9.2 File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 9.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Renewal of Annual Right-Of-Way Weed ¢0ntrol Pre-Emergent and Post Emergent Application. Pro!ect No. PW~)5-24 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Extend the Right-Of-Way (R-O-W) weed control contract with Pestmaster Services of Temecula for a period of one (1) year beginning November 18, 1997 and ending November 19, 1998 in an amount not to exceed $28,331.02. Release Warranty and Labor and Material Bonds in Tract No. 27827-2 (Located Northwesterly of the intersection of North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road) RECOMMENDATION' 11.1 Authorize release of the Faithful Performance Street, and Water and Sewer System bond in the warranty amount, and the Labor and Materials Bond in Tract No. 27827- 2; 11.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Accept Faithful Performance Bond Rider for Warranty Purposes in Parcel Map 2771 (Located East of Ynez Road, between Solana Way and Rancho California Road) RECOMMENDATION. 12.1 Accept Faithful Performance Bond Rider for warranty purposes in Parcel Map No. 27714; 12.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. Release Labor and Materials Secvritie$ for Public Improvements in Tract No. 24134-2 (Located at the Southeasterly corner of Pauba Road at Margarita Road) RECOMMENDATION. 13.1 Authorize the release of Labor and Materials securities for Public Improvements in Tract No. 24134-2; 13.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. R:\Agenda\ 102897 5 14 15 16 Accept Infrastructure Improvements in P~loma Del $01 Relating tO Tract NO. 24134-F (Located Southeasterly of the intersection of Pauba Road at Margarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Accept the infrastructure improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No. 24134-F; 14.2 Authorize reduction in infrastructure Faithful Performance securities for Streets and Drainage, and Water and Sewer System to warranty level and initiation of the one- year warranty period; 14.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Accept Infrastructure Improvements in Pa10m~ Del $ol Relating to Tract NO. 24133-1 (Located Southwesterly of the intersection of Pauba Road at Meadows Parkway) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Accept the infrastructure improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No. 24133-1; 15.2 Authorize reduction in Infrastructure Faithful Performance security for street, drainage, water and sewer system improvements to warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period; 15.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. Acceptance of E~sement and Right of Entry by the City of Temecula from Electrend, Inc. In Connection with the Realignment of Streets Near the Intersection of Front Street and Highway 79 South for the I-15/Highway 79 South Interchange Improvements RECOMMENDATION 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM ELECTREND, INC. FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES · AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF THE EASEMENT DEED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH R:\Agenda\102897 6 17 18 19 16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN "RIGHT OF ENTRY AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ELECTREND, INC. 16.3 Authorize and direct the City Clerk to record the documents approved by the Resolutions as listed above. Accept Infrastructure Improvements in Paloma Del Sol Relating to Tract NO. 24132-1 (Located Southeasterly of the intersection of Margarita Road at Pauba Road) RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Accept the infrastructure improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No. 24132-1; 17.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance securities for street, drainage, water, and sewer system improvements to warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period; 17.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. Amendment to Lease A_~reement with the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc., RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve an amendment to the Lease Agreement with the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. defining the area leased to the Museum and amending the grant amount to the Museum. Records Destruction Approval RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. R:\Agenda\ 102897 7 20 Approval of Minor Changes tO Development Agreement for Paloma Del Sol Development Agreement, Now "Paseo Del Sol," for the Pro.oertv Located Generally North of SR79, Southeast of Margarita Road, South of Pauba Road, and West of Butterfield Stage Road RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CAL-PALOMA DEL SOL, A CALIFORNIA LIABILITY COMPANY, AND CAL-CPS SOUTHEAST, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING AND THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING R;\Agenda\102897 8 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: NO. CSD 97-01 Resolution' No. CSD 97-15 CALL TO' ORDER: President Jeffrey E. Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can 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 desire to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Board of Directors gets to 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 Minute~ RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 28, 1997. R:\Agenda\102897 9 2 Acceptance of Easement for Drivewav Access to the Temecula Duck Pond RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACCEPTING A GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA HIGHLANDS I, LLC FOR PROVISION OF ACCESS TO THE TEMECULA DUCK POND AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF THE EASEMENT ACCEPTANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 2.2 Authorize the Secretary/City Clerk to record the easement documents. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting: November 25, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\102897 10 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No., RDA 97-01 Resolution: No. RDA 97-07 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Steven J. Ford presiding ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Ford PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the.pbblic can 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 desire to speak to the Agency on an item not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Agency gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 28, 1997. 2 Aco. uisition of Property for Affordable Housing RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OBJECTING TO PUBLIC SALE OF CERTAIN TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, OFFERING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND STATING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS TO BE DEVOTED R:\Agenda\ 102897 11 Reconvene City Council Meeting - Mayor Birdsall JOINT CITY COUNCIL/RDA PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council/Temecula Redevelopment Agency before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. Planning Application No. PA97-0221. An Amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan Establishing the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program and Revising the Parking .Requirements, and Planning Application NO. PA~)7-0267 Establi,shing the P~rking Incentive~ for the Sixth Street Parking Lot. Planning Application. No. PA 97-0292 Establishing the Parking In-Lieu Fee 01d Town RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: 3.2 3.3 ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0221), AN AMENDMENT TO THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ESTABLISHING THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE PROGRAM AND REVISING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0292), SETTING THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE WITHIN THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT BI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IN-LIEU FEE · That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267), ESTABLISHING THE OLD TOWN PARKING INCENTIVE PROGRAM R:\Agenda\ 102897 12 3.4 That the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267), ESTABLISHING THE OLD TOWN PARKING INCENTIVE PROGRAM RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING RDA BUSINESS 4 Facade Improvement Program Amendment RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Amend the Facade Improvement Program and Non-conforming Sign Removal Program. REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: November 25, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\ 102897 13 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 21 Appeal No. 1 and Appeal NO. 2 of Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Zev Buffman Entertainment Project) - the Construction of a 103,564 Sau~re Foot, 4,800 Seat Arena and Associated Improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways) and an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project, Located West of Old Town Temecula (100 Feet West of Pu!ol Street), 700 Feet S~uth of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and East of the Cit_v's Western B~rcler, Within the Westside Specific Plen RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - APPEAL NO. 1), MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 7 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 APPROVING A CHANGE TO THE ROOF MATERIALS FOR THE ARENA AND DENYING PLANNING ,APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - APPEAL NO. 2), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 103,564 SQUARE FOOT, 4,800 SEAT ARENA AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS (HARDSCAPE, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ROADWAYS) AND AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR FOR THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT) BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COUNCIL BUSINESS 22 Murrieta Creek Update RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Receive and file report. R:\Agenda\102897 14 23 Community Services Funding Reo_uests Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Review and approve the 1997-98 Community Service Funding requests per the table outlining the committee's recommendations. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: November 25, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\ 102897 15 PROCLAMATIONS,/ PRESENTATIONS ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD OCTOBER 28, 1997 EXECUTIVE SESSION A meeting of the City of Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:00 PM. It was duly moved and seconded to adjourn to Executive Session at 6:05 PM, pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1) §54956.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiator, Property: 28735 Pujol Street (APN 922-062-019); Negotiating Parties: City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Irene Ladanyi; Under negotiation: price and terms of payment. 2) §54956.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiator, Property: 28545 Front Street (APN 922-035-001); Negotiating Parties: City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Ladd Penfold; Under negotiation: price and terms of payment. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Stone absent. The Executive Session was adjourned at 7:10 PM. A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:12 PM at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Birdsall presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Ronald Bradley, City Attorney Peter M. Thorson, and City Clerk June S. Greek. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude and intermission music was provided by Katie Jones. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Dr. Stephen Struikman, Rancho Community Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the flag salute by Councilmember Stone. Minutes\ 10\07197 -1 - 11113~97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION Mayor Birdsall announced Jurgen Heyer, Mayor of Dietzenbach, Germany, made an official visit to the City of Temecula and presented the City with a beautiful book and commemorative silver coin, for their 775th year as a City. Mayor Birdsall proclaimed October 28th, 1997 as "Susan G. Komen Foundation Day." Joan Sparkman, Vilma Buffman and Lori Stone Rubin accepted the proclamation, and thanked the City Council for recognizing the efforts of this Foundation with the goal of eradicating breast cancer by advancing research, education, screening and treatment. Mayor Birdsall read a proclamation recognizing the efforts of Carolyn Knight, founder of "Bosom Buddies", providing support groups and other services to women in the fight against breast cancer. CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney Thorson stated in accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act, there was nothing to report from Closed Session. PUBLIC COMMENTS Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena, representing the American Red Cross, distributed pamphlets regarding Family Disaster Planning and encouraged citizens of Temecula to prepare themselves in the event an emergency occurs. Ed Dool, Temecula Stage Stop, 41920 Sixth Street, addressed the City Council regarding support for Tri-City Trolley. He explained the Trolley begins at the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center, comes to two major shopping centers in Temecula and ends at the Temecula Stage Stop in Old Town. He stated the total cost of operation is $1,700, with Temecula's share being $600. Jayne Carney, 39537 June Court, requested the City Council appeal the Planning Commission approval of the PA97-0170 Conditional Use Permit. Jeff Comerchero, 41981 Avenida Vista Ladera, representing Cub Scouts acknowledged the boys and families who participated in "Make a Difference Day," 25th, and thanked Councilmember Ford for putting this event together. Pack 337, on October Hank Testasecca, 42136 Tea Tree Court, expressed concern regarding the Murrieta Creek, and asked that the City Council do what is necessary to prevent future flooding. Jeannie Gillen, 30195 Del Rey Road, invited citizens to attend the "Fiesta Under the Oaks," on November 9th, 11:00 AM at the Santa Rosa Plateau. Minutes\l 0\07/97 -2- 11/13~97 City Council Minutes October 28, !997 Jim Duffey, 40449 Chauncey Way, addressed the City Council regarding illegal parking of boats and recreational vehicles, and stated there seems to be confusion regarding how the City Council feels on this issue. City Manager non Bradley stated code enforcement has not stopped on this issue. He explained that recreational vehicles parked on City Streets are controlled by the California Vehicle Code. He clarified that the only place code enforcement has not been enforced is in driveways and sidewalks and this issue will be coming to the Council for further review. Del James, 27546 Jon Christian Place, asked that a member of the Council appeal PA 97- 0170, approved by Planning Commission on October 20th. He asked that the Council appeal this decision based on the hearings held in 1994 regarding the Summerfield Tract. Mayor Birdsall directed staff to pursue an appeal by Councilmember Lindemans. City Attorney Thorson stated the appeal must be in writing. Councilmember Stone requested copies of the City Council minutes at the time Summerfield Tract was approved. Johnny Cruzen, 22711 Carancho Road, addressed the City Council regarding the Murrieta Creek, stating siltation needs to be held up at the construction sites. He provided written material to each of the City Councilmembers. CeCe Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre Drive, representing the PTA, thanked the City Council for approving the all-way stop at Nicolas Road and N. General Kearny and for approving an $8,000 expenditure to jointly fund a sidewalk to Nicolas Valley Elementary. She requested a left turn signal be installed at Nicolas and Winchester. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Ford requested five and ten year traffic plans be developed and asked that the Council look at the ultimate State Why 79S and Freeway interchange treatment as well as a widening of Santiago overcrossing widening and on/off ramps. He also asked that the City's designation, for Cal Trans projects, of rural be changed to urban. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts reported on a recent meeting at the Pechanga Reservation regarding the traffic generated by the rodeo. He announced they have agreed to pay for traffic officers on Pala Road at the Casino and at the intersection of Why 79 South for any future special events. Councilmember Stone introduced the "REACT" (Responsive Emergency Acute Care Temecula) Program to the City Council . He proposed the ambulance be moved to Station 84 and suggested training fire personnel to provide advanced life support. Councilmember Stone reported that during the past year, 65 people have been arrested, in connection with Operation ERACIT, and he believes this program has been a success. He showed an overhead, listing a number of businesses in the community that were not in compliance with the law relative to sale of alcohol to minors. Minutes\ 10\07197 -3- 11113~97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 Councilmember Roberts stated at this time the County of Riverside has control over Ambulance Services, and the League of California Cities Public Safety Committee is looking for ways to take back control of ambulance services. CONSENT CALENDAR City Attorney Thorson reported on Item No. 23, stating the agreement was modified at Paragraph 4.2, adding a clause which allows either the City or County to terminate the agreement upon 30 days written notice. Councilmember Stone requested the removal of Item No. 17 from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Lindemans questioned Item No. 18 asking if when the electric charging station is built, it will also serve the public? Community Development Director Gary Thornhill stated the station would serve the public as well as the City. He said there is no way to charge for these services at this time, however he feels sure a "charge-back" system will be developed. He stated the typical recharge of three hours will cost approximately 90 cents. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-16 and 18-26. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None , , Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minute~ 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 7, 1997. Minutes\ 10\07/97 -4- 11/13/97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 , , , , , Resolution Approving List of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Release Erosion Control- Landscape Improvement Bonds in Tracts No. 24131-through 24135 (Located Southeasterly of intersection of Margarita Road at Pauba Road) 4,1 Authorize the release of Erosion Control - Landscape Improvement Faithful Performance Bonds in Tracts No. 24131 through 24135; 4.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (Within Tracts No. 23267-2 and 23267-3) (Located Southwesterly of the intersection of Highway 79(S) at Margarita Road) 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-115 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM {WITHIN TRACTS NO. 23267-2 AND 23267-3) Accept Subdivision Improvements in Tract No. 23267-3 (Located Southwesterly of the intersection of Highway 79 (S) at Margarita Road) 6.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 23267-3; 6.2 Authorize initiation of the one-year warranty period, reduction of the Faithful Performance Street and Drainage, and Water and Sewer System security amounts, and release of the Subdivision Monumentation security; 6.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Accept Subdivision Improvements in Tract No. 23267-2 (Located Southwesterly of intersection of Highway 79 (S) at Margarita Road) 7.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 23267-2; Minutes\l 0\07/97 -5- 11/13/97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 , . 10. 11. 7.2 Authorize initiation of the one-year warranty period, reduction of the Faithful Performance Street and Drainage, and Water and Sewer System security amounts, and release of the Subdivision Monumentation security; 7.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Release Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities in Tract No. 21673-F (Located Northeasterly of the intersection of Rancho Vista Road at Margarita Road) 8.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials securities for Streets, Water and Sewer Improvements in Tract No. 21673-F; 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Release Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Bonds in Tract No. 24133-2 (Located Easterly of the intersection of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) 9.1 Authorize release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material Bonds for the public street, drainage, water, and sewer improvements in Tract No. 24133-2; 9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Release Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities in Tract No. 24133-3 (Located at the Northeasterly corner of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) 10.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials securities for Street, Drainage, and Water and Sewer improvements; 10.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Release Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities in Tract No. 24134-,3 (Located Northeasterly of the intersection of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) 11.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials securities for Street, Drainage, Water and Sewer Improvements in Tract No. 24134-3; 11.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Minutes\ 10\07/97 -6- 11113~97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 12. 13. 14. 15. Release Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor end Materials Securities in Tract No. 24134-F (Located at the Northeasterly corner of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) 12.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials securities for Street, Drainage, Water and Sewer Improvements in Tract No. 24134-F; 12.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Release Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Bonds in Tract No. 25004-! (Located Northeasterly of the intersection of Nicolas Road at North General Kearny Road) 13.1 Authorize release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material securities for the public street, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Tract No. 25004-1; 13.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Accept Substitute Faithful Performance Warrant_v Securities, and Release Labor and Materials Securities in Tract No. 26861-3 (Located Southwesterly of the intersection of Highway 79 S at Margarita Road) 14.1 Accept substitute faithful performance warranty securities; 14.2 Authorize release of Labor and Materials securities and the original Faithful Performance securities for private streets and drainage, and water and sewer systems in Tract No. 26861-3; 14.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. AcCeDt Substitute Faithful Performance Warranty Securities. and Release Labor and Materials Securities in Tract No. 26861-F (Located Southwesterly of the intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79S) 15.1 Accept substitute Faithful Performance Warranty securities; 15.2 Authorize release of Labor an~l Materials securities and the original Faithful Performance securities for private street, water and sewer system improvements in Tract No. 26861-F; 15.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Minutes\l 0\07197 -7- 11/13~97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 16. A~(;eptance of Easements by the Cit_v of Temecula from Electrend, Inc. and Margarita Canyon LLC for Provision of Access to Eastern MuniciPal Water District's Sewer Facilities and Slope Easement Respectively, in Connection with the Realignment of Streets Near the Intersection of Front Street and Highway 79 South for the I- 1 §/Highway 79 South Interchange Improvements - Proiect No. PW96-05 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled' RESOLUTION NO. 97-116 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN ACCESS EASEMENT FROM ELECTREND, INC. FOR PROVISION OF ACCESS TO EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT'S SEWER FACILITIES AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF THE EASEMENT ACCEPTANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-117 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING A SLOPE EASEMENT FROM MARGARITA CANYON LLC FOR CREATING SLOPES AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF THE EASEMENT ACCEPTANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 16.3 Authorize and direct the City Clerk to record the documents approved by the Resolutions as listed above. 18. 19. Award Contracts for the Installation of the Electric Charging Stations in the City M~intenance Yard and the Sixth Street Parkino Lot -- 18.1 Award a contract to Edison EV to install Electric Charging Stations in the City Maintenance Yard and the Sixth Street Parking Lot in the amount of $27,663. 18.2 Approve a contract with AQMD to obtain funding for a portion of the cost to install the Electric Charging Stations in the City Maintenance Yard and the Sixth Street Parking Lot. 18.3 Appropriate $27,663 in the AB2766 Funds. Disposal of Cit_v Vehicles 19.1 Approve the disposal of three City vehicles through donation to the Temecula Volunteer Fire Department. Minutes\l 0\07/97 -8- 11/13/97 Cit_v Council Minutes October 28. 1~)97 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Purchase of Additional Computer Information Storage Devices 20.1 Authorize the purchase of eight (8) Compaq 9.1GB Hard Disk Drives and two (2) 128MB Memory upgrade kits from CompUSA, San Bernardino, at a cost of $15,595.88 to be used in upgrading two of the City's current Compaq File Servers. Computer Training Services 21.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for computer related training with Business Information Solutions, for an amount not to exceed $6,000. Superior Court in Temecul.a 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ENCOURAGE THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE FUNDING FOR A SUPERIOR COURT FACILITY TO BE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA Temecula Library Volunteer Coordinator 23.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with the Riverside County Library System (RCLS) for the City of Temecula to provide funding for RCLS to hire a volunteer coordinator for the Temecula Library. Transfer of Governance of Community Facilities District No. 88-12 of the County of Riverside {Ynez Corridor) to the City 24.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RATIFYING AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF GOVERNANCE OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-12 (YNEZ CORRIDOR) FROM THE COUNTY TO THE CITY Minutes\l 0\07/97 -9- 11/13/97 CiW Council Minutes October 28. 1997 25. 26. Second Re~ding of Ordinance No. 97-19 25.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97-19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0160 AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 TO REDUCE THE DWELLING UNITS FROM 4,047 TO 3,922 UNITS, TO ELIMINATE THE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, TO ADD AN APPROXIMATELY 12.5 ACRE PARK AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA SERENA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, AND TO REVISE ROADWAY CROSS- SECTIONS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ALL WITHIN VILLAGE "A" Second Readino of Ordinance No. 97-20 -- 26.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97-20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLED "AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, VILLAGE A, PLANNING AREAS 33 TO 38, 40 TO 44 AND 46, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0204 'MARGARITA VILLAGE,' TEMEKU HILLS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P. AND UDC HOMES, INC." 17. "All-Way StoD" - Nicolas Road at North General Kearny RQed Councilmember Stone stated he is concerned with the speed on Nicolas Road and asked that flashing lights to indicate a "stop ahead" be installed. Minutes\ 10\07197 -1 O- 11/13~97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Councilmember Ford to approve staff recommendation with direction to staff to investigate installation of yellow flashing lights. 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN "ALL-WAY STOP" INTERSECTION AT NICOLAS ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD The motion was unanimously carried. RECESS Mayor Birdsall recessed the City Council Meeting at 8:34 PM to accommodate the previously scheduled Community Services District and Redevelopment Agency Meeting. The meeting was reconvened at 9:15. Mayor Birdsall reordered the agenda to hear Item No. 32 out of order. COUNCIL BUSINESS 32. Consideration of Future Financing Issues for the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) Brian Lowe, representing Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency reviewed future financing issues for Riverside County and suggested combining the staffs of RCHCA and WRCOG. The report was received and filed. 27. Award of Contract for the Construction of Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15. Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Pro!ect NO. PW95-1 ? Public Works Director Joe Kicak presented the staff report. Minutes\l 0\07/97 -11- 11/13/97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: 27.1 Award a contract for the construction of Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramps Improvements, .Project No. PW95-12, to Riverside Construction Company for the base bid of $3,907,776.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 27.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $390,777.60, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 27.3 Accelerate the appropriation of $1,200,000.00 from FY 1998-99 to the current FY1997-98 Budget Year. The motion was unanimously carried. 28. Professional Services Agreements with Albert A. Webb Associates, McDaniel Engineering Company. Inc.. and Petra Geotechnical. Inc, for Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 1 5, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements. Project No. PW95-12, Public Works Director Joe Kicak presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: 28.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Professional Inspection Services for Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements to Albert A. Webb Associates for $268,800.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 28.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $26,880.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 28.3 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Professional Structural Services for Rancho California Road at Interstate 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements to McDaniel Engineering Company, Inc., for $26,210.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 28.4 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $2,621.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Minutes\l 0\07/97 -12- 11/13/97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 29. 28.5 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Professional Geotechnical Services for Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements to Petra Geotechnical, Inc. for $75,095.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 28.6 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $7,509.50 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 28.7 Accelerate the appropriation of $280,000.00 from FY1998-99 to current FY1997-98 Budget Year. The motion was unanimously carried. Profe88i0nal Services Aareement with McDaniel Enaineerina Company. Inc. for the Pala _ Road Bridge, Pro!ect No. PW97-1 5 Public Works Director Joe Kicak presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: 29.1 Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and McDaniel Engineering Company, Inc., for the design of the Pala Road Bridge, Project No. PW97-15 for $373,066.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 29.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $37,307.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. The motion was unanimously carried. 30. Award of Construction Contract for Installation of a Traffic Signal al; the Intersection of Margarita Road and Yukon Road/H0n0r~ Drive - Project No. PW97-14 Public Works Director Joe Kicak presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows' 30.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Margarita Road and Yukon Road/Honors Drive, Project No. PW97-14. Minutes\l 0\07/97 -13- 11/13/97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 30.2 Award a construction contract for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection to Macadee Electrical Construction in the amount of $85,169.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 30.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $8,516.90 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. The motion was unanimously carried. 31. T.E.A.M. (Temecule Educational Apprenticeship Model) Program Presentation City Manager Bradley reported on the T.E.A.M. program which he presented at the ICMA (International City Manager's Association) Conference in Vancouver, BC. He outlined the program and discussed recent successes in this joint effort between the City, School District and the Chamber of Commerce. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts to receive and file the report. The motion was unanimously carried. 33. Mowing of Murrieta Creek Update Public Works Director Kicak updated the City Council and citizens regarding the progress of Murrieta Creek, reporting the mowing has been completed. Councilmember Ford discussed the new Army Corp of Engineers' Regional General Permit No. 52, which is issued for emergency work, and provides for clearances to go in and take care of problem areas. RECESS It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Ford to extend the meeting until 10:30 PM. .Jeannie Gillen, 30195 Del Rey Road, Chairperson of the Murrieta Creek Advisory Committee, stated she is supportive of moving forward on the Army Corp of Engineers Regional General Permit No. 52. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts to direct staff to obtain a Regional 52 Permit and start the process for emergency filing of the permit. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes\l 0\07197 -14- 11113/97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 34. Consideration of Financial Su_o0ort for Old Town Area During the Holiday Season (Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro Tern Roberts - Oral Presentation) Councilmember Stone announced a conflict of interest on this issue, based on property ownership in Old Town. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts proposed a City Marketing Program for Old Town, since OTTMA is no longer in existence. City Manager Bradley outlined an Old Town Holiday Season Marketing Program, which would begin immediately upon direction from the Council. Councilmember Lindemans suggested providing Christmas lights to merchants in Old Town. Mayor Birdsall suggested placing a Christmas Tree at Sam Hicks Monument Park with a Friday night lighting ceremony. Ralph Woods, Nancy's Antique Mall, requested temporary lighting be installed in Old Town. Hank Testasecca, 42136 Tea Tree Court, spoke again regarding the need to prepare for El Nino and the adverse effects it may cause to Old Town. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Birdsall to proceed with an Old Town Holiday Season Marketing Program. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Stone abstaining. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Bradley encouraged Temecula citizens to vote on November 4, 1997. He announced that City Hall will be open election night from 8:00 PM until final election results are received. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None given. Minutes\ 10\07/97 -15- 11/13/97 City Council Minutes October 28. 1997 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Stone to adjourn at 10:35 PM to a regular meeting on November 18, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Minutes\ 10\07/97 -16- 11/13/97 .' · ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 9% 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 $1,830,686.53. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 18th day of November, 1997. ATrF_,ST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] Rcsos 97- 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEIVIECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97- was duly adopteA at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 18th day of November, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC/AAE City Clerk Resos 97- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 10/23/97 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 10/23/97 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 11/04/97 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 11106/97 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 11/18/97 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 10/30/97 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 11/18197 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 191 192 193 194 210 280 300 310 320 330 34O 380 GENERAL FUND RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-ClP INSURANCE FUND VEHICLES FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES RDA - DEBT SERVICE PAYROLL: 001 165 190 191 192 193 194 280 300 320 330 34O GENERAL RDA-LOW/MOD TCSD TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D RDA-ClP INSURANCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: GENI~RTS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE RONALD E. BRADLEY, CITY MANAGER $ 168,100.01 134,773.19 516,438.64 127,776.22 730,597.03 153,001.44 $ 1~830~686.53 1,089,476.02 16,748.08 75,111.68 1,451.79 23,893.47 22,480.87 277,013.51 78,904.42 3,820.79 41,534.08 2,293.15 9,90Z77 0.00 1,677,685.09 102,851.59 5,260.43 30,000.32 67.59 167.38 2,334.22 945.29 4,901.71 661.10 3,145.20 664.91 2~001.70 $ lf830~686.53 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. VOUCHRE2 10/23/97 10:08 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PER%ODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LO~/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COHMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 59,713.37 4,923.87 11,656.82 440.25 23,829.87 7,300.37 39,558.81 5,724.43 3,328.75 9,592.03 343.63 1,687.81 TOTAL 168,100.01 VOUCHRE2 10/23/97 10:08 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 45937 10/23/97 45938 10/23/97 45939 10/23/97 45939 10/23/97 45939 10/23/97 45939 10/23/97 45939 10/23/97 45940 10/23/97 45940 10/23/97 45940 10/23/97 45941 10/23/97 45942 10/23/97 45943 10/23/97 45943 10/23/97 45944 10/23/97 45944 10/23/97 45945 10/23/97 45946 10/23/97 45947 10/23/97 45948 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45949 10/23/97 45950 10/23/97 002999 A BASKET FULL GIFT BASKET-CAL BIO CONFERENCE 280-199-999-5270 -- 002733 ALBAO, NANCY TCSD INSTRUCTOR 190-183-999-5330 000106 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITU CREDIT: COUPON 190-182-999-5301 000106 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITU CREOIT: COUPON 190-182-999-5301 000106 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITU MOBILE TABLES FOR CRC 190-182-999-5301 000106 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITU FREIGHT 190-182-999-5301 000106 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITU SALES TAX 190-182-999-5301 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP DESIGN SERVICES FOR ADA PARK 210-190-148-5802 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP DESIGN SERVICES FOR DUCK POND 210-190-143-5802 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP DESIGN SERVICES FOR DUCK POND 210-190-143-5802 000102 AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C INSTALL FENCE/CITY MAINT. YARD 340-199-702-5212 BALIAN, SAM 002085 BARNEY & BARNEY 002085 BARNEY & BARNEY 002541 BECKER, WALTER ICARL 002541 BECKER, WALTER KARL REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-183-4990 MAINT FAC. INSURANCE POLICY FIRE ST #84 INSURANCE POLICY 300-199-999-5204 300-199-999-5204 DC~/NSPOUTS-NICHOLAS/C.GIRASOL 001-164-601-5402 SLURRY REPAIRS/"C" ST'SANTIAGO 001'164-601-5401 BRAFLALEA REFUND:SIGNAL MITIGATION FEES 001-2670 002998 BRUNSWICK CAL OAKS BC~/L TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 003000 CAL STATE WATER RESOURC STORM WATER PERMIT/MARG. PARK 210-190-119-5802 001159 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUST NEW HIRE FINGERPRINTS-10/20/97 001-150-999-5250 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. ESTRADA, MICHAEL 1/13/97 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. BENZANGO, RONALO - 1/17/97 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. INDUST FIRE SPRINKLER, 4/13/97 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. INMAN, ET AL 12/02/94 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. SAWYER, MARILYN 4/2/96 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. ISHAM, JASON 01/12/97 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. LEONHARDT, SCOTT 2/15/97 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. WOOOS, ROBERT 02/18/97 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. STATE CA-OOT/D GREEN 8/27/95 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. BUTCHER, BRANOON 10/02/96 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. CAL-PALOFLA DEL SOL 11/04/96 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. LOCKHEED 3/21/96 300-199-999-5205 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. OLD VAIL PARTNERS 11/12/93 300-199-999-5205 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER MISC SIGNS & HARDWARE 001-164-601-5244 37.44 208.00 1.00- 9.00- 328.00 65.80 23.78 250.00 3,900.00 1,060.00 1,493.00 100.00 799.00 758.00 4,950.00 4,950.00 1,605.00 134.40 250.00 1,008.00 51.00 187.00 59.00 862.75 77.00 55.00 112.00 59.00 62.00 92.00 60.00 45.00 50.00 104.73 37.44 208.00 407.58 5,210.00 1,493.00 100.00 1,557.00 9,900.00 1,605.00 134.40 250.00 1,008.00 1,771.75 104.73 45951 10/23/97 001249 CENTRE FOR ORG. EFFECTI PROF SVCS FOR SVC ENHANCEMENT 001-150-999-5248 45951 10/23/97 001249 CENTRE FOR ORG. EFFECTI PROF SVCS FOR SVC ENHANCEMENT 001-150-999-5248 3,000.00 221.10 3,221.10 VOUCHRE2 10/23/97 10:08 CITY OF TEMEGULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NUHBER VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 45952 45952 45953 45954 45955 45956 45957 45958 45958 45958 45958 45958 45958 45959 45959 45959 45960 45961 45961 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 001716 000979 001380 002390 000161 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 000165 000165 000165 001135 002122 002122 CROCK, SARA REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 CROCK, SARA REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-183-4990 DAN~S ROOFING REPAIR LEAK ABOVE FINANCE DEPT 340-199-701-5212 DEL RIO ENTERPRISE CURB/ASPHALT REPAIR-CITYWIDE 001-164-601-5402 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP WE 9/26 L.CABRAL 001-171-999-5118 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER SEWER INSPECTION-WINCH. CRK PK 210-190-149-5802 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC. MODIFICATION TO EDEN SYSTEM' 320-199-999-5211 EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANOSCAPE EXCEL LANOSCAPE TREE FOR ROTARY PARK 190-180-999-5415 LDSC IMPROVEMENTS/BUTTERFIELD 190-180-999-5415 SAM HICKS PARK - WEED REMOVAL 190-180-999-5415 SPRINKLER MAINT/MEADOW VIEW 193-180-999-5212 SHRUBS FOR JOHN MAGEE PARK 190-180-~-5415 LDSC MAINT FOR LOMA LINDA PARK 190-180-999-5415 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 280-199-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 001-120-999-5230 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL H PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS 001-150-999-5250 FIRST LINE CONSTRUCTION MASONRY REPAIR/CRC POOL DECK FIRST LINE CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE/REPAIR-CRC BLDG 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 100.00 14.00- 100.00 3,997.05 725.19 3,965.00 1,100.00 28.00 645.00 150.00 80.00 60.00 350.00 9.50 17.60 10.50 255.00 650.00 455.00 86.00 100.00 3,997.05 725.19 3,965.00 1,100.00 1,313.00 37.60 255.00 1,105.00 45962 45963 45963 45964 45964 45964 45964 45964 45964 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 000712 000170 000170 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 FORD, STEVEN J. REIMB:LEAGUE OF CITIES:10/11 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, DAY PLANNERS FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, CREDIT: FREIGHT/REF#20136743 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 197-5072:GENERAL USAGE G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 506-1941:PTA CD TTACSD G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 676-0783:GENERAL USAGE G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 676-6243:PALA COMM. PARK G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-2811:GENERAL USAGE G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-8632:GENERAL USAGE 001-100-999-5258 001-161-999-5220 001-161-999-5220 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 106.00 314.59 26.36- 2,649.16 53.64 60.67 26.38 1,378.16 27.49 106.00 288.23 4,195.50 45965 45965 45965 45965 45965 45965 45965 45965 45965 10/23/97 10/23/97 10123/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 000173 0001~ 0001~ 0001~ 00017'5 0001~ 0001~ 0001~ 00017~ GENERAL BINDING CORPORA OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL BINDING CORPORA 10 MIL ACETATE COVERS GENERAL BINDING CORPORA 5/16 BLACK COMBS GENERAL BINOING CORPORA 3/8 BLACK COMBS GENERAL BINDING CORPORA 5/8 BLACK COMBS GENERAL BINDING CORPORA 3/4 BLACK COMBS GENERAL BINDING CORPORA 1 1/2 BLACK COMBS GENERAL BINDING CORPORA SALES TAX GENERAL BINDING CORPORA OFFICE SUPPLIES 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 26.60 117.76 6.24 14.84 15.12 33.64 29.64 18.90 21.39 284.13 VOUCHRE2 10/23/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 45966 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45967 45968 45969 45969 45970 45971 45971 45972 45973 45973 45973 45974 45975 45976 45977' 45977 45977 45978 45978 45978 45978 45979 10:08 CHECK DATE 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 VENDOR NUMBER 002940 000177 000177 000177 000177 000177 000177 OOO177 000177 000177 000177 000177 000177 000177 000177 000175 002936 002936 000364 001976 001976 001697 002098 002098 002098 002464 002140 000203 002909 002909 002909 001667 001667 001667 001667 001282 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ANNUAL FEE FY 97/98 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES -FINANCE GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSD GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCC GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC OFFICE SUPPLIES: SR CENTER RDA OFFICE SUPPLIES LOW MOO HOUSING OFFICE SUPPLIE OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ROA DEPT OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR RDA DEPT. OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR RDA DEPT OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ROA DEPT GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI APPLICATION FEE:BUDGET AWARD GREAT EVENTS PUBLISHING BALLOONS/THANK YOU VOLUNTEERS GREAT EVENTS PUBLISHING FREIGHT GREEK, JUNE S. REIMB:LEAGUE ClTIES:10/11-14 GUEST INFORMANT GUEST INFORMANT ADVERTISING-SAN DIEGO/O.C.PUBL CREDIT: DISCOUNT/PAID IN FULL HALL, NANCY LEE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES REPAIR OF POLICE MOTORCYCLES REPAIR OF POLICE MOTORCYCLES REPAIR OF POLICE MOTORCYCLES IKON CAPITAL QTRLY LEASE SVC-8/30-11/29/97 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS CMPTR EQUIP INV 212996/503119 JOBS AVAILABLE, INC. AD/SENIOR ACCT/FINANCE DEPT K W C ENGINEERING, INC. OCT DESIGN SERVS:RANCHO CA SPT K W C ENGINEERING, INC. OCT DESIGN SERVS:RANCHO CA SPT K N C ENGINEERING, INC. OCT DESIGN SERVS:RANCHO CA SPT KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/05 M.CHUDY KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP ~/E 10/05 M.CHUDY KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP ~/E 10/05 N.MILES KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP ~/E 10/05 N.MILES KNORR SYSTEMS, INC POOL SUPPLIES - CRC POOL 001-161-610-5250 001-110-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-161-999-5220 001-162-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 190-184-999-5220 190-182-999-5220 190-181-999-5220 280-199-999-5220 165-199-999-5220 280-199-999-5220 165-199-999-5220 280-199-999-5220 165-199-999-5220 001-140-999-5250 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 001-120-999-5258 280-199-999-5270 280-199-999-5270 190-183-999-5330 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-171-999-5239 001-1990 001-150-999-5254 210-190-154-5802 210-190-154-5802 210-190-154-5802 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 190-182-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 3,000.00 181.11 246.12 227.15 29.77 241.89 67.43 2.25- 30.60 194.73 194.73 54.97 54.98 24.17 24.16 350.00 35.00 3.50 88.78 5,010.00 200.40- 108.00 37.60 13.33 143.65 26.32 598.30 72.00 1,505.00 380.00 132.50 117.00 351.00 72.80 218.40 55.97 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 3,000.00 1,569.56 350.00 38.50 4,809.60 108.00 194.58 26.32 598.30 72.00 2,017.50 759.20 55.97 45980 10/23/97 001534 LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV AIR:APA CF:THORNHILL:10/12-15 001-161-999-5258 323.00 VOUCHRE2 10/23/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 45980 45981 45981 45982 45983 45984 45985 45985 45986 45987 45988 45989 45989 45989 45989 45989 45989 45989 45989 45990 45991 45992 45993 45994 45994 45994 45994 45995 45995 45995 45995 45995 45995 45996 45996 10:08 CHECK DATE 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION 001534 LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV AIR:APA CF:GUERRIERO:10/12-15 __ 002745 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO, CREDIT RETENTION $163 CK 44140 002745 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO, RELEASE RETENTION:PAVEMNT PdT 000596 LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES NEW LAW WKSHP:GREEK/JONES:12/3 002229 LUCE PRESS CLIPPINGS, I 002693 MATROS, ANDREA SEPT PRESS CLIPPINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. 000220 PLRURICE PRINTERS, INC. 001205 MCDERMOTT, TIM K. DRUG FREE AD DESIGN REAL ESTATE NEWSLETTER REIMB:EDEN CF:10/14-17: 002941 MCGRUFF SPECIALTY PROOU TRICK OR TREAT BAGS 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS BUSINESS CARDS:TEM POLICE DEPT SALES TAX BUSINESS CARDS:MOGHADAM BUSINESS CARDS:MANGUSING BUSINESS CAROS:HODSON SALES TAX SALES TAX SALES TAX 002101 MONTANEZ, MARISSA MORTON, THOI~LRS MY BUDDIES PIZ7_R REFUND:OVRPMT PRKING CITATION REFUND: LEARN TO BO~L CLASS REFRESHMENT FOR TCSD BDGT MTG 002953 NOLTRE NURSERY SERVICES CHRISTMAS TREE DEPOSIT @ POND 002139 002139 002139 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT CC~4MUNITY SERVICE FUNDING AD NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT ADS FOR COMMISSION OPENINGS NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT SKATE PARK COMPETITION AD NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT CIP PRdT CONSTRUCTION UPDATES 002105 002105 002105 002105 002105 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT OLD TO~N TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT OLO TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 002088 OLD TOWN TYPEWRITER 002088 OLD TOWN TYPEWRITER OFFICEJET REPAIR AND MAINT OFFICEJETS REPAIRS & MAINT ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-161-999-5272 210-2035 210-2035 001-120-999-5261 280-199-999-5250 190-183-999-5330 001-110-999-5254 280-199-999-5270 001-140-999-5258 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5330 001-170-999-5222 001-170-999-5222 001-164-604-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-164-604-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-170-4055 190-183-4982 190-180-999-5261 210-190-143-5804 001-140-999-5254 001-120-999-5228 190-180-999-5254 001-165-999-5256 001-164-601-5214 001-162-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 320-199-999-5215 320-199-999-5215 ITEM AMOUNT 323. O0 163.00- 27,179.31 240.00 141.47 492.80 16.16 436.39 512.26 180.20 608.00 38.25 2.96 38.25 38.25 38.25 2.96 2.96 2.97 50.00 42.00 62.95 1,100.00 144.90 80.50 96.60 169.06 23.45 57.38 63.55 57.41 262.71 198.26 65.00 65.00 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 646.00 27,016.31 240.00 141.47 492.80 452.55 512.26 180.20 608.00 164.85 50.00 42.00 62.95 1,100.00 491.06 662.76 VOUCHRE2 10/23/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 45996 45997 45998 45998 45999 45999 45999 45999 46000 46000 46000 46000 46000 46001 46002 46002 46002 46002 46002 46002 46002 46003 46003 46003 46003 46004 46005 46005 46005 46005 46005 46005 46006 46006 46006 46006 46007 46007 46007 46007 10:08 CHECK DATE 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10123197 10/23/97 10/23197 10123/97 10123/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT 002088 O01171 001248 001248 000247 000247 000247 000247 000580 000580 000580 000580 000580 002185 000254 000254 000254 000254 000254 000254 000254 002776 002776 002776 002776 000255 000635 000635 000635 000635 000635 000635 000260 000260 000260 000260 OLD TOWN TYPEWRITER ORIENTAL TRADING CO., I PAPER DIRECT PAPER DIRECT PESTMASTER PESTPlASTER PESTHASTER PESTPlASTER PHOTO WORKS PHOTO WORKS PHOTO WORKS PHOTO WORKS PHOTO IgORKS POSTMASTER - TEMECULA PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRIME MATRIX, INC. PRIME MATRIX, INC. PRIME MATRIX, INC. PRIME MATRIX, INC. PRO LOCK & KEY R & d PARTY PALACE R & J PARTY PALACE R & J PARTY PALACE R & d PARTY PALACE R & d PARTY PALACE R & d PARTY PALACE RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 000262 000262 000262 000262 B&S TYPEWRITER REPAIR & MAINT 001-162-999-5215 SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS 190-183-999-5370 VOLUNTEER CERTIFICATE JACKETS 190-183-999-5370 SALES TAX 190-183-999-5370 WEED ABATEMENT VARIOUS LOCATIN 001-164-601-5250 REMOVAL OF DEBRIS ON PUJOL ST 165-199-999-5250 MOWING ON PUJOL ST 165-199-999-5250 CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL PRJT 001-164-601-5402 PHOTO DEVELOPING PHOTO DEVELOPING PHOTO DEVELOPING PHOTO DEVELOPING AND FILM PHOTO DEVELOPING 001-164-602-5250 001-163-999-5250 001-164-601-5250 190-180-999-5301 001-110-999-5250 EL NINO STORM NWLTTR:MASS MAIL 001-110-999-5230 RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING CLASSIFIED ADS FOR RECRUITING PUBLIC NOTICE: PA97-0279 PUBLIC NOTICE: PA97-0160 PUBLIC NOTICE: UDC PUBLIC NOTICE: 97-17 PUBLIC NOTICE: 97-18 001-150-999-5254 001-150-999-5254 001-161-999-5256 001-120-999-5256 001-120-999-5256 001-120-999-5256 001-120-999-5256 SC-5001375-4 JG SC-5001367-1 SN SC-5001367-1 SN SC-5001377-0 SR VAN 001-120-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 LOCKSMITH SERVICES - CRC 190-182-999-5212 BLACK TOP HATS PLASTIC RABBIT EARS ROUND WHITE LINEN TABLE CLOTHS RECTANGLE WHITE LINEN TABLE BAGS OF SHIMMERING STRANDS SALES TAX 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 VARIOUS NAME & TITLE PLATES VARIOUS NAME & TITLE PLATES VARIOUS NAME & TITLE PLATES VARIOUS NAME & TITLE PLATES 280-199-999-5222 001-161-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 001-164-604-5222 VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 65.00 76.40 220.15 11.95 2,000.00 2,375.00 425.00 2,575.51 7.31 51.49 8.73 167.56 68.96 2,516.03 75.40 498.16 16.25 9.75 7.75 14.25 9.75 29.67 61.46 21.43- 34.71 35.00 37.50 19.50 144.00 56.00 24.75 21.84 16.16 16.16 23.71 24.24 1,096.40 155.73 1,878.03 40.73 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 195.00 7'6.40 232.10 7,375.51 304.05 2,516.03 631.31 104.41 35.00 303.59 80.27 VOUCHRE2 10/23/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 46007 46007 46008 46008 46009 46010 46011 46012 46013 46014 10:08 CHECK DATE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION 10/23/97 000262 10/23/97 000262 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 RANCHO CALIFORNIA HATER VARIOUS HATER METERS RANCHO CALIFORNIA HATER VARIOUS HATER METERS 000907 RANCHO CAR HASH 000907 RANCHO CAR HASH REYNOSO, MARGARITA 10/23/97 000266 RIGHTHAY 46015 10/23/97 000434 SIERRA CO~4PUTER SYSTEMS 46016 10/23/97 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. 46017 10/23/97 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 46018 10/23/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 46018 10/23/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 46018 10/23/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 46018 10/23/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 46019 10/23/97 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 46020 46021 46021 46022 46023 46024 46025 46025 46026 46027 46028 46028 VEHICLE DETAILING & MAINT. VEHICLE DETAILING & MAINT. REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL:RIVERTO 10/23/97 000418 RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R APERTURE CARDS DUPLICATES 10/23/97 000268 RIVERSIDE CO. HABITAT K-RAT FEES FOR SEPT 97 10/23/97 003001 ROSS FENCE COMPANY RESIDENT IMPROVE.PRd/d.AGUIAR 10/23/97 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE SR ACCT RECRUITMENT AD SIERRA HINDONS UPGRADE CONVERS 10/23/97 SPECTOR, MARIA 10/23/97 000305 TARGET STORE 10/23/97 000305 TARGET STORE 10/23/97 001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P 10/23/97 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. 10/23/97 002915 TERRY'S ONE HOUR PHOTO 10/23/97 001483 TON DODSON & ASSOCIATES 10/23/97 001483 TOM OODSON & ASSOCIATES 10/23/97 002845 TOP TO BOTTOM SUPPLY CO 10/23/97 000459 TUMBLE dUNGLE FITNESS/G 10/23/97 002065 UNISOURCE 10/23/97 002065 UNISOURCE SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS PEST CONTROL SERVS- SR CENTER 2-07-626-6063 RANCHO VISTA RD 2-02-351-6800 VARIOUS METERS 2-01-202-7330 VARIOUS METERS 60-77-832-9440-01 HYH 79S 095 167 7907 FIRE DEPT REFUND: LAUGHLIN EXCURSION SUPPLIES FOR RECREATION PGMS SUPPLIES FOR RECREATION PRGMS PLUMBING SERVICES - TCC EMPLOYEE OF 4TH QTR AHARD FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING MITIGATION PRGM:REGIONAL CTR ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 001-110-999-5214 001-110-999-5263 190-2900 190-180-999-5238 001-163-999-5220 001-2300 165-199-813-5804 001-150-999-5254 320-199-999-5248 190-183-999-5370 190-181-999-5250 193-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 192-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 001 - 171 - 999- 5240 190-183-4986 190-180-999-5301 190-184-999-5301 190-184-999-5212 001-150-999-5265 001-162-999-5250 001-2620 MITIGATION STUDY:CAMPOS VERDES 001-2610 VACUUM CLEANER FOR STATION ~ 001-171-999-5242 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 27 REAMS OF GREEN PAPER SALES TAX 190-180-999-5301 190-180-999-5301 ITEM AMOUNT 1,639.86 5,328.90 9.00 12.59 100.00 62.89 5.00 16,046.00 1,850.00 301.00 4,187.96 153.71 29.00 13.44 57.23 23,829.87 186.56 70.00 45.00 49.50 75.00 61.63 33.70 826.25 843.75 465.00 678.40 357.21 27.68 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 10,139.65 21.59 100.00 62.89 5.00 16,046.00 1,850.00 301.00 4,187.96 153.71 29.00 24,087.10 70.00 45.00 82.63 75.00 61.63 33.70 1,670.00 465.00 678.40 384.89 VOUCHRE2 0/23/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 46029 46030 46031 46032 46033 46034 46034 46034 10:08 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS CHECK VENDOR DATE NUMBER VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER SOUTHSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN 001-161-999-5248 REPAIR BROKEN GYM DOOR AT CRC 190-182-999-5212 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNC EMPIRE PWR CF=KUHNS/ADAMS=11/6 001-110-999-5261 WHITE CAP MAINT SUPPLIES FOR PW CREWS 001-16~-601-5218 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 5012 COPIER USAGE=CASHIER OFFI 330-199-999-5239 ZIGLER, GAlL REFRESHHENTS=COUNCIL & TCSD MT 001-100-999-5260 ZIGLER, GAlL REFRESHMENTS=COUNCIL & TCSD MT 190-180-999-5260 ZIGLER, GAlL REFRESHMENTS=COUNCIL & TCSD MT 340-199-701-5242 10/23/97 002576 URBAN DESIGN STUDIO 10/23/97 10123/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 001890 VORTEX DOORS 000621 002109 000345 000348 000348 000348 ITEM AMOUNT 3,510.00 700.00 100.00 20.72 59.50 42.36 51.58 94.81 PAGE 7 CHECK AMOUNT 3,510.00 700.00 100.00 20.72 59.50 TOTAL CHECKS 168,100.01 VOUCHRE2 10/29/97 15:28 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOt~//MO0 SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSO SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 95,177.68 3,499.71 18,398.48 23.31 60.57 1,812.52 425.94 3,500.00 2,709.06 260.24 6,317.97 1,651.51 936.20 TOTAL 134,773.19 VOUCHRE2 10/29/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 46035 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 840174 8/,0174 840174 840174 840174 8/,0174 875342 875342 875342 875342 875342 875342 875342 875342 875342 875342 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 878204 15:28 CHECK DATE 10/27/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 VENDOR NUMBER 000740 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 VENDOR NAME PICCA DELl INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX INSTATAX (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (EDD) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) (IRS) CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION LUNCH FOR OLD TWN PRJT MTG 000444 SDI 000444 SDI 000444 SDI 000444 SDI 000444 SDI 000444 SDI 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE UI & ETT P/R TAXES UI & ETT P/R TAXES UI & ETT P/R TAXES UI & ETT P/R TAXES UI & ETT P/T TAXES UI & ETT P/R TAXES UI & ETT P/R TAXES UI & ETT P/R TAXES UI & ETT P/R TAXES UI & ETT P/R TAXES 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEOERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEOICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEOICARE 000283 MEOICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-110-999-5260 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 193-2070 280-2070 340-2070 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2350 165-2350 190-2350 192-2350 193-2350 194-2350 280-2350 300-2350 320-2350 340-2350 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 ITEM AMOUNT 56.03 41.50 9.93 56.32 1.42 3.28 3.60 4,295.77 239.53 886.17 1.44 3.34 53.60 27.06 228.72 24.79 157.23 14.02 74.47 1,925.76 60.34 4,214.37 3.47 90.37 34.74 122.62 7.93 9.15 138.10 16,374.62 785.57 3,797.86 8.39 20.46 278.97 143.60 709.21 92.14 649.58 85.82 313.16 3,665.71 187.60 1,031.54 2.28 5.64 78.78 32.82 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 56.03 6,122.19 6,606.85 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 10/29/97 15:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 2 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION 878204 10/30/97 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 878204 10/30/97 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 878204 10/30/97 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEOICARE 878204 10/30/97 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 878204 10/30/97 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 46038 10/29/97 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS 1ST AID/CRP TRAINING SUPPLIES 46039 10/29/97 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 46039 10/29/97 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 46039 10/29/97 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 46039 10/29/97 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 46039 10/29/97 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46040 10/29/97 ARCO PRODUCTS 46041 10/29/97 TEMP HELP N/E 9/20 CERASANI TEMP HELP W/E 9/20 GROVES TEMP HELP W/E 9/27 GROVES TEMP HELP N/E 9/27 CERASANI TEMP HELP N/E 10/11 GROVES REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96'0330 REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96-0330 REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96-0330 REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96-0330 REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96-0330 REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96'0330 REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96-0330 REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96-0330 REFUND:PLANNIN APPL.PA96-0330 001950 BECHTEL MAINTENANCE SER CLEAN DOORS & CANOPY-CITY HALL 46042 10/29/97 001260 C P R S 46043 10/29/97 000154 C S M F 0 MEMBERSHIP:C.ADKISSON 97/98 CSMFO SEMINAR:11/14-16 J.DIAZ ACCOUNT NUMBER 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 190-180-999-5261 001-120-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-120-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-170-4125 001-163-4116 001-163-4129 001-162-4216 001-171-4036 001-161-4116 001-161-4129 001-163-4358 001-163-4388 340-199-701-5250 190-180-999-5226 001-140-999-5261 ITEM AMOUNT 172.42 22.88 116.30 22.50 71.18 127.00 203.18 180.60 180.60 225.75 180.60 115.00 1,048.00 45.00 30.00 554.00 3,702.00 575.40 780.00 266.00 50.00 46.00 300.00 CHECK AMOUNT 28,669.03 127.00 970.7'3 7,115.40 50.00 46.00 300.00 46044 10/29/97 C.S.T.I. 46044 10/29/97 C.S.T.I. 46045 10/29/97 46045 10/29/97 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA HAZ-MAT TRAINING:10/20-21 HAZ-MAT TRAINING:10/20-21 PRE-EMERGE YNEZ RD SLOPE LDSC IMPROV. VINTAGE HILLS 001-164-601-5261 190-180-999-5261 193-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 15.00 5.00 805.00 141.00 20.00 946.00 46046 10/29/97 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER (50)FLEX DELIENATORS W/ TAPE 46046 10/29/97 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER SALES TAX 001-164-601-5244 001-164-601-5244 1,136.50 88.08 1,224.58 46047 10/29/97 001629 CREATIVE HYDROSEED, INC 46048 10/29/97 001009 D B X, INC. 46049 10/29/97 001393 DATA TICKET, INC. 46049 10/29/97 001393 DATA TICKET, INC. 46050 10/29/97 003006 DEWITT CUSTOM PAINTING HYDROSEED SOCCER SLOPE INSTALL:EMERGENCY PRE-EMPTION PRKG CITATION HEARING OFFICER PRKG CITATION HEARING OFFICER RES. IMPROV. PRGRAM:HAMMING 190-180-999-5415 210-165-648-5804 001-140-999-5250 001-170-999-5250 165-199-813-5804 675.00 3,500.00 61.25 61.25 1,200.00 675.00 3,500.O0 122.50 1,200.00 46051 10/29/97 001380 46051 10/29/97 001380 46051 10/29/97 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)W/E 10/10 DONAHOE 001-161-999-5118 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)WE 10/10 DONAHOE 001-161-999-5118 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)~/E 10/10 DIAZ 001-140-999-5118 1,620.25 1,292.55 1,431.36 4,344.16 VOUCHRE2 10/29/97 15: 28 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 46052 10/29/97 002148 46052 10/29/97 002148 46053 10/29/97 000478 46053 10/29/97 000478 46054 10/29/97 46055 10/29/97 002122 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER EXPRESS TEL EXPRESS TEL JUL-SEP LONG DISTANCE SERVICE JUL-SEP LONG DISTANCE SERVICE 320-199-999-5208 001-170-999-5229 FAST SIGNS LETTERING FOR NEW CITY TRUCKS 001-162-999-5222 FAST SIGNS SALES TAX 001-162-999-5222 FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER UFC SEMINAR:H.W,P.A.,K.C, 11/5 001-171-999-5261 FIRST LINE CONSTRUCTION SENIOR CENTER TILE REPAIR FORTNER HARDWARE, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - PARKS FORTNER HARDWARE, INC. PUBLIC WC)RKS PLAINT SUPPLIES 46056 10/29/97 000643 46056 10/29/97 000643 46057 10/29/97 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD - W 002982 ST DED 46058 10/29/97 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-506-9269-TCSD FIREWORKS 46058 10/29/97 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-694-4354-OCT-PALA COMM PRK 46058 10/29/97 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-695-3564-OCT-CITY ALARM 46058 10/29/97 00018/, G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-699-7945-OCT-CRC ALARM 46059 10/29/97 002819 GARWIN & CHAN ASSOCIATE MISC AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES 46060 10/29/97 000351 GILLISS, MAX C.M. SEPT CONSULTING SERVICES 46060 10/29/97 000351 GILLISS, MAX C.M. SEPT CONSULTING SERVICES 46061 10/29/97 002897 HARDY & HARPER, INC CITYWIDE A.C. REPAIRS 46062 10/29/97 001013 HINDERLITER deLLAMAS AS INSTALL/MAINT. B.L. SOFTWARE 46063 10/29/97 000796 I C B 0 46064 10/29/97 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 46065 10/29/97 000199 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC 000199 IRS GARN 46066 10/29/97 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/12 CHUOY 46066 10/29/97 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/12 CHUDY 46066 10/29/97 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/12 MILES 46066 10/29/97 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/12 MILES 46067 10/29/97 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE 46067 10/29/97 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE 46068 10/29/97 001982 L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I 46069 10/29/97 002187 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FR 46069 190-181-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 001-164-601-5218 280-2140 190-180-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5210 001-110-999-5248 001-164-604-5248 001-164-601-5402 320-1980 BLDG SEMINAR:ELMO & BERG 11/13 001-162-999-5261 OCT HP LASER PRINTER MAINT NOV HP LASER PRINTER MAINT 46070 46071 EMERGENCY TREE TRIMMING @ YNEZ SEPT ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES 10/29/97 002187 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FR DUCKS & GEESE RELOCATION 10/29/97 MARTINEZ, OIANA REFUND: SWIMMING LESSONS 10/29/97 002693 MATROS, ANDREA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-182-999-5212 001-2140 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 320-199-999-5215 320-199-999-5215 001-164-601-5402 001-172-999-5255 190-180-999-5250 190-183-4975 190-183-999-5330 ITEM AMOUNT 6.95 12.50 80.60 5.08 90.00 100.00 41.88 90.59 25.00 26.83 30.12 52.94 52.64 67.34 1,000.00 1,000.00 10,685.55 4,000.00 90.00 182.10 310.32 87.75 263.25 72.80 218.40 310.76 310.76 5,000.00 2,245.98 100.00 25.00 246.40 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 19.45 85.68 90.00 100.00 132.47 25.00 162.53 67.34 2,000.00 10,685.55 4,000.00 90.00 182.10 310.32 642.20 621.52 5,000.00 2,345.98 25.00 246.40 VOUCHRE2 10/29/97 15: 28 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 46072 10/29/97 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. WORK DONE ON SPANISH NEWLTTR 001-110-999-5223 94.00 94.00 46073 10/29/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 46073 10/29/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 46073 10/29/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 46073 10/29/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 4000 ENVELOPES-CITY STATIONARY 280-199-999-5222 1500 LTTRHEAD-CITY STATIONARY 280-199-999-5222 1000 BLANK STATIONARY 280-199-999-5222 SALES TAX 280-199-999-5222 353.64 89.40 30.48 36.70 510.22 46074 10/29/97 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI TIC TAC TOE YELLC)W 190-180-999-5212 46074 10/29/97 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI RUBBER RING FOR CYCLONE BARREL 190-180-999-5212 46074 10/29/97 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI RIDER HANDLE COVERS - BEIGE 190-180-999-5212 46074 10/29/97 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI RODEO ROCKY - BROWN 190-180-999-5212 46074 10/29/97 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EOUI FREIGHT 190-180-999-5212 46074 10/29/97 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EOUI SALES TAX 190-180-999-5212 204.00 2.85 15.00 209.00 32.00 33.40 496.25 46075 10/29/97 002211 MISSION POOLS OF ESCOND REPAIR STRAINER a CRC POOL 190-182-999-5212 335.56 335.56 46076 10/29/97 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-170-999-5262 180.35 180.35 46077 10/29/97 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING CONSTRUCT 2 DESILTING PONDS 001-164-601-5401 46077 10/29/97 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING CONSTRUCT 3 OISILTING PONDS 001-164-601-5401 46078 10/29/97 002213 MUFFLERS WEST OF TEMECU REPAIR HITCH & TOW-FRAME PW 001-164-601-5214 4,200.00 4,700.00 129.86 8,900.00 129.86 46079 10/29/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CiTY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-164-601-5214 26.94 26.94 46080 10/29/97 002088 OLD TOWN TYPEWRITER PW TYPEWRITER REPAIR & MAINT 001-164-604-5215 65.00 65.00 46081 10/29/97 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING CO., I SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS 190-183-999-5370 192.25 192.25 46082 10/29/97 002331 PEP BOYS INC MISC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 34.03 34.03 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 001-2390 18,881.47 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 165-2390 816.02 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 190-2390 3,805.48 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 191-2390 11.15 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 192-2390 27.52 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 193-2390 340.62 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 194-2390 186.88 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 280-2390 870.98 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 300-2390 112.04 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 320-2390 552.34 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 330-2390 110.10 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 340-2390 230.54 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 001-2130 313.17 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2390 66.04 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 1.75 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 14.78 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390 .05 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 .14 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 1.54 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 194-2390 .84 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 10/29/97 15:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 280-2390 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 46083 10/29/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 2.43 .46 1.86 .93 1.25 26,350.38 46084 10/29/97 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 49.85 49.85 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5370 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5370 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-184-999-5301 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-184-999-5301 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5261 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5261 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5260 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 165-199-999-5220 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5220 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-100-999-5260 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5220 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5230 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-120-999-5260 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5258 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5260 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5242 46085 10/29/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5242 38.32 15.52 22.61 12.92 8.45 13.07 47.17 4.31 5.60 13.96 16.85 44.97 20.14 20.10 60.34 25.00 5.05 15.20 13.04 50.00 8.04 31.14 46.01 537.81 46086 10/29/97 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: PA97-0221 001-120-999-5256 46086 10/29/97 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: PA97-0300 001-161-999-5256 46086 10/29/97 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: PA97-0349 001-161-999-5256 18.50 18.25 19.50 56.25 46087 10/29/97 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT RENTAL - PARKS 190-180-999-5238 105.98 105.98 46088 10/29/97 002776 PRIME MATRIX, INC. SC-5001278-0 SM 001-163-999-5208 127.49 127.49 46089 10/29/97 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL SANDBAGS FOR COMMUNITY USE 46089 10/29/97 000426 RANCHO INOUSTRIAL SUPPL SALES TAX 001-164-601-5218 001-164-601-5218 1,900.00 147.25 2,047.25 46090 10/29/97 001592 RIVERSIDE CO. INFORMATI CODE ENFORCE EMERG RADIO RENTA 001-162-999-5238 155.91 155.91 46091 10/29/97 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES FOR RECREATION 190-181-999-5301 46091 10/29/97 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS 190-183-999-5370 74.55 6.45 81.00 46092 10/29/97 000282 SOUTHERN CALIF MUNICIPA 1997 SCMAF INSTITUTE TRAINING 190-180-999-5261 46092 10/29/97 000282 SOUTHERN CALIF MUNICIPA SCMAF TRAINING 190-180-999-5261 150.00 120.00 270.00 VOUCHRE2 10/29/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 46093 46093 46094 46095 46096 46097 46097 46097 46097 46097 46097 46098 46098 46098 46099 46099 46100 15:28 CHECK DATE 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C STEAM CLEAN CARPET - CRC 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C STEAM CLEAN PARTITIONS-CRC SUNSHINE ART STUDIOS, I CHRISTMAS CARDS N/IMPRINTING 001633 TEMECULA VALLEY ECONOHI EDC QTRLY LUNCH:MCLARNEY:11/30 000978 TRAUMA INTERVENTION PRO 1ST QTR SERVS:EMERG REPONSE PG 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW WOODWARD, GERALDINE WOODWARD, GERALDINE REFUND:DISMISSED PRK CITATION REFUND:DISMISSED PRK CITATION 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 5765 COLOR COPIER USAGE ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 001-162-999-5222 280-199-999-5260 001-171-999-5274 001-2160 165-2160 190-2160 193-2160 280-2160 340-2160 001-2120 165-2120 190-2120 001-170-4055 001-2260 330-199-999-5239 ITEM AMOUNT 246.00 165.00 31.50 15.00 1,312.50 624.60 149.00 844.76 21.22 49.18 53.90 97.00 5.00 17.00 45.00 5.00 1,418.14 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 411.00 31.50 15.00 1,312.50 1,742.66 119.00 50.00 1,418.14 TOTAL CHECKS 134,773.19 VOUCHRE2 11/04/97 13:52 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE FUND 001 TITLE GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT 516,438.64 516,438.64 VOUCHRE2 11/04/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 46103 46104 46105 46106 46107 46108 46109 46110 46111 46112 46113 46114 46115 46116 46117 46118 46119 46120 46121 46122 46123 46124 46125 46126 46127 46128 13:52 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 11/04/97 001862 ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR 11/04/97 002584 AEW/LBA ACQUISITION COM 11/04/97 001805 ALLEN, BURTON 0 & MARY ITEM DESCRIPTION SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 11/04/97 001743 ALLEN, WILLIAM E & CARO SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 11/04/97 001823 ATKINSON, DAVID M SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 11/04/97 002585 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMP SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 11/04/97 001740 ATWOOD & ANDREWS DEVELO SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 11/04/97 001834 11/04/97 001801 11/04/97 001783 11/04/97 001168 11/04/97 001833 11/04/97 001800 11/04/97 001849 11/04/97 001797 11/04/97 001861 11/04/97 001795 11/04/97 001841 BABER, TERESE J BAGSBY, SHERALD BALL, ALVIN R. BANK OF AMERICA BARGIELSK[, SHERRI A BASSLER, dAMES R & KATH BECHTOLD, RUTH A BEOELL, dAMES A BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT CO BELLAVANCE, DONALD BLASCO, DAVID A & SUSAN 11/04/97 001768 BOTTINO, SUSAN C & WARR 11/04/97 001832 BRISENDINE, SHIZU 11/04/97 001791 BURGER, CHRISTINA R 11/04/97 002151 CARISLE, CRAIG C. 11/04/97 001744 CARUSO, CHARLES A. 11/04/97 001756 CLARK, PORTER A & LUCIL 11/04/97 002586 COMERICA MORTGAGE CORP. 11/04/97 001778 CONARD, DENNIS E & dANI SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 O01 - 2030 001-2030 001-2030 ITEM AMOUNT 61,891.14 267.36 206.42 206.42 206.42 2,214.78 12,885.56 206.42 206.42 206.42 2,641.60 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 9,497.58 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 61,891.14 267.36 206.42 206.42 206.42 2,214.78 12,885.56 206.42 206.42 206.42 2,641.60 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 9,497.58 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 VOUCHRE2 11/04/97 13:52 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 46129 11/04/97 001852 COOK, CARRIE L 46130 11/04/97 002163 COOK, PAUL A. 46131 46132 46133 46134 46135 46136 46137 46138 46139 46140 46141 46141 46142 46143 46144 46145 46146 46147 46148 46149 46150 46151 46152 46153 11/04/97 002154 CRANNEY, KAREN A. 11/04/97 002573 CROOK, DAVID 11/04/97 002572 DAILY, DOROTHY A. & S. 11/04/97 001761 DARRACH, WILLIAM J. 11/04/97 001735 DEL TACO RESTAURANT PRO 11/04/97 002591 DESCHAUWER, PHILIPPE 11/04/97 002596 DHILLON, GURPREET 11/04/97 001764 DIAZ, AUSENCIO & ELVA A 11/04/97 001789 DOERR, JOSEPH R 11/04/97 001830 DONALDSON, HILLARY M 11/04/97 001726 11/04/97 001726 11/04/97 002589 11/04/97 002574 11/04/97 001810 11/04/97 001826 11/04/97 001792 11/04/97 001809 11/04/97 003011 11/04/97 002614 11/04/97 001855 11/04/97 001812 11/04/97 001836 11/04/97 001851 ELI LILLY & COMPANY ELI LILLY & COMPANY ESBENSEN, PHILLIP FERRIERA, RICHARD FINN, DANIEL F & NICOLE FINNEGAN, SCOTT R FUENTEZo TRAVIS L GEBAUER, WILLIAM A GEBBARD~ KARYN GORDON, SANDRALEE GREGORY, ROBERT C & NAN GREGORYK, THOMAS L. GRGAS, DOROTHY GUERRERO, ELISA M CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASS[STANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 ITEM AMOUNT 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 2,321.48 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 11,498.36 6,103.72 1,761.26 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 11,658.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 2,321.48 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 17,602.08 1,761.26 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 11,658.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 VOUCHRE2 11/04/97 13:52 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 46154 11/04/97 001741 H U D 46157 11/04/97 001828 HATHCOCK, DONALD L & IS 46158 11/04/97 001822 HAZLETT, CHRISTINE A 46159 11/04/97 001766 HENDERSON, DAVID & KATH 46160 11/04/97 001817 HODGES, MARK S 46161 11/04/97 001734 HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA 46162 11/04/97 001827 HULL, MARK H & BETTE J CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46163 11/04/97 002599 HUNTER, TODD & ALICIA SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 4616~ 11/04/97 002155 ILIESCU, MARIUS & ELIZA SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46165 11/04/97 001835 dADOT, VALERIE S SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46166 11/04/97 001746 dOHNSON, CAROL A SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46167 11/04/97 001775 dOHNSTON, dOSEPH R & CA SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46168 11/04/97 002594 dUBANY, LUIS SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46169 11/04/97 002087 K-MART SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46170 11/04/97 001887 KEMPER LUMBERMANS SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46170 11/04/97 001887 KEMPER LUMBERMANS SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46171 11/04/97 001787 KERR, BARBARA L SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46172 11/04/97 002582 KI/FKLA RANCHO REALITY SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46173 11/04/97 001829 KORNAY, STEVE D & CARME SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46174 11/04/97 001858 KR PALM PLAZA LTD PARTN SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46175 11/04/97 001762 KREUTZER, KURT d & KELL SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46176 11/04/97 001765 LEISTEN, CINDY R. SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46177 11/04/97 002611 LGA 7 SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46177 11/04/97 002611 LGA 7 SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46178 11/04/97 001846 LUFKIN, DONNA L SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46179 11/04/97 003010 M & T MORTGAGE COMPANY SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 46180 11/04/97 002593 MARTINEZ, LUPE R. & PAU SALES TAX ASSISTANCE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 ITEM AMOUNT 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 1,974.68 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 19,314.72 78,142.70 15,237.25 206.42 10,203.20 206.42 83,904.28 206.42 206.42 41,803.98 33,604.19 206.42 206.42 206.42 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 1,974.68 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 19,314.72 93,379.95 206.42 10,203.20 206.42 83,904.28 206.42 206.42 75,408.17 206.42 206.42 206.42 VOUCHRE2 11/04/97 13:52 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUHBER DATE NUMBER NAHE 46181 11/04/97 001730 MARUBENI MOTOR SERVICE, 46182 11/04/97 001763 MAURICE, DAVID 46183 11/04/97 001850 MCGUIRE, THOMAS P 46184 11/04/97 001824 MCKEO~/N, GREGORY S & TA 46185 11/04/97 002619 MEG INVESTMENTS 46186 11/04/97 001728 MERVYNS 46187 11/04/97 001803 MEYER, DIANE E 46188 11/04/97 002603 MEYERS JR., ANDREW L. 46189 11/04/97 001774 MICHALEK, CHARLENE 46190 11/04/97 001771 MORROW, PHYLLIS L 46191 11/04/97 001848 MUNOZ, JOSE & ARTURO 46192 11/04/97 002583 NORRIS, DON B. & KAREN 46193 11/04/97 001742 NORTH COUNTY BANK 46194 11/04/97 001814 NORTON, JOHN S & WALTER 46195 11/04/97 002587 NORWEST MORTGAGE 46196 11/04/97 002592 O~HARA, PATRICIA 46197 11/04/97 001815 ONG, JERRY C 46198 11/04/97 003012 OSBORNE DEVELOPMENT 46199 11/04/97 001845 OSBORNE, LOURENA K 46200 11/04/97 001790 PACHECO, DAVID E 46201 11/04/97 001780 PATCHEN, DONALD L & DIA 46202 11/04/97 001831 PIERCE, JON & PATRICIA 46203 11/04/97 001807 PORTILLO, JAIME G & ROM 46204 11/04/97 001854 RANCHO MOBILE HOME ESTA 46205 11/04/97 001732 REEVES, DONNA L. 46206 11/04/97 002597 RICHARDSON, FREDDIE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHE~K REGISTER FOR ALL PERIl:lOS ITEM DESCRIPTION SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 ITEM AMOUNT 9,062.03 206.42 206.42 206.42 10,671.38 16,967.14 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 6,793.35 1,654.56 206.42 412.84 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 821.74 20,489.68 206.42 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 9,062.03 206.42 206.42 206.42 10,671.38 16,967.14 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 6,793.35 1,654.56 206.42 412.84 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 821.74 20,489.68 206.42 VOUCHRE2 11/04/97 13=52 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 46207 46208 46209 46210 46211 46212 46213 46214 46215 46216 46217 46218 46219 46220 46221 46222 46223 46224 46225 46226 46227 46228 46229 46229 46230 46231 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAHE 11/04/97 001811 RIDDLE, LOUIS W JR & M! 11/04/97 0018~3 ROOK, MICHAEL C & TRACE 11/04/97 002162 ROOKS, LEANNE 11/04/97 001782 ROWE, THOMAS C & HELEN 11/04/97 001731 11/04/97 002618 11/04/97 002617 11/04/97 001839 11/04/97 11/04/97 001813 11/04/97 001821 11/04/97 001785 11/04/97 001825 11/04/97 11/04/97 001816 11/04/97 001806 11/04/97 001729 11/04/97 001751 11/04/97 002595 11/04/97 001802 11/04/97 001752 11/04/97 001753 11/04/97 001738 11/04/97 001738 11/04/97 11/04/97 001781 ITEM DESCRIPTION SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE RUBI, FRED A & INA M & SALES TAX ASSISTANCE S & C COMPANY, INC SALES TAX ASSISTANCE S & L OIL SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALAZAR, RICHARD A & CY SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 001745 SAN DIEGO TRUST & SAVIN SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SANTY, ROBERT A & DIANE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SCARBOROUGH, TRACY A SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SCOTT, RYAN SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SEGURA, EDWARD SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 001847 SEQUEIRA, DARYL A & JOA SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SHERROD, JAMES S SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SICILIANO, CHARLES A & SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SPEHAR, RAYMOND G & EST SALES TAX ASSISTANCE STALLING, CARLA SALES TAX ASSISTANCE STANLEY, INEZ V. SALES TAX ASSISTANCE STEWART, JOSEPH C & JEA SALES TAX ASSISTANCE STUMPH, KATHY SALES TAX ASSISTANCE TAVAGLIONE, NICHOLAS F. SALES TAX ASSISTANCE TOMOND PROPERTIES, LTD. SALES TAX ASSISTANCE TOMOND PROPERTIES, LTD. SALES TAX ASSISTANCE 001837 VEASEY, KENNETH SALES TAX ASSISTANCE VEDENTI, dAMES I. SALES TAX ASSISTANCE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 ITEM AMOUNT 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 5,015.86 912.26 206.42 1,681.24 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 2,935.06 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 412.84 2,842.22 464.60 206.42 206.42 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 5,015.86 912.26 206.42 1,681.24 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 2,935.06 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 412.84 3,306.82 206.42 206.42 VOUCHRE2 11/04/97 13:52 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAHE 46232 11/04/97 00178~ VINCENT, CLAYTON P & TA 46233 11/04/97 0018~2 WALTER, HARVEY L & SUSA 46234 46235 46236 46237 46238 46239 46240 46241 46242 46243 46243 46244 46245 46246 11/04/97 00178/+ WARDEN, CHESTER H 11/04/97 001754 WEINGART, HAROLD V & RU 11/04/97 001798 WELD, LINDA N 11/04/97 001804 WELLENBRINK, HOWARD W & 11/04/97 001857 WELLS FARGO BANK NATL A 11/04/97 001844 WILSON, MAUREEN A 11/04/97 00188~ WILSON, PAT C. 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 001757 WILSON, RONALD P & VAND 0018~3 WINCHESTER, NANCY G 002978 WITHERS, ROBERT H. 002978 WITHERS, ROBERT H. 002979 YNEZ CCC PARTNERS LTD 001819 YOUNG, NANCY A 002152 YURI, IAN C. CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASS[STANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASS[STANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE SALES TAX ASSISTANCE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 001-2030 ITEM AMOUNT 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 3,922.10 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 412.84 206.42 1,334.44 206.42 206.42 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 3,922.10 206.42 206.42 206.42 206.42 619.26 1,334.44 206.42 206.42 TOTAL CHECKS 516,438.64 VOUCHRE2 11 / 06/97 13:06 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LO~//MO0 SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 310 VEHICLES FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 34,403.71 2,557.32 17,383.49 1.23 3.03 1,846.98 36.46 954.50 27,032.04 231.80 34,592.06 1,652.83 298.01 6,782.76 TOTAL 127,776.22 VOUCHRE2 11/06/97 13:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 46247 11/04/97 46250 11/06/97 46251 11/06/97 46252 11/06/97 46253 11/06/97 46253 11/06/97 46254 11/06/97 46255 11/06/97 46256 11/06/97 46256 11/06/97 46256 11/06/97 46257 11/06/97 46257 11/06/97 46257 11/06/97 46258 11/06/97 46259 11/06/97 46260 11/06/97 46261 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 46262 11/06/97 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AHOUNT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE UFC SEMINAR 11/5 FIRE STAFF 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRI SOFTBALL AWARDS 002410 A WOMAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN OCT JANITORIAL SERVICES-PARKS 002662 AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTR DOMESTIC DUCK/GOOSE REMOVAL 002996 ALLSTAR BUSINESS SYSTEM REPAIR XEROX AT SENIOR CENTER 002996 ALLSTAR BUSINESS SYSTEM SALES TAX 003018 ANDERS, PATTY REIMB:APA CF:MONTEREY:10/12-15 ANGELI, SANDY REFUND:COMPUTER KIDS 001323 001323 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. DRINKING WATER FOR CITY HALL DRINKING WATER FOR MAINT FAC. DRINKING WATER FOR CRC 003017 BALDERSON, SCOTT 003017 BALDERSON, SCOTT 003017 BALDERSON, SCOTT TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 000586 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY MUNICIPAL CODE BOOK SUPPLEMENT BOY SCOOT TROOP ~r~37 HALLOWEEN CARNIVAL VENDOR PRFT 001414 BRADLEY, RONALD E. REIMB:LEAGUE CF;SAN FRANCISCO CAHALAN, ALMA REFUND:NON-RESIDENT FEE 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, CREDIT:PER AUDIT 96/97 CREDIT:PER AUDIT 96/97 CREDIT:PER AUDIT 96/97 CREDIT:PER AUDIT 96/97 CREDIT:PER AUDIT 96/97 CREOIT:PER AUDIT 96/97 ~K)RKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 10/97 001-171-999-5261 190-183-999-5380 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 190-181-999-5217 190-181-999-5217 001-161-999-5258 190-183-4982 340-199-701-5240 340-199-701-~240 190-182-999-5250 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 001-120-999-5250 190-183-4980 001-110-999-5258 190-183-4975 001-199-4062 165-199-4062 190-180-4062 280-199-4062 320-199-4062 340-199-4062 001-2370 165-2370 190-2370 191-2370 192-2370 193 - 2370 194 - 2370 280-2370 300-2370 320-2370 330-2370 340-2370 001-1182 190-181-999-5112 90.00 742.70 1,933.00 250.00 97.50 1.74 906.28 75.00 291.09 93.79 38.29 400.00 400.00 80.00 29.95 72.00 31.15 10.00 640.99- 13.28- 294.99- 15.61- 9.60- 50.53- 5,177.57 175.60 1,965.47 1.23 3.03 93.93 36.46 140.22 12.29 61.25 11.32 292.69 46.14 1.34 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 90.00 742.70 1,933.00 250.00 99.24 906.28 75.00 423.17 880.00 29.95 72.00 31.15 10.00 6,993.54 VOUCHRE2 11/06/97 13:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 46264 11/06/97 46264 11/06/97 46264 11/06/97 46264 11/06/97 46264 11/06/97 46264 11/06/97 46264 11/06/97 46264 11/06/97 46265 11/06/97 46266 11/06/97 4626? 11/06/97 46267 11/06/97 4626? 11/06/97 46268 11/06/97 46269 11/06/97 462?0 11/06/97 46271 11/06/97 462?2 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 46274 11/06/97 46275 11/06/97 46276 11/06/97 46277 11/06/97 46278 11/06/97 46279 11/06/97 46279 11/06/97 46279 11/06/97 46279 11/06/97 46279 11/06/97 462~9 11/06/97 46279 11/06/97 46279 11/06/97 46280 11/06/97 46280 11/06/97 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 2 VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA LDSC UPGRADES T.C.C. CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA POND/LDSC HAINT:TRIM TREES CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA INSTALL BACKFLOW CAGE:PREECE CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA MISC. IRRIGATION REPAIRS CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA MISC. IRRIGATION REPAIRS CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA HAIN LINE REPAIR - VILLAGES CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA REMOVE/REPLACE TREES CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA INSTALL 3 LIQUID AMBER 190-184-999-5415 210-190-143-5804 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 CAPRINO,ULRIKE 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 001193 COMP USA, INC. REFUND:VOLLEYBALL CLINICS MISC COHPUTER SUPPLIES LETTERING:DOORS TO COMM DEV INSTALLATION SALES TAX 190-183-4982 320-199-999-5221 340-199-701-5219 340-199-701-5219 340-199-701-5219 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS 002932 CROWN CARPET & DRAPERIE SENIOR CENTER-INSTALL CARPET 190-181-999-5250 REFUND:CHILDRENS ART CLASS PROPANE GAS FOR P.W. CREW 190-183-4982 001-164-601-5218 CUENCA, RODEL 001233 DAN'S FEED & SEED, INC. RESIDENT IMPROV. PRGM:AGUILAR 165-199-813-5804 001716 DANrS ROOFING DARBY, RAY REFUND:TRIPS 190-183-4986 001393 DATA TICKET, INC. AUG-SEP PRKG CITATION PRCSSING 001-140-999-5250 001393 DATA TICKET, INC. AUG-SEP PRKG CITATION PRCSSING 001-170-999-5250 REFUND:I~3MENS SELF DEFENSE 190-183-4982 DIEGEL, MELISSA SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE OCT 97 300-2180 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK FEE STUDY REFUND:KINDERGARTEN ART RECYCLED PAINT:GRAFFITI REMOVL 001-140-999-5248 190-183-4982 001-164-601-5218 001924 DMG/DAVID M. GRIFFITH & DOYLE, LA BECCA 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO 002981 DYNA MED DYNA MED EMERGENCY BLANKET 190-183-999-5310 002981 DYNA NED CURITY STERILE BANDAGES 3" 190-183-999-5310 002981 DYNA MED TOPPER DRESSING SPONGES 190-183-999-5310 002981 DYNA MED BAND AID BRAND SHEER STRIPS 190-183-999-5310 002981 DYNA MED TRIANGULAR BANDAGES #J12051 190-18~-999-5310 002981 DYNA NED MEDIUM COLD PACKS #J95382 190-183-999-5310 002981 DYNA MED FREIGHT 190-183-999-5310 002981 DYNA MED SALES TAX 190-183-999-5310 471.00 400.00 850.00 237.61 72.00 120.00 30.00 141.00 39.00 391.97 45.00 20.00 3.49 2,413.00 40.00 4.~ 2,395.00 30.00 371.00 371.00 25.00 174.36 5,000.00 31.50 111.63 8.50 21.60 22.40 8.50 11.60 35.00 5.00 8.16 2,912.80 1,431.36 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)W/E 10/24 DONAHOE 001-161-999-5118 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)W/E 10/24 DIAZ 001-140-999-5118 2,321.61 39.00 391.97 68.49 2,413.00 40.00 4.79 2,395.00 30.00 742.00 25.00 174.36 5,000.00 31.50 111.63 120.76 VOUCHRE2 11 / 06/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 46280 46280 46281 46282 46282 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46283 46284 46285 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46286 46287 46288 46289 46289 13:06 CHECK DATE 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 VENDOR NUMBER 001380 001380 002060 000478 000478 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 000170 002~ 002560 000184 000184 VENDOR NAME E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EUROPEAN DELI& CATERIN FAST SIGNS FAST SIGNS FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FINLEY, ROBERT FRANCIS, PEGGY FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKL%N QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRY'S ELECTRONICS GTE G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION TEMP HELP (2)W/E 10/10 CABRAL TEMP HELP (2)WE 10/24 CABRAL REFRESHMENTS FOR COUNCIL MTG RESTROOM SIGNS:6TH ST PARKING SIGNS FOR OLD TOWN EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS I~RIL SERVICES EXPRESS PLRIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS FLRIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES REFUND:TRIPS REFUND:BELLY DANCING EXERCISE APPOINTMENT BOOK REFILLS APPOINTMENT BOOK REFILLS FREIGHT FREIGHT SALES TAX SALES TAX DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS FRANKLIN REFILLS 97/98 DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS FREIGHT SALES TAX MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES W.O.#O573-8POO1CF:ENG STUDY 909-506-2626-OCT-SUBSTATION 909-676-3526-OCT;CITY ALARM ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-171-999-5118 001-171-999-5118 001-100-999-5260 280-199-804-5804 280-199-999-5250 001-150-999-5230 280-199-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 300-199-999-5250 280-199-999-5230 001-120-999-5230 330-199-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 190-180-999-5230 001-150-999-5230 280-199-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 190-183-4986 190-183-4982 001-120-999-5220 001-120-999-5277 001-120-999-5220 001-120-999-5277 001-120-999-5220 001-120-999-5277 001-161-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 320-199-999-5221 280-199-824-5804 001-170-999-5229 320-199-999-5208 ITEM AMOUNT 1,560.74 1,166.61 101.01 538.75 867.92 8.00 31.97 13.50 8.00 15.50 46.35 8.00 7.00 17.00 11.50 8.00 8.00 15.60 30.00 35.00 104.00 149.00 8.20 8.20 8.58 12.30 106.78 26.00 6.50 6.00 22.50 11.90 22.00 30.00 3.85 28.00 10.40 12.95 96.96 2,331.50 284.43 78.92 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 7,071.51 101.01 1,406.67 198.42 30.00 35.00 577.16 96.96 2,331.50 VOUCHRE2 11/06/97 13: 06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 46289 11/06/97 000184 46289 11/06/97 00018~ 46289 11/06/97 000184 46290 11/06/97 002920 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-693-0956-OCT-GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-694-4356-OCT-HINTERGARDT 320-199-999-5208 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-694-8927-OCT-GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 GENERAL GOVERNMENT MGMT CFD 88-12 MAPPING SERVICES 46291 11/06/97 002528 GLASS BLASTERS 46291 11/06/97 002528 GLASS BLASTERS 46292 11/06/97 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS 46292 11/06/97 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS 46293 46294 11/06/97 11/06/97 000366 46295 11/06/97 001517 46296 11/06/97 000796 46297 11/06/97 001351 46298 11/06/97 002481 46298 11/06/97 002481 46299 11/06/97 001186 46300 11/06/97 001420 46301 11/06/97 002575 GUPTA, GEETA HARRINGTON, KEVIN HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE I CBO INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC INLAND FOUNDATION ENGIN INLAND FOUNDATION ENGIN IRWIN, JOHN JOLLY JUMPS JONES, SUSAN W. 11/06/97 002909 K W C ENGINEERING, INC. 11/06/97 002909 K W C ENGINEERING, INC. MUGS FOR NEW EMPLOYEES SALES TAX TEMECULA ONE VIDEO DUBS TEMECULA ONE VIDEO DUBS REFUND:LEARN TO BOWL REIMB:FAC MGMT WRKSHOP EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM FIRE PREVNTN SEM:WINDSOR:2/10 LEGISLATIVE BKFST:11/20;KICAK CREDIT:HRLY RATE/SRVCS CHARGES 280-199-804-5804 MAY-JUN PROF SERVCS:6TH ST 280-199-804-5804 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS HALLOWEEN ENTERTAINMENT 10/24 REIMB=LEAGUE CF;SAN FANCISCO OCT PROF SRVCS-RCSP SIDEWALK OCT PROF SRVCS-RCSP SIDEWALK 46302 46302 46303 46303 11/06/97 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/19 CHUDY 11/06/97 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/19 CHUOY 46303 11/06/97 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/19 MILES 46303 11/06/97 001~7 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 10/19 MILES TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 46304 11/06/97 002023 KING, WENDE 46304 11/06/97 002023 KING, WENDE STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES 46305 11/06/97 000206 KINKO'S, INC. 46305 11/06/97 000206 KINKO'S, INC. 46306 11/06/97 KLAIN, WENDI REFUND:BABY GAMES 46307 11/06/97 000209 L & M FERTILIZER, INC. LDSC & MAINT SUPPLIES:PW MAINT 001-1280 001-150-999-5265 001-150-999-5265 280-199-999-5250 280-199-999-5250 190-183-4982 190-180-999-5260 001-150-999-5250 001-171-999-5261 001-164-604-5260 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5370 001-120-999-5258 210-190-154-5802 210-190-154-5802 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 190-183-4982 001-164-601-5218 ITEM AMOUNT 28.39 29.33 25.90 1,000.00 110.00 8.53 60.00 135.00 42.00 26.49 379.85 225.00 15.00 52.80- 498.10 148.00 105.00 31.04 380.00 95.00 117.00 351.00 62.56 187.69 280.40 201.60 119.28 48.41 29.00 126.78 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 446.97 1,000.00 118.53 195.00 42.00 26.49 379.85 225.00 15.00 445.30 148.00 105.00 31.04 475.00 718.25 482.00 167.69 29.00 126.78 46308 11/06/97 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE DEC 97 LASER PRINTER MAINT 320-199-999-5215 310.76 310.76 VOUCHRE2 11/06/97 13:06 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 46309 11/06/97 46310 11/06/97 46311 11/06/97 46312 11/06/97 46313 11/06/97 46314 11/06/97 46315 11/06/97 46315 11/06/97 46316 11/06/97 46317 11/06/97 46317 11/06/97 46317 11/06/97 46317 11/06/97 46318 11/06/97 46319 11/06/97 46320 11/06/97 46321 11/06/97 46322 11/06/97 46322 11/06/97 46323 11/06/97 46324 11/06/97 46324 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 46325 11/06/97 VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER NAHE DESCRIPTION NUMBER 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC. KNOTT~S SCARY FARM EXCURSION. 190-183-999-5350 LARDNER, CYNTHIA REFUND:MEXICAN FOLKLORE DANCE 190-183-4982 LEWIS VALLEY CONTRACTOR REFUND:INSPECTION DEPOSIT 001-163-4368 LEWIS, DAVID A. REFUND:TRIPS 190-183-4986 002890 LOS ANGELES CELLULAR TE 909-223-1667-OCT-J.DOMENOE 001-170-999-5208 002011 MARTIN, KATHARINA E. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. ENVELOPES FOR MARKETING MAILER 280-199-999-5222 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS,.INC. SALES TAX 280-199-999-5222 000492 MCLARNEY, MARY JANE CUED CF MIAMI:MJM:9/20-24/97 280-199-999-5258 00138~ MINUTEPLRN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS:IRENE ROGERS 190-180-999-5222 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 190-180-999-5222 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS:dEFF LAWRENCE 190-180-999-5222 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 190-180-999-5222 001868 MIYAMOTO-JUROSKY, SUSAN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 NASH, DDS, SANDRA REFUND:AOULT COMPUTERS 190-183-4982 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT 1 YEAR NWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION 190-180-999-5228 001710 NOVELL, INC. 1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTON 320-199-999-5228 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 002105 OLD TC~dN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIRS 001-163-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 003003 OgENS, JEFF SAND FOR PUBLIC USE SAND BAGS 001-164-601-5401 002800 PACIFIC STRIPING, INC 002800 PACIFIC STRIPING, INC STREET STRIPING PRGM:P~7-01 STREET STRIPING PRGM:PW97-01 001-164-601-5410 001-164-602-5410 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-162-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-100-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 320-199-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-163-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-16~-601-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-164-604-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-165-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 190-180-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-120-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-110-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 280-199-999-5250 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-140-999-5238 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 001-170-999-5238 ITEM AMOUNT 355.40 30.00 500.00 45.00 41.60 416.00 269.00 20.85 94.96 38.25 2.96 38.25 2.96 304.00 75.00 61.88 89.00 107.72 528.30 107.75 1,193.56 132.62 100.00 25.00 42.45 25.00 25.00 12.50 25.00 173.18 27.00 69.30 13.50 35.68 39.00 CHECK AMOUNT 355.40 30.00 500.00 45.00 41.60 416.00 289.85 94.96 82.42 304.00 75.00 61.88 89.00 636.02 107.75 1,326.18 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 11/06/97 13:06 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION 46325 11/06/97 001561 PAGENET MNTHY PAGING SERV & RENTAL 46326 11/06/97 000472 PARADISE CHEVROLET, INC BUILD & SFTY CHEVY S-10 TRUCK 46326 11/06/97 000472 PARADISE CHEVROLET, INC BUILD & SFTY CHEVY S-10 TRUCK 46327 11/06/97 PEKARSKE, HELEN REFUND:TRIP TO LAUGHLIN 46328 11/06/97 PENFOLD COHM REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 46329 11/06/97 002790 PETER-BUILT HCMES/PACIT DRAW 5:TEM STAGE STOP/FRONT ST 46330 46330 46330 46331 11/06/97 000252 POLYCRAFT, INC. 11/06/97 000252 POLYCRAFT, INC. 11/06/97 000252 POLYCRAFT, INC. CITY VEHICLES CITY SEAL DECALS ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-170-999-5238 310-1910 310-1910 190-183-4980 190-2900 280-1500 190-180-999-5222 CITY VEHICLES CITY SEAL DECALS 001-164-604-5222 CITY VEHICLES CITY SEAL DECALS 001-162-999-5222 11/06/97 002912 POHA DISTRIBUTING COHPA EOC GENERATOR-DIESEL & PARTS 46332 11/06/97 000253 POSTMASTER 46332 11/06/97 000253 POSTMASTER 46332 11/06/97 000253 POSTMASTER 46332 11/06/97 000253 POSTMASTER 46332 11/06/97 000253 POSTMASTER 46332 11/06/97 000253 POSTMASTER 46332 11/06/97 000253 POSTMASTER 46333 46334 46335 46335 EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 11/06/97 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: PA97-0319 11/06/97 002T/6 PRIME MATRIX, INC. SC-5001218-6 MCLARNEY MJ 11/06/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 01-99-02003-0 FLOATING METER 11/06/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 01-17-80000-1 WTR METER 46336 11/06/97 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS 46337 11/06/97 000266 RIGHTWAY 46337 11/06/97 000266 RIGHTWAY 46338 11/06/97 001169 RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK OF 11/06/97 001365 RIVERSIDE CO. ENVIRONME 11/06/97 001365 RIVERSIDE CO. ENVIRONME 11/06/97 001365 RIVERSIDE CO. ENVIRONME 46339 46339 46339 46340 11/06/97 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE 46341 11/06/97 SANDLIN, MARY DAWN 46342 11/06/97 002384 SECURE BUSINESS COHMUNI 46343 11/06/97 002919 SIMPLER LIFE EMERGENCY 46343 11/06/97 002919 SIMPLER LIFE EMERGENCY SEPT 97 LEGAL SERVICES - CLAIM TRASH BXS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS SALES TAX FILING OF NOD:RCSP BRIDGE PRJT N&S SNACK BAR HEALTH PRMT PALOMA DEL SOL PRK HEALTH PRMT RCHO VSTA SNCK BAR HEALTH PRMT TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND: WATERCOLORS WINSTED SIDE PANEL IDENTIFICATION VESTS FOR EOC FREIGHT 340-199-701-5250 190-180-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 001-100-999-5230 001-120-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 001-164-604-5230 001-165-999-5230 001-161-999-5256 280-199-999-5208 001-164-601-5250 210-165-668-5804 300-199-999-5246 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 210-190-137-5802 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 190-183-999-5330 190-183-4982 320-199-999-5242 001-110-999-5278 001-110-999-5278 ITEM AMOUNT 13.50 17,296.03 17,296.03 30.00 100.00 14,999.86 80.82 80.81 80.81 152.37 32.25 80.60 19.40 51.70 10.75 56.65 61.85 17.75 157.59 187.02 1.50 37.15 60.00 4.65 78.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 700.00 51.00 85.00 639.84 10.00 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 626.11 34,592.06 30.00 100.00 14,999.86 242.44 152.37 313.20 17.75 157.59 188.52 37.15 64.65 78.00 195.00 700.00 51.00 85.00 VOUCHRE2 11/06/97 13:06 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 46343 11/06/97 002919 SIMPLER LIFE EMERGENCY SALES TAX 001-110-999-5278 49.59 699.43 46344 11/06/97 0006/,5 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS 190-183-999-5370 46344 11/06/97 0006/,5 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS. 190-183-999-5370 46344 11/06/97 0006~5 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS 190-183-999-5370 91.79 123.75 11.99 227.53 46345 11/06/97 SMITH, MICHAEL REFUND:DUPLICATE PMT 001-199-4056 35.00 35.00 46346 11/06/97 003002 SMOOTHILL PRO-TEC HELMETS (SIDE CUT) 190-180-999-5301 46346 11/06/97 003002 SMOOTHILL ELBOW PADS STREET/431 E 190-180-999-5301 46346 11/06/97 003002 SMOOTHILL KNEE PADS STREET/331 K 190-180-999-5301 46346 11/06/97 003002 SMOOTHILL WRIST GUARDS STREET/Z30 W 190-180-999-5301 46346 11/06/97 003002 SMOOTHILL FREIGHT 190-180-999-5301 46346 11/06/97 003002 SMOOTHILL SALES TAX 190-180-999-5301 335.20 409.20 545.10 296.60 27.37 114.98 1,728.25 46347 11/06/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-4946 6TH STREET 190-181-999-5240 46347 11/06/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-00-397-5042 CITY HALL 340-199-701-5240 46347 11/06/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-00-397-5067 VARIOUS METERS 193-180-999-5240 46347 11/06/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-502-8077 VARIOUS METERS 340-199-702-5240 46347 11/06/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-502-8077 VARIOUS METERS 340-199-701-5240 46347 11/06/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 66-77-795-6412-01 FRONT ST 340-199-701-5240 46347 11/06/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 66-77-795-8063-01 000-4 6TH ST 001-164-603-5240 1,077.44 5,031.70 783.05 713.66 32.42 20.76 301.97 7,961.00 46348 11/06/97 000305 TARGET STORE SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS 190-183-999-5370 38.08 38.08 46349 11/06/97 TAYLOR, MARY REFUND: TRIPS 190-183-4986 15.00 15.00 46350 11/06/97 003014 TEMECULA DANCE COMPANY HALLOWEEN BOOTH VENDOR PROFIT 190-183-4980 73.00 73.00 46351 11/06/97 003015 TEMECULA VALLEY POP WAR HALLOWEEN BOOTH VENDOR PROFIT 190-18~-4980 164.20 164.20 46352 11/06/97 003016 TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON HALLOWEEN BOOTH VENDOR PROFIT 190-183-4980 89.40 89.40 46353 11/06/97 000668 TIMMY D. PRODUCTIONS SOUND TECH SERVS:SEARCH STARS 190-183-999-5320 100.00 100.00 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-110-999-5230 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-120-999-5230 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-162-999-5230 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 190-180-999-5230 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-140-999-5230 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-150-999-5230 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-161-999-5230 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-164-604-5230 46354 11/06/97 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 280-199-999-5230 46355 11/06/97 002923 U.S. RENTALS RENTAL:FULL SIZE PICK-UP TRCK 001-164-601-5238 46355 11/06/97 002923 U.S. RENTALS SALES TAX 001-164-601-5238 78.21 205.66 59.76 370.46 255.53 250.22 953.03 152.08 1,316.93 600.00 46.50 3,641.88 646.50 46356 11/06/97 002621 UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. 5305001995902 JS 001-100-999-5258 46356 11/06/97 002621 UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. 5305001995878 PB 001-100-999-5258 46356 11/06/97 002621 UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. 5305001995894 RR 001-100-999-5258 475.49 464.79 772.22 VOUCHRE2 11/06/97 13:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46356 11/06/97 46357 11/06/97 46357 11/06/97 46357 11/06/97 46357 11/06/97 46357 11/06/97 46357 11/06/97 46357 11/06/97 46358 11/06/97 46359 11/06/97 46360 11/06/97 VENDOR NUMBER 002621 002621 002621 002621 002621 002621 002621 002621 002621 002621 002621 000326 000326 000326 000326 000326 000326 000326 002566 002109 46361 11/06/97 002092 46361 11/06/97 002092 46361 11/06/97 002092 46362 11/06/97 000345 VENDOR NAME UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE~ UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, VALLEY MICRO COMPUTERS WATERFRONT PLAZA HOTEL WHITE CAP WINTER GRAPHICS SOUTH WINTER GRAPHICS SOUTH WINTER GRAPHICS SOUTH XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 5305001995886 SF 5305001995886 SF 5305001995910 RB 5305001995910 RB 5305001995910 RB 5305001995985 GY 5305001995985 GY 5305001995951 SN 5305001995928 MJM 5305001995928 MJM 5305001995928 MJM 001-100-999-5258 001-100-999-5260 001-110-999-5263 001-110-999-5258 001-110-999-5260 001-150-999-5265 001-150-999-5260 190-180-999-5260 280-199-999-5258 280-199-999-5230 280-199-999-5260 UNIFORM RENTAL: PW MAINT CREWS 001-16~-601-5243 UNIFORM RENTAL SERV:TCSD 190-180-999-5243 FLOOR MATS RENTAL:CITY HALL 340-199-701-5250 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL SERV:CRC 190-180-999-5243 FLOOR MATS RENTAL: SR CENTER 190-180-999-5243 FLOOR MATS RENTAL: TCC 190-180-999-5243 FLOOR MAT/TOWEL SERV:MAINT FAC 340-199-702-5250 INDIVIDUAL COMPUTER TRAINING 320-199-999-5261 HOTEL:LEAGUE CF:NAASEH:11/14 001-161-999-5261 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES FOR PW 001-164-601-5218 AD DESIGN/FOUR COLOR ISLAND AD 280-199-999-5270 TEMECULA TOURISM NWSLTTR 280-199-999-5270 PHOTO SCAM FOR TOURISM NWSLTTR 280-199-999-5270 2510 COPIER USAGE:ENGINEERING 330-199-999-5239 ITEM AMOUNT 412.65 94.00 131.59 823.74 29.00 1,100.00 51.42 79.61 88.00 15.00 15.91 328.00 111.27 115.40 117.79 26.56 36.39 20.92 422.50 144.30 20.72 836.38 1,824.62 2,820.89 111.00 PAGE 8 CHECK AMOUNT 4,553.42 756.33 422.50 144.30 20.72 5,481.89 111.00 TOTAL CHECKS 127,776.22 VOUCHRE2 11/07/97 08:44 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 3 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOI,//MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 383,742.62 5,767.18 27,672.89 987.00 11,521.00 233,000.20 43,438.89 23,971.25 496.00 TOTAL 7'30,597.03 VOUCHRE2 11/07/97 08:44 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 46365 11/18/97 46365 11/18/97 46366 11/18/97 46366 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46367 11/18/97 46368 11/18/97 46369 11/18/97 46369 11/18/97 46370 11/18/97 46370 11/18/97 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 1 VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 002348 002348 001916 001916 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000447 001009 001009 002900 002900 46371 11/18/97 002990 46372 11/18/97 46373 11/18/97 46374 11/18/97 46374 11/18/97 46375 11/18/97 46375 11/18/97 000754 002340 002909 002909 001383 001383 001585 001585 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 46376 11/18/97 46376 11/18/97 A-PARK AVENUE BUILDERS A.C. PAVING:WALCOTT LN A-PARK AVENUE BUILDERS RETAINING WALL:WALCOTT/KLARER ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT SEP PAVEMENT MGMT REHAB PRJCT ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT JUL-SEPT ENG SERVS:OLD TWN STR CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANOSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANOSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA SEPT LDSCP MAINT SEPT LDSCP MAINT SEPT LDSCP MAINT SEPT LDSCP MAINT SEPT LDSCP MAINT SEPT LDSCP MAINT SEPT LDSCP MAINT CITY HALL CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA PMT-AUGUST LDSC MAINT.SRVCS CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA PMT-AUGUST LDSC MAINT.SRVCS CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CREDIT: POOR LDSC MAINT/AUGUST CALIFORNIA LANOSCAPE MA CREDIT: POOR LDSC MAINT/AUGUST COHTRONIX OF HEMET CITY RADIO EQUIPMENT/REPEATER D B X, INC. D B X, INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL:BEDFORD/79(S) RETENTION W/H:SIGNAL:79(S) DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON SEP PROF SRVCS:WINCH/YNEZ RD CREDIT:INVOICE TOTAL INCORRECT DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATE JUL-SEP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ELLIOTT GROUP, THE REVIEW LANDSCAPE PLANS FIRST TRUST CALIFORNIA CFD88-12 PMT#1 97/98 DUCK POND K W C ENGINEERING, INC. OCT DESIGN SERVS:RANCHO CA SPT K W C ENGINEERING, INC. OCT DESIGN SERVS:RANCHO CA SPT P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPT RDA CONSULTING SERVS P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPT RDA CONSULTING SERVS PAUL GARDNER CORPORATIO OCT PRGSS PMT: TRAFFIC SIGNALS PAUL GARDNER CORPORATIO RETENTION OCT PRGSS:PW95-16 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 RIVERSlOE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 RIVERSIOE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENOING AUG 27 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S LAW ENFORCEMENT ENDING AUG 27 001-164-601-5402 210-165-637-5804 210-165-655-5802 280-199-824-5804 190-180-999-5415 190-181-999-5415 190-182-999-5415 190-184-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 340-199-701-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-182-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-182-999-5415 320-1950 210-165-675-5804 210-2035 210-165-683-5802 210-165-683-5802 001-110-999-5248 001-161-999-5250 190-1290 210-190-154-5802 210-190-154-5802 165-199-999-5248 280-199-999-5248 210-165-640-5804 210-2035 001-170-999-5288 001-170-999-5299 001-170-999-5294 001-170-999-5289 001-170-999-5291 001-1230 001-170-999-5281 001-170-999-5282 001-170-999-5262 001-170-999-5279 23,800.00 23,900.00 12,570.00 41,516.50 17,250.00 246.00 1,593.00 325.00 987.00 11,521.00 496.00 3,116.00 119.48 4,592.00- 238.95- 15,971.25 20,530.25 2,053.02- 86,927.39 149.50- 6,000.00 7,130.00 9,854.36 5,670.00 6,615.00 5,767.18 1,922.39 10,051.80 1,005.18- 215,536.34 35,982.80 9,027.20 5,009.60 4,390.80 4,390.80 24,950.88 2,644.80 14,922.20 3,930.92 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 46377 11/18/97 47,700.00 54,086.50 30,822.53 15,971.25 18,477.23 86,777.89 6,000.00 7,130.00 9,854.36 12,285.00 7,689.57 9,046.62 VOUCHRE2 11/07/97 08:44 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 46377 11/18/97 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S 46377 11/18/97 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S 46377 11/18/97 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S 46378 11/18/97 000357 RIVERSIDE CO. TRANSPORT 46379 4638O 46381 46381 46381 46382 11/18/97 000434 SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS 11/18/97 000314 TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM 11/18/97 000420 TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN 11/18/97 000420 TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN 11/18/97 000420 TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN 11/18/97 001944 TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, IN CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIQOS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER CREDIT:OVERCHRGED SRO OFFICER CREDIT:OVERCHRGED SRO OFFICER SEPTEMBER 97 BOOKING FEES 001-170-999-5291 001-1230 001-170-999-52~ 1ST QTR SIGNAL SERVICES CHRGES 001-164-602-5405 SIERRA PERMITS SYSTEM UPGRADE 320-199-999-5248 DRAW REQUEST FOR MUSEUM PRJT 210-190-808-5804 SEPT SERVS:OVRLD DR/MARGRITA R 210-165-681-5802 CREDIT:ADDED 15% TO SUB INVOIC 210-165-612-5802 SEPT PROF SERV:WSTRN BYPASS CO 210-165-612-5802 SIGNAL DESIGN MARGARITA/YUKON 210-165-691-5802 ITEM AMOUNT 2,341.76- 2,341.76- 9,604.80 21,105.00 8,000.00 17,654.80 31,043.91 330.00- 16,16~.75 5,410.00 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 325,707.62 21,105.00 8,000.00 17,654.80 46,878.66 5,410.00 TOTAL CHECKS 730,597.03 ITEM 4 CITY ATTORNEY _ DIRECTOR OF FI~_ANCE~<-- CITY MANAGER ,J~ v-- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance/~ November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1997 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finan/~e Director ~ Jesse Diaz, Project Accountant ~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1997. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of September 30, 1997. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1997 2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of September 30, 1997 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report As of September 30, 1997 Cash Activity for the Month of September: Cash and Investments as of September 1, 1997 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as of September 30, 1997 $ 50,121,255 2,673,137 (1,845,711) $ 50,948,681 Cash and Investments Portfolio: Type of Investment Petty Cash General Checking Sweep Account (Money Market Account) Benefit Demand Deposits Local Agency Investment Fund Retention Escrow Account Checking Accounts (Sherwood/Pujol Apartments) Deferred Compensation Fund Deferred Compensation Fund Defined Contribution Fund Trust Accounts-TCSD COPs (Money Market Account) Reserve Account-TCSD COPs (Guaranteed Investment Contract) Trust Accounts-RDA Bonds (Money Market Account) Reserve Account-RDA Bonds (Guaranteed Investment Contract) Institution City Hall Union Bank Union Bank (Highmark U.S. Treasury) Union Bank State Treasurer Landmark/California State Ba Home Savings of America ICMA PEBSCO PEBSCO First Trust (First Am. Treasury) Bayerische Landesbank First Trust (First Am. Treasury) Bayerische Landesbank Yield 4.680 Maturity Date (2) Contractual/ Market Value $ 1,500 459,964 447,000 Par/Book Balance 1,500 459,964 (1) 447,000 7,995 7,995 (1) 5.707 % 36,009,436 36,009,436 (3) 5.250 % 222,848 222,848 11,024 11,024 4.970 % 419,459 419,459 687,879 687,879 81,343 81,343 357,900 357,900 6.870 % 502,690 502,690 4.970 % 10,290,723 10,290,723 7.400 % 1,448,920 1,448,920 $ 50,948,681 (1)-This amount is net of outstanding checks. (2)-All investments are liquid and currently available. (3)-At September 30, 1997 total market value for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) was $28,685,823,321. The City's propor'donate share of that value is $36,247,350. 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 the City of Temecula for the next six months. City of Temecula Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Balances As of September 30, 1997 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Due from other funds Land held for resale Prepaid assets Deposits Fixed assets-net City (1) $ 32,371,191 $ 4,903,171 2,251,976 90,105 286,789 1,029,596 Total assets $ 40,932,828 Community Services Redevelopment District Agency 1,855,751 $ 16,721,739 $ 174,803 647,147 10,907 2,103,053 Total 50,948,681 5,725,121 2,262,883 2,103,053 90,105 286,789 1,029,596 $ 2,041,461 $ 19,471,939 $ 62,446,228 Liabilities and fund equity: Liabilities: Due to other funds $ 1,140,472 Other liabilities 5,347,144 10,907 $ 1,111,504 $ 2,262,883 255,075 605,969 6,208,188 Total liabilities 6,487,616 265,982 1,717,473 8,471,071 Fund equity: Contributed capital 1,281,781 Retained eamings 696,699 Fund balances: Reserved (2) 4,447,681 Designated (3) 23,769,147 U ndesignate d 4,249,904 1,281,781 696,699 1,064,324 7,084,027 12,596,032 817,366 10,670,439 35,256,952 (106,211) 4,143,693 Total fund equity 34,445,212 1,775,479 17,754,466 53,975,157 Total liabilities and fund equity $ 40,932,828 $ 2,041,461 $ 19,471,939 $ 62,446,228 (1) Includes General Fund, CIP Fund, Gas Tax Fund, other special revenue funds, and deferred comp agency funds. (2) Includes amounts reserved for encumbrances, land held for resale, long-term notes receivable, Iow/mod housing, and debt service. (3) Includes amounts designated for economic uncertainty, future capital projects, debt service, and continuing appropriations. ITEM 5 CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOI~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ~"Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 Award of Construction Contract Public Works Department Maintenance Work Order 97-98-007 - Rainbow Canyon Road PREPARED BY: ~i~)Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council' I . Award a contract for Public Works Department Maintenance Work Order No. 97-98-007 to NPG Corporation in the amount of $11,850.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. . Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,185.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On October 29, 1997, the Public Works Department, in conformance with the City's current purchasing procedures requested proposals for a Public Works Maintenance Project No. 97-98- 007 (See Attached Scope of Work). The two (2) sealed bids were received as follows: I , NPG Corporation .............................. $11,850.00 A. Park Avenue Builders .......................... $23,000.00 NPG Corporation has performed contract work in the past for the City of Temecula, and we have found their work to be satisfactory. The costs are within the Engineer's estimate Work is expected to begin in November, 1997. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. r:\agdrpt\97\1118\97-98007awd/ajp FISCAL IMPACT: The project is being funded from the Public Works Street Maintenance Account No. 001-164- 601-5402. The total project is $13,035.00 which includes the contract amount of $11,850.00 plus 10% contingency of $1,185.00. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Scope of Work 2. Contract r:\agdrpt\97\1118\97-98007awd/ajp City of Temecula Public Works Department WORK ORDER REQUEST Street Maintenance Ouote DATE: October 22. 1997 QUOTE g97-98 - 007 BID OPENING DATE: October 29. 1997 Deliver to: Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, City Clerks Office no later than 2:30 p.m. LOCATION: Rainbow Canyon Road (Area's pre-marked in orange) SCOPE OF WORK INVOLVED: 1. Cold plane existing asphalt pavement approximately 1", remove grindings and dispose of legally 2. Clean existing asphalt paving as needed prior to placement of asphalt overlay. 3. Place SS-1H material prior to placement of new asphalt material. . Furnish and place 1%" of AR 4000 3/8 asphalt material in order to construct asphalt overlay totaling as follows: 10 foot width per field conversation approximately 500 Ln. Ft. 14 foot width per field conversation approximately 134 Ln. Ft. Reminder: All projects require Certified Payroll CONTRACTOR PREPARED BY: Address: City: Phone/FAX: PLEASE PRINT TOTAL PRICE: CITY APPROVED BY: Signature (written amount - Please spell out) r:~naintain\wkordera\98\workord¢.OO7/ajp CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT WORK ORDER NO. 97-98-007 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 18th day of November, 1997, by and between the City of Temeeula ("City") a municipal corporation, duly organized and exisfng under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and NPG Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor". In consideration of their mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Contractor, in consideration of the promises of the City hereinafter set forth, hereby agrees to fm'nish all tools, equipment, labor and maltrials necessary to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner, all of the work required for the construction of the improvements described in Work Order No.97-98-007 attached hereto. The work shall be performed according to the City of Temecula's Procedures For Informal Bidding For Public Works Street Maintena_n_ce Work Orders of $25.000 or Less. Fiscal Year 1997-98. ("Informal Bidding Procedures"). Where the Work Order or the Informal Bidding Procedures describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, the latest version of the City. of Temecula, Department of Public Woricq Standards Drawings for Public Works Construction ("Standard Drawings"), and Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Soulhem California Chapter of the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") shall control. Copies of the Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: Building News, Incorporated 3055 Overland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90034 (213) 202-7775 In case of any conflict between the Standard Drawings and the Standard Specifications, the Standard Drawings shall control. Where the Work Order, the Informal Bidding Procedures, the Standard Drawings, or the Standard Specifications only describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. 2. The City, in consideration of the performance of this Contract, agrees to pay the Contractor and the Contractor agrees to accept in full satisfaction for the work done hereunder the sum of Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($11,850.00), in accordance with the bid of the Contractor which sum shall be paid to the Contractor within the time and in the manner set forth in the Informal Bidding Procedures, final payment to be made within thirty-five (35) days after filing Notice of Completion of said work and improvement with the Riverside County Recorder. 3. 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 fids locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file in the office of the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office in Temecula. Contractor shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prey 'ailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.15, 1777.6, and 1813 of the labor Code. 1 r:~tainlain\workord\98~agreement. OO7ajp Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, 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. 4. Contractor, by executing the Contract, hereby certifies: "I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer 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." 5. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site, shall be at the risk of Contractor alone. Contractor agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (Contractor's employees included) and damage to property, arising direcfiy or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by Principal, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willfid misconduct of the City. 6. Contractor and subcontractors shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to City business license. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has mused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto subscribed and affixed by the [Mayor/City Manager] and attested to by the City Clerk, both thereunto duly authorized, and the Contractor has hereunto subscribed this Contract the day, month and year hereinabove written. CONTRACTOR NPG Corporation 1354 Jet Way Perris, CA 92571 (909) 940-0200 Jeff Nelson, Owner CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney 2 r:hnaintain\workord\98~agre~m~mt. 007ajp PROJECT NO. 97-98-007 CITY OF TEMECULA CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE This is to certify that ., (hereinafter the "undersigned") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the undersigned or by any of the undersigned's agents, employees, or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of its contract with the City of Temeeula with regard to the building, erection, construction or repair of that certain work improvement known as:. , situated in the Community of The undersigned declares lhat it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice of any unpaid sums owning to the undersigned. Further, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and in favor of the undersigned and the City of Temecula or which relate in any way to work performed by the undersigned with regard to the above referenced construction project. Furlher, the undersigned expressly acknowledges its awareness of and waives the benefits of 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known to him must have materially effected settlement with the debtor". This release is intended to be a full and general release of any and all claims which the undersigned now has or may, in the future, have against the City of Temeeula and/or its agents and employees with regard to any matter arising from the construction or the above referenced project or the contract between the City and the Contractor with respect thereto whether such claims are now known or unknown or are suspected or unsuspected. (Name) (Title) r: ~a~int~in\workonl\9 8 \agrecmcnL 007ajp ITEM 6 APPROVAL OR-d. CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT CITY MANAG ER~~~=~= CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 Award of Construction Contract Public Works Department Maintenance Work Order 97-98-008 - Citywide P.C.C. Repairs PREPARED BY: ~ Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: , Award a contract for Public Works Department Maintenance Work Order No. 97-98-008 to Walter K. Becker in the amount of $27,964.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. . Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $2,796.40 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On October 29, 1997 the Public Works Department, in conformance with the City's current purchasing procedures requested proposals for a Public Works Maintenance Project No. 97-98- 008 (See Attached Scope of Work). Two (2) sealed bids were received as follows: Walter K. Becker ................................... $27,964.00 A. Park Avenue Builders .............................. $35,000.00 Walter K. Becker has performed contract work in the past for the City of Temecula, and we have found their work to be satisfactory. The costs are within the Engineer's estimate Work is expected to begin November, 1997. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. r:\agdrpt\97\1118\97-98008. awd/ajp FISCAL IMPACT: The project is being funded from the Public Works Street Maintenance Account No. 001-164- 601-5402. The total project is $30,760.40 which includes the contract amount of $27,964.00 plus 10% contingency of $2,796.40. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Scope of Work 2. Contract r:\agdrpt\97\1118\97-98008. awd/ajp City of Temecula Public Works Department WORK ORDER REQUEST Street Maintenance Quote DATE: October 22, 1997 QUOTE g97-98 - 008 BID OPENING DATE: October 29. 1997 Deliver to: Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, City Clerks Office no later than 2:30 p.m. LOCATION: Citywide P.C.C. Repairs SCOPE OF WORK INVOLVED: See Attached Scope of Work (All Area's Pre-Marked in Orange) All projects require Certified Payroll CONTRACTOR PREPARED BY: TOTAL PRICE: CITY APPROVED BY: PLEASE PRINT Address' City: Phone/FAX:. Signature (written amount - Hease spell out) r:\malntain\wko~der~\98\workorde. OO8/ajp CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONCRETE LIST 1997 .... . ., ............. . ....... ,~,, .~::;."::;~.:,~" ",,,~ v'.~.":':~,~;,,,,~,,:r, ,'~..' ........... .. : , ... ...,.;...,: ~.:.. ,,.::.~,.,. ,.: ~.,.¥.,...:,.. ~:~,~.;,,.;~.~.ff,.~"~.~,,R,~ ~.~;, ~.. ./..'.'...,~.,,.~:. ..._. . · · ' ',LOi~ATION" '~" SCOPE'OF".W..ORK~ ~. ",;~,~ (~..:~ '..',,, ' ' ', ,', '.. '.'.;,::,'.' :.'.: .... : .... · ........... .. _. _". ; ..... ., . ............ ':.._'_'_... ,,,?. .... · ..... ~,, Moreno St. @ Mexico Chiquito R & R Curb & Gutter 25 ,, , From Best Western Motel From D/A & W/O R & R Curb & Gutter 150 Moreno St. @ Penfold's Cafe & Bakery R & R Curb & Gutter 45 I I I Moreno St. from Denny's to KFC R & R Curb & Gutter 330 Across from 42122 Rio Nedo (red curb) R & R Curb & Gutter 30 45521 Classic Way R & R Sidewalk & Root Prune (11x2) 22 30566 Spiea Ct. R & R Curb & Gutter & Root Prune 11 La Serena Rd. 50ft. N/O Via Halcon R & R Sidewalk & Root Prune (26x6) 156 La Serena Rd. S/O Via Aguila (at utility boxes) R & R Sidewalk (42x6) 252 La Serena Rd. @ Via Aguila (northeast radius) R & R Handicap Ramps & Sidewalk 686 (49x14) & Root Prune Rancho Cal. Rd. 1000ft. W/O Margarita Rd. R & R Sidewalk & Root Prune (25x6) 150 (S/side of stree0 45760 Clubhouse Dr. R & R Sidewalk & Root Prune (24x6) 144 Pala Rd. approx. 500ft. W/O Muftield (S/side) R & R Sidewalk & Root Prune (21x6) 126 Pala Rd. 100ft. W/O Muftield (S/side) R & R Sidewalk & Root Prune (1 lx6) 66 Rancho Cal. Rd. 50ft. W/O Margarita (S/side of R & R Sidewalk (1 Ix6) 66 stree0 Rancho Vista Rd. 800ft. W/O Margarita (S/side R & R Sidewalk (63x8) 504 of stree0 Rancho Vista Rd. 1000ft. E/O Southern Cross Rd. R & R Sidewalk (58x6) 340 (N/side of street) 29820 Avenida Cima Del Sol R & R Sidewalk (48x6) 288 R & R Curb & Gutter 40 (E/side of D/A 40ft. Wes0 i i i Illl Ii II 41451 Yankee Run Court R & R Sidewalk (12x6) 72 R & R Curb & Gutter (10 LN FT) 10 III Total S.F. R&R Sidewalk 2,872 Total L.F. R&R Curb & Gutter 641 1 r:. ~aaint~xntli~l.97 CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT WORK ORDER NO. 97-98-008 THIS AGR JFEMENT, made this 18th day of November, 1997, by and between the City of Temeeula ("City") a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and Walter K. Becker, hereinafter called "Contractor". In consideration of their mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Contractor, in consideration of the promises of the City hereinafter set forth, hereby agrees to furnish all tools, equipment, labor and materials necessary to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner, all of the work required for the construction of the improvements described in Work Order No.97-98-008 attached hereto. The work shall be performed according to the City of Temecula's Procedures For Informal Biddine For Public Works Street Maintenance Work Orders of $25.000 or Less. Fiscal Year 1997-98. ("Informal Bidding Procedures"). Where the Work Order or the Informal Bidding Procedures describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, the latest version of the City of Temecula, Department of Public Worlcq Standards Drawings for Public Works Construction ("Standard Drawings"), and Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Commitlee of the Southern California Chapter of the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") shall control. Copies of the Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: Building News, Incorporated 3055 Overland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90034 (213) 202-7775 In case of any conflict between the Standard Drawings and the Standard Specifications, the Standard Drawings shall control. Where the Work Order, the Informal Bidding Procedures, the Standard Drawings, or the Standard Specifications only describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. 2. The City, in consideration of the performance of this Contract, agrees to pay the Contractor and the Contractor agrees to accept in full satisfaction for the work done hereunder the sum of Twenty Seven Thousand N'me Hundred Sixty Four Dollars and No Cents ($27,964.00), in accordance with the bid of the Contractor which sum shall be paid to the Contractor within the time and in the manner set forth in the Informal Bidding Procedures, final payment to be made within thirty-five (35) days after filing Notice of Completion of said work and improvement with the Riverside County Recorder. 3. 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 Contract from lhe Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file in the office of the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office in 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 Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.15, 1777.6, and 1813 of the labor Code. 1 r: ~aaintain\workord\98~agreemen~ 008ajp Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, 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. 4. Contractor, by executing the Contract, hereby certifies: "I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer 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." 5. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site, shall be at the risk of Contractor alone. Contractor agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (Contraetor's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by Principal, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole will fid misconduct of the City. 6. Contractor and subcontractors shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to City business license. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto subscribed and affixed by the [Mayor/City Manager] and attested to by the City Clerk, both thereunto duly authorized, and the Contractor has hereunto subscribed this Contract the day, month and year hereinabove written. CONTRACTOR WALTER K. BECKER BOX 390573 ANZA, ca 92359 (909) 676-5776 Walter K. Becker, Owner CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney r:~aminlain\workord\98\agreement. OOSajp PROJECT NO. 97-98-008 CITY OF TEMECULA CONTRACTOR~S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE This is to certify that ., (hereinafter the "undersigned") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the undersigned or by any of the undersigned's agents, employees, or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of its contract with the City of Temecula with regard to the building, erection, construction or repair of that certain work improvement known as: , situated in the Community of The undersigned declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice of any unpaid sums owning to the undersigned. Further, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and in favor of the undersigned and the City of Temeeula or which relate in any way to work performed by the undersigned with regard to the above referenced construction project. Further, the undersigned expressly acknowledges its awareness of and waives the benefits of 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of Caiifomia which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or susI~ to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known to him must have materially effected settlement with the debtor". This release is intended to be a full and general release of any and all claims which the undersigned now has or may, in the future, have against the City of Temeeula and/or its agents and employees with regard to any matter arising from the coustmetion or the above referenced project or the contract between the City and the Contractor with respect thereto whether such claims are now known or unknown or are suspected or unsuspected. (Name) (Title) r: ~maintain\workont\98~agreement. O08ajp ITEM 7 CiTY ATTO~RNEY ~~L FINANCE DIRECTO~ ~ II CITY MANAGER ~'~' II CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of FY97-98 Citywide A.C. Street Repairs, Project No. PW97-11 PREPARED BY: ~/~Bradley A. Buron RECOMMENDATION: , Maintenance Superintendent That the City Council accept the construction of FY97-98 Citywide A.C. Street Repairs, Project No. PW97-11. . File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract, and; . Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract for construction of the FY97-98 Citywide A.C. Street Repairs in the amount of $12,966.90 to Hardy & Harper, Inc.. The work included 3,761 S.F. of 4" A.C. removals and replacement plus 530 S.F. of A.C. overlays The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about forty-five (45) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Public Works Annual Maintenance Project and is being funded from Account No. 001-164-601-5402, Routine Street Maintenance. Attachments: I . Notice of Completion Maintenance Bond Contractor's Affidavit r:\agdrpt\97\l 118\pw97-11.acc/ajp RECORDIN~ ~IEQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Bueineaa Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to California Pavement Maintenance Company to perform the following work of improvement: FY97-98 Citywide A.C. Street Repairs, Project No. PW97-11 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 November 18, 1997. That upon said contract the Confintental Casualty 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 PW 97-11. 6. The street address of said pr(~perty is: Various City Streets within the City of Temecula. Dated at Temecula, California, this ~ day of .. , 1997. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this~ day of ,1997. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk R:\¢il~oroject$~wg7~w97-11 \completn.notJejp Bond No. 158807660 Premium Included CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND PROJECT NO. PW97-11 CITYWIDE A. C. STREET REPAIRS FY97-98 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: Hardy.. & Harper, In~,, 1312 E. Warner;. Sa. nta Ana~ CA 92705 NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR CorDoration (fill in whether a Corl:~oration, Partnershit~ or individua8 , hereinafter called Principal, and Continental Casualty Company, 2,5 Mauchl¥,,t~327~ Irv,,i,,ne, CA 92618 -. 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 ?,,-l.~,,, Thousand Nine H~nd;~d Sixty-Six .......... DOLLARS and Ninety- CENTS ($12. 966.90 ) in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten percent (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract. for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these Dresents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is,such that whereas, the Principal entered'into a certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the ~2th day of August , 1997 , a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PW97-11 CITYWIDE A.C. STREET REPAIRS FY97-98. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of one year after.. approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period; and WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was approved on ,19 . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approval of the said 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 aDpear that defective materials were furnished thereunder, then this obligation shall remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument shall be void. MAINTENANCE BONO M- ! R:~CII~PROJECTSIPW97~PW97-11 tBIO.PKG m 9th Signed and sealed this ____.- day of September 97 ,19 . (Seal) SURETY KaChl n Jones (Name) At t:o rne y- i n - Fee c (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: . Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney PRIN( By: Steve Kirschnet (Name/ice President (Title) By: (Name} (Title) MA. INTENANCE BONO M-2 R:XCIP~PROJECTS~PW97~PW97- I I ¥BIO.I:~G m POWER OF A'I'I'ORNEY Ai~POIlqTING/NDIVIDU~ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT Know ~11 Me~ By The~e Preseats, That CONTINENTAL CASUAL~ CO~A~, ~ ~ ~, NAT~L FIRE INSU~NCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, a C~~ ~~n, A~RICAN CASUAL~ COMPA~ OF R~~, PE~S~VAMA, a P~y~ co~~ (hl~ ~ly ~ '~ CNA S~t~ ~"), ~e ~ ~~ ~ e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ · e C~ of C~, ~ S~ of ~, ~ ~t ~y do by v~ of ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ke, ~~ ~ ~nt Ro~ G. M~r ,~ ~, I~d~ ...... ' - i _ ii ii i i _ iii i i i i i i j - _ ~ i i i i i , ~ ii i i iii Jiiiii i~ ii ii i i i iiii ii i ii ~ i~ i~ ~ iiii i .................. u~~~ ~d o~ ~~ in~n~ of s~ ~e i i ii i ........... -;, b~a~ ~." ' ~ ii i i ~ ii i i ii i i i i i~ i i i i iii ii i i ii i i , ~d't~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~y a~ ~ ~e ~e e~t ~ ~ ~h in~~ ~ sign~ by a ~ ~ ~~ ~~ " ~d all ~e a~ ~ ~ A~o~y, pur~nt ~ ~e a~o~ hereby gw~ ~e her~y m~ ~ ~n~. a~, ~ i~~, by ~e B~ of D~m of ~e co~~s. ~ ~ll$ ~er~f, ~e CNA S~efi~ ~mpa~ have ~us~ ~se presen~ to ~ sign~ by ~ Grip ~ Pr~ent a~ · ~ co~ ~ to be ~eto ~ on ~is 5~ day of S~temb~ , 1~ CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF REAOING, PENNSYLVANIA M.C. Vonnahme aro,~ v~ Pr~c~m State of I#~is, County of Cook, ss: On ~ 5th day of _.September , before me pemort~b/came M. C. Vonnahme , to me known, who, b~ng by me duly sworn, ~id depose and say: lhat he ~*~ the Vil~ge of Darien , State of ~11nms; that he is a Group Vice Prevalent of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAl. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNS~'LVANIA desc~bed ~ and which executed the above b~a~ment; that he knows the seals of ~ corporalions; that the seal~ affixed to the said inalrume~ are ~h coroomta sea~; II~t they were so af~xld Dumuant to authority given by the i of O~ec=lom of said corporations and that he signed h~ name ttlereto pursuant to like luthol~/, and ecknowisdgee same to be the act and deed of said corporations. My Commission Expires June 5, 2000 Ei~ee. T. Pechum ' Notary CERTIFICATE I, John M. L~l~er , Assistant Secretary of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NAI~ONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF REAOING, PENNSYLVANIA do ~te~eby cerl~y I~at the Power of Attorney herein above set for~ is still in force, and further certify tt~-t the 8y-Law and Reeok~Jon of the Board of Oireclem of each corporalion ~inted on ~e reverse, tter~f are s~# il~ force. ~n testimony whereo~ I bav~ hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the $eaJ$ of ~e said corporations CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORO AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA John M. Lfftler (Rev. 7114/95) i, i! A~stant Secretary CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW97-11 CITYWIDE A.C. STREET REPAIRS FY97-98 This is to certify that HARDY & HARPER, INC. , (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that-~eJit has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair ot that certain work of improveme,t k.'~own as PROJECT NO. PW97-11 CITYWIDE A.C. STREET REPAIRS FY97-98 situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: CITYWIDE A.C. STREET REPAIRS FY97-98 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 -0- i ii i iii 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 contact amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: ]]./3/97 By: Signature Steve Kirs/:hner, Vice President Print Name and Title RELEASE R-1 R:~CII~PROJECTS~PW97~PW97-11~BID.PKG rh CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CALIFORNIA County of ORANGE On November 3, 1997 Date personally appeared before me, Kristen S. Paulino, Notary Public Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public") Steve Kirschher Name(s) of Signer(s) ~('personaily known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person{J/) whose name(~ is/a~e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shb/tl~ executed the same in his/hl~/tll~r authorized capacity(ij~), and that by his/ll~r/their signature(&) on the instrument the person(~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~: ,./,?~,,?..~.,.,~.,.;~ KRISTEN S. PAULINO ' /~:?':?-~'-;'71" COMM. ~1057981 '~ "'"" ':':'/ ORM';{JL ~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES M&Y 16, 1999 WITNESS my hand and official seal. /~'~ ~Signatul!of h'ola~ OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: , Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: [] Individual [] Corporate Officer Title(s): [] Partner--[] Limited ~ General [] Attorney-in-Fact ~ Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: Top of thumb here Signer's Name: [] Individual [] Corporate Officer Title(s): [] Partner- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: Top of thumb here © 1995 National Notary Association · 8236 Reinmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 ITEM 8 CITY ATTORNEY _~ F NANCE D RECTO . .11 CITY MANAGER ~ II TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ~/qJoseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of FY97-98 Citywide P.C.C. Repairs, Project No. PW97-12 PREPARED BY: ~ Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the construction of FY97-98 Citywide P.C.C. Repairs, Project No. PW97-12. , File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract, and; . Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract for construction of the FY97-98 Citywide P.C.C. Repairs in the amount of $40,862.00 to All Concrete Construction. The work included 9,832 S.F. of sidewalk removal and replacement. 215 L.F. of curb and gutter removal and replacement. The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications'and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about forty-five (45) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Public Works Annual Maintenance Project and is being funded from Account No. 001-164-601-5402, Routine Street Maintenance. Attachments: , Notice of Completion Maintenance Bond Contractor's Affidavit r:\agdrpt\97\l 118\pw97-12.acc/ajp RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Busineaa Park Drive Tamacula, CA 92589-9033 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula..to California Pavement Maintenance Company to perform the following work of improvement: FY97-98 Citywide P.C.C. Repairs - Project No. PW97-12 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 titeating thereof held on November 18, 1997. That upon said contract the Reliance National Indemnity 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 PW 97-12. 6. The street address of said property is: Various locations within the City of Temecula. Dated at Temecula, California, this day of ,1997. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk !, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this day of , 1997. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk R:\cip~or ojecti~pw 96~pw96-11 \completn.not/ejp 90968180]'6 ALL CONCRETE CONST PAGE 01 10/2.9/1997 · CiTY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT' MAtNTENANCE BOND PROJECT NO, PW97-12 .C.~DE P, C,C, REPAIR PROGRAM FY97-98 KNOW AL'L MEN :BY. THESE PRESENTS THAT: ALL CoNcRETE CONSTRUCTION 3564 LINDSAY AVENUE, RIVERSIDE, CA. P2707196 92509 ,[- MAINTENANCE BOND .. M-1 R:~CII~PROJECTS~PVVB7',P'WB7.! 2'~BIDI ~G m NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR ,. a .PROPRIETORSHIP _., h.~reinafter called Principal, .. (fill in whethe~ a Corl~oration, Partnership or inclivldua/) !: ' . .. hereinafter'cklled SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter oalled oWNER, in the penal sum of ~OUR THOUSAND ETG[-]~ SIX ~u ZU/i00 : DOLLARS and ~ (~'ENTS .~, I$ 4.,OR6.20 } in lawful money of the L)nited States, said sum being not less th!~n ten percent (10~o)of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecu[a under the terms '.if the Contract',' for the paymen.t Of which, we bind ourselves, successors ~nd assigns, jointll.~ and ., · severally, firmly by.these presents. / THE CONDITION OF THiS OBLIGATION is such that where~s, the Principsl entered into a ~:.ertain Contract with 'the OWNER', dated the I2T~ day of AUGUS~ , 19 97 , a copy of wI'!ich is hereto attached and' made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PW97-12, CIT~.'.VVIDE P.C.C.' REPAIR PROGRAM* FYg7;gII. WHER'EAS, said contract provides that the Principal will furnish a band conditioned to guai'antee · for the pealed: of Ql3Jt Year.after aPprov, al of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER, · all defects. In workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said perlod~ WHEREAS, the said. Contract has been completed, and was approved on _, 1hi___. NOW;.'THEREFORE,..THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that If within one ye~l~ from .the:date of. approval. Of the said Contract, the work done under the terms of .said Contrac~i'[ shall disclose Poor workman. ship in the ex_,~,_qion of said work, and the. carrying out of the terms i~f said Con-act., or it .shall. appear that defective materials were furnished thereunder, then this obii!ilation shall .remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument shall be void. 10/2B/1997 10:11 B096818076 ALL OONCRETE CONST PAGE 03 Signed an~ sealad '~is 3rD,,, day of NOVEMBER 97. SURETY RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY By: RANDY SPOHN. _ {Name) ATTORNEY IN FACT {Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Pete~-M. Thoraon, ciw Attorney PRINCIPAL ALL CON)~~_~,C~STRUCTION By: ...... (Title) By: ' (Name} .~(Tltle) · MAINTENANCE BOND M-2 R:%¢~I~P~OJ~CTB%PWS~PWI~7-12~lD.~li:O r'h CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO On NOVE~, 3, 1997 DATE before me, LESLIE E. DAVIS, NOTARY PUBLIC NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared RANDY SPOHN NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) personally known to me - OR - [--] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same In his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY 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 TITLE(S) ~ PARTNER(S) ]-"] LIMITED ~ GENERAL [~ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT E~ TRUSTEE(S) [--']GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR r--']OTHER: DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT MAINTENANCE BOND TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES NOVEMBER 3, 1997 DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 01603 POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and float RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, are corporalions duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin {herein collectively called "the Companies") and that the Companies by virtue of signature anti seals clo hereby make, constitute and appoint Randy $pohn of Anaheim, California their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on their behalf, and as their act and deed: Contract Bonds - Maximum Penalty All Other Bonds - Maximum Penalty $1,000,000 $25,000 "ANY BOND OR INDEMNITY PROVIDED THAI' WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANIES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION ACCOMPANIES THIS POWER OF ATrORNEY." and to b~nd the Companies thereby as lull and to the same extent as if such bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature Ihereol were signed by an Executive Officer of the Companies and sealed end attested by one other ol such officers, and hereby ralities and confirms all that their said Attorney(s)-in-Fact may do in pursuance hereof. · ., This Power of Attorney Is granted under and by the authorfly of Article Vii of the By-Laws of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, 'UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY which provisions are now in full force and eftsot, reading as lollowe: . · ARTICLE VII - EXECUTION OF BONDS AND UNDERTAKING 1. The Board of Directors, the President, the Chairman of the Board, an.~ Senior Vice President, any Vice President or Assistant Vice President or other officer designated by the Board of Directors shall have power and authority to (a) appoint Attorney(s)-in-Fact and to authorize them to' execute on behalf of the Company, bonds and undertakings, recognizes, contracts of indemnity and other writings obligalory in the nature thereof, and (D) to-remove any such Attorney(s)-in-Fact at any time and revoke the power and authority-given to them. 2. Attorney(s)-in-Fact shall have power and authority, subject to the terms and limitations of the Power of Attorney issued to them, to execute deliver on behalf of the Company, bonds and undertakings, recognizances, contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereol. The corporate seat is not necessary for the validity of the bonds and undertakings, recognizes, contracts of 'indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, 3. Attorney(s)-In-Facl shall have power and authority to execul~ affidavits required to be attached to bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity or other conditional or obligatory undertakings and they shall also have power and authority to certify lhe financial statement of the Company and to copies of the By-Laws of Ihe Company or any article or secllon thereof. This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Executive and Finance Committees of the Boards o! Directors of United Pacific Insurance Company and Reliance National Indemnity Company by Unanimous Consents dated as ol February 28, 1994, by the Executive and Finance Committee o! Reliance Insurance Company at a meeting held on March 10, 1994 and by the Executive and Finance Committee of the Board of Directors of Reliance Surety Company by Unanimous Consent dated as of March 31. 1994. "Resolved that Ihe signatures of such directore and offcam and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or any certlfioales relating thereto by facsimile, and any such Power'of Attorney or certificate bearing'such facsimile signatures or lacsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such Power so executed and certified by facsimile signatures and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company, in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have.caused these presents to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed, this 17th day of September, 1996. '' RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY STATE OF Pennsylvania ) COUNTY OF Philadelphia ') es. On this, the 17th day of September, 1996, before me, Valencia Wortham, appeared David T. Akers, who acknowledged himsell to be the Senior Vice President of Reliance Surety Company, and the Vice President ol Reliance Insurance Company. United Pacific Insurance Company and Reliance National CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW97-12 CITYWIDE P.C.C. REPAIR PROGRAM FY97-98 declares to the City of Temecula, 6nde~-oath, thai-he/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW97-12, CITYWIDE P.C.C. REPAIR PROGRAM FY97-98 situated in the City nf Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: PROJECT NO. PW97-12, CITYWIDE P.C.C. REPAIR PROGRAM FY97-98 The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description 'Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, ctebts, 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 contact amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. CONTRACTOR Signature _ " Print Name an~ri-tle - RELEASE R-1 R:XCIP~PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-12XBID.PK6 rh ITEM 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT(JI~,~ CITY MANAGER City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 Completion and Acceptance of the Traffic Signal at State Route 79 South and Bedford Court - Project No. PW96-17 PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects (~Ali Moghadam, Associate Engineer - Traffic/Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the traffic signal at State Route 79 South and Bedford Court, Project No. PW96-17. I , File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract, and; . Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On June 10, 1997, the City Council awarded a contract for the installation of a traffic signal at the above referenced location, Project No. PW96-17 to DBX, Inc. in the amount of $89,121.00. This project included installation of a traffic signal, and minor signing and striping at this intersection. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: This project was funded by Development Impact-Signal Mitigation Fees from Account No. 210- 165-675-5804. This project was completed within budget and with no change orders. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit r:\agdrpt\97\l 118\pw96-17.acc/ajp RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Bueineae Park Drive Temec~ula, CA 92589-9033 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecuia is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to DBX, Inc. to perform the following work of improvement: Traffic Signal Installation at State Route 79 South and Bedford Court Project No. PW96-17 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 November 18, 1997. That upon said contract the Continental Casualty 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 PW 96-17. 6. The street address of said property is: State Route 79 South at Bedford Court. Dated at Temecula, California, this day of ,1997. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) !, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this ~ day of ,1997. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk R:\¢i13~rojecl~w96~ow 96-17\completn.not/~jp CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW96-17 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION A T S TA TE ROUTE 79 SOUTH AND BEDFORD COURT This is to certify that DBX, Inc. , (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents. employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW96-17 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH AND BEDFORD COURT, situated in the City of Temecula. State of California, more particularIv described as follows: Traffic Signal Installation @ SR79S & Bedford Ct. INSERT TITLE OF WORK HERE The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contact amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above, Dated: 10/23/97 By; C TRACTO xR.~ Signature -' '" J___i~~, ,Pr~dent Print Name and Title RELEASE R- 1 i~:~ciP~.Pf~oj ECT$~'~/ee~e. 17\BIOSPEC-%WPD rh BOND# 158761330 PREMIUM: INCLUDED IN PERFORMANCE BOND CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND PROJECT NO. PW96-17 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLA lYON A T $TATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH AND BEDFORD COURT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: DBX, INCORPORATED 42066 AVENIDA ALVA__RAD__O_,_ .STE. C, TEMECULA. CA 92590 NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRA CTOR CORPORATION frill in whether m. Corporation, Partner=hi~ o~' india'due# hereinafter called Principal, and CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY 1800 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, BREA., CA 92821 N,4ME AND ADDRESS OF $UR~'TY hereinafter called SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWELVE DOLLARS and TEN~ CENTS ($ 8;912.10 ) in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten I~ercent (10%) of the Contract value payable .by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract,. for the payment of which, w,e bind ourselves, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. ,. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the 20TH day of OCTOBER ,197_7___, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PR{~JECT NO. PW96-17 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH AND BEDFORD COURT. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of ~ year after al:)proval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period; and WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was approved on OCTOBER 13 , 1997..[._. NOW, THEREFORE. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approval of the said 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. Signed Ind eelled thia20TH day of _ OCTOBER · 1597 · (Seal} SURETY CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY DAVID L. CULBERTSON II _ I _ I -- (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: 'Peter M, _ J~m Protry r - -. _ iN,me) ~l~e ,~ent _ i _ (Title) By: ,, . iN'me) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALI~~IA COUNTY OF ORANGE On 10-20-97 before me, LEXIE SHERWOOD - NOTARY PUBLIC II I I personally appeared DAVID L. CULBERTSON personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WI ~TNE~S my hand and official Si-g~a~ure of Notary P-ubli¢ . seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could p,.r~vent fraudulent reattachment of this form. DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT MAINTENANCE BOND T~TLE OR TYPE OF ~ · · Nm~ER OF PAGES 2 DATEOFDOC~NT 10-20-97 INDIVIDUAL [~ PARTNER ( S ) [-] OTHER: CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE (S) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ~ TRUSTEE (S) SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(S) Continental Casualty Company CNA Few All like (';rotmir gtteltl ~ ~,# M&ke' · AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION POWER OF ATTORNEY APPOINTING INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT Know All Men by these Presents, That CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and having its principal office mn the City of Chicago, and State of Illinois does hereby make. constitute end appoin~mVi¢l I. Culbert_~on. Chuck L. Flake, Linda L. Culbertson, Diana Laskowski, .. Individually ,, o,, Anaheim, California Its true end lawful Attorney-in-fact with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, seal and execute in its behalf bonds, undertakings &nd other oblig&tory instruments of similar nature , - In Unlimited Amounts - and to bind CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such instruments were signed by the duly authorized officers of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and all the acts of said Attorney. pursuant to the authority hereby given are hereby ratified and confirmed. This Power of Attorney is made and executed pursuant to and by authority of the following By-Law duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company. "Article IX--Executlon of Decume~ts Sectlon.3. Appointment .of Attorney-in-fact. The President o.r a Vice Pr..esident. may, from time t.o time., appoint by w. rit.t.encartific&.tes attorneys-in-fact to act in behalf of the company in the excecution or policies or insurance, Donos, unGenakt_ngs'ano .omar o.b?gat. ory instruments of like nature. Such attorneys-in-fact, subject to the limitations set forth in their respective certificates oT authority, snarl have full power to bind the Company by their signature and execution of any such instruments and to attach the seal of the Company thereto. The President or any Vice President or the Board of Directors may at any time revoke all power and authority previously given to any attorney-in-fact." This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company at a meeting duly called and held on the 3rd day of April, 1957, "Resolved, that the signature of the President or,Vice President and the sell of the Company may be affixed by facsimile on any power of attorney granted pursuant to Section 3 of Article IX of the By-Laws, and the signature of the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary and the leal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any certificate of any such power, and any power or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures and seal shall be valid and binding on the Company. Any such power so executed and sealed and certified by certificate 1o executed and sealed shall, with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached, continue to be valid and binding on the Company." In Witness Whereof, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its Vice President and its corporate leal to be hereto affixed on this .~,~LO..tJ/.__m day of January 19_ ~)]. County of Cook [ss J. E. Purtell Vice President. On this _30th day of January 19 91 , before me. personally came J. E. Puttell, to me known, who, being by me dut~ sworn, did del~ose and say: that he resides in the Village of Glenview, State a Vice-President of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said Corporation; that the seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed pursuant to the said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed pursuant to authority given by the Board of Directors of said corporation and that he signed his name thereto pursuant to like authority, and acknowledges same to be the act and deed of said corporation. Li~ida C. Dampsay // ,/4~tar~ Publ,c. CERTIFICATE My Commission Expires 0ct~x.~' 19, 1994 I, George R. Hobaugh, Assistant Secretary of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, do hereby certify that the Power of Attorney herein above set forth is still in force, and further certify that Section 3 of Article !X of the By-Laws of the Company and the Resolution of the Board of Directors, set forth in said Power of Attorney are still in force. in testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the said Company this . 20'~[-[ day of. O(::'['O:~F~I~ ,19 97 i George R. Hobaugh Assistant Secretary Form 1-23142-B INV. NO. G.59200.B ITEM 10 CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager 4~ Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Renewal of Annual Right-Of-Way Weed Control Pre-Emergent and Post Emergent Application, Project No. PW95-24 PREPARED BY: ~f~ Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council extend the Right-Of-Way (R-O-W) weed control contract with Pestmaster Services of Temecula for a period of one (1) year beginning November 18, 1997 and ending November 19, 1998 in an amount not to exceed $28,331.02 BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of November 14, 1995, the R-O-W Weed Control Contract for FY95-96, Project No. PW95-24 was awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Pestmasters of Temecula. Pestmasters has performed satisfactory work during the past year and has responded efficiently in all situations. During FY95-96, Pestmasters provided R-O-W control to the City for a total cost of $28,331.02. The total cost of service was allocated as follows: $10,126.83 $18,204.19 For Pre-Emergent Treatments For Post Emergent Treatments 873,003 sq. ft. 1,151,001 sq. ft. The original Contract contains provisions that allows the Contract to be extended on a yearly basis by mutual agreement of both parties for up to three (3) years by the prevailing construction cost index. FISCAL IMPACT: The approved budget for FY97-98 has allocated $28,331.02 under Account Number 001-164- 601-5402 Street Maintenance Program. ATTACHMENTS: Contract r:\agdrpt\97\1118\pw95-24.ext/ajp CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW95-24 RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED CONTROL PRE-EMERGENT AND POST-EMERGENT APPLICATIONS THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 18th day of November, 1997, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Pestmaster Services of Temecula, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: .a. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW95-24 RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED CONTROL, PRE-EMERGENT AND POST EMERGENT APPLICATIONS, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (1992 Ed.) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the ~ Soecifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW95-24 RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED CONTROL, PRE-EMERGENT AND POST-EMERGENT APPLICATIONS. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: Building News, Incorporated 3055 Overland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90034 (213) 202-7775 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General, Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW95-24 RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED CONTROL, PRE-EMERGENT AND POST-EMERGENT APPLICATIONS. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over and be used in lieu of such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Document describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. CONTRACT CA- 1 R:\CIP~PROJ ECTS~VV96~PW96-24\C ONTRACT.WPD/ajp , the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. Cl Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contracts Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. E. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contracts Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. WARRANTY RETENTION. Commencing with the date the Notice of Completion is recorded, the CITY shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure warranty performance and correction of construction deficiencies according to the following schedule: CONTRACT AMOUNT $25,000- $75,000 $75,000 - $500,000 Over $500,000 RETENTION PERIOD 180 days 180 days One Year RETENTION PERCENTAGE 3% $2,250 + 2% of amount in excess of $75,000 $10,750 + 1% of amount in excess of $500,000 , , LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of and without the fault or negligence of the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. CONTRACT CA-3 R:\CIP~PROJ ECTS~='W96~NV96-24\CONTRACT.WPD/ajp 10. 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 Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, 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. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in their employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager his/her affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. CONTRACT CA-4 R:\CIP~PROJ ECTS~=W96~WV96-24\C ONTRACT.WPD/ajp 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 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. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by 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 time after completion of the work. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. 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. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, as amended. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works\City Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 CONTRACT CA-5 R:\CiP~ROJ ECTS~=~N96~:~N96.24\CONTRACT.WPD/ajp ITEM 11 CiTY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Release Warranty and Labor and Material Bonds in Tract No. 27827-2 (Northwesterly of intersection of North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road) PREPARED BY: /~ Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: City Council AUTHORIZE release of the Faithful Performance Street, and Water and Sewer System bond in the warranty amount, and the Labor and Materials Bond in Tract No. 27827-2, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Tract Map No. 27827-2 on August 23, 1994, and entered into agreements with: Coscan Homes California, Inc., a California Corporation Doing Business as Coscan Davidson Homes. 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, CA 92014 for the improvement of streets, water and sewer system, and subdivision monumentation. The bonds were posted by Reliance Insurance Company as follows: I . Bond No. B2380579/111059 in the amount of $342,500, ($224,000, $67,000, and $51,500, respectively) for street, water and sewer system improvements. 0 Bond No. B2380579/111059 in the amount of $171,250 ($112,000, $33,500, and $25,750, respectively) for street, water and sewer system labor and materials. . Bond No. B2482284/111062 in the amount of $12,420 to cover subdivision monumentation. -1- r:\agdrpt\97\ 1118\tr278272.fnl On July 9, 1996, the City Council accepted the public improvements, authorized reduction in the Faithful Performance bond amount to the ten-percent (10%) warranty level and release of the subdivision monumentation bond, and initiated the one year warranty period. Public Works staff has reviewed the project in the field and all necessary repairs/replacements have been satisfactorily completed. The Staff recommends release of the following Faithful Performance warranty bond: Street, Water and Sewer System improvements: Bond No. B2482313/111070 $34,250 The developer was required to post Labor and Materials Bond to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. This bond is maintained for six-months after the City Council accepts the public improvements. No claims having been filed for either labor or materials, Staff recommends the release of the following bond: Street, Water and Sewer System Labor and Materials: Bond No. B2380579/111059 $171,250 The public streets within this tract were accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council Resolution No. 96-92. The streets accepted were portions of June Road, Marian Road, April Drive, Sarah Drive, and two alleys. Portions of Nicolas Road within the tract boundary were previously accepted into the County Maintained-Road System and into the City Maintained-Street System by succession upon incorporation. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment; Location Map -2- r:\agdrpt\97\1111~tr278272.fnl ITEM 12 FINANCE DIRECTOR~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 Accept Faithful Performance Bond Rider for warranty purposes in Parcel Map 27714 (located East of Ynez Road, between Solana Way and Rancho California Road) PREPARED BY: /-~Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development ~' Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT Faithful Performance Bond Rider for warranty purposes in Parcel Map No. 27714, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and surety. BACKGROUND: On December 19, 1995, the City Council approved Parcel Map No. 27714 and entered into subdivision improvement agreement with: Rancon Realty Fund IV (c/o Glenborough Corporation) 400 South El Camino Real, Suite 1100 San Mateo, CA 94402-1708 for the improvement of portions of Ynez Road, and private street, and water and sewer systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreement were surety bonds posted by Explorer Insurance Company as follows: I · Bond No. 137 38 63 in the total amount of $474,000 ($337,500, $92,500, and $44,000, respectively) to cover faithful performance for streets and drainage, and water and sewer improvements. e Bond No. 137 38 63 in the total amount of $237,000 ($169,000, $46,000, and $22,000, respectively) to cover labor and materials for streets and drainage, and water and sewer improvements. ~ Bond No. 137 38 64 in the amount of $3,500 to cover subdivision monumentation. -1 - r:\agdrpt\97\ 1118~pm27714..ub NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEM 13 CITY ATTORNEY ~ FINANCE DIRECT~)~~.._ ! TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 Release Labor and Materials securities for Public Improvements in Tract No. 24134-2. (Southeasterly corner of Pauba Road at Margarita Road) PREPARED BY: ,~/Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer- Land Development ,j~Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the Labor and Materials securities for Public Improvements in Tract 24134-2, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On April 9, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24134-2, and entered into subdivision agreements with: Bedford Development Co. 27755 Ynez Road, Suite 202 Temecula, CA 92591 for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of Credit issued by Butterfield Financial Corporation as follows: In the amount of $1,368,000 ($1,068,000, $146,000, and $154,000, respectively) to cover faithful performance for streets and drainage, and water and sewer improvements. In the amount of $684,000 ($534,000, $73,000, and $77,000, respectively) to cover labor and materials for streets and drainage, and water and sewer improvements. In the amount of $28,500 to cover subdivision monumentation. ]- R:~AGDRPT~97\1118~TR241342. L&M On April 22, 1997, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year warranty period, and authorized the reduction in faithful performance security amounts to the ten-percent (10%) warranty level; Streets and drainage, and water and sewer improvements $136,800 The developer submitted substitute bonds in the appropriate amounts, with The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company as surety, as follows: Bond No. 10869980-96-039 in the amount of $136,800 for faithful performance warranty. Bond No. 10869980-96-038 in the amount of $684,000 for labor and materials. The contractual six-month lien period has run and the developer has requested release of the labor and materials security. No claims having been filed against the developer for either labor or materials, Staff recommends release of this security as follows: Bond No. 10869980-96-038 in the amount of $684,000 for labor and materials. The affected streets were accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council Resolution No. 97-36. The streets within the subdivision accepted are Via Cerda, Corte Rimola, Via Gandia, and portions of Cala Carrasco, Calle Veronica, Pauba Road, and Margarita Road. Margarita Road in this reach was a part of the County Maintained-Road System prior to incorporation and became part of the City Maintained-Street System by succession on December 1, 1989. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments; Location Map R:~GDRPT~97\1118\TR241342.L&M Tract No. 24134-2 i NOTE; MAPS ]~OT TO SCALE ITEM 14 CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTO _~ . CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Accept Infrastructure Improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No. 24134-F. (Southeasterly of intersection of Pauba Road at Margarita Road) PREPARED BY: /~/j~Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer- Land Development Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: City Council ACCEPT the Infrastructure Improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No. 24134-F, and AUTHORIZE reduction in Infrastructure Faithful Performance securities for Streets and Drainage, and Water and Sewer System to warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On May 15, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24134-F, and entered into subdivision agreements with: Bedford Development Company, a California Corporation for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of Credit posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the following amounts: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS I . $1,398,500 ($1,083,000, $297,000, and $18,000 for infrastructure streets and drainage, and water, and sewer systems, respectively) for faithful performance. . $699,500 ($541,500, $149,000, and $9,000 for Infrastructure streets and drainage, and water and sewer systems, respectively) for labor and materials. IN-TRACT IMPROVEMENTS $773,000 ($515,000, $128,000, and $130,000, respectively) to cover faithful performance for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements. R:~AGDRPT~97~ 1118\TR24134F.FNL . $386,500 ($257,500, $64,000, and $65,000, respectively) to cover labor and materials for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements. 3. $24,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. On August 13, 1996, the City Council accepted the in-tract public improvements, initiated the one-year warranty period, and authorized reduction in Faithful Performance street, Drainage, Water, and Sewer Improvement security amounts to the ten-percent (10%) warranty level. On October 28, 1997, the City Council authorized the release of the Faithful Performance warranty securities and the Labor and Material bonds. ZKS Real Estate Partners, LLC, as successors-in-interest to Bedford Development Co., seeks acceptance of the infrastructure improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in Infrastructure Faithful Performance Letter of Credit security amount to the ten- percent (10%) warranty level as follows: Infrastructure Faithful Performance Security amount $139,850 The Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts have accepted their items of work. Public Works Staff has inspected and verified the infrastructure improvements. Therefore Public Works Staff recommends acceptance of the infrastructure public streets, drainage, water, and sewer systems improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in infrastructure Faithful Performance security to the ten-percent (10%) warranty level noted above. The Infrastructure Labor and Materials security will be maintained for the contractual six-month lien period which follows City Council acceptance of the improvements. The affected interior streets were accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council Resolution No. 96-101. The exterior streets which were constructed in part or entirety as infrastructure improvements are portions of Santiago Road and Amarita Way, will be accepted into the City Maintained- Street System at a later date. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: Location Map R:~GDRFI~97~ 1118\TR24134F.FNL VICINITY MAP T.' 24134-~ I D.U. T.T. 24132 214 D.U. ~,. T.T. 24133 693 D,U. T.T. 24135 325 D,U, T.T. 24131 440 D,U. Bonded Area Improvements 400 D.U. Infrastructure Imorovements Tract No. 24134-F NOTE; MAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEM 15 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTC~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 Accept Infrastructure Improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No. 24133-1 (Southwesterly of intersection of Pauba Road at Meadows Parkway) PREPARED BY: ,~ RECOMMENDATION: Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer That the City Council ACCEPT the infrastructure improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No 24133-1 and AUTHORIZE reduction in Infrastructure Faithful Performance security for street, drainage, water, and sewer system improvements to warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On March 26, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24133-1, and entered into subdivision agreements with: Bedford Development Company (c/o Mesa Homes) for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. The securities submitted included both "in-tract" public improvements and "infrastructure" improvements which extended essential water systems and portions of the circulation street system to provide access to this tract and portions of neighboring developments within the Paloma Del Sol development. The securities submitted were Letters of Credit posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation as follows: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS . In the amount of $863,000 ( $632,500, and $230,500 for infrastructure streets and drainage, and water system, respectively) for faithful performance. . In the amount of $432,000 ( $316,500, and $115,500 for infrastructure streets and drainage, and water system, respectively) for labor and materials. R:~GDRPr~97~l 118\TR24133I.FRA IN-TRACT IMPROVEMENTS 1. In the amount of $1,429,000 ($960,000, $191,000, and $278,000 for in-tract streets and drainage, and water, and sewer systems, respectively) for faithful performance. 2. In the amount of $714,500 ($ 480,000, $95,500, and $139,000 for in-tract streets and drainage, and water, and sewer systems, respectively) for labor and materials. 3. In the amount of $47,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. On September 23, 1997, the City Council accepted the in-tract public improvements, initiated the one-year warranty period, and authorized reduction in the in-tract Faithful Performance security to the ten-percent (10%) warranty amount as follows: Streets and Drainage, Water and Sewer improvements $142,900 ZKS Real Estate Partners, LLC, as successors-in-interest to Bedford Development, seeks acceptance of the infrastructure improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in Infrastructure Faithful Performance Letter of Credit security amount to the ten- percent (10%) warranty level as follows: Infrastructure Streets, drainage, water. $86,300 The Rancho California Water District has accepted their items of work. Public Works Staff has inspected and verified the public improvements. Therefore Public Works Staff recommends acceptance of the infrastructure public streets, drainage, and water system improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in Infrastructure Faithful Performance security to the ten-percent (10%) warranty level noted above. The Infrastructure Labor and Materials security will be maintained for the contractual six-month lien period which follows City Council acceptance of the improvements. The affected interior streets were accepted by City Council Resolution No. 97-101 on September 23, 1997. The exterior streets which were constructed in part or entirety as infrastructure improvements are portions of Amarita Way, Montelegro Way, and Pio Pico, and will be accepted into the City Maintained-Street System at a later date. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: Location Map R:~4~GDRPT~9~ 1118\TR24133I.FRA NO. 2415~t ?.?. 241~ WCIN~TY MAP T.T. 24132 214 D,U, ['. 24133- i T.T. 24135 325 D.U. T.T. 24131 440 D.U, )nded Area Improvements T.T. 24136 4OO D.U. Infrastructure Imnrovements NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEM 16 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FINANCE DIRECTOR~ I CITY MANAG.~~~~.~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engir~er November 18, 1997 Acceptance of Easement and Right of Entry by the City of Temecula From Electrend, Inc. In Connection With the Realignment of Streets Near the Intersection of Front Street and Highway 79 South For the I- 15/Highway 79 South Interchange Improvements PREPARED BY: ~'Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development ~>~ John Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the City Council adopt the following Resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM ELECTREND, INC. FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF THE EASEMENT DEED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH RESOLUTION NO. 97- a. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN 'RIGHT OF ENTRY AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT' BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ELECTREND, INC. 2, Authorize and direct the City Clerk to record the documents approved by the Resolutions as listed above. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has coordinated the design of the improvements for the I- 15/Highway 79 South Interchange Project which include the realignment of Front Street and construction of the intersection of Front Street and the proposed Western Bypass Corridor stub. The Intersection improvements call for installation of drainage facilities that need to be connected to the main storm drain system located south of the Electrend, Inc. property which is the Texaco station on Front Street. Electrend, Inc. will grant a drainage easement over its property to the City for installation and maintenance of the drainage facility. r:\agdrpt\97\1118\eaoemen3.wbc The City will also need a temporary construction easement to allow it to go on to a portion of the Electrend, Inc. property so that construction crews can have sufficient room to construct the realigned streets in this area and to remove and replace the existing Texaco station's amenities such as the light fixtures, guard posts, air pumps and/or valves and telephone facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: I · Resolutions 97-_, 97-_ Easement Deed to the City of Temecula from Electrend, Inc. Right of Entry and Temporary Construction Agreement between the City of Temecula and Electrend, Inc. r:\agdrpt\97~1116~ealemen3. wbc RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ELECTREND, INC. FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE EXF_CUTION AND RF.~ORDATION OF THE EASEMENT DEED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Public Works Department has coordinated the design of the improvements for the 1-15/Highway 79 South Interchange Project and determined the right of way necessary to construct these improvements. B. The Interchange improvements call for the realignment of the streets near the property owned by Electrend, Inc. C. As part of the construction of the street improvements it is necessary to install and maintain drainage facilities that need to be connected to the main storm drain system located south of the Electrend, Inc. property. D. Electrend, Inc. Hereby grants a drainage easement over its property to the City of Temecula for installation and maintenance of the drainage facility. E. Acceptance of the Easement Deed promotes the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain "Easement Dcccl from Electrend, Inc. To the City of Temecula for drainage purposes" as specified in the form of the Easement Deed attached hereto as Exhibit A., and authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute said Easement Deed on behalf of the City in substantially the form of Exhibit A. Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute such other and further documents as may be necessary to effectuate the conveyance of the property described in Section 2., including but not limited to escrow instructions. Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record the Easement Deed upon acceptance by the City of Temecula. r:\agdrpt\97\1118\easemen3.wbc PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 18th day of November, 1997. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC/AAE, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 97- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC/AAE, City Clerk r:\agdrpt\97\1118\eaeemen3.wbc Recorded at request of and return to: The City of Temecula, A Municipal Corporation City Manager 43200 Business Park Drive Ternecula, California 92589-9033 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE EASEMENT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, ELECTREND, INC., a California Corporation; doing business as: E.C.I. GRANT(S) to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a political subdivision, an easement for drainage purposes, 'including the construction and maintenance over, upon, across, and within the real property in the City of Temecula, State of California, described as: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT '~A " FOR COMPLETE DESCRIPTION } STATE OF CALIFORNIA } ss. COUNTY OF Rivers£de } on ", 10 / :2 8 / 9 7 before me, Susan W. Jones, Notary Publ.i.c personally appeared Louis Kashmere personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/ their signature on the instrument the person(s) or he entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my,~.~official seal. Signature ' ~ ELECTREND, I~C., By: By: (This area for official notarial seal) 1002 (1/94) EXHIBIT ~A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF LOT 10 IN BLOCK 32 OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN BOOK 15, PAGE 726 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER' OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. PA93-0177 RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 077303 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10, SOUTH 74017'38" WEST, 71.90 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL "'C" AS DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 50647 RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1997 'IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERS I DE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 37°57' 45" WEST, 10.80 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 10.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 10, SAID PARALLEL LINE ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A 30.00 FOOT"WIDE DRAINAGE E~SEMENT RECORDED MARCH 25, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 103587 IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERS IDE; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 74°17'38" EAST, 27.01 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PAP, ALLEL LINE SOUTH 37°57'45" EAST, 10.80 FEET TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 10; · THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 74°17'38" EAST, 27.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 270.12 SQUARE FEET OR 0.006 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO $:~ELEC $D.DOC -- 8/24/97 ~ ~NST. NO. 077505 APN ~ REC'D 2/24/94 ,, ~ , '"~ REC'D 2/14/9 7 , Tra~s-Pacifie Co~sutta~ts C~L ENGINEERS 27447 Enterprise Circle West. Temeculo, CA., 92590 LAND SURlYORS, PLANNERS .. mlS PLAT IS S~ELY AN AtO IN L~A~N6 ~E PARCEL(S) DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED D~UMENT. IT IS NOT PART ~ mE ~T~N DESCRIP~ ~EREIN. SHEET 1 OF 1 412-0~9.0~ ~ , SCALE: 1"= 40' DRAW. BY TB DATE7/25/97 EXHIBIT FOR DRAINAGE EASEMENT ,. FI FC. SD.DWG RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN "RIGHT OF ENTRY AND TEMPO~Y CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT" BETWE~ THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ELECTREND, INC. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Public Works Department has coordinated the design of the improvements for the 1-15/Highway 79 South Interchange Project and determined the right of way necessary to construct these improvements. B. The Interchange improvements call for the realignment of streets near the property owned by Electrend, Inc. C. As part of the construction of the street improvements it is necessary for the City to obtain a right of entry for temporary construction use of the property designated in the attached agreement. D. Acceptance of the right of entry for temporary construction purposes promotes the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain "Right of Entry and Temporary Construction Agreement" between the City of Temecula and Electrend, Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit A., and authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially the form of Exhibit A. Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute such other and further documents as may be necessary to effectuate the implementation of the Agreement described in Section 2. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 18th day of November, 1997. A~T: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC/AAE, City Clerk r:\agdrpt\97\1118\easemen3.wbc [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 97- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC/AAE, City Clerk r:\agdrpt\97\1118\easemen3.wbc CITY OF TEMECULA (Herein referred to as "City"), and ELECTREND, INC. (Herein referred to as 'Grantor") Project: 1-15/Hwy 79- South Interchange A.P.N.: 922-110-029 and 922-110-030 RIGHT OF ENTRY AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 1. The right is hereby granted City to enter upon and use the land of Grantor in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as: APN 922-110-029 and 922-110-030, highlighted on the map attached hereto, and made a part hereof for all purposes necessary to facilitate and accomplish the construction of the 1-15/Hwy 79 - South Interchange Project. A fourteen (14) day written notice shall be given to Grantor prior to using the rights herein granted. The rights herein granted may be exercised for twelve (12) months after the fourteen (14) day written notice, or until completion of said project, whichever shall be sooner. . It is understood that the City, and/or its contractors or agents may enter upon Grantor's property where appropriate or designated for the purpose of getting equipment to and from the easement area. City and/or its contractors or agents agree not to damage Grantor's property in the process of performing such activities. . The right to enter upon and use Grantor's land includes the right to remove and dispose of real and personal property located thereon. Grantor reserves the right to remove salvable real and personal property on or before the expiration of the fourteen (14) day written notice. If said property is not removed in its entirety at Grantor's expense, on or before said date for any reason whatsoever, the right to remove said property shall terminate and said property will become property of City to dispose of at its discretion. . City, its employees, contractors, and/or agents shall relocate existing light fixtures, guard posts, air pumps and/or valves and telephone facilities to an alternate location to be provided or specified by Grantor. Said alternate location shall be reviewed and approved by City. . Existing landscaping, including, but not limited to shrubs, trees, and irrigation lines, on Grantor's property may be affected by project construction. Said landscaping shall either be replaced in like kind by City after completion of construction under separate contract; or shall provide sufficient funds, as negotiated between City and Grantor, to Grantor to replace existing landscaping affected by construction. 6. Full access shall be maintained at both existing accesses to Grantor's land at all times without impedance. 1 R:~,GMTS~LDAGMT$~ELECTREN.AGRJ~jp . . . 10. 11. 12. III III III At the termination of the period of use of Grantor's land by City, but before its relinquishment to Grantor, debris generated by City's use, will be removed and the surface will be graded and left in a neat condition. Grantor shall be held harmless from all claims of third persons arising from the use by City of Grantor's land. Grantor hereby warrants that it is the owner of the property described above and that it has the right to grant City permission to enter upon and use the land. This agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties hereto. This agreement is intended by the parties as a final expression of their understanding with respect to the matters herein and is a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof. This agreement shall not be changed, modified, or amended except upon the written consent of the parties hereto. This agreement supersedes any and all other prior agreements or understandings, oral or written, in connection therewith. 2 R:~kGMTS~.DAGMTS~ELECTREN.AGR/aip 13. Grantor, its assigns and successors in interest, shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained in this agreement, and all parties thereto shall be jointly and severally liable thereunder. CITY OF TEMECULA Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk Dated: 3 R:~AGMTS~LDAGMTS~ELECTREN.AGRI~p BLK 6 Pot I Pot 2 Z, ~0 ./ 8,95-~Ac. hit Pot ~ , 11.~¢ NI Pot5 IJAc Nt Po~. 3 2.03 A¢~ ® P.Oo..~& ' // \ CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Riverside On 10/28/97 before me, s,,...,-, w..T~.~_ M'~-~,?.y 'P11],-~'~ '~'~ ..... ' DA~ NAME. ~ OF OFFICER: E.G., '~ ~E:N~+A~Y PUBLIC' personally appeared Louis Kashmere , NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) ~ ~ personally known to me - OR - ~ proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the person(~ whose name~)~~ subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in i~ir authorized capacity(~, and that by~~ signature~ on the instrument the person(~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person~) acted, executed the instrument. I II I WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL"' "' " ' ' Though the data betow 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 'nll. E(S) ~ PARTNER(S) r-"] LIMITED ~ GENERAL ~ A'rr'ORNEY-IN-FACT ~'] TRUSTEE(S) ~ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR J-"] OTHER: DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT · Agreement Right of Entry & Temporary Construction TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT 4 NUMBER OF PAGES 10128197 DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: N~v~E OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITYtiES) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Reinram Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Pa~. CA 91309-7184 ITEM 17 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FINANCE DIRECTO~_~--~ CITY MANA,~~a~~J City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 Accept Infrastructure Improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No. 24132-1 (Southeasterly of intersection of Margarita Road at Pauba Road) PREPARED BY: ~ RECOMMENDATION: Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer That the City Council ACCEPT the infrastructure improvements in Paloma Del Sol relating to Tract No 24132-1 and AUTHORIZE reduction in Faithful Performance securities for street, drainage, water, and sewer system improvements to warranty level, and initiation of the one- year warranty period, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On December 4, 1990, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24132-1, and entered into subdivision agreements with: Bedford Development Company (c/o Mesa Homes) for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. The bonds submitted included both "in-tract" public improvements and "infrastructure" improvements which extended essential water and sewer systems and portions of the circulation street system to provide access to this tract and portions of neighboring developments within the Paloma Del Sol development. The securities were posted by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. as follows: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS · Bond No. 3S 743 583 00 in the amount of $911,000 for infrastructure streets and drainage for faithful performance. . Bond No. 3S 743 584 00 in the amount of $481,500 for infrastructure water system for faithful performance. e Bond No. 3S 743 585 00 in the amount of $390,000 for infrastructure sewer system for faithful performance. R:~GDRP~9~I 118\TR24132N.FR2 . Bonds No. 3S 743 583 00, 3S 743 584 00, and 3S 743 585 00 in the amounts of $455,500, $240,750, and $195,000, respectively, for infrastructure streets and drainage and water and sewer systems labor and materials. IN-TRACT IMPROVEMENTS , Bond No. 3S 743 586 00 in the amount of $788,000 for in-tract streets and drainage for faithful performance. . Bond No. 3S 743 587 00 in the amount of $187,000 for in-tract water system for faithful performance. . Bond No. 3S 743 588 00 in the amount of $199,000 for in-tract sewer system for faithful performance. . Bonds No. 3S 743 586 00, 3S 743 587 00, and 3S 743 588 O0 in the amounts of $394,000, $93,500, and $99,500, respectively, for in-tract streets and drainage and water and sewer system labor and materials 1 Bond No. 3S 743 593 00 in the amount of $26,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. On September 26, 1995, the City Council accepted substitute agreements and bonds from the new buyer-builder, Centex Real Estate Corporation. The .new surety, American Insurance Company posted the following securities in substitution for the in-tract bonds: . Bond No. 111 4155 1884 in the total amount of $1,174,000 ($788,000, $187,000, and $199,000, respectively, for streets and drainage, and water and sewer systems) to cover in-tract faithful performance. . Bond No. 111 4155 1884 in the total amount of $587,000 ($394,000, $93,500, and $99,500, respectively, for streets and drainage, and water and sewer systems) to cover in-tract labor and materials . Bond No. 111 2727 2653 in the amount of $26,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. ZKS Real Estate Partners, LLC, as successors-in-interest to Bedford Development, seeks acceptance of the infrastructure improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in faithful performance bond amounts to the ten-percent (10%) warranty level as follows: 1. Infrastructure streets and drainage Bond No. 3S 743 583 00 $91,100 2. Infrastructure water system Bond No. 3S 743 584 00 $48,150 3. Infrastructure sewer system Bond No. 3S 743 585 O0 $39,000 R:~,GDR_PT~97~ 1118\TR24132N.FR2 The Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts have accepted their items of work. Public Works Staff has inspected and reviewed the infrastructure public improvements, and therefore, recommends the acceptance of the infrastructure public improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in Infrastructure Faithful Performance bond amounts to the ten-percent (10%) warranty amount as noted above. The infrastructure labor and materials bonds will be retained for the contractual six-month lien period. If no claims are filed for labor or materials the City Council may authorize release of these bonds at that time. Action on the infrastructure bonds will not affect the securities for the uncompleted in-tract improvements. The interior streets, which have not been completed or accepted, or directly affected by the infrastructure improvements, are Corte Escobar, Calle Londe, Camino Molnar, Via Alhama, Via Alora, Cala Gerona, and portion of Calle Marquis. The exterior streets which were constructed in part or entirety as infrastructure improvements are portions of Meadows Parkway, Amarita Way, McCabe Drive, and Via Rami, and will be accepted into the City Maintained-Street System at a later date. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: Location Map R:~GDRPT~97~I 118\TR24132N.FR2 VICINITY MAP T,T, 24134 311 El,U, 24132-i T.To 24133 693 D,U, T,T. 24135 325 D.U. T.T. 24131 440 D.U. B~3nded Area Improvements NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEM 18 APPROVf~,~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services November 18, 1997 Amendment to Lease Agreement with the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. PREPARED BY: ,~k~hyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an amendment to the Lease Agreement with the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc., defining the area leased to the Museum and amending the grant amount to the Museum. DISCUSSION: On August 23, 1994, the City of Temecula (City) and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. (Museum) entered into a lease agreement, leasing a portion of Sam Hicks Monument Park to the Museum and providing a grant in the amount of $500,000 for the completion of renovations to St. Catherine's Church and the construction of a new museum building on the site. Subsequently, as construction of the project began, it became apparent that additional work would be necessary to complete the project and that actual construction costs would be greater than originally anticipated. Therefore, the City Council approved an increase in grant funding to the Museum of an additional $250,000 through the 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program. It is necessary to amend the Lease Agreement to reflect the increase in grant funding and specify that those funds are subject to the same terms as the original grant funds. The Museum is also appealing the possessory taxes assessed against them by the County Tax Assessor's Office. One of the issues at hand is the amount of space actually leased by the Museum at Sam Hicks Monument Park. The amendment to the lease agreement more completely and correctly identifies the leased portion of the park that is under the Museum's control. Approval of the amendment will aid the Museum in their appeal efforts. FISCAL IMPACT: The City Council has previously approved and appropriated the additional $250,000 in grant funds for the Museum project through the Capital Improvement Program. This amendment results in no other fiscal impact. Attachment: Lease Amendment r: \ruscp\ag ¢ndas\le. aseamd. mus FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED MUSEUM LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM, INC. THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE is made and entered into as of , 1997 by and between the City of Temecula (hereafter the "City") and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc., a California non-profit public benefit corporation (hereafter the "Corporation"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The parties agree that this First Amendment is entered into with respect to the following facts which each of the parties agrees are true and correct: a. On August 23, 1994, the City and Corporation entered into that certain "Amended and Restated Museum Lease Agreement By and Between the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc." (hereafter the "Lease") whereby the City leased to the Corporation certain real property within Sam Hicks Monument Park (hereafter the "Property") which is described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a museum, plaza area, and outdoor interpretative area, and renovating and maintaining a historic church on the Property; b. The Lease also provides that the City would finance renovation of St. Catherine's Church and construction of Phase I of the Museum with a $500,000 grant to be paid upon submission of requests of the Corporation confirming progress of construction in accordance with the terms of the Lease; c. The Corporation will continue its fundraising efforts for the renovation of the Church and the construction of Phase I of the Museum; and d. The parties now desire to supplement the funding of the construction of Phase I of the Museum by providing for additional grant funding from the City to the Corporation in the amount of $250,000 which will be disbursed in accordance with the terms of the existing Leas. 2. Section 9 of the Lease is hereby amended to read as follows: "9. FUNDING. The City hereby agrees to finance the work described in Section 8 of this Lease, Scope of Development, in an amount not to exceed a grant of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) (hereafter the "Grant"). The Corporation shall be responsible for obtaining all other necessary funds required to complete the Scope of Development. R:\rusep\museum\lease. amd October 29, 1997 Upon submission by the Corporation of Payment Request Form, containing the information specified in this Section, the City will pay to the Corporation funds sufficient to pay the individuals or entities identified in the Payment Request Form, the amounts specified for architectural, engineering, and construction costs, not to exceed the amount of the Grant. The Payment Request Form shall be in a form approved by the Director of Community Services and shall detail the work performed, the parties to whom payment is proposed to be made, the amounts of the payments to be made, and the Corporation's compliance with the terms of this Lease. The Corporation is to secure all appropriate labor and material releases prior to submitting the Payment Request Form. 3. Exhibit A to the Lease purported to described the property subject to the Lease. Exhibit A, however, has been the subject of some ambiguity as to the precise description of the property actually being leased by the City to the Corporation. Accordingly, it is necessary to revise Exhibit A to accurately describe the property which is and which has been subject to the Lease since its effective date. Revised Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full, is hereby substituted in place of the original Exhibit A to the Lease. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that said exhibit more precisely describes the land which has been used by the Corporation for the purposes described in the Lease since the effective date of the Lease and that the understanding and intent of the parties in entering into the Lease was to utilize only the property described in Revised Exhibit A attached hereto for the purposes of the Lease and that the actual practices of the parties since that time has been to utilize only the property described in Revised Exhibit A. 4. Section 42 of the Lease, Notices and Payments, is hereby amended to provide the that new address of the City is: "City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Post Office Box 9033, Temecula, California 92589-9033, Attention: City Manager." 5. Except as specifically provided herein, all other terms of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. R:\rusep\museum\lease. amd October 29, 1997 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to Lease to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor Attest: June S. Greek City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM, INC., a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation By: Fred Lamb President of the Board R: \rusephnuseum\lease. amd October 29, 1997 REVISED EXHIBIT A DESCRIFFION OF LEASE PROPERTY R:\ruseph-nmeum\lease. amd October 29, 1997 EXHIBIT ~A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR EXHIBIT BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 24038, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN BOOK 171, PAGES 71 THROUGH 72, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 24038; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID LINE BEING ALSO COMMON TO SAID PARCEL 2, NORTH 51°38'19" EAST, 140.60 FEET (NORTH 51038'42" EAST, RECORD PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 24038); THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 38o27'26" EAST, 42.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 10.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 80049'27" A DISTANCE OF 14 11 FEET; ! · THENCE SOUTH 42o22'00" WEST, 45.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 24.50 FOOT RADIUS NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 51o46'34" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41028' 24", A DISTANCE OF 17.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88o58' 21" WEST, 4.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35°34'04" WEST, 50.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50°26'34" WEST, 15.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 197.00 FOOT RADIUS NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 38026'39" WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°26'32", A DISTANCE OF 25.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°16'18" WEST, 19.97 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 5.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89°12'11", A DISTANCE OF 7.78 FE_E_T; THENCE NORTH 45°31'31" WEST, 10.97 FEET; J:~H PLAT. DOC CITY OF ~EMECULA 11/19/96 THENCE SOUTH 45002'02" WEST, 41.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 60°02'10" WEST, 7.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44o30'32" WEST, 55.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09o40'48" WEST, 83.75 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 73.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 77°26'18" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21o55' 15", A DISTANCE OF 27.93 FEET; -- THENCE NORTH 38018'48" WEST, 100.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 26.00 FOOT RADIUS NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 46059'37" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURlrE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16019'52", A DISTANCE OF 7.41 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MORENO ROAD (88.00 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 24038; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE NORTH 17°08'19" EAST, 55.83 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2, SAID CORNER BEING ALSO COPIMON TO SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 SOUTH 72°51'41" EAST, 22.09 TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCELS 1 AND 2 SOUTH 38°21'41" EAST, 215.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 29,305.17 SQUARE FEET OR 0.673 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT ~B" ATTACHED HERETO J:~H PLAT. DOe -- CITY OF TEMECUI~ 11/19/96 I ...... EXHIBIT "B" DATATABLE , ~o.i ~/e~~~ ~,~o~us ~~~r~ ! i ~ 41~8'24' 2~.50' IX73' ' ~ , , ,~ < ~.' P CL I /., ~ . ~ PARCEL MAP NO, 24038 , /¢ / ~- - ~ ~ :~ PM 171/71-72 ~ - '~.. % ~ ,¢ 4/ ~/ ,~12~ / ,~~_ '~~ ~- ~ ~,~:7 ' ~-~ / Z i ~> - ~ - ~ ~ ~ -'~ ~ ~':-- ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~o._ -'% ¢~%. ~ ~ ' WATER CO, SUBDiViSiON ~ ; ~,,,~ .,.,,~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ / -( ) OENO~S ~ECO~O O~TA ! 2~03& PM 171/71-72. - , , ~ ~ , ,,, ?ra~s-Pacific Co~sulLa~Ls c~L ENGINEERS 27447 Enterprise Circl~ W~.t, Tem~culo, CA,, 92590 LAND SURlYORS, PLANNERS , ,, mlS PLAT IS S~ELY AN &ID IN L~A~N6 THE P~L(S) DESCRIBED IN mE SHEET ATTAOHED D~EHT. IT I$ HOT P~RT Or ~[ ~1~ DES~IP~ , , SCALE: 1"= 60' lB.*~ BY TJL D*~11/18/96~ EXHIBIT FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION , , DATA TABLE NO, i~/B£ARING RADIUS LENGTH (~) 80'49'27' 10.00' I4,11' (~) 4 ~'28'24' 24.. 50' ~ 7. 75' ,, , (~) 07'26'32' 197,00' 25.59' , ~ , i~ 8g-12'I1' 5,00' 7.78' (~) 21~5'15" 75.00' 27.93' (~) 16'19'52' 26.00' 7.41' SH_PLAT. DWG EXHIBIT ~A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR EXHIBIT BEING A PORTION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2, OF THE PAUBA LAND AND WATER COMPANY SUBDIVISION MAP, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN BOOK 11, PAGE 507 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF MORENO ROA/), SAID POINT BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE SHOWN AS BEING NORTH 17008' 42" EAST, 646.93 FEET AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 24038, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN BOOK 171, PAGES 71 THROUGH 72, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MORENO ROAD NORTH 17008' 19" EAST, 98.78 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTH 72°51'41" EAST, 142.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 43049'25" EAST, 48.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86027'02" EAST, 7.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°59'11" EAST, 14.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44000'49" WEST, 1.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°59'11" EAST, 4.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44000'49" WEST, 12.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°59'11" EAST, 40.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44000'49" WEST, 12.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45o59'11" WEST, 3.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44000'49" WEST, 33.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°59'11" WEST, 9.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44000'49" WEST, 7.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°59'11" WEST, 8.44 FEET; J:~SH_PLAT. DOC CITY OF TEMECULA 11/19/96 THENCE NORTH 44o00' 49" EAST, 7.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°59'11" WEST, 6.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43°52'47" WEST, 16.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°47'23" WEST, 8.81 FEET; THENCE NORTH 26o07' 53" WEST, 6.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 13°08'48" WEST, 7.99 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEG INNING; CONTAINING 3,275.31 SQUARE FEET OR 0.075 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT ~B" ATTACHED HERETO Exp. 12/31/9._.____~8 No. 6359 J:~SH PLAT. DOC CITY OF ~EMECULA 11/19/96 EXHIBIT "B" ... .. . . %,/. '¢.1,o ,, ~ ~ POFITJON LD-F 8 BLOCK 2 ~ PAUBA LAND & WATE~ CO, SUBDIVISION ~ MB 11/507 S,D. ~ ' = ~ N 8~27'02" E 7.57~ ~ . ~'~.~' -- P.O.C./ t ' - ~ ~ I .~~ 0~ RECORD DATA PER P~CE& MAP NO. _ 24038. PM 17 ~/71 - 72. ~ , , ,, ,, Trans-Paci~ie Consultants - C~L 27447 Enterprise Circl, W, st. Tem~culo. CA.. 9259~ LAND SURlYORS. PLANNERS THIS PL~f IS S~LY AN AID IN L~N6 THE P~R~L(S) DESCRIBED IN fH[ SHEET ITflOHED D~EHT, IT IS ~OT PIRT Or ~[ ~1~ DESORIP~ ~EREIH. 4~ 2--0~ 2 SC*LE: ,'= 40' [DR*~BY TJL D*TEll/18/96{ EXHIBIT FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SH_PLAT. DWO ITEM 19 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRE( CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council June Greek, City Clerk ~ November 18, 1997 Records Destruction Approval PREPARED BY: Gwyn Flores, Records Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. BACKGROUND: On March 22, 1992, the City Council approved Resolution No. 92-17 which authorizes the destruction of certain City records which have become outdated, obsolete or are excess documents, in compliance with State of California Government Code, Sections 34090 through 34090.7. Attached Exhibit "A," lists records from the Finance Department, Daily Cash Receipts from July 1992 through June 1993 and FY92-93 Cash Receipts Log, Tuffs Index number 402-02. These records have been identified within Group IV of the retention schedule, and have been microfilmed in duplicate with a copy distributed to the City Clerk's Records Vault, and a copy to the Vault in San Diego. The microfilming of these records complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5. The City Attorney has reviewed this request and has signed the Exhibit, as provided for in Resolution No. 92-17. ATTACHMENTS: Destruction of Records Request, Finance Department Exhibit "A", List of Records recommended for destruction r:\flores\destroy.ar TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: June Greek, City Clerk Gwyn Flores, Records Coordinator November 18, 1997 Destruction of Records Request Attached is a print out of: Daily Cash Receipts 07/92 to 06/93 and FY92-93 Cash Receipts Log (Retention Code 40202). These records have been microfilmed in duplicate with a copy distributed to the City Clerk's Records Vault, and a copy to the Vault in San Diego. The microfilming of these records complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5. The undersigned have reviewed and approved this destruction request. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5, I hereby give my consent to the destruction of records under the direction of the City Clerk pursuant to the City of Temecula's adopted Destruction of Obsolete Records Policy. Department Head: G~i-~'l~oberts, Fi~tnce Department Date APPROVED: City Attorney: Petel Thorson R:\Flores\destr.req EXHIBIT A 10/28/1997 City of Temecula Page: 1 11:51 am Clerks Index for Windows Destruction File Report Selections: Doc. Ref .....: 140 Finance Ret. Code ....: 40202 Daily Cash Receipts Dest. Date...: 11/18/1997 Doc. Item Ret. File Reference # Storage Media Ref. Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security Class Storage Location Location Reference 140 7/1/1992 CASHR Daily Cash Receipts 07/92-09/92 40202 Roll 0121 Film 3821MiA003 Group IV 120/The Vault 140 10/1/1992 CASHR DAILY CASH RECEIPTS 10/92-1/6/93 40202ROLL 0122 FILM 3821MiA0003 GROUP IV 120 RCDSMGMT/THE VAULT SD 140 1/7/1993 CASHR DAILY CASH RECEIPTS 01/07/93-03/11/93 40202ROLL 0123 FILM 3821M1A0003 GROUP IV 120/RCDSMC4~T&THE VAULT SD 140 3/11/1993 CASHR DAILY CASH RECEIPTS 03/11/1993-06/93 40202 ROLL 0124 FILM 3821M1A0001 GROUP IV 120/RCDSMGMT & THEVAULT SD 140 5/1/1993 CASHR DAILY CASH RECEIPTS RETAKE & CR LOG 40202 ROLL 0126 FILM 3821MiA0001 GROUP IV 120/RCDSMGMT & THEVAULT SD ............................................................................... 140 6/1/1993 CASHR DAILY CASH RECEIPTS 06/93 & RETAKES 40202ROLL 0125 FILM 3821MiA0001 GROUP IV 120/RCDSMGMT & THEVAULT SD 6 Items Printed User ID: RECORDS ITEM 20 APPROVe, CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAI~Jl;~E CITY MANAGER ~/'-" CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Plannin r November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Approval of Minor Changes to Development Agreement for Paloma Del Sol Development Agreement, Now "Paseo Del Sol," for the Property Located Generally North of SR79, Southeast of Margarita Road, South of Pauba Road, and West of Butterfield Stage Road Prepared By: RECOMMENDATION: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ~ That the City Council Approve a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. I TO AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CAL-PALOMA DEL SOL, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND CAL-CPS SOUTHEAST, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY" BACKGROUND: In January 1993, the City of Temecula entered into an "Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement" with KRDC, Inc., and Mesa Homes for the Paloma Del Sol Project. CaI-Paloma Del Sol, a California Limited Liability Company, and CAL-CPS Southeast, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company are the new owners of Paloma Del Sol. Section 14.3 of the Development Agreement provides that the Developer and the City may make minor changes to the Development Agreement without a formal amendment to the Development Agreement. The Addendum is the document used to make the minor changes allowed by Section 14.3. The following are the changes to the Development Agreement allowed by Section 14.3 which will be implemented by Addendum No. 1.' , The new Owners are added to the Development Agreement and new address added (Sections 1. and 14 of Addendum); . The Development Plan set forth in the Development Agreement is amended to include the changes to the General Plan for Paloma Del Sol and to Specific Plan R:\HOGAND\TEM_ADNM.CC1 11/12/97 klb 1 219, Paloma Del Sol as approved by the City Council on January 28, 1997 (Sections 2. and 3. of Addendum); . Recognizes development impact fee obligations and credits for construction of certain public infrastructure improvements and park construction based on the City's new Development Impact Fee Ordinance No. 97-14 and Development Impact Fee Resolution No. 97-94 (Sections 4., 5., 6., and 13. of Addendum); . Provides for the parties to process a formal amendment to the Development Agreement by which the Owners or the Homeowner's Association would own and maintain certain parks, greenbelts, and paseos rather dedicating them to the City or TCSD and provides for the deferral of the dedication requirement until such time as the amendment is processed (Sections 7., 8., and 12. of Addendum); . Provides that the 9.35 acre paseo located in Tract 24186 and Tract 24187 may be improved with picnic areas, walkways, bikeways with lighting, landscaping and irrigation, tot lots, and/or basketball courts to be maintained by the Paloma Del Sol Association Section 9. of Addendum); and . Provides for Owners to construct and improve an approximately 5 acre community park as part of the development of Tract 24187 which will be substituted and considered equivalent in usable area to the 7.44 acre park designated in the Development Agreement and which park shall be completed before the issuance of (1) the 174th building permit within Tracts 24187-1 and 24187-2, or (2) the first building permit in Tract 24187-Final, or (3) the first building permit in Tract 24188 (excluding the 67 dwelling units in Tract 24188- 1), whichever occurs first (Sections 10. and 11. of Addendum). The consideration of the Addendum is exempt from further environmental review. The Addendum simply incorporates the terms of the General Plan Amendment and the Amendment to Specific Plan 219 which were subject to environmental review prior to approval of the amendments. Other changes to the Development Agreement made by the Addendum simply reallocate financial responsibilities for certain public improvements. None of the changes affect the environment. FISCAL IMPACT: The Addendum will have a positive impact or neutral impact on City or TCSD finances. The TCSD expenditures for maintenance will be reduced as the Homeowner's Association will undertake maintenance of certain paseos, greenbelts and parks. ATTACHMENTS: , . Resolution Approving Addendum Addendum No. 1 to Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement Paloma Del Sol Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement Paloma Del Sol R:\HOGAND\TEM ADNM.CC1 11/12/97 klb 2 ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R:\HOGAND\TEM ADNM.CC1 11/12/97 klb 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CAL-PALOMA DEL SOL, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND CAL- CPS SOUTHEAST, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does find, determine and a. In January 1993, the City of Temecula entered into an "Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement" with KRDC, Inc., and Mesa Homes for the Paloma Del Sol Project. b. Ca.l-Paloma Del Sol, a California Limited Liability Company, and CAL-CPS Southeast, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company are the new owners of Paloma Del Sol. c. Section 14.3 of the Development Agreement provides that the Developer and the City may make minor changes to the Development Agreement without a formal amendment to the Development Agreement. The Addendum is the document used to make the minor changes allowed by Section 14.3. d. The consideration of the Addendum is exempt from further environmental review. The Addendum simply incorporates the terms of the General Plan Amendment and the Amendment to Specific Plan 219 which were subject to environmental review prior to approval of the amendments. Other changes to the Development Agreement made by the Addendum simply reallocate financial responsibilities for certain public improvements. None of the changes affect the environment. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves "Addendum No. 1 to Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement" with Cal-Paloma Del Sol, a California Limited Liability Company, and CAL-CPS Southeast, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute the Addendum in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. R:\HOGAND\TEM_ADNM.CC1 11/12/97 klb 4 Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula on , 199 . MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA SS I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution No. 97- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES- COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS' ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK R:\HOGAND\TEM_ADNM.CC1 11/12/97 klb 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ADDENDUM NO. I TO AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PALOMA DEL SOL R:\HOGAND\TEM ADNM.CC1 11/12/97 klb 6 AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PALOMA DEL SOL ADDENDUM NO. I This Addendum No. 1 to Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement ("Addendum") is entered into to be effective on , 1997 by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ("City"), CAL- PALOMA DEL SOL, LLC, a California limited liability company and CAL-CPS SOUTHEAST, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Owners") with reference to the following: RECITALS A. Owners' predecessor-in-interest, KRDC, Inc., and Mesa Homes entered into an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement ("Development Agreement") with City pursuant to California Government Code § 65864, et seq., recorded on February 18, 1993 as Instrument No. 62043, Official Records of Riverside County. Subsequently, KRDC, Inc. acquired all of the interests of Mesa Homes in the property subject to the Development Agreement. B. The Development Agreement encompasses a mixed land use subdivision project incorporated in Specific Plan No. 219 known as "Paloma del Sol". C. By partial assignment and assumption agreement, KRDC, Inc. assigned and Owners assumed all of the rights, title, interest, benefits, privileges, duties and obligations arising under or from the Development Agreement binding on approximately eight hundred twenty (820) acres constituting the easterly and southerly portions of Paloma del Sol included within Specific Plan No. 219 (the "Property"), as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. The Property is now referred to as "Paseo del Sol." Said assignment and assumption agreement was part of the conveyance of the Property from KRDC, Inc. to Owners. D. Section 14.3 of the Development Agreement entitled Changes and Amendments provides, among other things, for a procedure whereby the City may determine in its reasonable discretion that changes to the existing development approvals as set forth in the Development Agreement shall be deemed "minor" and not require an amendment to the Development Agreement provided such changes do not: (a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole; or whole; or (b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a 10-30-97 10019-00002 S:\DOC\152\97020013.AM6 (c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or (d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes within the Property as a whole; or (e) Constitute a project requiring a Subsequent or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. E. On January 28, 1997, the City Council of City approved Owners' Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 - Paloma Del Sol) and adopted Resolution No. 97-10 Entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving Planning Application No. PA96-0107, changing the general plan land use designation on Planning Area 2 from high density residential to low-medium residential, Planning Area 29A from low-high medium density residential to open space/recreation, and portions of Planning Area 1 from community commercial to low-high residential and modifying figure 2-4 (Village Center overlay) of the General Plan, deleting the area corresponding to Planning Area 2 from the Village Center overlay and adding areas corresponding to Planning Areas 6 and 37 to the Village Center overlay on property generally located northeast of SR79 and Margarita Road, south of Pauba Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road, which constitutes a portion of the Property. F. On January 28, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 97-01 Entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) Amending Planning Areas 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 28, 29, 36 and 37 of Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and Specific Plan Ordinance and adding Planning Areas 38 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and Specific Plan Ordinance, on property generally located north of SR79 southeast of Margarita Road, south of Pauba Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 95-020-001 through 95-020-004,950-020-009through 950-020-025,950-020-027,950-020- 029,955-030-002 through 955-030-004 and 955-030-006 through 955-030-011, which constitutes a portion of the Property. G. In adopting Ordinance No. 97-01, the City Council of the City approved certain findings including: 1. Specific Plan No. 219 for development of Paloma del Sol was incorporated into Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and KRDC, Inc. and Mesa Homes, the predecessor-in-interest to the Owners- Applicants for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 5. The Owners-Applicants and the City have agreed to include certain standards in the Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 pertaining to the Village Center Design Guidelines and roadway cross-sections which are now requirements of the City's current General Plan but were not included as part of the General Plan in effect when the Development Agreement was recorded. 10-30-97 10019-00002 S:\DOC\152\9?O20013.AM6 2. The City Council finds and determines that the changes to the existing development approvals for Paloma del Sol (Paseo del Sol) proposed in Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 5, are deemed to be "minor" as defined in Section 14.3 of the Development Agreement and do not require an amendment to the Development Agreement. The City finds and determines that by accepting the City's new General Plan standards of development set forth in this Section, Owners have not waived any of their vested development rights under the Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals which are intended to be a part of this Addendum by this reference and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree: 1. The term "Owner" in the Development Agreement shall be modified to mean the "Owners" as set forth in this Addendum. 2. Section 1.7 of the Development Agreement entitled Development Plan shall be modified to include those land use entitlements set forth in application No. PA96-0107 approved by Resolution No. 9%10 and Planning Application No. PA96-0106 approved by Ordinance No. 97-01 attached hereto marked Exhibits B and C, respectively, and made a part by this reference. 3. An approved copy of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 5, containing development plans, conditions, and standards is on file in the office of the City Community Development Department and made a part of this Addendum by this reference. 4. As part of the approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0107 and Planning Application No. PA96-0106 and the future development of Paseo del Sol, Owners are obligated to pay for and/or construct certain regional public infrastructure which provide benefit to City beyond the impacts to these public infrastructure improvements created by development of the Paseo del Sol project. City agrees to provide a reduction against Owners' obligations or the obligation of any builder purchasing tract(s) from Owners to pay components of future Development Impact Fees ("DIF") based on the costs associated with those regional public infrastructure improvements as set forth in City's Capital Improvement Plan as provided in City Ordinance No. 97-14 amending Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding a new chapter entitled "Public Facilities Development Impact Fee," adopted by City Council of City on August 26, 1997, and Resolution No. 97-94, establishing the City of Temecula's Public Facilities Development Impact Fees adopted by the City Council of City on August 12, 1997. A copy of the DIF Ordinance and Resolution is attached marked Exhibit D and made a part herein by this reference. 5. Owners and/or any builder purchasing tract(s) from Owners shall be entitled to receive a one hundred percent (100%) reduction in the "Park and Recreation Improvements" component of the DIF against the actual costs of improving public parks within · Paseo del Sol 10-30-97 10019-00002 S:\DOC\152\97020013.AM6 6. Section 12.2, entitled Public Facilities Fee (Non-Residential) and Section 12.3 entitled Public Facilities (Residential) of the Development Agreement shall be modified to provide that Owners and developers of the Property shall pay DIF in accordance with the provisions set forth in City Ordinance No. 97-14 and Resolution No. 97-94. Exhibit D, a form of Agreement For Payment of Non-Residential Public Facility Fee, is no longer an appropriate exhibit to the Development Agreement and is hereby deleted. Section 12.3(c) of the Development Agreement obligating Owners to pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee is hereby deleted. 7. Section 12.5, entitled Parks, Greenbelts and Poseos, Section 12.6 (a) through (f), entitled Main Recreation Areos, and Section 12.7 entitled Remaining Open Space Areas, identifies parks, park improvements and recreational facilities, landscaping areas, greenbelts and paseos equaling approximately 166.5 acres. Pursuant to the provisions of these Sections, Owners and the owner of the westerly area of Paloma del Sol are required to dedicate or transfer ownership of certain parks, greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway and slope landscaping and recreation areas to the City to be maintained by the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD"). Those parks, recreation areas, greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway and slope landscaping areas are depicted on Exhibit E to the Development Agreement. Section 12.8 entitled Timing of Park Improvements and Transfer to City sets forth the scheduling of constructing park improvements and transferring title to parks, open space, greenbelts, slopes and paseos to the City. It is agreed that the timing of improvements and transfer of the parks, open space, greenbelts, slopes and paseos to the City shall be extended to allow the Development Agreement to be amended as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement. 8. City and Owners have determined that it would be in their mutual best interest to eliminate the obligation of Owners to dedicate and City's obligation to accept the parks and other lands as required in Sections 12.5, 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8 of the Development Agreement. The elimination of these obligations will require an amendment to the Development Agreement. The parties agree: a. City shall initiate and diligently process an amendment to the Development Agreement for the sole purpose of removing Owners' obligation to dedicate the designated acres of certain parks, greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkways and slope landscaping and recreation areas to the City to be maintained by the TCSD. City shall assume all costs and filing fees associated with this amendment. Owners agree to cooperate with City in processing the amendment to the Development Agreement on condition the amendment is noticed and heard for the sole and single purpose of removing the obligation of Owners to dedicate certain parks, paseos, slope and landscape areas and relieving the City/TCSD from the obligation of maintaining those areas. 10-30-97 10019-00002 S:\DOC\152\97020013.AM6 b. Exhibit E to the Development Agreement shall be revised to show those greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway, slope landscaping and recreation areas (both east and west sides of Paloma del Sol) to be owned and maintained by the Paloma del Sol Master Community Association and/or any Paloma del Sol sub-associations and those areas to be owned and maintained by the Pasco del Sol Master Community Association and/or any Pasco del Sol sub-associations. Exhibit E to the Development Agreement shall also show those parks which may be dedicated to the City to be maintained by the TCSD. A copy of the revised Exhibit E to the Development Agreement is attached marked Exhibit E and made a part herein by this reference. 9. Section 12.6(f) of the Development Agreement is modified to provide the 9.35 acre paseo park located in Tract 24186 and Tract 24187 may be improved with picnic areas, walkways, bikeways with lighting, landscaping and irrigation to be maintained by the Pasco del Sol Association. This area may include tot lots and/or basketball courts. 10. Owners as developer or other developers propose to construct and improve an approximately five (5) acre community park ("Five Acre Park") as part of the development of Tract 24188 as provided in Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 5 to be substituted for and considered equivalent in useable area to the 7.44 acre park as provided for in Section 12.8(c) of the Development Agreement. The Five Acre Park is shown on revised Exhibit E. Owners shall dedicate this area to the City to be maintained by the TCSD. 11. Three Hundred Sixty Three (363) dwelling units are proposed to be built in Tract 24187 and Two Hundred Sixty Six (266) dwelling units are proposed to be built in Tract 24188 (excluding the Sixty Seven (67) dwelling units to be built in Tract 24188-1). Owners shall construct improvements to the Five Acre Park and dedicate the Five Acre Park to the City prior to issuance of: (i) the One Hundred Seventy Fourth (174th) building permit within Tract 24187-1 and Tract 24187-2; or (ii) the first building permit in Tract 24187-Final; or (iii) the first building permit in Tract 24188 (excluding the 67 dwelling units in 24188-1); whichever occurs first. 12. Section 12.8(d) of the Development Agreement shall be modified to delete the reference to the obligation to transfer greenbelt paseos, etc. in accordance with the current TCSD funding procedures and practices. 13. Section 12.10 of the Development Agreement entitled Park Improvement Fee Credits shall be modified to provide that any park fee credits as provided therein, may be used only to reduce the amount of the "Park and Recreation Improvements" component of the DIF. 14. modified to show: Section 23 of the Development Agreement entitled Notices shall be 10-30-97 10019-00002 S:\DOC\152\97020013.AM6 To City: City of Temecula City Clerk P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 To Owner: James Delhamer Newland Associates 9404 Genesee Avenue Suite 230 La Jolla, CA 92037 With Copy To: Dennis D. O'Neil Hewin & McGuire, LLP 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 15. It is hereby acknowledged and agreed that any recital, section, provision, exhibit of the Development Agreement not modified by this Addendum, shall remain in full force and effect and this Addendum, together with the Exhibits to this Addendum, shall be attached to and incorporated into the Development Agreement and be binding on the parties as the vested land use Development Agreement between the parties. 16. This Addendum may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum has been executed by the parties on the day and year frrst above written. THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor 10-30-97 10019-00002 S:\DOC\152\97020013.AM6 ATTF~T: "OWNERS" June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CAL-PALOMA DEL SOL, LLC, a California, LLC, a California limited liability company, CAL-CPS SOUTHEAST, LLC, a California limited liability company Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney By: By: By: By: 10-30-97 10019-00002 S: \DOC\152\97020013.AM6 EXHIBIT A k30'703 PARCEL A: ~ PARCELS 27 THROUGH 50, IMCLUSIYE, TOGETHER WIT~ LETTERED LOTS J TRROU~M Q, INCLUSIVE, AS SHOWN BY PARCrL MAP NO. 23432 OR rILE IN BOOK 159 PAGES 38 THROUGH 61, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RrCORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCrL B' THAT PORTIOtq OF PARCEL 51 OF PARCEL HAP 50. 23432 AS SHOWH BY PARCEL HAP 'ON FILE IN BOOK 159 PAGES 38 THROUGH 61, I.NCLUSiVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUN/Y, CALIFORNIA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF .~EADOWS PARKWAY AS SHOGUN ON SAID PARCEL HAP. q30706 PARCEL A: OPEN SPACE LOT 114 OF TRACT-NO. 24133-2, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON "FILE IN BOOK 230 PAGES 42 Ti'~'ROUGH 47, iNCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECOR_DS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFOR_NiA. PA_RCEL B: Ti~--AT CERTAIN PARCEL OF L~_N~D SITUATED iN THE CiTY OF TEMECULA, COD.-N-TY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFOR_\:iA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF PA_RCELS !, 2, 3 A_N-D 51 OF PARCEL M_AP NO. 23432 AS SHOWN BY .~_AP ON FiLE iN BOOK 159 PAGE(S) 38 THROUGH 51 OF PA_RCEL ?_APS, RECOP,.DS OF RilrERSiDE COb-N-/Y, CALiFOP_NiA, BEING BOb.-N-DED ON THE EAST BY THE CER-TERLiN-E OF ~_EADOWS PA_~WAY AS SHO%.~ ON SAiD PA_RCEL ~_AP .'-_NO BEING BO~--~_-DED ON THE NORTH BY THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE- BEGit~_'iNG ', .=T T?iE iR-ZERSECTiON OF THE CE_N-TERLiNE OF ..~EEA_DOWS Wi-vlq THE CE.N~TERLiN-E OF CA_u. PA_N~LA WAY AS SHOGUN ON SAiD PA_RCEL T--=ENCE ALONG SAiD CE.N-TERLiN-E OF CC-_MP.'-_N-%'LA WAY SOb-TH 54 ° 00' 00" WEST !23.00 FEET TO THE BEGi.~-NiNG OF A T~_NGE.~-T C'u-RVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY .'-_AqD PLAViNG A R_~,_DiUS OF !000.00 FEET; T_---ENCE ALONG SAiD CD--P. VE WESTERLY 691.21 FEET THROUGH A CEN-TRAL A_NGLE OF 39 ° 36' !2"; ' 'D 'T';..: -- , " _ T?--ENCE T.~_NGEN? FROM SAiD CU?.VE NO ..... 86° 73 -_8" WEST 333.69 TO THE =_EGIN.~iNG OF A T.'-_NGER-? CURVE CONCAVE NOR~w-~ CTERLY P_AViNG ' D.~,_Dii3S OF ~ 000 00 FEET; Ti-.'ENCE ALONG SAiD Cb~. VE NORT:-.-WESTERLY ~39. D7 .... -,HROUGH A CEN-TP-~_L A_NGLE OF 53 ° 48' 48"; -v"--~ENCE T.~_NGEN-/ FROM SAiD CUP.'v-E NORTH 32° 35' 00" ~EST 114.41 FEET TO A POiN-C iN THE CENTERLi.~-E OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AS SHOW_~ ON SAiD P~_=.CEL .u: D · EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF L}_N-D ' BEGiNNiNG AT THE MOST ~=ESTERLY COP~N-ER OF SAiD P~_RCEL !; THENC'_~ A_LONG THE NO_.T_.~_S ...... LiNE OF SAiD P~CEL NORTH 73° 03' 54" EAST ;5!.70 FEET TO A_N A_NGLE PO!~ T::..~_. THENCE D~ONG A LI~ PA33.LLEL WiTH THE CE~ERLi~ OF M_ARGD3.!TA SO~H !50 55' 06" EAST 227.43 FEET ?0 A LI~ PAP~ALLEL WITH 5~5.00 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE SOUTHERLY Li~ OF SAiD PARCEL; THENCE ALONG SAiD PA~ALL~o oiNE NORTH 73° 23' 20" EAST 403.33 TO ~ LiN~ PA~_LLEL WiTH ~_N~ 565.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM SAiD ~STERLY Li~ OF PARCEL !: THENCE ALONG LAST SAiD PAP~_mL~o omNE SOUTH !5° ;5' 06" EAST 5S5. 0! FEET; THENCE ALONG A LiNE u~;~;.LEL WiTH SAiD SOu ........ LTRE NORTH 73° 20" EAST 533 .00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH !5 o 35' 40' EAST 70.00 ~=~ ~O SAiD SOUiHERLY LiNE OF P~CEL !' mw=NCE ALONG ' B Ob~~ Y LiNE OF SAiD ~' ~; ~ THROUGH FOLLOWING COURSES' SOUTH 73° 23' 20' A~ST !!~2.7c .... ' TO A=N A_NGLE POiN~ !HEREIN ' L, 30 06 T~4~NCE NORTH 61 ° 46' 24" WEST 49.38 FEET; TSiENCE NORTH 16 ~ 56 ' 0 ~" ~ST 85 ~. 14 FEET TO THE POilN-T OF BEGIATNING. CONTAINING: 31.56 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. P-~RCEL C: Ti~-AT CERTAIN P.~_RCEL OF LA_N'-D SITUATED VN THE CiTY OF TE,~CECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALiFOR~-NiA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1, 2, 3 .~_N~ 51 OF PARCEL .~_AP NO. 23432 AS SHOW.-N' BY .~_AP ON FILE 'iN BOOK 159 PAGE(S) 38 THROUGH 51 OF PA_RCEL M_APS, RECO_~DS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY C~_LIFO?.NiA LYING NOR'~=--~LV .'--_N,-D -~cm===v OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGi_N~_'iNG AT THE i_N-TERSECTiON OF THE CE~-Z.,ERLi/~-E OF MEADOWS P~_q_~WAY WITH THE CE/TiERLiNE OF CD~PD~LA ---v AS SHO~' ON SAiD P~CEL ~HENCE .~ONG SAiD CE~ERL!N~ OF C;~p~_~gr~. WAY SOO~H 54~ 00' 00" ~ST !23.00 FEET TO TEE BEGiNniNG 0F A TD~NG~N~ CO~.~ CONCA~ NOR~RLY ~N~ i~AVING A P33~US OF !000.00 FEET; ~NCE ALONG SAID C-~VE ~STERLY 69!. 2! FEET THROUGH A CEN~.L ~GLE OF 39 ~ 36' !2"; ~ENCE T~_NGEN~ FROM SAiD ChiVE NORTH 86 ~ 23' 48" W~ST 333.69 FEET TO ~{E BEGiNnING OF A T~_NGE~ CUR~ CONCA~ .NORTHEASTERLY F~.VING A ~iUS OF !000.00 FEET; ~ENCE ~ONG SAID C~VE =~7~ ~ror v NO ...... S ...... 3S6 40 ..... HROUGH ~ ~-NGLE OF 22 ~ 08' 20" TO A POEN~ ON A P3~ZAL Lih~ OF SA2D Cb~.VE ~EC~ PASSES THROUGH zr.m MOST SOUTHERLY COF_%~R OF THE P~3S S~TE AS NO. 118889 OF OFFEC~D~ RECOP~S OF RiVERSiDE COb~Y, ~ENCE ALONG SAiD ~AL Lih~ NORTH 25: 4~' 32' EAST 50.D0 ==~m SAiD SOb~HERLY CO~N~R; ~ENCE ~LONG THE BO%~3.Y LZN~ OF SAiD P~3_K SET~ Ti~qOUGH THE FOLLOWING COO~SES: NOR~q 39 ~ 2B' 00" EAST 733.!3 FEET; z~NCE NORTH 48: 03' 26" W~ST 370.35 FEET; . ~{EN~'E NORTH 5!: 4!' 43' ~ST !97.3z ---? TO , MOST NORTiqERLY CO~N~R OF SAiD P~_RK SETH m~TNG ~ ~O_N_ ON CURVE CONCAVE ~-~ FJ. VZNG A ~33ZUS OF 1150.00 FEET iN THE SOD~HERLY LiNE OF DE _ ORT~_~O RO~ AS SHO~ ON SAiD PARCEL Ti{ENCE ~z~ZALLY FROM Ti{E SAiD CURVE NORkin D D: 30' 25" h~ST 50.00 FEET TO THE CE~ERLEb~ OF SAiD DE PORTOLA RO.Z~ A_N~ THE POZ~ OF TEP~MiNATEON OF SUBJECT PARCEL D' (PALObLA DEL SOL) P.~_RCELS z THROUGH 6, iNCLUSiVE, AS SHO~?~ BY P.'-_qCEL .~LAP 23432 ON FiLE vN BOOK ~ ~9 _.-,G--S ·S THROUGH 6~ OF PARCEL ?LAPS, RECORDS OF RiVERSiDE COb_-NTY, CALiFOP~NiA; ~.LSO EXCEPTING ..... ',__'NG ;~'_,_'HiN TR_ACT . NO 2z-!36-~ ON _,',~. _~ BOOK ')32 PAGES 31 _-.H?.OUGH 41 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF -~_v_RS_D~ _-,V'---- T,---' , CALiFOR_NZA. L 3070t PARCEL E: (PALOM_A DEL SOL) LOTS ! THROUGH 10!, INCLUSIVE, A_N'D OPEN SPACE LOTS 102 A_N,-D 103 OF T.q. ACT NO. 24136-1 AS SHOh'.-N BY MAP ON FiLE iN BOOK 232 PAGES 31 T'SLROUGH 41, iNCLUSIVE_, OF M_APS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COD-NTY, CA.LIFOR/qIA. PA-RCEL ?: Ti~_AT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED iN THE CiTY OF T?_~CULA, COU/q-f¥ OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALiFORNiA, BEING Ti~-AT PORTION OF PARCEL ! OF PARCEL ~LAP NO. 23432, AS SHO~.'N BY M_AP ON FiLE iN BOOK 159 PAGE(S) 3S THROUGH 61 OF P?-_RCEL ?-'~.PS, RECOR_DS OF RiVERSiDE COILN-TY, CAL!FOR_NiA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -.':':'- '"" ~'~ T v BEGiN-MiNG AT THE MOST ~-S~-. .... COR_~-ER OF SAiD PA_RCEL i; THENCE ALONG THE NORTbT~ESTERLY LiNE OF SAiD P.~_RCEL NORTH 73 ° 03' 54" EAST, 261.70 FEET. TO ~_N A_.\:GLE POi.N~r _Ti~_--ENCE ALONG A LINE PA_R.~_LL. EL W7'~= ~--~ CENTERL!.~-E OF ?-A-RG~_R!TA RO~,_D SOU-Ti_~ !~ ° 56' 06" EAST, 227.~3 FEET TO A LINDE PA3..~_LLEL WiTH 6S5.00 FEET NORTHERLY FROM TEE SOUT_--_ERLY L-_,N-E O? SAiD PA_RCEL; T~_-ENCE ~_LONG SAiD P~_RALLEL LiNE NORTH 73° 23' 20" EAST, 403.31 FEET TO A LiNE PA_R_ALLEL WiTH A_ND ~65.00 FEET E-ASTERLY FROM SAiD WESTERLY LiN-E OF PD_RCEL !; THENCE ALONG LAST SAiD P;3.ALLEL ,.~i_A~ SOUTH !S° 56' 06" EAST, 5~5.0! FEET; THENCE ALONG A LiA~E P.~_RA. LLEL WiTH SAiD SOUTHERLY LIN-E, NORTH 73 ° 23' 20" ED_ST, 533.00 FEET; _T~_-ENCE SO9--fH 16° 36' 40" EAST, 70.00 FEET TO SAiD SOb--fHERLY Like OF PARCEL !; T-~i-E~'CE ALONG THE BOb.-N,-D~'_RY LiNE OF SAiD PA_RCEL ! THROUGH THE FOLLOh'iNG COb-?.SES · SOb-/_,H 73° 23' 20" %~-EST 1162 79 FEET TO .'-,N 2-_%:GLE POi.~-~ ' ' ' _'/E_-ENCE NORTH 6! ° 46' 24" ~EST, io 3~ _.. _- -~-._,; -~7-~E---CE NORTH !6 ° 56' 0~" WEST BSS ~z .... TO THE PO_N. OF , ---- -- '-'-I 'r ~ BEGiN.-N!NG. DO CU.U --~-"_, .NO. 430706 · STATV__~NT OF TDZ( DUE AND .~EQUEST Tu__AT T.'-_X DECL'-_~ATZON NOT BE W_~_OE A P.z_~-.T OF ?=-- u==u_'-_.NZN? ?":'CORD iN T--E O_'-_'-iCZ OF T='-- COUNTY ?~CO.=,3E?. ?UP~UD~_ TO SECTION !!~32 ?=V. .'-aND TD-X CODE AND COUNTY O.%DiN~.NCE =64-6.310 To' RiVERSiDE Countv Recorder o .. Kecues~ = ~=~=~v made ~ =~ ~rfance =i.:: ~= ~-cvisicns of the -- Documentary Transfer Tax =.c% ~=~ ~h_ ~m~un~ of ~=w due noc ~e KRDC, iNC., A C.-'__~ i.--O?~NiA CO.~OP~.ZiON C.%L-PJ~0Y_~ DEL SOL, LLC, A C.~iFO.:LNiA The nr ...... ; described =.. Z:._ acuomuanvinc dcc'--r.e.:t i= _~c ..... n . - . (b~."INCOP~O?J./ED .~_~,SA) (s%c~· n-r,_ of cic'¢ or "~_~cd_-~or=u_d at=a) ~= ~=ounn o.-' .'-:',' ~ue on -h_ ,-.cuumua-,,,=.,.. Zc= .... :s ~ i,100 00 . c-~mmuzed on -":~ ~ "zlue of uro~_er-v cunv_--'i_d . . '" r-~iT,'D%2'ze'"~ C~ -'-, '; 1 '¢Ei ,_--, 1 .-. - I .; -.--.-, _"-- _ _S~ S ~-:=~_=~.c_ :nS an -=e zi_-e o= sa:= (Sig..a ~___~/ '= age_n-) KPd)C, i.'NC., a California c2r?ora.:ion EscrcL- .N~-.~er- 766!!2/20!308'~ EXHIBIT B · FROH,CIT¥ OF TEM£CULA ~I. JJTION NO. 97-10 AN RESOIJUTION OF ~ ~ COUNCIL OF __T~I~__~ crrY OF TE!wlECULA. APPROVING PIA_N1NING APPLICATION NO. ~~G ~. ~ ~ ~ ~E D~~~ON ON ~W~~ D~~ ~~ ~~G ~ ~A ~0~ C05~ CO5~~~ ~ ~B~-~~ D~~ ~~ ~ MOD~G HG~ ~ ~GE ~ O~~Y ~ ~D~G ~ CO~~~G T0 ~G ~ g .~ ~ ~ _~ ~GE ~ O~Y ON OF ~G~A RO~, SO~ OF PAPA ROAD ~ ~ OF B~ STAGE RO~ _T~?. ~ COUNCTr_, OF ._Tm~_. CI2W OF TEMECUL~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES .RESOLVE AS FOL~_DWS: Sect/on l. ~ The ~ Coan~ in .a3p?oving Planning .Applicalion No. PA96- 0107 {~ P_t~n Amendmcat), mak~=s the following findings, to w/t: 1. Pt~n~ng Appliczt/on No. PA96-010V (~ Plan Amczu:lmcnt), as proposed,/s com.m~tibte with the heai~, xaf~ty and wvJYmr¢ of the community. 2. ~ae projea is corn~_~_te with sin-rounding/amt ~ The projer:t of ame~tmmits m the Geacral Plan Land U~e Plan cr~~ding m Planming Arm No. 2 of the Specific Pl~a from (H) H/gh Dm_riry ~cat/al G3-20 d~*~ uaits Ix= am-c) to t'l--~) ~ Deity R~id~z~ (3-6 ~ uras per ~re), ?hnnina Ama. 29~ of me sped~ pan from (I_M-) Low=Medium I)ca.Aty Rexidmt/al UJ-6 dwe//Jng ,units txzr acre) to (OS) Otx:n .Spac~fl~r:r~___~on, t>tmnning Area 38 of the $pecS~c Plan f2om (CC) Community Comn'exrrz/~ to (LM) Low-Medlmm I~~ Rcxidcntial' (3-6 dwe. t/ing .units per at:re) and Figme 2-4 C. eat~ Overlay) of the ~ Plan m dctcte ihe area corr .cspoading tr> Ptanning .Aa'ca 2. of the .q?m-i~c Plan arid add the a.mms cormstxmding to Pta~_n__ing .~ca 6 and PLamn/ng Area 37 of the S~r~_'fin Plan. Utfimam dcve/opn~nt of ~ site ~ be crmx-ixzcnt with ~e prcwiormiy approve~ $?m/JSc ?t~n_ and adjaomr Land uses. 1~k.9'7-10 1 3. The proposal will not ~ve an advcrs~ effect on an-z~r,~g _beck_ _ n~ k floes not zcp~ a sL~ffi__mnt ch~§c to ~ phnned hnd u.~ of the area, due to the fact that the propos~ [and zzse is con_xLs-t~t wj~ the ova-E] ~ of Spedtic Phn No. :219. as anal~ in ~e City's General lima r:a~ental Impact Report or Env/mans~tal Impar. t tk~port 235 ~ for tile Paloma del Sol Fmj~ a-fie m/~ raeasums ~ for ttfis Section 2. Wn~rirtmmenml Cmmpli~nce._. The ~W of Tm~ ~~ p~ ~_~ ~ ~ m No~~ 9, 1~3. ~m~~ ~ ~n No. B5 ~ p~ for S¢5c P~ No. 219 ~d w~ ~fi~ by ~e ComV ~ of ~~mm. tt ~ ~ ~t ~) y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~t No. 4 m ~ ~om ~ ~ ~c P~. ~ ~n ~~) of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d ~g .~~[ ~ ~ ~ no ~ on ~c pmdo~ ~y~. A~ing m ~on 211~ of ~ ~om ~~mm~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ch ~ ~j~ is ~ ~ w~ ~ r~~ ~jor ~hom ~ ~mpl~ ~m~ a~~/e. None of ~ ~~ ~ve ~; ~fom, no ~er m~t mS~ a pmj~ for w~ch ~ ~~~ ~~ ~n ~ ~~y ~~. _Sec~__'.on 3. ~ Tbxt the City of T~meazta C'aV' Council im-~by ~approv~s Planning Appli~5on No. PA96-01DV (General ?lau .~ncndment) rm..rayperry g~y located north of MR 79 Somh, ~ of ~ta Ro~, somh of Pauba Road and wc~t of/~ua__,-riictd Sage Road. Section 4. c' ' '__~:.fizaSx~ The C/ry Ct~k shall c_~fify to the anloptirm of th/s Resolution. . .o 1~, 31 FROM'CITY OF TEMECULA ID,BOB~B~1999 PAGE ., ; .;,,) : . t~u-ic~ t:L BirdxaII, M.~yor city STtTE OF COUNTY C!TY ][, June S. G-rce...~ City C-"'tci-~ of ttre City of Temeo__ ,la, C~14forn~ do hcrcby c~zd~ t~t I~ fo~ RtxaluIbn No. 9%10 ,~,~s duJ. y a~iapc.~ az a rc~_o,,br me~ ~'~§ of 1tm City Cramall of ti~ City of T~fi~ o~21he 2gth day of January, 1997 by th~ fohto~ing roll call 4 COUNTERS: Ford, ~, Sto2c, B/rd.xaJl NOES: 0 COUNCJJ_, _~E:RS: i COUNCTLM~ERS: .~ 0 COUNL-TLM~:BERS: It~ S. Greek, CMC P.~<~k97-10 3 EXHIBIT C ORDINAaNCE NO. 97-01 AN OI:LD~NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI=iE CITY OF TEM]EC~A APPROYEN'G PLAi\Tq]NG APPLICATION NO. PA96-0106 (ZOhrING AJ~ _9:ENDM]EaNT, SPECIFIC PLAaN NO. 219) A.M'E,%qDE~'G PLANNTNG AtLEAS 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 27, 0-8, 29, 36 AND 37 OF PALO~iA DEL SOL SPEC~C PL.~N ~ SPEC~C PL.~ O~~N'CE ~N~ ~D~G PL.~~'G ~A 38 T0 ~E PAlliA DEL SOL SPEC~C PLaN .~ SPEC~C PLaN O~'.~NCE, ON PROPaTY G~%~LLY ~CATED NOR~ OF SR79 SO~, ~T OF ~I~G.~A RO~, SOU~ OF PAU~A RO~ ~ WEST OF BU~ER~LD STAGE RO.~ .~N~ ~O~r AS ASS~SOR'S P~CEL N~ERS 950-020-001 ~OUG~ 95~02~, 95~02~ ~OUGH 95~02~025, 95&02~027, 95~02&029, 95~03~2 ~OUGH 955-030-004 .&N~ 955-030-006 ~OUGH 955-030-011 Tt-EE CITY COUNCI'r. OF THE CITY OF TE~CULA, STATE OF C.-iLIFOR_N~4, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ~ The City Council in approving Planning Application No. PA96- 0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plzn No. 219), ma/-:es the following findings, to wit: 1. Plznning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, S?.cifc Plan No. 219), as proposM, is compatible with the h~_..alth, safety and we!fzre of the community. 2. Planning Applica:.ion No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) is consistent with the City's General Plzn, due to the fact that the subject request is in subst.zntial conformance u..Sth the propos~ General Plan Land Use Plzn amendment znd the Village Center Overlay amendment. . .. 3. Sp,---...zific Plzn No. 219 for development of Pzloma del Sol was incorporat~ int.o Amendment and R~tamment of Develo,vment Aarpmerit ' --' '.~" . _ o~ta~_n the City of Temecula and K.RDC, Inc. and Mesa Homes ("D~veloo,ment Agr~ment') t'-- ored'ez:essor-in-interest to Newland Associam. s, Appljca.nt for 5pezific Pl~ No. 219, Amendment No. 5. The Develo'oment Agramerit wa.s approved by uhe Ci:v Council of the Ci[y of Temecula ?nd r~orded on Februzry. 18 1993 ('Effective Date") in the O~';]ciaJ Records of ~h_ Pal,,'~ ''.' Recorder. , --- ~.rs~o~ County t The applicant and the City have agreed to include certain standards in the Spec/.fic Plan Amendment No. 5 petra.in/rig to the Village Center D~ign Guidelines and roadway cross-sections which are now requirements of the City's current General Plan but were not included as p~.r-t of the Generxl Plan in effect when the Development Agreement was recorded. These agr~..d upon standards are: A. The Applicant has add;es:! D~ign Guide~anes in Section IV of Specific Plan 219 entitled 'D. Village Center Design Guidelines". B. The Applicant has amended the 'Arterial Highway' and Road"cross-s.~tions on Figures 5A and 5B of Specific Plan 219 to conform to the City's General ?lan 'Arterial J-Jighway' and .'3~'ajor Ram4' cross-sections. The City further finds that the applicant's acc=.-':ptance of the City's General Plan '.Armhal Highway' and 'Major Highway" cross- s..~.tions is based on certain understandings and arrangements reach~ with the City ,.,.'hereby an), costs of implementation will be reimbursed to the Applicant. C. The Applicant has amend~ the '7-Jigh,,,ay 79' cross-section on Figure 5B of Sp.ecific Plan 219 to incre.,.s: paved z.re.a and to r~uce The park'way ~,-ea in accordance with current St.ate of California criter/a. The City Council finds and determines that the changes to the existing development approvals for Paloma del Sol pro.~se. rl in Specific Plan 219, Amendment No. 5, deemed to be 'minor' as defined in Section 14.3 of the Develor~ment Asr~ment and do not require an amendmznt to the Develor>m:nt Agr~ment. The City finds and determines that by accepting he Ciry's new General Plan sz.and>,-ds of development as set forth in this S~6on, the Applicant has not wzivecl any of its ¥'est...'~'l develooment fights under the Develor~ment Agree. ment. 5. T'na proj~t is cornr~adbte with surrounding land uses. The project consists of the modification ~o an existing Specific Plan, u..ith an ov:.,'v_[1 r~uct.ion in density. Ultimate development of ~he site will be consistent and compatible with the existing land use in the are.a. 6. The proposal will not ha~,e an adverse effect on surrounding propshy. o .o b~ausz it does not repressnt a significant ch~-n=.= to the planned land use of the ar~. due to the {:act that ~he proposed land use is consistent =.'ith the overall concept of Specific PI-.~'n No. 219. 7. The changes proposed in the appro,2~ .Sp~ific Plan ~e minor >,'nd do nol incre.axe. the impacts associated ~,ith the develor>ment or the overall intensity or' the develor>ment as ana.lvz~ in En¥'ironmen'~ lrn~ct R:r~ori 235. The mitigatioa m~sures prepzr~ for this gnvironm~n~ i,"noact Rer>or-t ('EIR) ,a-ill be appliM to this project. Section '~ Enx'irnnmentol Cnmn~;,n,:~... The Cits' of Tem~u',= General pl~n EiR ,.,,'as ce.,---fifi~ on Novz,'-nber 9. 1993. ~'nviron,,-nenud I,"n~cr Re.:>ort No. 235 u-~_s prepared ;'or Sp.ecific Plan No. 219 and ,:,'as certified D¥ the County goz,-d oi' Super'tsars. ir has b~n eight ($) ye.~'-s sinc~ the environmental analysis *.,as performed For this project. In addit.ion, an Addendum to that T:TR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Based upon this inform:at:ion, it is Sta~'fs opinion that due to the scope (a de. cre.,~se in the overall density of the project) of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there will be no effe. ct on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the C. alifornia Environmenta2 Quality Act (CEQA), no subse. quent or supplement.el environmental impact report is required for ~he project unless one or more of the foilo,.,.ing ev~s occurs' substantial changes are propo -sed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur wSth res.r~st to circumstance under which ~he project is being-undertaken ~.'hich will require major revisions in /he El.R; or, new information, which ~.'as not .known at the time of the ELR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurre. d; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. The City Council her:by der:rmines that the project is consistent ~,'ith a project for which an Environrnen~ ~rnpact Report ,,,,'as previously terrifiC. Section 3. C ~._..2!2.dS.ti&~ 'l-ha{ the City of Tern~uta City Council hereby :~pproves Planning Appticarion No. PA96--0106 (Zoning ^rn~.ndm:nt, Specific Pl-=n No. 219) on prope~y generally ]c:w.a~ north of SR79 South, east of M~do~,'s Park-way (nor-&) z.nd Mzrga.r'i,..a Road (south), south of Pauba Road and ,z,~t of Butterfield SL?_e Road and kno,.,.'n as Assessor's P~c.e_l Numbers 950- 020-001 through 950-020-004, 950-020-009 through 950-020-025, 950-020-027,950-020-029, 955-030--002 through 955-030-00a and 955-030-006 through 955-030-01 I, subject ~o Exhibit A, ~tkached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and mad: a pzr't hereof. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full t'orc~ and efi~t thirty (30) d~ys'afmr its passage. The City Cl:rk sh~l cz~ify to the adoption o~ this Ordinate. The City Clerk sh~l pub~sh a summ~ of ~s Ordinate ~d a c:~ifi~ copy of the Full text of this Ordinate sh~l ~ ~s~ ~ gqe offi~ of ~: Ciw C]erk at I~st five days vNor ~o the adoviion of this Ordinance. Wi~ 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk sh~l vublish a summ~ of this ~dN~, g~ '~ ~5~ ~: n~as Councilmambtrs voiing for ~nd z~nst th= Ordinate, ~d post th~ ~m: in the oYfice of the Ciiy Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, ANti) ADOPTED Ibis 1 lth day of 2 .anuary, 1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: Ju~T/G r=k, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALLFOR.NTA COUNTY OF RIVERSTDE) SS CITY OF TEME. CULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Teme. cula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 97-01 ='as duly introduced and plac~ uaon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on [he 25~h day of January, 1997, and that there. after, said OrdNance ,.,.'as duly adopted and passM at a regular m~dng of the City Council of the City of Tem~cula on the 1 lth day of FebmaW, 1997 by the following roll call AYES' 5 COUNCiLMEMBERS' Ford, Lindeman.s, Birdsall NOES' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS' None. ABSEN'T' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS' None ~ Ju~e S.' Greek, CMC CiTy Clerk O.-"J'~ \9 7- 01 4 EXHIBIT D ~£P-,19-~? 12,S~ FROM,CITY O~ T£M£COLA 1D,90~9419~9 PAC£ 2/1S NO. 97-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ~ OF ~ AMENDING ~[At'I'ER L~.06 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL ~ODE ]~-A'F~G TO PIYB~C Tm;.~ CO~(HL OF TRY- CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAth~ AS FOLYX)WS: Public F~i/ities Deve~o~m~ Ironact Fee SEP-19-97 12,59 FROM,CITY OF TEMECULA ID,9096941995 PAG£ 3/15 1~.06.030 Non-Residential P. btie Facilities D~e!op_..._rm~__ t ImBa_ ct Fee__. Requ. i~_ B. EIotwiflmamilng pax~z~h A of. this Secgon, a bi~lding perm~ may be i~med to a developer ~ to paymatt of a p~lic facfliti~ dc-v6opme~ f~; if ~e devdo~ qualifies as a aay aoatm~t o~ ~on tha~ i~ eya~mp~ from ~ ~ ~ 501(c)~) of the ~ quaI~ as a ~ ~ a.~. is ~zutts~ ~ ta:u:s try S~tiou .~1 (cA"'3) of tt~ ~ 15.06.040 Develooer Co~mmeiion Im~mvemerrt plm~. of Pubffc F~'~ Purest to (kt~t9'~.14 2 A. Armlieafitm for Fee Reduction 2. ~ to F~I= a 6um~ appml at~p~ ~ tl~ Ci~ ~ of D. AHoc~tion of Fee Redes or Crcdi_ '~ gxanmd purnmnt to Scc:~ 15.06.050 A. 1. deve. lop~mt hntnc~ fee upon m~t d~-v~s development_ Such ac. lmow~t shzll not be ~£P-'18-87 13~81 ~OM~CIT¥ OF T£M£CULA ID.808~841888 PA~£ Oid/nance i~ fag any rcasou i~d to bc/nvat/d or ~ by a dcch/o~ of a com-t of ~and ~ cause mmc m be Imblisbed as mqu/red by hw. Ck~i.q~14 5 SEP-19-97 13~0! P~OM~CITY O~ T£M£CULA ZD~9~969~1999 P~C£ ?/1S PSSSED, sx'~ov'~ .,~ ArX)X~ by ~ City ~ of th~ CYxty o~ Taneax~ this 26th dzy af Augu~ 1997. STA~ O~ crre OF'I~,mCUIA ) C/ty ~offi~e~ ~fTcm~la 0~ t!~ 26th day af August, 1997, by the followlng roll call NOES: 0 CO~4~~M~H~: No~e ~ 0 CO~N~~~: N'o~ ~4 6 ~LU~ON NO. 97'-94 ~ CHT COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEM~CULA ~~Y FINDS, RESOLVFS, DECIARES, DETERMINI~ AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 8t2:fio~LL ~11rt_lt~. This Re~lution may be refem~ to as the *Public Facilities Development ~mpact Fee l~ution' of the City of Tememfia. Dew. lq[m~nt 1 ~mpact Fee Study (the 'D~F Sty') dated ~anuary 8, lS~6 and ~ by David M. Griffith & A.s.~:~, Ltd., and af~ re-,dew of additional s~aff repo,, and t~tj'mony and information ~eceived at a nofia~d public hearing on tiffs malteL ~ the following findings: A. Based upon the !and uses permitled by the City's Gen~ Plan and gro~ trends of actual development wilhin the C~y, the City an 'ttcipates that 54,422 dwelling units and 55.526 mirlir~ square feet of noa-msidenfi21 developmint will be developed in the City between 1995 and buildout. B. The DIF Study analyzes the demand expected to be generated by futm~ dotelopme~t farmcctsysuan, parkamlax:a~io~, corlxm~, fireprotec~n, ~l~rary radiities. Based on this analysis, the DIF Study contains estima~ lowels of sesdce for street sysmm, pa~k and development wi_'~in the City of Temecula tiaough buildout. C. Pms~_~! and fi~_rre sam:es of F~ State, ~ and Ci~ revenues are insufficient to fully fund conslmcfion of ~ street sy~em~ park and recreation, corporal, fire protection, and ~ ~es needed 1D a~commc~la~e t~ ~ of an _'m:ipated residential and noa-reMdential developmenL S~P--19-87 13,81 ~OMeCI~¥ O~ ~£M£CUL~ IDe~0~9~1899 P~G£ F. The public ~_~li~es development impa~ fee w~ be used to finance a portion the public ~ listed in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. G. There is a ~souablc mhtioasbip bc~vcea the need for a public facilitics devclopm~at i .mlnu:t fee and tl~ construction of ~dcatial and non-rcsid~tial developmeat projects because the constolon of these dc~opmcat projects cr~es a demaad for s~ect system, paxk and as a result of ~he fees' use as desc~oed in subsectkm F, resideats and occuImnts o~ such deve~ment projects will be served by the s~xcct system, par~ and ~'xca6oa, corporate, fixe protccti~, and 1i~rm3r facilitic~ that w~ be tiaaaced by the fees. I. There /s a reasonable ~!a_~onah/p betweea the amount of the public facilities development impact fee and me portion of the tom1 cost of street sysmm, pm:k ~nd ~creafion, cox20~a/e, fixe pto~c~a, and ~ ~ att~utcd to each deve/opmcnt lnoject l~ause the amouat of the public facilities development hnpac~ fee was caxcfaUy calcnh _tea so that the e~/mat~ sha~ of the total cost of the faciliti~ ~ to a development project would equal the csdwa _tea share of the ~ demand for the .~.cili~ genoated by that developmeat project_ The gcaeral methodology for apportioning the total cost of ~ and the method for calculating DIF Study, which is iaccu'tx:~a~ ~ by rcfcmace. ~ A__m_ _o~nt _of the Public Fatal'dies Deveto_mnent Tmonact Fee-. The public facilities devel~t impact fee is hereby established and imposed in the amounts set forth in P.~W7--94 2 .~£P-I~-~? 13~02 FEOM~ClTY OF THM£CULA ID~O~B~41~ PA~£ 10/1E Exh~it A to thiz Resolution, aubject ~o modification as provided in Sw. aons 5. ~d 6. of t~Js Resolution. ~ Autourn .tic Ad_iustment~ in Arnoant ..of Fees _for_ Non-Residential ._De__t~!. _opmen~_ _ ._. Comxmmd~ on Iuly 1, 1998, and on each succeeding luly 1 unfilluly 1, 2003, the fec~ as establi~ecI and imposed by this Resol~ for non-rcs/dential dgv~t shall be amonmx of the fees descail~ in Exhibit B. were calo,!a__)ed on the Base Fee descfitxxt therein and illustm~ how the fees will clmnge each fiscal year. The actual fees for succeed/ng tiaa/years shall be calc~a _te~ using the adjusted percentages of the Base Fee for each year as described in Exh/bit B. and shall be applied ~o the dollar am~_ mt of the fees as may have been adj~ by Section 5. of this Resolution. The adjust~ arnotrots shall be pn:smt~l ~o the C/ty Council for review at a public lmar/ng. Ilm adjuaed mounts shall constiuae ~e fees atal~xi by ~ 15.06 of the Temecula Mtmic/pal Code and were e~tab~ and imposed by Resolution 9745. ~ Effective Date. The fee~ ,e~bli~ed promant to Resolution 97-45 ~ive on July 26, 1997 which date was 60 days following the adoption of Ogtimn~ No. 97- 09. ~ Amendment of R.es~._hdJon_97M5 This Resolution hezeby amends Resolution 9745 to the extent its terms differ from those of Resolutioa 97-45, but is restated in fall for the oonv~ of the public. This Resolution does not rcpc~ or ~e Resolution 9745 excx:f~ as ~xifically provided heroin. This Resolution does not ~ any new fees nor amend the fees existing under Resolution 97-45, but merely daftlies cextai.__'n provisions of Resolution 9745, particalarly the findings regarding the purposes of development impact fees and the ~ ofill~ dol_l_m'_. amounts on F~xh~it B. This Resolution is decJammry of existing law. R~W7-04 3 of ~jurisdiction, such dec, on slmll not ~ th~ validity of fi~ r:m/ming portions of fi~e P. esolmi~m. The ~ Coum~ hem~by ~ fi~t ~ would i~ve adotm~ this Resolution, and PASSED, APPROVi~ AND ADOFI'ED by the City Counc~ of fiae City of this 12th day of August, 1997. Pa~cia BL Birdsall, Mayor ) COUNTY O~ RIVERSIDE) ss errs 0~~ ) I, June S. Greek. Ci~ ~ of ~he C~ry of Tcmco~!a, Califoro~ do hc~by ~ Resolution No. 97-94 was atfiy and xcgu]ady ~ by fi~e City Council of the Ci~ of Tememfia at a regular ~ thereof held on thi~ 12th day of August, 1997, by the following vote: 4 COU~ICII_.M1R"I~R~:~S: Ford, ~, Robert, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCN_2KF_.MBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNC~-M~dBERS: Stone City C~e~k .SEP~19-87 13,03 FROM,CITY OF TEMECULA ID,90~6841889 PAGE 12/1S Street S~ Control Fim Pro~ Facilities PUBLIC FACt!-.~.~ -~_ D~PMENT IMPACT Amonnt of F~e Per 1Jnlt~ $511 $1.049 $0.498 l~sk~t~l (l~tac~d) Corn m ~ ~onTi_ 'al $109 $0.103 $0.316 $0.158 $0.075 $118 $0.088 $0.049 Residea6,J. (Detached) Rea~ Commercial Service Commercial $42 $55 $0.010 $0.017 $0.014 $0.012 $1,209 $1,611 $0 / Land use is determined based on the categories in the Land Use Element of the Temeo~!__a_ Genera/Plan. / Fees for residential development are cakmlated per dwelling unit. Fees for non-mddcntial dev~t are calculated per square foot of gross building area. V.~o~k97-94 5 SEP--18-87 13.83 FROMmCITY OF TEMECULA ID.808G841888 PAGE 13/15 Amount of' l~ee Per 'O'nifv IX)TAX. l)E~-~'~'Ol~Off l~leatial (Attached) IMPACT ~ PER Resktmt~i ~ed) $2,113 $2.520 $1.270 $0.614 / Land use is determined based on the _~_Legofi~ in the Land Use Element of the Te~necula ~ Plan. / Fees for residential development axe calculated per dwelling unit. Fee~ for non-reside~ntial development axe calculated per square foot of gross building area. P,s~L~7-94 6 ID.90~69~1999 14/19 EXP~R1T B PUBLIC FACILITIF~ DEVELOPMENT I/V~ACT FEES FOP. R~$IDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTL~L DEVELOP~ STREET SYSteM 11VIl~ROW~I]~NTS BASE FEE* 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 RESIDENTIAL DETACHED 729 RESIDENTIAL ATrACHESD 511 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 511 511 51I 511 511 5II 511 511 NON-RESIDENIIAL OFFICE 1.137 RETAIL COMM 3.498 SERVICE COMM 1.749 BUS PARKAND 0.830 0.682 0.796 0.910 1.023 I. 137 1.251 1.364 0.887 2.099 2A49 2.798 3.148 3.498 3.848 4.198 2.728 1.049 1.224 1399 1.574 1.749 1.924 2.099 1364 0.498 0.581 0.664 0.747 0.830 0.913 0.996 0.647 TRAFFIC SIGNAI~ AND ~C CONTROL SYSTEMS , BASE FEE* 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 RESIDENTIAL DETACHED 109 109 109 RESIDENTIAL AITACHED 77 77 77 109 I09 109 109 109 109 77 77 77 77 77 77 '-'-FFICE 0.171 0.103 0.120 0.137 0.154 0.171 0.188 0.205 0.134 kETAIL COMM 0.527 0.316 0369 0.422 0.474 0.527 0.580 0.632 0A l I SERVICE COMM 0263 0.158 0.184 0.210 0237 0263 0.289 0.316 0205 BUS pAR.K/IND 0. I25 0.075 0.088 0.100 0. I 13 0.125 0.138 0.150 0.098 CORPORATE FACTI.ITIES BASE FEE* 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 RESIDENTIAL DETACHED RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 118 118 118 I18 I18. 118 118 118 t18 NON-RESIDENTIAL OFFICE 0.059 0.035 0.041 0.047 0.053 0.059 0.065 0.071 0.t346 RETAIL COMM 0. I47 0.088 0.103 0.118 0.132 0.147 0.162 0.176 0.115 SERVICE COMM 0.082 0.049 0.057 0.066 0.074 0.08:2 0.090 0.098 0.064 BUS PARKIIND 0.049 0.029 0.034 0.039 0.044'- 0.049 0.054 0.059 0.038 * BaseJ~e is 60% ofthe maxonumj~e calodated in the Devedopment Impact Fee Study conducted by David M. Griffith & ~4ssociate$, Inc. r.~k, uhnsa~if%karell .wb2~sphere 04-Aug-9' ~£'P--18-87 13,03 FMOM:CIT¥ OF T£M£CULA ,- lD,909G941999 PAC~ 1S/1S ~ PROTEeCTION FAC~__;~ BASE FEE* 1997/98 1998/99 1999/'00 2000/0 [ 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 RESIDENTIAL D~rACHED 55 R.SSIDEI~I'IAL ATTACHED 42 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 NON-RESIDENTIAL OFFICE 0.017 0.010 RETAIL CO!VIM 0.028 0.017 SERVICE COMM 0.023 0.014 BUS PARK/IND 0.020 0.0]2 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.017 0.019 0.020 0.013 0.020 0.022 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.034 0.022 0.016 0.018 0.02.1 0.023 0.025 0.028 0.015 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020 0.022 0.024 0.016 PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS BASE FEE* 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 RESIDEaL DETACHED RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,61 l 1,6I 1 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,209 1,209 1,209 1,209 1,209 1,209 1,209 1,209 },209 NON-RESID~L OFFICE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 RETAIL COMb{ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 .SERVICE COMM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3US PARK/IN 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 LIBRARIES BASE FEE* 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 200 t/02 2002/03 2003/04 RESIDENTIAL DETACHED I:LESIDENTIAL ATTACI-IED 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 i56 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 NON-KE$IDENTIAL OFFICE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 RETAIL COMM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SERVICE COMM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 BUS PARKrIND 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Base ,t~e is 60% of the maximum )~e calcrdated in the Development Impact Fee Stzdy conducted by David M. Griflith & Associate~, inc. _ r:~kuhns~dif~areil.wb2Lsphere 04-Aug-~ EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E Parks, Paseos, Greenbelt Areas ATTACHMENT NO. 3 AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PALOMA DEL SOL R:\HOGAND\TEM_ADNM.CCl 11/12/97 klb W RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF City Clerk City of Temecula WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO ity Clerk ity of Temecula ,~43174 Business Park Drive ~Temecula, CA 92590 (Space Above Line For Recorder's Use) AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PALOMA DEL SOL 01-08-f13 122~1-(XX]~ F: %1)0C%152%9203(X)12.12l; TABLE OF CQNTENTS 62043 . . e e e e e . . 10. 11. 12. 12.6 12.7 Definitions .................................................. Interest of Owner .............................................. Exhibits .................................................... Term ....ee.eeeeee....ee....eeeee*...ee.eeee*eeeeeee-.-*.. Assignment .................................................. 5.1 Right to Assign ........................................... 5.2 Release of Transferring Owner ....... Termination of Agreement with i~e~t t~'I~;v~t~ai ~o~s' upon ~e' to ~=~tl~lic and Completion of Construction ................................ 5.4 Subsequent Assignment ...................................... Mortgagee Protection ........................................... Binding Effect of Agreement ....................................... Relationship of Parties .......................................... Changes in Project ............................................. Timing of Development .......................................... Indemnity and Cost of Litigation 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · i · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Hold Harmless ........................................... County Litigation Concerning Agreement ........................... Public Facilities Fees Shortfall ......................... County Prevails in Litigation- S~;e'r~l~iii~y' . . Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement ........................ Third Party Litigation Concerning the General Plan .................... Environmental Assurances .................................... Public 12.1 12.2 123 12.4 12.5 Benefits, Public Improvements and Facilities ......................... Intent ................................................. Public FactOties Fee (Non-Residential) ............................ Public Fadlities Fee (Residential) ............................... Public Facilities Fee Credit · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Parks, Greenbelts and Paseos .. . Main Recreation Areas .......................................... Remaining Open Space Areas ...................................... 10 10 11 11 12 12 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 20 2O 01-08-93 12221-000~ F :'~0C%152%,92(X30012.12G 62043 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.11 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 2e 3. .4e 26. Timing of Park Improvements and Transfer to City ......................... Landscape Development Zones ..................................... Park Improvement Fee Credits ..................................... Park Fee Obligation ............................................ 12.12 Park Improvements ........................................ 12.13 Conflict with Timing of Improvements ............................ Reservations of Authority ......................................... 13.1 Limitatiom, Reservatiom, and Exceptiota .......................... 13.2 Subsequent Development Approvals .............................. 13.3 Modification or $uspemion by State or Federal Law .................... 13.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies ............................. 13_~ Tentative Tract Map Extemion ................................. 13.6 Vesting Tentative Maps ...................................... Development of the Property ...................................... 14.1 Rights to Develop ......................................... 14.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulatiom ........... . ............ 14.3 Changes and Amendments ................................... ~ Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement .......................... Financing District .............................................. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement .............................. Enforcement ....... · ......................................... Events of Default .............................................. Procedure Upon Default .... , .................................... Damages Upon Termination ....................................... Attorneys' Fees and Costs ........................................ Notices .................................................... Cooperation .............................................. ,.. Rules of Corotruction and Miscellaneous Terms ........................... Counterparts ................................................. 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 33 33 35 35 35 36 36 37 37 01-08-91j 12221 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS EXHIBIT B EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS EXHIBIT C ~ 1=GAL DESCRIFI'ION EXHIBIT D AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF NON-RESIDE~ PUBLIC FACILITI~ FEES E~IT E EXFImlT F MAP OF PARKS, PASEOS, GREENBELTS AND SLOPES CITY PARK STANDARDS 01-08-9';J 12221-000~ F: %[X:]C%152%920[30012.12G 62043 AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECUI. A and KRDC, INC. AND MESA HOMES (Paloma del Sol) This Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement ("Agreemere") is entered into to be effective on the date it is recorded with the Riverside County Recorder (the "Effective Date") by and among the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and the persons and entities listed below ("Owner"): a California corporation, formerly known as Bedford Development Company, a California corporation, and Mesa Homes, a California corporation RECITALS A. Pursuant to California Governmen! Code Section 65804, et lfill. ("Development Agreement Statutes"), Owner's predecessor in interest, Kaiser Development Company and the County of Riverside ("Counof) entered into Development Agreement No. 4 recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County on November 7, 1988, as Instrument No. 325513 ("Development Agreement"). B. The Development .Agreement encompasses a project formerly located within County approved Specific Plan No. 219 known as "Paloma del Sol", a mixed use subdivision (the "Project") to .be developed on property owned by Owner which became a pan of the munidpal boundaries of the City when the City incorporated on December 1, 1989. 01-(3~-~ 12221 F ;'d)(;I~%15Z%gZOI3001:'. 1Z6 62043 C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City became the successor-M-interest to the County under the Development Agreement upon incorporation of the City. D. Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City and Owner propose to restate and amend the Development Agreement to substitute this Agreement for the Development Agreement. E. Pursuant and subject to the Development Agreement Statutes, the City's police powers and City Resolution No. 91-52, City is authorized to enter into binding agreements with persons having legal or equitable interest in real property located within the City's municipal boundaries or sphere of influence thereby establishlng the conditions under which such property may be developed in the City. F. By electing to enter into thi~ Ag~'.eement, City shall bind future members of the City Council of City by the obligations specified herein and further limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of members of the City Council. Likewise, Owner shall bind its successors in interest to the obligations specified in thi~ Agreement. G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by the staff of the City, the Planning Commission of the City and the City Council of City and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable. H. City finds and determines that it will be in the best interests of its citizens and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into thi.s Agreement. L All of the procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met with respect to this Agreement. J. City was incorporated on December 1, 1989. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65360, the City has thirty (30) months following incorporation to prepare and adopt a 01-08-91J 12221-000~ F :'~00C%15~~12.12G 62043 general plan. This 30-month period may be extended by approval of the California Office of Planning and Research ("OPR"). OPR has extended this period and authorized the City to enter into development agreements so long as the City Council makes the findings set forth in California Government Code Section 65360 ("Section 65360). During this 30-month period, the City may approve development projects without being subject to the requirement that its decisions be consistent with the general plan so long as the findings set forth in Section 65360 are met which findings the City Council of City have made. K. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659 establishes public facilities and services impact fees for residential development within City ("RSA Fees"). City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from development of the Property in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the development. L. The Development Agreement provided for public facilities and services impact fees (#County Impact Fees') higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development in the Project to a level comparable to the RSA Fees. M. Effective ~anuary 31, 1992, the City and Owner entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding ("MOIY') which, among other things, establishes the terms and conditions under which this Agreement would eliminate the County Impact Fees and replace it with a City Public Facilities Fee. N. Effective August 11, 1992, the City and Owner entered into a Restatement and Amendment of the MOU ('Amended MOIY') to provide, among' other things, that for a period of two years, Owner shall pay Interim Public Facilities Fees and dedicate to City certain park land and recreation facilities in order to satisfy Owner's Quimby Park Fee obligation. 01-{l~-g5 12221-00064~ F: ~C~'~152~921]5001;Z. 1~: 62043 O. Under the terms of the Amended MOU, Owner is obligated to pay a Public Facilities Fee for non-residential development ("Non-Residential Public Facilities Fee") and enter into an agreement to pay said Non-Residential Public Facilities Fee in the event City has not adopted a Non-Residential Public Facilities Fee at the time Owner requests City to issue building permit(s) for commercial development in the Project. P. A dispute has arisen between the City and Owner over the amount of fees or land dedication for park or recreational purposes Owner is required to provide to City as allowed under Section 66477 of the California Government Code ("Quimby Park Fees"). Q. On May 20, 1987, the County amended Ordinance No. 460 authorizing the imposition of Quimby Park Fees. Ordinance No. 460 required adoption of an implementation resolution designating a redpient of the Quimby Park Fees. On June 28, 1988, pursuant to Resolution No. 88-218, the County designated CSA 143 as the recipient of Quimby Park Fees subject to the adoption of a master plan. On June 27, 1989, pursuant to Resolution No. 89-331, the County adopted a master plan for CSA 1413, establishing the Quimby Park Fees at three (3) acres per 1,000 new residents ("County Park Fee Standard"). R. Pursuant to Resolution No. 90-53, adopted on May 8, 1990, City has adopted Quimby Park Fees of five (5) acres of land for parks and recreational purposes, or payment of fees in lieu thereof, for every 1,000 people to reside in the proposed subdivision ("City Park Fee Standard"). S. The City interprets the Development Agreement to permit the imposition of increased Quimby Park Fees computed on the City Park Fee Standard and has required Owner to pay Quimby Park Fees based on the City 'Park Fee Standard as a condition of issuance of building permits for Paloma del Sol. Owner disagrees with this position and interprets the provisions of the Development Agreement to limit the City's authority to impose Q-imby Park Fees based on the park 01-0~-95 12221 F:~0C'~1~~12.1~ 62043 and open space requirements of the Specific Plan as approved by the County and incorporated into the Development Agreement. T. In order to avoid a legal challenge to the Quimby Park Fees and to prevent the running of any relevant statutes of limitation while attempts are being made to resolve this dispute, Owner and City have entered into a Standstill Agreement effective on April 9, 1991, as amended ("Standstill Agreement"). U. City and Owner acknowledge that development of Paloma del Sol will result in a generation of si~ificant m-r~icipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities and the enhancement of the quality of life, including recreation facilities for present and future residents of the City. The benefits to the City and Owner contemplated by development of the Paloma del Sol Project include: (1) the oppommity for a residential-commercial project creating significant job opporwnities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the Ci~r, (2) pl/yment of substantial impact fees to be used to solve City and regional .. tra/fic infrastructure demands; (3) a payment of public facilities fees; (4) participation in special assessment and/or community fac/lities districts tO finance City and regional infrastructure improvements; (5) the creation of significant.park, recreation and open space dedications for public use and the protection of signi6cant natural resources. V. The City and Owner acknowledge that due to the present economic recession, none of these benefits to the City are possible unless the Paloma del Sol Project proceeds with · development. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the present structure of fees and private recreation and open space requirements creates substantial impediments to development of the Paloma del Sol Project. 01-(18-91J 12221 F: ~"~152~~12.12~ 62043 W. Without admitting or determining any rights or obligations as between City and Owner, each to the other, with respect to the amount of the Quimby Park Fees,. and solely to avoid the potential expense and inconvenience of protracted litigation, and to balance the needs of the City to provide adequate parks and recreational facilities with the difficulty of land development in today's economy, City and Owner agree that in lieu of additional Q~imby Park Fees, Owner will dedicate and develop parkland as descn'bed in this Agreement. X. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the effective date of this Agreement, Owner shall deliver to the Planning Department a check payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Eight Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00), which includes the Eight Hundred Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the Owner has not/ielivered to the Planning Department the check requ/red above, this Agreement shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). Payment of this fee shah satisfy the Owner's obligation to pay a similar fee required in connection with the approval of Amendment 3 to Specific Plan 219 applicable to the Project. Y. City Coundl of City has approved this Agreement by Ordinance No. 92-19 adopted on January '12, 1993, and effective on February .12, 1993. On the Effective Date, the Development Agreement shall be terminated and of no further force and effect having been replaced by this Agreement. NOW, THE~FO~ in consideration of the above Recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and suffidency of which is hereby acknowledged and incorporated herein, the parties agree: 01-08-93 12221-000~ F; ¥)OC%15Z'~t'21ZSOOIZ.. 1Z; 62043 City. 1. Definitions. 1.1 1.2 1.3 In this-Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: "Association" is the Paloma del Sol Association (HOA). "City" is the City of Temecula. "City Public Facility Fee" is an amount to be established by Ordinance of 1.4 "County" is the County of Riverside. 15 "County Public Facilities and Services Fee" means the County Development Agreement Fee as set forth in Section 4.2 of the Development Agreement. 1.6 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests. 1.7 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals defined in Section 1.8 below which are applicable to development of the Property. 1.8 "Existing Development Approvals" me-,,-~ those certain Development Approvals in effect as of the effective date of this Agreement with respect to the Property, including, without limitation, the "Exist~g Development Approvals" listed in Exhibit A which were approved by the County or the City. ~ ~ Z/~ 1.9 "Financing District" means a community facilities district formed pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 (California Government Code Section 53311 et seq., as amended), an assessment district formed pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et ~a;l., as -mended), a special assessment district formed pursuant to a Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 10102, as amended), or any other special assessment district existing pursuant 01-08-93 12221 F :¥)0C%15~~12. 62043 to State law formed for the purposes of financing the cost of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a specific geographical area of the City. 1.10 "Interim Public Facilities Fee" means an amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per each residential unit developed in the Project. 1.11 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of City, governing the development and use of land including without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or. intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards .and specifications applicable to the development of the Property listed on Exhibit B which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date of this Agreement. "Land Use Regulations" does not include any County or City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation, or official policy, governing:. (a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (b) Taxes and assessments; (c) The control and abatement of nuisances; (d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public proper~r, (e) The exercise of the power of eminent domal~ 1.12 "Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the Property;, 1.13 "Passive Park Improvements" means park fadlities, including picnic tables, tot lots, horseshoe playing areas and bar-b-ques. 1.14 "Project" is the development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. Ol-Oe-,~ 12221-o(x)~ 62043 1.15 "Property" is the real property described in Exhibit C. 1.16 "RSA Fee" mean.v the amount of the public facilities fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 1.17 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property. 1.18 "Subsequent Land Use Regulation" me_~ns any Land Use Regulation adopted and effective after the Effective Date of thi.s Agreement. 2. Interest of Owner. Owner represents that it has the fee title interest in the Property and that all other persons holding legal.or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by this Agreement. 3. Exhibit. The following documents are referred to in thi_s Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference: Extu'bit Desienation Descriotion A B C D E F Existing Development Approvals Existing Land Use Regulations Legal description of the Property Public Facilities Fee Agreement (Non-Residential) Map of Parks, Paseos, Slopes and Greenbelts City Park Standards 4.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall extend for a period of ten (10) years thereafter, unless this Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto. 01-08-.~r~ 1ZZZ1 62043 4.2 This Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the occurrence of the entry of a Hnal judgement or issuance of a final order after exhaustion of any appeals directed against the City as a result of any lawsuit filed against the City. to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval by the City Council of City of this Agreement. $. Assicynrnent. 5.1 .11igllt to Assi_cyn. The Owner shall have the fight to sell, transfer, or assign the Property in whole or in pan (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et Ig~q., or Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 904)4) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm, or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer, or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties, and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent: (a) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together 'with the sale, transfer, or assi..tmment of all or a part of the Property. (b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within fifteen (15) business days thereafter, the Owner shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer, or assisrnment and shall provide City with an executed agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, by the purchaser, tr:~nsferee, or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee, or assignee expressly and unconditionally ass-roes all the duties and obligations of the Owner under this Agreement. Any sale, transfer, or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute a default by the Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of any 01-06-93 12221-000~ F: ~)OC%15Z%gZO3001Z. 1Z(; 10 62043 purchaser, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this Subsection, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee, or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee, or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed. 5~2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or assignment, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under thin Agreement unless such transferring Owner is given a release in writing by City, which release shall be provided by City upon the full satisfaction by such transferring Owner of all of the following conditions: (a) The Owner no longer has a legal interest in all or any part of the Property except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust. (b) The Owner is not then in default under thin Agreement. (c) The Owner has provided City with the notice and executed agreement required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 5.1 above. (d) The purchaser, transferee, or assignee provides City with security equivalent to any security previously provided by Owner to secure performance of its obligations hereunder. 5.3 T¢ .rr~jrlation of A~eement with Reject to Individual Lots u_von Sale to P~l~li¢ an~] Completion of Construction. The provisions of Subsection 5.1 shall not apply to the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which has been finany subdivided and is individually (and not in ~bulk") sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate user. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, t_hi~ Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject to thix Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions: Ol -o8-6r~ 12221 -ooo64, 62043 (at the lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and (b) a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for a building on a lot, and the fees set forth in this Agreement have been paid. 5.4 Subse~_uent Assi_munent. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment after an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditiom of this Section. 6. Mortgagee Protection. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from eno, mbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modificatiom and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its coment to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Owner shall reimburse City for any and all of City's costs associated with said negotiations, interpretations, and modifications and shall make reimbursement payments to City within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from City. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (at Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, 'dunlnish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. 01 -O~-'9r~ 12221 62043 (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any default by the Owner in the performance of the Owner's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to the Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to the Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the fight, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any pan thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or pan thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of the Owner's obligations or other ~tive covenants of the Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, provided however, that to the extent that any . covenant to be performed by Owner is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or assi?ment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.1 of this Agreement. (e) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, pursuant to subsection (d) above and who elects not to assume the obligations of the Owner set forth herein shall not be entitled to any rights to develop which have or may have vested as a result of this Agreement. '01-08-9'aj 12221-0006~ F:%tX2~1~~12.12~ 62043 7. Bindin~ Effect of Aereement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors-in-interest to the paxties to it. 8. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City and Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of City. 9. Changes in Project. No change, modification, revision or alteration of Existing Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval by those agencies of the City equivalent to the County agencies that approved the Existing Development Approvals in the first ir~tance (if the County had granted the approvals) or by the same City agency that granted the Existing Development Approval, (if the City granted the approval in connection with the adoption of thl.s Agreement). 10. Timing of Develovment. The paxties acknowle,dge that Owner cannot at thl.s time predict when, or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of Owner, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Con.stmction Co. v. City_ of Camarillo. 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failUre of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted inifiatve restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties, agreement, it is the parties, intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that the Owner shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such _times as the Owner deems appropriate within the exerche of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan. 01-0e-tr3 lZ221-0006/. F :'qd)OC~15Z~9203001Z. 1ZG 14 62043 11. Indemniw and Cost of Litigation. -- 11.1 Hold Harmless. Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on hi_s behalf which relate to the Project. Owner agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Owner's activities in connection with the Project. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications for the Project and regardless of whether or not the insurance policies referred to herein are applicable. 11.2 County_ Liti_c, ation Concerning A~eement. In the event the County seeks to challenge the right of City and Owner to enter into this Agreement or to terminate the Development Agreement, and institutes an action, suit or proceeding to challenge this Agreement or invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of thi_n Agreement or the amendment of the Development Agreement or take such other action(s) which result in unreasonable delays in the development of the Property, City and Owner agree to cooperate and participate in a joint defense in any action agnin.~t the parties, their officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment or lien, resulting from such action(s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis pendens) and to share equally the costs associated with attorneys, fees, costs and damages (including the difference in the amount of any Interim Public Facilities Fees and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to City pursuant to the 01-08-~ 12221 F; ~:IC%15Z%gZOi:~OIZ. 1Z; 15 62043 terms of this Agreement) that the parties may incur as a result of any such action or lawsuit to challenge City and/or Owner's legal authority to enter into this Agreement and/or terminate the Development Agreement. City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s) brought by the County as herein provided. City and Owner each reserve the right to withdraw from the defense of the County litigation-in the event the County prevails at the trial level and there.is an appeal. If either party withdraws after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all of the costs and fees associated with said appeal. 113 Public Facilities Fees Shortfall. In the event the County prevails in any legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of this Agreement and a trial court determines that Owner and/or the City is liable to make up any shortfall between the amount of the Interim Public Facility Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise have been imposed pursuant to the Development Agreement, then City and Owner shall each share equally in paying said shortfall 11.4 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability_. In the event the County prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as descn'bed in Section 11.2 of this Agreement, the amount of the Interim Public Facility Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may. be, shall revert to the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor of the County. In the event thi.~ Agreement is beld to be invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competent jurisdiction, the provisions set forth in Section 12_3(a), (b) and (c) of this Agreement shall no longer be enforceable and from the date of said final judgment or ruling of invalidity, Owner shall thereafter .pay the County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of the Development Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity. 01-08-15 12221-000~ F; ~(3~15Z%gZiI34XIIZ. 1='c 16 62043 11.5 _Third Party_ Litigation Concerning A_m'eement. Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify., and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement brought by a third party other than the County. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, or ff City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in its discred'on participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding. 11.6 Third party_ Litigation Concerning the General Plan. City is a newly incorporated city falling within the scope of Section 65360 and thus not subject to the requirement that a General Plan be adopted or that development decisions be consistent therewith so long as the City makes certain findings, which the City has made at Section J of the Recitals to this Agreement. Notwithstanding'these findings City shall have no liability in damages under this Agreement for any failure of City to perform under this Agreement or the inability of Owner to develop the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan of this Agreement ff such failure or inability is the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the findings made under Section 65360 or the future General .Plan, are invalidated or inadequate or not in compliance with law. 11.7 Environmental Assurances. Owner shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or orni-~ion of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors-in-interest, successors, assigns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state, or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene, solid or hazardous waste or to environmental 01-08-93 12221-000~ F:~CK'~1~~12.12~ 17 62043 conditions on, under or about the Property. Said violations shall include, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys fees, City, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. City may, in its discretion, participate in the defense of any such action. 12. Public Benefits. Poblic Improvements and Facilities. 12.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that development of the Property will result in substantial public needs which will not be fully met by development of the Project and further acknowledge and agree that t_his Agreement confers substantial private benefits on the Owner which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the parties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on the Owner by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting from development of the Project 12.2 Public'Facilities Fee .(Non-Residentiall. The developer(s) of the Property shall pay a capital or impact fee for road improvements 'and public facilities in an amount the City may adopt for non-residential development. The term "developer(s) of the Property or Project" as used in this Section shall mean the person(s) who seeks a buildin~ permit to construct structures on the Property. These individuals or entities shall be referred to as the "Developer". If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or benefit dis{xict for non-residential construction has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests building permits for' commercial construction in the Project or any phase thereof, the Developer, if required by City, shall execute an Agreement For Payment of Non-Residential Public Facility Fees substantially in the form attached marked Exhibit D and made a part herein by this reference. 01-06-6"5 12221 18 62043 12.3 Public Facilities Fee (Residential}. (a). In lieu of the Coun. ty Development Agreement Fee, RSA Fee or City Public Facility Fee, for a period of two (2) years commencing on January 31, 1992 and ending January 30, 1994, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per dwelling unit. The Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed in the Project. (b) Owner shall also pay all other development exactions in existence as of January 31, 1992 and throughout the term of this Agreement, including but not limited to, Fire, Drainage, Traffic Signal Mitigation, K-Rat and Library Fees pursuant to the provisions of City ordinances and resolutions in existence when paid. From January 31, 1992 through January 30, 1994, Owner shall not be entitled to the K-Rat Fee credit. (c) On January 31, 1994, the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be adjusted to equal the amount of the City's Public Facilities Fee imposed on all projects in the City at that _time. Thereafter, the City's Public Facilities Fee shall be substituted for the Interim Public Facilities Fee. In the event the City has not adopted a City Public Facilities Fee by January 31, 1994, Owner shall continue to pay the Interim Public Facilities Fee until such time as the City adopts a City Public Facilities Fee. 12.4 Public Facilities Fee Credit. Commencing on the Effective Date of this Agreement, Owner shall be entitled to a credit against future payments of Interim Public Facilities Fees or City Public Facilities Fees in an amount based on the total of the difference between the nmount Of the County Development Agreement Fee (excluding any reduction based on the K-Rat Fee' credit) and the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fees plus Library Fees paid by Owner to City for issuance of residential building permits for the Paloma del Sol Project during the period from January 31, 1992 to the Effective Date of this Agreement ("Public Facilities Fee Credit Amount"). 01-0~-6r3 12221-00(0~ F: ~:)C]C%15Z%gZO3001:'. IZG 19 62043 City shall be responsible for determining the Public Facilities Fee Credit Amount based on its official records of building permits issued 'for the Paloma del Sol Project since .lanuary 31, 1992. Owner shall have one year from the Effective Date of the Agreement to apply the Pubtic Facilities Fee Credit Amount to the payment' of Interim Public Facilities Fees or the City Public Facilities Fees, as the case may be. ~2.5 Parks. Greenbelts and Paseos. As additional consideration for entering into this Agreement, Owner agrees to dedicate to the City, or cause to be dedicated, and City agrees to accept when offered, park land, greenbelts, slopes and paseos equalling approximately 166Z acres. Owner and the Association may also dedicate approximately 27.5 acres of park land and paseos to the City. The park land, greenbelts, slopes and paseos are shown on F. xlu'bit E which is attached and made a part hereof and incorporated by this reference. Owner shall improve, and Owner and/or the Association shall dedicate, or cause to be dedicated in fee or by grant of easement to City and City agrees to accept parkland, greenbelts, slopes, paseos and recreation improvements when offered for dedication. Notwithstanding the descriptions and references to lots, tracts and areas in Sections 6 and 7 and Exhibit A of the Amended MOU: (1) Lot 68 of Tract 24134-3 is not a part of the 5.9 Acre Paseo Park; (2) title to Lot 68 of Tract 24134-3 and Lots 86, 87 and 88 of Tract 24134-1 is vested in the Association and these lots may be dedicated to the City in the Association's sole discretion sometime in the future as a part of the 142 acres of remaining open space areas referenced in Section 8 and on Exhibit A of the Amended MOU; (3) title to Lot 123 of Tract 24133-5, Lots 81 and 82 of Tract 24133, Lot 161 of Tract 24133-1, and Lot 112 of Tract 24133-2 is vested in Owner and may be dedicated to City in Owner's sole discretion sometime in the future as pan of the 142 acres of remaining open space areas. 12.6 Main Recreation Areas. The six main recreation areas and the terms for dedication to the City are described as follows: 01-0~-9r3 12221-00(0 F:'~0C%15~~12.1~c 2O 62043 (a) An eight-acre park located in Specific Plan Planning Area No. 37 and within Tentative Tract 25417 (8-Acre Park) will be improved with two baseball -diamonds/soccer field combination with fights, restroom and concession building group picnic area, drinking fountains, trash receptacles and parking lot. (b) A seven and seventy-four hundredths (7.74) acre park located in Tract 24133-2, Lot 114 C7.74 Acre Park") will be improved as a 'passive park" and may be dedicated to the City in Owner's sole discretion sometime in the future. (c) A thirteen and eighty-four hundredths (13.84) acre paseo park located in Tract 24133-3, Lot 106 ("13.84 Acre Paseo Park") currently improved with tot lots, basketball courts, tennis court, picnic areas with tables and barbecues, walkways/bikeways with lighting and may be dedicated to the City at sometime in the future by Owner with the prior consent of at least a majority of the members of the Association or by the Association if Owner transfers ownership to the Association before dedication to the City. (d) An approximate five and nine tenths (5.9) acre paseo park located in Tract 24134-3, Lots 68, 69, 70, 71 and a portion of Lot 83 of Tract 24134-F ("5.9 Acre Paseo Park") currently improved with a tot lot, basketball court, picnic areas with tables and barbecue, walkways/bikeways with lighting. This park is owned by the Association and may at the discretion of the Association be dedicated to the City sometime in the future. (e) A seven and forty-four hundredths (7.44) acre park located in the Eastside (future) Tract 24186-4, Lot 1 ('7.44 Acre Park') planned to be improved with a combination soccer/baseball field with lights, restrooms and concession building, group picnic area, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, parking lot. (f) A nine and thirty-five hundredths (9_35) acre paseo park located in the Eastside (future) Tracts including: Lots 159 and 160 of (future) Tract 24186-1; Lots 121 and 01-00-~!~ 12221-00(0 F: %t)OC%15~ZO3001Z. 1ZG 21 62043 129 of (future) Tract 24186-2 and Lot 121 of (future) Tract 24187-F ("9.35 Acre Paseo Park") planned to be improved with a basketball court, tot lot, picnic area, walkway/bikeways with lighting landscaping and irrigation. 12.7 Remainin~ O~en Svace Areas. (a) The remaining recreation and open space areas consist of approximately 142 acres of greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway and dope landscaping, both east and west sides of Paloma del Sol. (b) Those perimeter and interior greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, parks and slopes shown on Exhibit E which are transferred to the City will be maintained by the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD"). All assessments for maintenance shall be in compliance with the standards and formulas imposed by the TCSD on all other property within the City. 12.8 Timing of Park Improvements and Transfer to C|ty. (a) The 8-Acre Park shall be fully improved and transferred to the City as soon as April 30, 1.993, but no later than June 30, 1993. Park improvements shall include but not be limited to: (1) two lighted ball fields not less than 300 feet in length, with multipurpose sports overlays u 'ttliz/ng Musco Lighting; (2) fencing at least 25 feet between the ball fields and parking and/or streets; (3) approximately 1200 square foot concession facility with restrooms and storage areas; (4) bleachers installed on concrete pads in viewing areas; (5) landscaping, signage, flag poles, water drinking fountains, . refuse receptacles, picnic tables, barbecue pits, pedestrian benches and meandering walkways in accordance with TCSD requirements. Reasonable primary and secondary access and drainage from De Portola Road and Campanula Way shall also be provided in compliance with the minimum requirements of Ordinance 460 and City Standards or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additional Ol-~e-. 12221-00(M~ F: ~(:iC%,15Z%9'~3~012.1ZG 22 62043 street improvements to De Portola and construction of Campanula Way adjacent to the 8-Acre park will be completed as development of the adjoining tracts occurs, but not later than five (5) years from the Effective Date of this Agreement. (b) Improvements to the 9.35-Acre Pasco Park (Tract 24186, Lots 451, 452 and 453; Tract 24187, Lots 368 and 369) shall be completed prior to issuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24187 and 24188. (c) Improvements to the 7.44-Acre Park shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24182, 24184, 24185 and 24186. Other equivalent parks in the vicinity may be substituted for improvement of thi.~ park if approved in writing by the City. (d) Improvement to and transfer of the remaining 142 acres of greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway and slope landscaping, both East and West sides of Paloma del Sol shall occur in accordance with the current TCSD funding procedures and practices and according to the following schedule: Tract 24133 · The 7.74-Acre park shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 2376th building permit within the West side maps, bounded by Margarita Road to the West, Pauba Road to the North, Meadows Parkway to the East and State Highway 79 to the South, and will be dedicated to either the Association or the City. 01-0~-9r3 12221-(XX)~ F: ~0C%15Z~,92030012.12G 23 62043 Tram 241 Lot 464 · To be developed as active park with facilities that may include one junior tot lot, one toddler tot. lot, two full basketball courts with half court at each end, group picnic area, drinking fountaim, trash receptacles and benches. · To 'be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 1 through 275. Lot 462 · To be developed as a Passive Park. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 276 through 443. Tract 24184 · To be developed with paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tract Tract 2418~ Lots 365 and 368 · To be developed as Passive Parks. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tract. 01-(~8-9S 12221 F :~"~152~~12.12~ 24 62043 Lot 366 · To be developed as paseos with activity nodes with passive recreation. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tract. Tract 24186 · To be developed with paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation. · To be completed with the 7.44 Acre Park wit_hin Lot 460. · The 7.44-Acre Park. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24182, 24184, 24185 and 24186. Other equivalent parks in the vicinity may, be substituted for development of thi.~ park if the alternatives are approved by the City. Lots 447. 458 and 456 · To be developed with paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation- . To be completed and dedicated to the City prior .to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tract. Lots 451. 452 and 453 · A portion of the 9.35 Acre Park. · To be developed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24187 and 24188. 01-08-9"J 12221-(X)06~ 25 Tra~ 241~7 62043 · A portion of the 9.35-Acre Park. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24187 and 24188. Lots 372 and 373 · To be developed as paseos with activity nodes with passive recreation. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tract. Tract 24188 · To be developed as a Passive Park. · Prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 217 through 351. Lots 372 and 378 · To be developed as Passive Parks. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots I through'216 Lot 374 · To be developed as paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation. · To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots I through 216. ~ 7~-~ (e) Owner may extend the improvement completion and park transfer dates as' set forth in this Agreement with written consent from the City. 01-08-9!J 12221 F :~JX~L'~152~12.12~ 26 6;:043 (f) City shall receive and approve all park and recreation facilities improvement plans in accordance with the City's park standards, procedures and specifications except the City shall accept without any modifications to the improvements to the 13.84-Acre Pasco Park and the 5.9-Acre Pasco Park as currently constructed and installed provided these parks are transferred to the City. (g) The approximately 194 acres of parks, greenbelts and paseos shall be transferred to the City by grant deeds from Owner and the Association, depending on ownership. The form of the grant deeds shall be approved by City and Owner. City agrees to accept the parks and any improvements within a reasonable time of being offered for dedication. The City shall be responsible for establishing any ~:~intenance obligations with the TCSD associated with the parks, paseos and greenbelt areas described in thi~ Agreement. 12.9 _~ndscape Development Zones. Landscape Development Zones (LDZ's) and Monuments shall be completed with the following _timing: (a) !.DZ's and Monuments along Panba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, State Highway 79 South, De Portola Road, Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road shall be completed immediately after each street is completed with full improvements on the Project side. (b) LDZ's and Monuments along all other streets shall be completed with the completion of all buildings within each. phase of the respective final maps for the Proje~ 12.10 Park Imvrovement Fee Credits. At the time of completion of the improvements and transfer of each of the public parks as provided in thi.~ Agreement, Owner shall' receive a credit against payment of future Interim Public Fadlit/es Fees or City Public Facilities Fees based on the actual improvement cost incurred by Owner for both of said public parks (8-Acre Park 01-0~-~ 12221-000~ F = ~'I~152~50012. 27 62043 and 7.44 Acre Park) up to a total maximum credit of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Owner shall have the term of this Agreement within which to apply the park improvement fee credit towards Interim Public Facilities Fees or City Public Facilities Fees. City shall have a right to review, audit and verify all costs associated with said park improvements under procedures to be mutually agreed upon between the parties. For purposes of calculating credits under this Section, "Improvements" shall be defined as ohsitc work only (design, grading and construction), excluding street and utility work within the public right-of-way and any onsite environmental mitigation costs such as toxic removal and wetlands mitigation. 12.11 Park Fee Obligation. Upon execution of thi.~ Agreement by the parties, regardless of undue delays or the outcome of any lawsuit or action brought by County or terms of settlement of any action or proceeding which may be instituted by the County against City and/or Owner relating to this Agreement, Owner's Quimby Park Fee obligation for the Paloma del Sol Project shall be satisfied excluding Tract 24183 which currently satisfies the City Park Fee Standard. Owner's Quimby Park Fee obligation with regard to Planning Area 6, as shown on Exhibit E, shall also be satisfied. 12.12 Park Improvements. Except for .the park improvements, recreation facilities and landscaping constructed and installed prior to the effective date of thi.~ Agreement, Owner shall submit to the City for approval by the Parks and Recreation Commi-~ion and City Council preliminary plans and cost estimates assodated with park improvements, recreation facilities and landscaping to be constructed and installed on those parks, greenbelts, and paseos to be transferred to the City. In evaluation of said preliminary plans, City shall apply the park standards set forth in Exhibit F attached and made a part herein by this reference. The approval of the Parks and Recreation Commition and the City Council shall not be unreasonably withheld. For all park improvements, recreation facilities and landscaping constructed and installed pursuant to the 01-08-93 12221 28 62043 Development Plan in this Agreement, except the park described at Section 12.6(a) (8-Acre Park), Owner shall enter into an Improvement Agreement and post performance and labor/materials bonds for said improvements concurrently with recording the tracts where the improvements are located. 12.13 Conflict with Timing of Improvements. ff any conflict exists with respect to the timing of dedications and/or construction of improvements of parkland, paseos, greenbelts or slope areas between this Agreement and the Amended MOU, the timing provisions in this Agreement shall prevail and be controlling with regards thereto. 13. Reservation8 of Authority_. 13,1 Limitations. Reservations. and Excet>tions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the development of the Property: (a) Processing fees and charges imposed by City to cover the estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Existing Development Approvals grant~ or issued. (b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings,. records, hearings, reports, recommendation, appeals, and any other matter of procedure. (c) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however, that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to development of the Property unless such Development Exaction is applied uniformly to development throughout the City. (d) Regulations governing construction standards and specifications including, without limitation, the City's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code and Fire Code. 01-08-~J5 12221 F: ~0C'~15Z~9203001:'. 12; 29 62043 (e) Regulations which may be in conflict with the Development Plan but which are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety. 'To the. extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed so as to provide Owner with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement. (f) Regulations which 'are not in conflict with the Development Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or t_iming of development of the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property. (g) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan provided Owner has given written consent to the application of such regulations to development of the Property. 13.2 Subseouent Develoument Auvrovals. This Agreement shall not prevent City, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying the Subsequent Land Use Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent City from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the Existing or Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the Development 13_~ Modifi_~_tion or Sus'vension by_ State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or' preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. 01-08-~;5 12221 F: ~X)C~1.~9'ZiI~,OOIZ. 1ZE 3O 62043 13.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City. and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agerides. 13.5 Tentative Tract Map Extension. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 66452.6 of the Government Code, the tentative subdivision map(s) or tentative parcel map(s) (vested or regular) approved as part of implementing the Development Plan, shall be extended to expire at the end of the term of this Agreement. 13.6 Vesting Tentative Mar~s. If any teamfive or final subdivision map, or tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90414, and if this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to the Owner, then and to that extent the rights, obligations, and protections afforded the Owner and City respectively, under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede the provisions of thi~ Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above, development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over any conflicting provision of law or ordinance concerning vesting maps. 14. D~velopment of the Property. 14.1 l~i_p_hts to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or City Public Facility Fee, as the case may be, and the Reservations of Authority, the Owner shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of the Development Plan. The Project shall remain subject to all Subsequent ol-oe-~ 1~21 F: "~0C~151%9'Z0:~0011:. 12:6 62043 Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Plan. 14.2 Effect of A~eement on Land Use RegulaTions. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, including the payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the Reservations of Authority, the rules, regulations, and offici~l policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations. City shall exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in connection with Subsequent Development Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan, and as provided by this Agreement including, but not limited to, payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee and City Public Facility Fee, as the case may be, and the Reservations of Authority. City shall accept for processing, review, and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters. City may, at the request of Owner, contract for planning and engineering consultant services to expedite the review and processing of Subsequent Development Approvals, the cost of which shall be borne by Owner. 14.3 Chan_~es and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Exis~ Development Approvals. In the event the Owner finds that a change in the Exis~ Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, the Owner shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to effectuate such change and City shall process and act on such application in accordance with the Land Use 01-0B-93 12221-0(X)~ F: %1X:~C%152%~12. 32 62043 Regulatioag except as otherwise provided by this Agreement including the Reservations of Authority. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated herein as an addendum to this Agreement and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Unless otherwise required by law, as determined in City's reasonable discretion, a change to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed "minor" and not require an amendment to this Agreement provided such change does not: (a) Alter the permitted uses of the Properly as a whole; or, (b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or, (c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or, Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes within the Property as a whole; or, (e) Constitute a project requiring a Subsequent or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. 15. Periodic Review of Compliance with A_crre¢lllcrlt. (a) Pursuant to City Resolution No. 91-52, as it may be subsequently amended, City shall review this Agreement at least once during every twelve (12) month period from the Effective Date of thi.s Agreement. The Owner or successor shall reimburse City for the actual and necessary costs of this review. (b) During each periodic review by City, the Owner is required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The Owner agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City in the exercise of its discretion may require. 16. Financing District. Upon the request of Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of CFDs, special assessment districts, and other similar Financing Districts for the 01-08-93 12221-(XX)~ F :~poC~15Z~?'ZO3~lZ. 1Zi; 62043 financing of the construction, improvement, or acquisition of public infrastructure, facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located within or outside the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this Agreement Shall be construed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds. 17. Amendment or Cancellation of A_ereement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in pan only by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. If the Amendment is requested by the Owner or its successor, the Owner/successor agrees to pay City any Development Agreement Amendment fee then in existence as established by City Council Resolution, or if no such fee is esmblishecl, to reimburse City for the actual and reasonably necessary costs of reviewing and processing said Amendment. 18. Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as herein provided, thi.~ Agreement is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by the City which alter or amend the rules, regulations, or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications. 19. Events of DefaulL Owner is in default under thlx Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: (.a) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to City is fahe or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; (b) A finding and determination by City that upon the basis of substantial evidence the Owner has not complied in good faith with one or more of the terms or conditions of thi_~ Agreement. 01-0~-93 12221-0006~ F: %IXlC%lS;Z%gZO3001Z. 1ZG 34 ~2043 20. Procedure Upon Default. (a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may terminate or modify this Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by the City. (b) City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Owner implied if on periodic review the local City does not propose to modify or terminate this Agreement. · (c) Non-performance shall not be excused bemuse of a failure of a third (d) Non-performance shall be excused only when it is prevented or delayed by acts of God or an emergency declared by the Governor. (e) All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in city's regulations governing development agreements are available to the parties to pursue in the event there is a breach. 21. Damages Uoon Termination. It is acknowledged by the parties that City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. In general, each of the paxties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that City, and its officers, employees and agents, shall not be liable in damages to Owner or to any assignee, transferee of Owner, or any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue for or claim any damages for breach of that Agreement by City. 22. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and court costs. 01-08-~ 12221 F:'UX~C%1~~1:~. 1Z; 35 23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing a~d delivered in person or sent by ce~ified ma~ postage prep~d. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: To City: City of Tem¢cula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92~90 Attention: City Attorney Notices required to be given to Owner shall be addressed as follows: To Owner: KRDC, Inc. 3470 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite A-100 Lafayette, CA 94549 Attention: Dennis M. Klimmek, Esq. With a copy to: Pettis, Tester, Kruse & Kilnsky '18881 Von Karman, 16th Floor Irvine, CA 92715 Attention: Dennis D. O'Neil, Esq. A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 24. Cooperation. City agrees that it shall accept for processing and prompfiy take action on all applications, provided they are in a proper form and acceptable for required processing, for discretionary permits, tract or parcel maps, or other land use entifiement for development of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. City shall cooperate with Owner in providing expeditious review of any such applications, permits, or land use enfifiement and, upon request and payment of any costs and/or extra fees associated therewith by Owner, City shall assign to the Project planner(s), buildi,g inspector(s), and/or other staff personnel as required to in.rare the timely processing and completion of the Project. ol-oe-~ 12221-ooo~ F :'~(:lC%15Z%~1;Z. 1ZG :36 62043' 25. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms. (a) The singular indludes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. (b) If there is more than one signer of this Agreement their obligations are joint and several. (c) The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual written consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of the Agreement. (d) This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person, including but not limited to third party beneficiaries, shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 26. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument 12q WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. Attest: -crrY~ J. Sal Mayor J~e S. Gree~C~ty Clerk Approved as to form: Attorney 01-08-95 12221-000~ F:%DOCX152%~12.1Z; 62043 KRDC, INC.,. a California corporation, formerly known as Bedford~opm~pany, a California corporation MESA HOMES.~C~lifomia corporation William M."Bh-fler, President D~nnis M. Klimmek, Secretary 01-0~-~ 12221-00(~ :38 (;2043 STATE OF CAI.IFOKNIA ) ) COUNTY Or ) SS. On ~c~wu. ai,u //, Iqol3 before me, L-- ©}e.,,/~r~ ~ , a notary public in and for said State,'perionally appeared ~e,.viC, lc. L. ,Sk. oi,~ 4- t)¢nv~io Karomerle_- personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the iI~tmment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. wrrNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ~ -~- (Seal) STATE OF CAIJFORNIA ' COUN'I~ OF C~v~a ~~ ) ) ) On ,~a~t~v~ ~1, ICiq~ before me, /.. ,z)~J~,yoO/q , a no~ pubic ~ ~d for s~d State, ~e~~y appe~ed ~~[~ ~m~ . , pe~o~y ~o~ to me (or proved to me on ~e b~ of ~fa~o~ e~dence) to be ~e pe~on(s) whose n~e(s) ~/~e subs~bed to ~e ~thin ~~ent ~d ac~owledged to me ~at he/she/~ey exerted ~e s~e ~ ~/her/~e~ au~o~ed opad~(ies), ~d ~at by ~/her/~e~ si~mre(s) on · e i~~ent ~e pe~on(s), or ~e enfiW u~n beh~ of w~ ~e ~on(s) a~e~ ~e~ted ~e ~~enL WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature '~~~._/~ (Seal) 01-0e-~ 12221-000~ F :'~lX:~'~152%92030012.12G 39 62043 STATE OF CAI-IFORNIA ) '' ) ss. COUNTY OF ~ . ~/~c/'~ ) On . p--~.,rr.,~,,~?~/ /~.q /99_~ before me, ~.,.r/.,f/,,_~.~,' ~ ,~f,a not~ pubic ~ ~d for s~d State, ~on~y appe~ed ~'/),z//c.~q~ ~'~2. '~ , ~ pe~~y ~o~ to me (or proved to me on ~e o~m ot sa~ta~o~ e~dence) to be ~e pe~on(s) whose ~e(s) ~/~e subs~bed to ~e ~~ im~ent ~d ac~owledged to me ~at he/she/~ey exerted ~e s~e ~ ~/her/~ek au~o~ed ~pad~(ies), ~d ~at by ~/her/~ek si~amre(s) on · e ~~ent the pe~on(s), or ~e enfi~ upon beh~ of w~ch ~e pe~on(s) a~ed, exerted ~e insmunent. WITNESS my hand and ofcial seal. ~ t~,.._~ CYNTHIA G. ZAJD ~ ~[ ~'~/ Nota~ Public California ~ " /' ~ My commission expires O~ 14, 1~4 ~ Si~~e , ~ ~ " ............... " (Se~) STATE OF CAIIFORNIA COUNTY OF On before me, , a notary public in and for ~ald State, personally appeared .... , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 01-1~-~ 122Z1 F :~00C~15Z~{]~01:,. 4O 62043 EXHIBIT A EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS SPECIFIC PLAN Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3 COUNTY ZONING Ordinance No. 3482.919 (Zone Change No. 5140) County Zone Change No. 5621 RESTATEMENT AND AMENDMFNT OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Dated August 11, 1992 Approved by the City Council on August 11, 1992 CITY ZONING Ordinance Nos. 91-13, 92-08 Resolution No. 91-36. City Zone Change No. 18 COUNTY MAPS Vesting Tentative Maps Nos. 24131-24136, 24182-24188 Parcel Map No. 23432 Parcel Map No. 25418 Vesting Tentative Map No. 24183 The development approvals listed above include the approved maps and all conditiom of approval COPIES OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS LISTED ABOVE ARE ON Fi~.E IN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR THE cTrY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AND ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. 01-08-9~ 12221 F: ~0C~15~92l]13~H2.1~ 62043 EXHIBIT B EXISTING LAND USE REfiiULATION$ Ordinance Nos. 89-1 through 92-20 Resolution Nos. 89-1 through 93- 12 01-08-93 12221 F :'q~OC%15Z\~1:). 12G 62043 P,doma D~ Sol proprely Owned ~y Meaa Hamel · 1 of SopL 1, 1 gg2. That certain property located In the City of Tamecalla, County o! Riversidle, ~'"tlt. of Cllffornil, cl#crli:)ed Is follows: Lots 43 througft 60Jnc170 throug11 72 of Tract 24134-1 as per map filed in Book 230, Paoli 64 through 92 of Maps in the Office of ~e County Recurclef of Mid Rivlrllcle County end, LOrn 31.34, 47 through 49,52.53,and 56 through 66 of Tract 24134-$ e&l per mKo filecl In Book 231. Paoli I through of Ma~ in the Office of the County Reoorcler of ~licl Rlvlrllcle County and, Lotl 41 through 60 of Tract 24134 a~ per mat:) fll~cl In Book Z32, Pigel 42 through 49 of Ma~ in the Office of the County Rec=rder of ~ Rlver~icle County and, Lots 36 through 46,Bad 73 through 96 of Tract 24133..2 as per mKo filed In Book 230, Pages 42 through 47 Of Ma~ in the Office of the County Fiecorer of Mid I:liver~lcle County and. Lot~ 7 through 6, 12 through 14,17,19,21, 27 through 34, 38,39,42,45,44,52,63,67,72 Incl Lot 100 of Tract 24133,3 1.1 per map filed in Book 230, Paoli 48 through 54 of MaI~ in the Office of the County R~rd~f of ~1 Riv~r~lcle County and, Lota 62 through 60,ancl M through 76 of Tract 24133-4 ea per rrmp filed in Book :232, ~ ~0 through 58 of M~I~ In the Offic~ of the County R~oorCler of ~ I:11v~mlc~ EXl Brr C 62043 P.iom& D.i Sol Prol~lly C)wned by 1~4es~ 1-~m~s z~ ol $el~. 1 .lgg2 PtJoma DM Sot i~openy Owned by B~orcl Developmer~ Company II of Sept. 1, 1992 62043 Thlt (;ertain property located In the City of Temecui., County of RiveraJOe, Stlte of C&llfomll, clesQribed al follows: Parcell 1 through 51 Of PUCel Map 23432 iS per map filed in Book 1 SO, Page& 38 through 61 of Firoei MILli in lt~e office of tire Cour~ Recorder of ~lid RIvMII~ County. EXCEPTING therefrom thom pm'cel$ dewbed ES foilowl: Lot 102 of Tract 24132-1 it per map filed In Book 227. Piges 6a through 96 of MII~ in the office of the County Recorder of Ilid Riwaicle County and, Lot 114 of Tract 24132 U per map filed !n Book 227, Pagel 97 through 110 of Mapl in the office of the County Recorder of laid RiverM~e County and, · LOtl 43 through 50, 70 through 72, and 86 through 68 of Tract 24134-1 ae per map flied In Book 230. Paget 84 through g2 of MapS in the Office of the County, Reoorder of laid Riveraide County and, · Lots 1 through 35,47 through 4~.m'~152 through 71 of Tract 241343 8~ per nmp filed Irl Book 231, PIg# 1 through 8 of MapS In the Office ol the County FleoordM of Ilid Riveraide County and, Lota 41 through 60.UK! LOt 83 of- Tract 24134 I1 per map filed in Book 232. I~ 42 through 4B of MIps in the Office of Ihl County Rl(x)rdM of I~Jd Riverlk:M Lots 31 through 4e,ind 73 through 96 of Tract 24133-2 II per map flied In Book 230, Pigel 42 through 4? of Maps in the.Office of the County Re(x~rcW of Wd Rlve~cle C, oumy Loll 7 ~ e,12 througll.14, 16 through U, Ind lot 10e of Tract 24133-3 i~ per rnlp f#ecl in Book ~P~O, Pige~ M through of MIpI M the Office 011~' COunty Rioorder of laid Riverlk:M · Lotl 52 through 60,and 68 through 7~ of . Tract 2413,1-4 Is per map flied in Book 2~2, Pages ~ through 66 0f MiI:~ in the Office of the County Recorder of laicl RiverBide County. 62043 I Paloma De Sol P~aeny Owned ~ BIOfO~ Oevelapmem Company as of SeI:IL 1,1992 DelinealeI Pireels Exc~ed Therefrom / /- RECORDED BOOK 1,59, PAGES 38-61 Parcel Map No. 23432 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:~ WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: City Clerk 62043 (Space Above For Recorder's Use) AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEE This Agreement is made this ~ day of ,1993, by and between the City of Temecula ("City") and Bedford Development Company, a California corporation, and Mesa Homes, a California corporation (collectively, "Developer"). RECITALS A. Developer is the owner of real property (the "Property") in the City of Temecula described as follows: Exhibit A, attached hereto and .incorporated herein-by reference. B. Developer proposes to develop the Property pursuant to (the 'Project'). C. City has determined that the Project will impact traffic and the demand for other public facilities within the City as defined in the for the Project. These impacts must be mitigated by payment of a fee for additional road and public facility construction, which fee shall be identified as set forth hereinafter. . D. The City proposes to impose a public facility fee upon new non-residential , the City M Tente(nJ~ a pubrm ~. 11-09-9Z 12221-000~ F: ~(~C~,152¥;2110001 EXI41alT O 62O43 developments within the City in order to construct additional public facility improvements to serve and benefit new developments, including the Project. These fees shall be known as the Non- Residential Public Facility Fee. E. The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between City and Developer dated ,1992, ("Development Agreement") requires that Developer execute this Agreement prior to issuance of a building permit or conditional use permit, or recordation of the final map, as provided specifically in 'the conditions of approval. F. In order for Developer to proceed without payment of the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee in a timely manner, City and Developer have determined to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 66007 and the Development Agreement. G. The term "public facility" shall refer to public and municipal infrastructure, such as roads, highways, flood control facilities, city hall, police stations, community centers, theaters, parks and similar public infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. a. The City Council will establish the amount of the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee at some time in the future. The Fee will be based upon the square footage of each development, the vehicle trips generated by each development, or similar measure(s). The Non- Residential Public Facility Fee also shall establish the specific improvements to be constructed and their cost, the benefit assessment area and the method by which he fair share, pro-rata obligations of each property are to be established based on impact on traffic and demand for public facilities. b. Developer shall pay the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee on each building at such time as it receives its certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs 11-0~-~2 1~221-00064 F: ~OC~15Z~,~7Z110001 first. 62043 c. The Council also may establish an Interim Non-Residential Public Facility Fee to be followed by a Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. If only the Interim Non-Residential Public Facility Fee has been established at the time the Developer seeks issuance of its certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first, then Developer shall pay the Interim Fee prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first. Later, when the Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee is established, the Developer will be reimbursed for any difference between the Interim and Final Fee if the Intedm Fee exceeds the Final Fee, and shall pay the shortfall if the Final Fee exceeds the Interim Fee. d. If the certificate of occupancy or final inspection occurs prior to the establishment of the Interim or Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee, then Developer shall pay a deposit of $10,000 prior to the issuance of'the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, which amount shall be a credit against the Interim or Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. A letter of credit may be provided in lieu of the $10,000 deposit. e. If either the Final or Interim Non-Residential Public Facility Fee is established after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the Developer shall pay the Interim or Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee ten (10) days after receiving notice from the City that it has been established. f. Notwithstanding the above, Developer shall provide City with written notification of the opening of any escrow for the sale of the Project and shall provide in the escrow instructions that if the Intedm or Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee has been established, the Fee shall be paid to the City from the sale proceeds in escrow pdor to distributing the proceeds to Developer/seller. 11-09-9Z 1222"1-(X10~ F: ~,ZX~'~15~92111X101 .AGI~ 62043 g. City shall record a release of this Agreement upon payment of all Non- Residential Public Facility Fees owing and shall provide Developer with a copy of such release. 2. Use of the N0n-Residenti81 Public Facility Fee. The Non-Residential Public Facility Fee collected pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only to construct City-wide traffic and public facility improvements, which improvements are deemed to be of benefit to the Project, and for expenses incidental thereto. There is a reasonable relationship between the Project and the Non- Residential Public Facility Fee in that the Project will impact traffic and existing public facilities and, consequently, will require expansion of the City-wide street and highway system, and public facilities in order to meet the added demand resulting from the Project. The amount of the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee to be collected from Project represents the cost of facilities necessary to meet the incremental increase in traffic and demand for public facilities resulting from the Project. 3. Information Provided. Developer shall provide to City, upon City's request therefor, any and all information.regarding access to the Project, traffic flow, trip generation factors and such other information as is reasonably necessary.. to establish the Non-Residential Pubic Facility Fee. 4. Security_ for the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. a. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, Developer shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, in an amount equal to the total Non-Residential Public Facility Fee for the Project. The amount of security may be increased upon City's request should there be an increase in the amount of the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. The amount of security also may be reduced upon Developer's payment of Non-Residential Public Facility Fees outstanding. Except for the deposit provided for in Section 1, no letter of credit is required if neither 11-09-9Z 1:)OOl F :'~(IC%152%9"Z110001 .AM the Interim or Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee has been established as of the date of execution of this Agreement. b. As an alternative to collecting the fee from the letter of credit, if the Developer fails to .pay the Non-Residential Public Facility. Fee within thirty (30) days of the date demand is made, the City may assess a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount owing and make said Fee, inclusive of penalty, a lien upon the described real property by recording a notice that said Fee is due under the terms of this Agreement with the County Recorder of Riverside County. The notice shall state the fact that said Fee, inclusive of penalty, is due under the terms of this Agreement and shall state the amount, together with the fact that it is unpaid and draws interest on the Fee and penalty at the rate set forth at California Revenue & Taxation Section 19269 until paid. c. The City may as an alternative to the lien procedure set forth above, bring legal action to collect the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee due. The Developer agrees that if legal action by the City is necessary to collect the Fee the Developer agrees to pay the City a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees and court costs, together with penalty and interest determined according to Paragraph 4(b) of this Agreement. 5. Agreement Runs with Land. This Agreement pertains to and runs with the Property. This Agreement binds the successors-in-interest of each of the parties. 6. Waiver. By execution of this Agreement, Developer waives any right to protest the provisions of the Development Agreement, this Agreement or the formation of any Public Facility Fee district, but not the nexus between any Non-Residential Public Facility Fee and the Project. 7. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon Developer and Developer's successors and assigns. 11-09-92 1:):~1-(X)06~ F :"'~X:)C%152\92110001 .AGit 62043 8. Amendment./No Continuing Waiver. This Agreement may be modified or amended'only in writing, signed by both paAies. This Agreement contains the full and complete understanding of the parties and supersedes any and all' prior oral or written agreements or representations. A waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement by either party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver thereof. 9. .Attor. neys' Fees. Should either party determine that it is necessary to file a legal action to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in that litigation shall be entitled to its reasonable costs, including but not limited to, attorneys' fees. 10. Notices. Notice shall be deemed given under this Agreement when in writing and deposited in the Unites States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: City Attorney Developer: Kemper Real Estate Management Company 3470 Diablo Blvd., Suite A-100 Lafayette, CA 94549 Attention: Dennis M. Klimmek, Esq. With a copy to: Pettis, Tester, Kruse & Krinsky 18881 Von Karman, 16th Floor Irvine, CA 92715 Attention: Dennis D. O'Neil, Esq. 11. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. If any provision of this Agreement is adjudged invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected. b. If there is more than one (1) signer of this Agreement as Developer, their obligations are joint and several. 11-09-92 1ZZ21-(N)Q6/, F: ~(]C~15Z~9Z110001 .AM 62043 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties or their duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date set out above. CITY OF TEMECULA By: David S. Dixon City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Scott F. Field, City Attorney BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California corporation By: , President By: Dennis M. Klimmek, Secretary MESA HOMES, a California corporation By: William M. Butler, President By: Dennis M. Klimmek, Secretary 11-09-92 1;Z~l-O(X)6/, F: M)(:IC~15Z\92110001 .AIR STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SS, 62043 On before me, , a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to 'me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SS. On before me, , a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 11-09-92 12221-0(106~ F: M:XX::\152~gZ110001 .Nil 62043 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF $S. On before me, , a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF $S, On before me, , a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 11-09-9Z 12221-(XX]~ F: ~:X:\15Z~,92110001 .Nal 62043 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 11-09-92 12221-000~ F: ~C~15Z~9'Z111XI01 .N;~ 10 PARK DEVELQPMEKT b'I'ANDARDG · · PerkfAg ahnll be provided at · rate of epproxJnmely 28 to 30 sago· per play l.i~d/~oft Bell 'Field· with Mu~ C)vt~ d~d In~ucfe Ilghtirto to eL'cornrrudgtu nloftt ~e. LlgrnMg plnfi alii IOeQHy the use of. Muaoo I.)ohtlng. · I-ierd/9oft Be~ Fleddo shall not Im Ion thin 276' in Jengthq end shell be a ~ dimnos from prop·god play ground/Mr lot atoll. hnoioG 8iull be ir~atllqql along aidae of Herd/Soft Ball Field bounderbe. · · Idurtf-ru'ooe, Ovort~yt ahd not overtry any par·on o4' a ~ercl/8o~ Bedl Iqalde · InnaM Idlrd play ,roe. . · pads ~ be Installed at all epa~ltte.cl vie .w~ng areas. Ibet Flog· Building ahab [neludo · on·ok bar ~ a rrmlntonenoe rtorage room and shell not. be Icao theft 1200 octotto fOOt Of floor apecO, · · Play ground/tot lot m shall ·amply w~ d ,dd:)A roclulrerrdntl, end provide addMonet shading, . ·. . The park atto oho11 proviola lk)r ·lonaOe, tiao poles, wwto~ drinking faunMine, refusa roosptao~. pl~nk: tame& bafiMouo pits, end pod·talon benches where apOrop~lets and or otherwlao i~ by the TCSJ:), throughout the .perk alta. Open ·peas play ~ ,olcnk: areas ahab be prorid·d, and ~ area of coq~rood ahaU be dermnTdfied through prtianme~ review. I.Jncleotplng end Irrlgetton Plane ehel ganform to ~ 8tmndnrd, end be reviewed and apprmod by The ~,otTrr~lty ~ f::)epmT~nt, Melntent~ 8Lq~4rt~dent. ' : ' · Or·rail propoaod park.lmprovuf~rtta ·hal be toy··wad end approved !)y the · All IX'·posed perk amerddeo abel alMd~ the true of Qty approvod manLl~oUjrorO. rev~aed lO/g2glk 62043 Commutlt), Part= GZ:F~Z'~O~ OF PAlIX · · · · · $ ! , · e I : · · .To, .Io,, pIqp,,ud em,ru (M cn='n) : EXJ. lmlT F 62043 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD OCTOBER 28, 1997 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:53 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Jeffrey E. Stone presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were General Manager Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar No. 1 as follows: 1 Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 7, 1997. The motion was unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS ProDosed Residential Street Lighting and Slope/Landscape Maintenance Fee - Tract 28309 {Regency Homes) Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson presented the staff report. President Stone opened the public hearing at 9:00 PM. Having no requests to speak, President Stone closed the public hearing at 9:00 PM. r:\minutes.csd\ 102897 - 1 - It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve staff recommendation as follows: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 97-14 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 DECEMBER 12, 1997 FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN TRACT NO. 28309 (REGENCY HOMES) TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlII, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. 2.2 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot and Procedures for the Completion, return and tabulations of the ballots. 2.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. The motion was unanimously carried. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT None given. GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT None given. BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Birdsall to adjourn at 9:10 PM to a meeting on November 18, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Jeff Stone, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/ District Secretary r:\minutes.csd\102897 -2- ITEM 2 APPRO CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTO CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager November 18, 1997 Acceptance of Easement for Driveway Access to the Temecula Duck Pond PREPARED BY: Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACCEPTING A GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA HIGHLANDS I, LLC FOR PROVISION OF ACCESS TO THE TEMECULA DUCK POND AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF THE EASEMENT ACCEPTANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 2. Authorize the Secretary/City Clerk to record the easement documents. BACKGROUND: The Master Plan for the Temecula Duck Pond - Phase II calls for a driveway access off of Ynez Road into the new parking lot, with the driveway aligning with Terra Vista Road. The property which aligns with Terra Vista Road is owned by Rancho California Highlands I, LLC (RCH). RCH has agreed to grant an easement to the TCSD for the purposes of providing ingress and egress to the Temecula Duck Pond from Ynez Road and other appurtenant improvements as may be necessary. Acceptance of this easement will allow the TCSD to make the necessary improvements to the driveway as part of the park improvements. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. 2. Resolution to accept Grant of Easement Grant of Easement to the Temecula Community Services District from Rancho California Highlands I, LLC r:\rusep\agendas\easement.pnd RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLWrION OF ~ BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACCEPTING A GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA HIGHLANDS I, LLC FOR PROVISION OF ACCESS TO THE TEMECULA DUCK POND AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF THE EASEMENT ACCEPTANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Community Services Department has coordinated the design of the improvements at the Temecula Duck Pond and determined the right of way necessary to construct these improvements. B. The Temecula Duck Pond improvements call for a driveway to provide ingress and egress for the park parking lot. C. Rancho California Highlands I, LLC hereby grants an access easement over its property to the Temecula Community Services District for ingress, egress, the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, operation, inspection, repair, and replacement of road, driveway, curb, sidewalk, gutter, and appurtenant structures and facilities. D. Acceptance of the easement from Rancho California Highlands I, LLC promotes the health, safety and welfare of the community as it makes productive use of City land and accommodates necessary access to a City park. Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District hereby approves that certain "Grant of Easement from Rancho California Highland I, LLC for provision of access" attached hereto as Exhibit A, and authorizes and directs the President to execute said easement on behalf of the Temecula Community Services District in substantially the form of Exhibit A. Section 3. The Board of Directors hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute such other and further documents as may be necessary to effectuate the implementation of the easement p:\rusep\easement.pnd described in Section 2. Section 4. The Secretary/City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record the Grant of Easement upon acceptance by the Temecula Community Services District. Section 5. Resolution. The Secretary/City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at a regular meeting held on the ~ day of ,1997. Jeffrey E. Stone President ATTEST: June S. Greek, Secretary/City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 97- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ,1997, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: p:\rusep\easement.pnd Recording Requested By: The City of Temecula And When Recorded Mail to: Office of the city Clerk City of Temecula Temecula, CA 92589-9033 No Recording Fee Exempt pursuant to Government Code § 6103 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, Rancho California Highlands I~ LL¢ , a limited liability corporation (t'Grantor"), hereby grants to the TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, a community services district organized under the laws of the State of California (the "City"), an easement for ingress, egress, and the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, operation, inspection, repair, and replacement of road, driveway, curb, sidewalk, gutter, and appurtenant structures and facilities, to include traffic control devices and public utilities across and along the real property situated in the County of Riverside, State of California and more particularly described in the attached Exhibit "A",subject to the following conditions and restrictions: 1. The City shall use reasonable efforts to notify Grantor in writing prior to the exercise of the rights granted hereunder; 2. In the event the City exercises any of the rights granted hereunder, the City shall use reasonable efforts to restore Grantor's landscaping and facilities, if any, to the condition of such landscaping and facilities prior to the exercise of such rights. 3. Grantor, and Grantor's successors and assigns, shall not place any obstruction, structure or landscaping over the Easement Area without the prior written consent of the City. The City shall have the right to remove any obstruction, structure or landscaping which might endanger or interfere with the City's exercise of the rights granted hereunder. 4. This easement shall run with the land and be binding on successors in interest. If any legal action or any arbitration or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding in addition to any other relief to which they may be entitled. "Grantor" Ranch~ Highlands I, LLC ~nlc~ho/m~H~~h~ ger DATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On '01~3197 before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of California, personally appeared liJ~l~ P. ~~ personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are/subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signatur~ EXHIBIT "A" BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 4 AND 5 IN TRACT NO. 23992, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN BOOK 231 AT PAGES 9 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL "A" BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 5 OF SAID TRACT NO. 23992, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 NORTH 41° 44"49" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 48° 15'11" EAST 40.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTH 41° 44'49" WEST 100.00 FEET ALONG THE SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID YNEZ ROAD; THENCE ALONG NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID YNEZ ROAD NORTH 48° 15'11" WEST 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING AN AREA OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET. (0.092 ACRES) PARCEL "B" BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID TRACT NO. 23992, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID YNEZ ROAD SOUTH 48°15'11" EAST 40.00 FEET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4: THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 41° 44' 49" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 48°15'1 l" WEST TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE SOUTH 41°44' 49" WEST 100.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING AN AREA OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET. (0.092 ACRES) RANCHO TEMECUI~ DUCK POND CALIFORNIA 'ROAD OSCAR'S RESTAURANT EXHIBIT "A" oLOCATION F EASEMENT (Not VI~FA VICINITY MAP TEMECULA DUCK POND PROPOSED ACCESS FROM YNEZ ROAD NOT TO SCALE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interests in real property as set forth in the Grant of Easement to the City of Temecula, a public body, corporate and politic, is hereby accepted for purposes of recordation by order of the City Council on and · %--. City consents to the recordation thereof by Its duly authorized officer. Juf~/~S~ Greek, Ci~7-Clerk 9r'Z030~ !1056-(K~kl~ 14~7~0~1.] I -- 5 -- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD OCTOBER 28, 1997 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 9:10 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairperson Steven J. Ford presiding. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Ford ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CONSENT CALENDAR. It was moved by Agency Member Roberts, seconded by Agency Member Birdsall to approve Item No. 1. 1 Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 7, 1997. The motion was unanimously carried. REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Redevelopment Director Mary Jane McLarney stated she is pelased to announce that the design for the Streescape in Old Town is complete and ready to go to the citizens committee for input. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS None given. Minutes.rda\ 102897 -1 - ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Agency Member Roberts, seconded by Agency Member Stone to adjourn at 9:15 PM to a meeting on October 28, 1997, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Chairperson June S. Greek, CMC/AAE City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] Minutes.rda\102897 -2- ITEM NO. 2 APPRO CITY R~ ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Agency Members Mary Jane McLarney, Redevelopment Director November 18, 1997 Acquisition of Property for Affordable Housing Prepared By: John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OBJECTING TO PUBLIC SALE OF CERTAIN TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY LYING WITHIN THE CITY TEMECULA, OFFERING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND STATING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS TO BE DEVOTED BACKGROUND: We have received notice from the County of Riverside Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector that APN 922-062-010 (28725 Pujol Street) is in tax default. The attached resolution objects to the sale of the property at public auction. This action does not interfere in any way with the property owner's ability to cure the tax default. Rather, this action places the Agency in first position should the property owner not redeem the property. The Agency would use this property to develop affordable housing. FISCAL IMPACTS: The County has set the purchase price at $12,228.28. Additional costs to process this request are $447.50 to pay for a legal notice and lot book report required by the County. Currently there is $1,129,938 in the Affordable Housing line item for FY 1997-98 (Account 165-199- 812-5804). Exhibit A: Resolution lt:~IOUSlN(N'tl~OLAC~CO~a!NCO.~,l~ 11110/97 jm I Exhibit A Resolution lI:~IOUSIN(NrdlOLAC~"O~IiiNCO.~E~ 11110/97~= 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OBJECTING TO PUBLIC SALE OF CERTAIN TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY LYING WITHIN THE CITY TEMECULA, OFFERING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND STATING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS TO BE DEVOTED WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has determined that certain tax-defaulted parcel of property is within the City of Temecula and the City desires to purchase said parcel for public purposes; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Treasurer and Tax Collector has determined the purchase price for which such parcels may be acquired by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City does hereby object to the sale of the .23 acre parcel of land, located in the City of Temecula and described below: Assessor's Parcel Number: 922-062-010 Also known as 28725 Pujol St. Legal Description: Lot 6 BK 15/726 SD Town of Temecula The purchase price established by the Riverside County Treasurer and Tax Collector, pursuant to the Tax Collector's Power of Sale, is $ 12,228.28. Section 2. The City of Temecula does hereby offer to purchase this parcel of land identified in Section 1 above, from the Riverside County Treasurer and Tax Collector pursuant to the provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, Chapter 8, Section 3371, et al. in such forms as the Riverside County and Tax Collector shall specify. Section 3. The City hereby certifies to the Riverside County Treasurer and Tax Collector that the public purpose for which the parcel of land will be devoted is a follows: Affordable Housing Section 4. The City Manger of the City of Temecula is hereby authorized to execute any and all such Chapter 8 Agreements of Sale to carry out the purposes of this Resolution, and to forthwith pay to the Riverside County Treasurer and Tax Collector, the full purchase price therefore, as specified in Section 1, together with all costs of giving notice pursuant to statute, in full recognition that such costs are in addition to, and not included within, the purchase price. In addition, the City agrees to pay publication costs incurred event if the property is redeemed, and therefore not conveyed to the City, and to pay the full costs of Lot Book Reports, which City further recognizes to be non-refundable fees. Section 5. The City Manager is further authorized to execute any and all other documents, agreements and certifications required or desirable to consummate the purchase E\COUNTY.RES 11/10/97 Ub 4 contemplated hereunder. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of ,1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 199_ by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk P:.\COUNTY.RF~ ll/l(l~7 Id~ 5 ITEM NO. 3 APPRO CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager/Revelopment Agency Board Members Mary Jane McLarney, Redevelopment Director and i::~~. Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director . November 18, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0221 An Amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan Establishing the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program and Revising the Parking Requirements, and Planning Application No. PA 97-0267 Establishing the Parking Incentives for the 6th Street Parking Lot, Planning Application No. PA 97-0292 Establishing the Parking In-Lieu Fee for Old Town Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0221), AN AMENDMENT TO THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ESTABLISHING THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE PROGRAM AND REVISING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0292), SETTING THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE WITHIN THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT BI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IN-LIEU FEE R:\OLDTOWNYPA~.CCI 11/10/97 sa 1 3. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267), ESTABLISHING THE OLD TOWN PARKING INCENTIVE PROGRAM That the Agency Members: 4. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267), ESTABLISHING THE OLD TOWN PARKING INCENTIVE PROGRAM BACKGROUND On September 9, 1997, the City Council continued this item and appointed Council members Lindemans and Ford to a sub-committee to further discuss the components of this item with staff. On October 2, 1997 staff met with the sub-committee and reached a consensus on the direction the committee would like to take on these issues. The proposed changes by the committee include increasing the number of parking spaces in the incentive program from 50 to 100 parking spaces and adding a one year time limit. The 100 parking spaces in the incentive program would allow 30,000 square feet of new development in Old Town without the need to provide on-site parking or payment of the Parking In-Lieu Fee. The incentive program is terminated if the 100 spaces are exhausted or the one year term expires, which ever occurs first. In addition, the requirement for the property owners who refinance or sell their properties after using the parking waivers to pay back the Parking In-Lieu Fee has been eliminated. DISCUSSION This item contains three separate elements which are designed to induce development while preserving the historic character of Old Town. The first element contains two parts which are proposed as amendments to the Old Town Specific Plan. They include the establishment of the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program and a new standard for calculating parking requirements in Old Town. The second element is setting the Parking In-Lieu Fee. Finally, the third element is the establishment of the Old Town Parking Incentive Program. Parking In-Lieu Fee Program This program gives developers in the Tourist Retail Commercial (TRC) zone in Old Town a choice between providing the required number of on-site parking spaces or paying the Parking In-Lieu Fee. Payment of the Parking In-Lieu Fee is voluntary and does not constitute an ownership interest of parking spaces developed by the City. Rather, the payment of an in-lieu R:\OLDTOWI~PARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 sn 2 fee grants the developer the right to develop property with fewer on-site parking spaces than would otherwise be required. The Parking In-Lieu Fee is paid prior to the issuance of the Building Permits. Parking Requirements in Old Town Currently, the Old Town Specific Plan references the Development Code for the calculation of the required number of parking spaces. Since the physical development in Old Town is very unique and unlike conventional commercial development, staff is proposing a new standard for parking requirements in Old Town. The proposed language establishes a single standard of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area and replaces the different standards for different uses currently included in the Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC), Civic (OTC), Community Commercial (CC), Tourist Retail Core (TRC), and Community Commercial and Tourist Support (CCTS) unless the Development Code requires a fewer number of parking spaces for the same use (Refer to Attachment No. 7 for the Development Code Parking Requirements). The proposed standard will result in a fewer number of required parking spaces from uses such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, and cinemas. This reduction in the number of required parking spaces is essential to induce development in Old Town and to preserve the pedestrian and historic character of Old Town. Furthermore, this single standard will eliminate the necessity of recalculating the number of required parking spaces and calculating the Parking In-Lieu Fee every time a new businesses moves into a building or suite. Establishment of Parking In-Lieu Fee Attachment 5 shows the details for calculating the Parking In-Lieu Fee. This fee is recommended to be set at $10,400.00. The land cost is based on $15 per square foot which is based on recent comparables including the 6th Street Lot property. It should be noted that this estimate of land assembly costs includes cost of appraisals, relocation, if any, and escrow/closing fees and does not necessarily indicate a raw land value. The figures for the construction and design are based on the design and construction cost for the 6th Street Parking Lot and include a 20% contingency. The construction cost does not include the cost for providing the restrooms, the street lights, the street furniture such as benches, bus shelters, phone booths, trash receptacles and enclosures, the boardwalks, street signs, and street curbs. Since the cost of raw land and construction costs vary over time, staff is recommending a bi- annual review of the fee to ensure its equitability. After staff reviews the fee and finds that an adjustment is necessary, staff would bring forward the fee adjustment for City Council's consideration. Old Town Parking Incentive Program This incentive program allows the property owners in the Tourist Retail Commercial (TRC) zone to develop their property without having to provide on-site parking spaces or pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee. This incentive extends to both new construction and expansion of existing buildings. Initially, staff is proposing this incentive to be for 100 parking spaces or one year, whichever occurs first. The City will establish a priority list for these parking spaces and will offer them on a first come first served basis at the time of issuance of Building Permits. The Program requires an the applicant to keep an active Building Permit in order to be kept on the priority list. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board may, at their discretion, R:\OLDTOWI~PARKINL.CC1 11/10/ir/sa 3 change the terms of the incentive program at a later date. FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of the Parking In-Lieu Fee will generate $10,400 per space. The Old Town Parking Incentive Program will defer the collection of the Parking In-Lieu Fee for the acquisition and construction of the future parking lots. However, the CIP contains $875,000 for acquisition, design and construction of a second public parking facility. Attachments: I . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ordinance No. 97- Page 5 Resolution No. 97- - Page 10 Resolution No. 97- - Page 13 Resolution No. 97-__- Page 17 City Council Staff Report, September 9, 1997 - Page 21 City Council Minutes, September 9, 1997 - Page 22 Planning Commission Staff Report, August 18, 1997 - Page 23 Parking Lot Site Acquisition and Construction Cost - Page 24 Development Code Parking Standards - Page 26 R:\OLDTOWI~PA~.CC1 11/10/97 sn 4- ATTACHMENT NO. I ORDINANCE 97- R:\OLDTOWI~PA~.CC1 11/10/97 sn 5 ORDINANCE NO. ~?- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AIVIE~ING SECTION Ill. F. 2., PARKING, OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM AND REVISE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0221) THE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section III. F. 2., Parking, of the Old Town Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: All parking requirements in the Specific Plan area shall be as delineated in Chapter 17.24 of the Development Code with the following exceptions: a. The parking requirements for all uses in the Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC), Civic (OTC), Community Commercial (CC), Tourist Retail Core (TRC), and Community Commercial and Tourist Support (CCTS) shall be 1 space per 300 gross floor area unless the Development Code requires a fewer number of parking spaces for the same use. b. In lieu of the required number of on-site parking spaces, the developer/owner/operator may choose to pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee for a portion or all the required on-site parking spaces pursuant to all the requirements of the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program established by this Chapter. Any commercial use or property in the Old Town Specific Plan Tourist Retail Core (TRC) Zone which complies with all of the requirements of the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program as established in this Chapter may participate in the program and be permitted to satisfy all or part of their parking space requirements. The Parking In-Lieu Fee shall be established by Resolution of the City Council. 1) Existing Uses - Parking Deficiencies Any use which pre-exists the effective date of this ordinance and which is presently operating under the authority of a discretionary land use entitlement from the City shall have no further obligations to provide additional parking spaces pursuant to the parking requirements of the Old Town Specific Plan. R: \OLDTOWN~PARKINL.CC1 11110/97 2) Review of Parking In-Lieu Fee Program Applications (a) Persons or businesses desiring to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program established herein shall submit a written application for participation to the Director of the Redevelopment Department on a form prescribed by the City. The Director shall, within thirty (30) days of the completion of the application, calculate the applicable in-lieu fee and grant permission to participate in the program, if the Director makes the following findings: (1) Participation in the Parking In-Lieu Program will not create any significant adverse traffic safety impacts, pedestrian- vehicle conflicts, or parking impacts. (2) Participation in the Parking In-Lieu Program will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Director's decision shall be in writing, and shall be served upon the applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested. (c) The Director may, in his or her discretion, restrict the applicant's participation in the program, if the Director determines that such restriction is necessary to make the foregoing findings. 3. Appeals The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any aggrieved person, in the time and manner provided in Section 17.03.090 of the Development Code. 4. Payments and Deposits (a) Payments of Parking In-Lieu Program Fees shall be made pursuant to the schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. In no event shall a Building Permit be issued for any participating use in the Old Town Specific Plan TRC Zone prior to the receipt by the City of the full payment of the Parking In-Lieu Fee. Funds collected from the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program shall be deposited in a segregated City Parking In-Lieu Program fund, which is hereby established. Such fund shall be used exclusively for the purpose of land acquisition, design, construction, promotion, management, operation, maintenance, and availability of parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of Front Street. R:\OLDTOWI~PA~.CC1 11/10/97 sn 7 5. Waiver of Fees By Resolution, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency may waive the Parking In-Lieu Fee at their discretion. 6. Transferability Parking In-Lieu Fee payments paid for pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be credited only to building or property for which participation was granted, and shall not be assigned or otherwise transferred for use on any other property. 7. Acceptance of Conditions An applicant's participation in the program shall not become effective, and a Building Permit shall not be issued, unless and until the participant first executes and submits for recording on the title to the property a covenant accepting the terms of the approval, in a form to be provided by the City Attorney. The covenant shall be recorded in the office of the Riverside County Recorder and shall also be maintained in the office of the City Clerk. Section 2. findings: In adopting this Ordinance~ the City Council hereby makes the following A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it promotes the revitalization of Old Town. B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment promotes the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing public parking spaces that may be used by all visitors to Old Town. C. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment ensures the development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in, the surrounding neighborhood because it promotes the preservation of the historic character of Old Town. Section 3. Environmental Determination This project does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential impacts associated with the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. R:\OLDTOWI~PARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 sn 8 Section 4. ~ The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this th day of ,1997. ATTEST: Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 97- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1997, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the ~ day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\OLDTOWN~PARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 m 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION 97- R:\OLDTOWI~PARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 m 10 RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0292), SETTING THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE WITHIN THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT BI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IN-LIEU FEE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pu _l?ose. The purpose of this resolution is to establish the amount of the Parking In-Lieu Fee and to establish certain standards for the administration of such fees. Section 2. Eiafiiaga. The City Council after reviewing the analysis in the Staff Reports, and testimony and information received at a notices public hearing on this matter, makes the following findings: A. The proposed Parking In-Lieu Fee does not exceed the estimated cost of establishing a parking space in the Old Town Specific Plan Area. B. The proposed fee is consistent with the purposes of the Old Town Specific Plan and the General Plan as it serves to foster and promote revitalization of the Old Town Area. C. The proposed Parking In-Lieu Fee promotes the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing public parking spaces that may be used by all visitors to Old Town. D. The proposed Parking In-Lieu Fee ensures the development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in, the surrounding neighborhood because it promotes the preservation of the historic character of Old Town. Section 3. Fee. The Parking In-Lieu Fee shall be $10,400.00 per parking space. Section 4. Adjustments. The amount of the Parking In-Lieu Fee shall be reviewed bi- annually by the City Manager to determine its equitability, and; Section 5. Use of Funds. Monies collected for in-lieu parking certificates shall only be used for the purposes delineated in the Ordinance 97- , establishing the Parking In- Lieu Fee Program. R:\OLDTOWN'XPARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 sn ] ] Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. ~ Effective Date. effective date of Ordinance No. 97- . This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on the PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 18th day of November, 1997. Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEALI STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on this 18th day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: NOES' ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\OLDTOWN~A~.CC1 11/10/97 an ] 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:\OLDTOWN~ARIQNL.CC1 11/10/97 sn 1 3 RF.~OLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE OLD TOWN PARKING INCENTIVE PROGRAM (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TF34ECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Old Town Specific Plan that requires on-site parking spaces for developments and encourages adoption of a Parking In-Lieu Fee; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has concurrently adopted an Ordinance establishing the Parking In-Lieu Program; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a resolution creating the Parking in-Lieu Fee; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary to encourage development and redevelopment in Old Town by providing incentives; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on July 7, 1997 and July 21, 1997, and August 18, 1997 on the issue of recommending approval or denial of this project. WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on September 9, 1997 on the issue of recommending approval or denial of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That in adopting this Resolution approving this Incentive Program, the City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. The incentive program is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it promotes the revitalization of Old Town. B. The proposed incentive program would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing public parking spaces that may be used by all visitors to Old Town. C. The proposed incentive program induces the development and redevelopment in Old Town because it provides a catalyst for development and redevelopment. R:\OLDTOWI~PARKINL.CC1 I1/10/97 an ~ 4 Section 2. The Incentive Program includes the following standards: A. One hundred (100) parking spaces or an unlimited number of spaces for a period of one year, whichever comes first, shall be made available to the landowners/developers of expanding existing buildings or new construction within the Tourist Retail Commercial Zone (TRC) in Old Town to satisfy their parking requirements pursuant to the Old Town Specific Plan. These spaces shall not be designated to any particular business or property and shall be permitted to be used by the public. B. The City shall establish a priority list for the parking spaces on a first come first served bases at the time a Building Permit is issued for each project. C. Projects which allow their Building Permit to expire shall be removed from the priority list. At the time these projects receive their Building Permits upon re-application, they shall be placed at the bottom of the priority list. D. Projects that are under construction but do not receive a Certificate of Occupancy within 360 days of the issuance of the original Building Permit shall be removed from the priority list and shall be placed on the bottom of the priority list unless the Director approves a one time 180 day extension. If no incentives are available or the project is requesting a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the availability of the incentives for that project, the project shall pay the applicable Parking In-Lieu Fee prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. E. The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency may, at their discretion by Resolution, change the terms of the Incentive Program. F. The Incentive Program shall be administered by the Director of Redevelopment Department. Section 3. This project does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential impacts associated with the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Section 4. Fff, y..e, ral~ The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 97- . R:\OLDTOWNYPARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 m 1 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 18th day of November, 1997. Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on this 18th day of November 18, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\OLDTOWN~ARKINL.CCl 11/10/97 m '[ 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 97- R:\OLDTOWN~PARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 sn '~ 7 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE OLD TOWN PARKING INCENTIVE PROGRAM (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267) THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WltEREAS, the City Council adopted the Old Town Specific Plan that requires on-site parking spaces for developments and encourages adoption of a Parking In-Lieu Fee; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has concurrently adopted an Ordinance establishing the Parking In-Lieu Program; and, WIt3EREAS, the City Council has adopted a resolution creating the Parking in-Lieu Fee; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary to encourage development and redevelopment in Old Town by providing incentives; and, WItEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on July 7, 1997 and July 21, 1997, and August 18, 1997 on the issue of recommending approval or denial of this project. WHEREAS, the Old Town Parking Lot Incentive Program is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and will assist in eliminating blight. ~AS, the Redevelopment Agency held a noticed public hearing on November 18, 1997 on the issue of recommending approval or denial of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, TIlE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES F/ND AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That in adopting this Resolution approving this Incentive Program, the Redevelopment Agency hereby makes the following findings: A. The incentive program is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it promotes the revitalization of Old Town. B. The proposed incentive program would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing public parking spaces that may be used by all visitors to Old Town. R:\OLDTOWNXPA~.CC1 11/10/97 sn ~ 8 C. The proposed incentive program induces the development and redevelopment in Old Town because it provides a catalyst for development and redevelopment. Section 2. The Incentive Program includes the following standards: A. One hundred (100) parking spaces or an unlimited number of spaces for a period of one year, whichever comes first, shall be made available to the landowners/developers of expanding existing buildings or new construction within the Tourist Retail Commercial Zone (TRC) in Old Town to satisfy their parking requirements pursuant to the Old Town Specific Plan. These spaces shall not be designated to any particular business or property and shall be permitted to be used by the public. B. The City shall establish a priority list for the parking spaces on a first come first served bases at the time a Building Permit is issued for each project. C. Projects which allow their Building Permit to expire shall be removed from the priority list. At the time these projects receive their Building Permits upon re-application, they shall be placed at the bottom of the priority list. D. Projects that are under construction but do not receive a Certificate of Occupancy within 360 days of the issuance of the original Building Permit shall be removed from the priority list and shall be placed on the bottom of the priority list unless the Director approves a one time 180 day extension. If no incentives are available or the project is requesting a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the availability of the incentives for that project, the project shall pay the applicable Parking In-Lieu Fee prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. E. The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency may, at their discretion by Resolution, change the terms of the Incentive Program. F. The Incentive Program shall be administered by the Director of Redevelopment Department. Section 3. This project does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential impacts associated with the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Section 4. Severability The Redevelopment Agency hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 97- R:\OLDTOWN~PARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 sn 19 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPIW~D by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 18th day of November, 1997. Steven J. Ford, Agency Chair ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEALI STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on this 18th day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBER NOES: AGENCY MEMBER ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBER June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\OLDTOWNXPARKINL.CC1 11110/97 sn 20 ATTACHMENT 5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT, SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 R:\OLDTOWI~PA~.CC1 11/10/97 sn ~) '~ APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAj~_E CITY MANAGER ~ TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board Members Mary Jane McLarney, Redevelopment Director September 9, 1997 SUBJECT: Prepared By: Planning Application No. PA97-0221 An Amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan Establishing the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program and Revising the Parking Requirements, and Planning Application No. PA 97-0267 Establishing the Parking Incentives for the 6th Street Parking Lot, Planning Application No. PA 97-0292 Establishing the Parking In-Lieu Fee for Old Town Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0221), AN AMENDMENT TO THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ESTABLISHING THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE PROGRAM AND REVISING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2. Adopt a resolution antifled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING {PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0292), SETTING THE IN-MEU PARKING FEE WITHIN THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT BI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IN-LIEU FEE RfiOLDTOWN~ARKINL. CC 9/2/F'/m 1 3. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267, ESTABUSHING THE PARKING INCENTIVES FOR THE 6TH STREET PARKING LOT That the Agency Members: 4. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267, ESTABLISHING THE PARKING INCENTIVES FOR THE 6TH STREET PARKING LOT BACKGROUND On August 18, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the Amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan establishing the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program and revising the parking requirements with a 5-0 vote. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the establishment of the Parking Incentives for the 6th Street Parking Lot with a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Miller voted against the incentives stating that the incentives were too generous. The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on the Parking In-Lieu Fee. By adopting Old Town Specific Plan, the City Council committed to provide public parking lots to attract tourists and residents to Old Town. The studies in the Specific Plan identified a short fall of 360 parking spaces at the build out of the Tourist Retail Core. The purchase, design, and construction of the Sixth Street Parking Lot/Restrooms was the first step towards providing the needed parking spaces in Old Town with 80 parking spaces. The 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program includes approximately $900,000 for acquisition of land for future parking spaces in Old Town. The Specific Plan encourages the adoption of in-lieu fees to help the City pay for the construction of these parking lots. DISCUSSION This item contains three separate elements which are designed to induce development while preserving the historic character of Old Town. The first element contains two parts which are proposed as amendments to the Old Town Specific Plan. They include the establishment of the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program and a new standard for calculating parking requirements in Old Town. The second element is setting the Parking In-Ueu Fee. Finally, the third element is the establishment of the 6th Street Parking Lot Incentive Program. R:\OLDTOWN~ARKINL.CC 9/2/97 m 2 Parking In-Lieu Fee Program This program gives developers in the Tourist Retail Commercial (TRC) zone in Old Town a choice between providing the required number of on-site parking spaces or paying the I~arking In-Lieu Fee. Payment of the Parking In-Lieu Fee is voluntary and does not constitute an ownership interest of parking spaces developed by the City. Rather, the payment of an in-lieu fee grants the developer the right to develop property with fewer on-site parking spaces than would otherwise be required. The Parking In-Ueu Fee is paid prior to the issuance of the Building Permits. The Director of Redevelopment determines whether a project may pay the in-lieu fee for all the required parking spaces or some on-site parking should be provided. Parking Requirements in Old Town Currently, the Old Town Specific Plan references the Development Code for the calculation of the required number of parking spaces. Since the physical development in Old Town is very unique and unlike conventional commercial development, staff is proposing a new standard for parking requirements in Old Town. The proposed language establishes a single standard of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area and replaces the different standards for different uses currently included in the Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC), Civic (OTC), Community Commercial (CC), Tourist Retail Core (TRC), and Community Commercial and Tourist Support (CCTS) unless the Development Code requires a fewer number of parking spaces for the same use (Refer to Attachment No. 7 for the Development Code Parking Requirements). The proposed standard will result in a fewer number of required parking spaces from uses such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, and cinemas. This reduction in the number of required parking spaces is essential to induce development in Old Town and to preserve the pedestrian and historic character of Old Town. Furthermore, this single standard will eliminate the necessity of recalculating the number of required parking spaces and calculating the Parking In-Lieu Fee every time a new businesses moves into a building or suite. Parking In-Lieu Fee Attachment 5 shows the details for calculating the Parking In-Lieu Fee. This fee is recommended to be set at $10,409.00. The land cost is based on $15 per square foot which is based on recent cornparables including the 6th Street Lot property. It should be noted that this estimate of land assembly costs includes cost of appraisals, relocation, if any, and escrow/closing fees and does not necessarily indicate a raw land value. The figures for the construction and design are based on the design and construction cost for the 6th Street Parking Lot and include a 20% contingency. The construction cost does not include the cost for providing the restrooms, the street lights, the street furniture such as benches, bus shelters, phone booths, trash receptacles and enclosures, the boardwalks, street signs, and street curbs. Since the cost of raw land and construction costs vary over time, staff is recommending a bi- annual review of the fee to ensure its equitability. After staff reviews the fee and finds that an adjustment is necessary, staff would bring forward the fee adjustment for City Council's consideration. R:\OLDTOWN~ARKINL.CC 9/2/97 sa 3 6th Street Parking Lot Incentive Program This incentive program allows the property owners in the Tourist Retail Commercial (TRC_) zone to develop their property without having to provide on-site parking spaces or pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee. This incentive extends to both new construction and expansion of existing buildings. Initially, staff is proposing this incentive to be for 50 parking spaces. The City will establish a priority list for these parking spaces and will offer them on a first come first served basis at the time of issuance of Building Permits. The Program requires an the applicant to keep an active Building Permit in order to be kept on the priority list. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board may, at their discretion, offer the balance of the 80 parking spaces in the 6th Street Parking Lot for the incentive program. These fees will be paid by the property owners who are proposing to develop their vacant properties or are expanding their existing buildings. Providing on-site parking is impractical within the small lots in Old Town. Therefore, providing off-street parking by the City benefits the owners of properties in Old Town who want to develop their property by allowing them to fully develop their property without providing on-site parking. It should be noted that the parking in-lieu fee does not purchase dedicated parking spaces for the property/business owners, instead it gives them the right to develop their property without providing on-site parking. In response to Commissioner Miller's comments, staff is proposing a modification to the Program. In order to reduce the land and building speculation in Old Town, the program should include clauses that require a developer to pay the City back if the property is sold or refinanced within five (5) years from the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The amount of the payback depends on the length of time the building is owned. If the building is sold or refinanced within two (2) years 100% of the Parking in-Lieu Fee must be paid to the City. This payback is reduced to 50% if the building is sold or refinanced within five (5) years. The City would have to place a lien on all properties that participate in this Program in order to be notified of a sale or refinance. If the City Council and the Agency support this proposal, the Resolutions will be updated by staff to include this provision. FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of the Parking In-Lieu Fee will generate $832,720 and the 6th Street Parking Lot incentives will total $520,450; therefore, the net revenues generated for the 6th Street Parking Lot will ultimately be $312,270. The funds generated will be used for site acquisition, construction, and maintenance of future parking lots in Old Town. Additional revenues will be generated from the collection of fees when future parking lots are developed in Old Town. Attachments: 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ordinance No. 97- Page 5 Resolution No. 97- - Page 10 Resolution No. 97- - Page 13 Resolution No. RDA 97- - Page 17 Parking Lot Site Acquisition and Construction Cost - Page 21 Planning Commission Staff Report, August 18, 1997 - Page 23 Development Code Parking Standards- Page 24 I~:\OI.DTOWN~ARK]NL.CC 9///97 m 4 ATTACHMENT 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 R:\OLDTOW~PARKINL.CC 1 11/10/97 ~eatemb~r 9. 1997 plannine_ Apolication No. PA97-0221. An Amendment te the I~ld Town Rnecific Plan E~hlishino the In-lieu Parkin_o Fee Pro~_ram and Revi~r~_ the Parkin~ Ren_uirements. and Plannine .~.oalication No. PAg7-0267 Est~hlishin_= the Parkin_e Incentives for the Sixth _ - - Street Parkine I at. Plannine Amolicatien No. PA97-0292 Establishin_e the Parkin_~ In-Lieu Fee for Old Town Councilmember Stone announced he has a conflict of interest due to property ownership in Old Town. Associate Planner Saied Nasseh presented the staff report, presenting revised resolutions and a revised ordinance modifying provisions of the incentive program. Councilmember Undemans expressed concern regarding the pay-back provisions of this program. Housing and Redevelopment Manager John Meyer explained the intention of the incentive program is to provide a method by which property owners could develop their property with a reduced number of parking spaces and could pay fees in lieu of the recluired spaces and receive credit based on the new public parking facility at 6th Street. City Manager Bradley suggested continuing this item to allow for further discu.ion. Mayor Birdsell opened the public hearing at 8:13 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Undemans, seconded by Councilmember Ford, to continue the public hearing to the first meeting in November. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Stone abstaining. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Roberta, seconded by Mayor Birdsall to appoint Councilmembers Unclemens and Ford to serve on an ad hoc sub-committee to work with staff on several areas of concern expressed by Council. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Stone abstaining. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 10 Extension of Moratorium on Certain Adult Businesses and Extensien of Interim Adult Businels Re_eulntions. plannin~ AO_ 01lention No. PA97-0293 Community Development Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:29 PM. Having no requests to speak, Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing st 8:29 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Councilmember Unclemens, to approve staff recommendation as follows: Minutee\Og\Og/O7 -~- ~4~7 ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AUGUST 18, 1997 R:\OLDTOWI~PA~.CCI 11/10/97 ,n 2 3 TO: Planning Commission MEMORANDUM ORIGINA-L FROM: DATE: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner ~/ August 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Planning Application No. PA97-0221 An Amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan Establishing the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program and Revising the Parking Requirements, and Planning Application No. PA 97-0267 Establishing the Parking Incentives for the 6th Street Parking Lot RECOMMENDATION: The Redevelopment Agency Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: . ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval by the City Council of Planning Application No. PA97-0221 (Old Town Specific Plan Amendment Establishing the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and Revising the Parking Requirements) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. . ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval by the City Council of Planning Application No. PA97-0267 (Establishing the Parking Incentives for the 6th Street Parking Lot) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. BACKGROUND Staff requested the Planning Commission continue this item off-calendar from the July 21, 1997 agenda. This request was based on staff's further consultation with the City Attorney. As a result, the proposed Parking In-Lieu Fee Program has been amended, the parking requirements in Old Town are being revised, and a new parking incentive program is also being offered. DISCUSSION This item contains two separate elements which are designed to induce development while preserving the historic character of Old Town. The first element contains two parts which are proposed as amendments to the Old Town Specific Plan. They include the establishment of the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program and a new standard for calculating parking requirements in 01d Town. The second element is the 6th Street Parking Lot Incentive Program. Parking In-Ueu Fee Program R:~OLD'FO~MX~PPRK.~ 8/12/~' so This program gives developers in the Tourist Retail Commercial (TRC) zone in Old Town a choice between providing the required number of on-site parking spaces or paying the Parking In-Lieu Fee. Payment of the Parking In-Ueu Fee is voluntary and does not constitute an . ownership interest of parking spaces developed by the City. Rather, the payment of an in-lieu fee grants the developer the right to develop property with fewer on-site parking spaces than would otherwise be required. The amount of the fee will be set by the City Council. This fee is paid prior to the issuance of the Building Permits. The Director of Redevelopment determines the whether a project can pay the in-lieu fee for all the required parking spaces or some on-site parking should be provided. Parking Requirements in Old Town Currently, the Old Town Specific Plan references the Development Code for the calculation of the required number of parking spaces. Since the physical development in Old Town is very unique and unlike conventional commercial development, staff is proposing a new standard for parking requirements in Old Town. The proposed language establishes a single standard of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area and replaces the different standards for different uses currently included in the Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC), Civic (OTC), Community Commercial (CC), Tourist Retail Core (TRC), and Community Commercial and Tourist Support (CCTS) unless the Development Code requires a fewer number of parking spaces for the same use (Refer to Attachment No. 4 for the Development Code Parking Requirements). The proposed standard will result in a fewer number of required parking spaces from uses such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, and cinemas. This reduction in the number of required parking spaces is essential to induce development in Old Town and to preserve the pedestrian and historic character of Old Town. Furthermore, this single standard will eliminate the necessity of recalculating the number of required parking spaces and calculating the Parking In-Lieu Fee every time a new businesses moves into a building or suite. 6th Street Parking Lot Incentive Program This incentive program allows the property owners in the Tourist Retail Commercial (TRC) zone to develop their property without having to provide on-site parking spaces or pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee. This incentive extends to both new construction and expansion of existing buildings. Initially, staff is proposing this incentive to be for 50 parking spaces. The City will establish a priority list for these parking spaces and will offer them on a first come first served bases at the time of issuance of Building Permits. The Program requires an the applicant to keep an active Building Permit in order to be kept on the priority list. The City Council may, at its discretion, offer the balance of the 80 parking spaces in the 6th Street Parking Lot for the incentive program. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed amendment and incentive program are consistent with the General Plan since it implements the Old Town Specific Plan and its goals and policies. R:\OLDTOW1~A!VIDS?PRK.PC3 8112/97 m 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment._ Any potential impacts associated with the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan. as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. FINDINGS Soecific Plan Amendment . The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it promotes the revitalization of Old Town. . The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing public parking spaces that may be used by all visitors to Old Town. . The proposed Specific Plan Amendment ensures the development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood because it promotes the preservation of the historic character of Old Town. Parkina Incentive Proaram I . The incentive program is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it promotes the revitalization of Old Town. . The proposed incentive program would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing public parking spaces that may be used by all visitors to Old Town. . The proposed incentive program induces the development and redevelopment in Old Town because it provides a catalyst for development and redevelopment. Attachments: 1. . Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A (Ordinance No. 97- ) - Blue Page 7 Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 13 Planning Commission Staff Report, July 21, 1997 - Blue Page 17 Development Code Parking Requirements - Blue Page 18 R:~OLDTOWIq~IdDSPPRK.PC3 8112/97 m ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission ORIGINAL FROM: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planne~} DATE: July 21, 1997 SUBJECT: Planning Application No. PA97-0221, Parking In Lieu Fee RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Depamnent Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: . BACKGROUND le ~ Resolution No. 97- recommending approval by the City Council of Planning 'Application No. PA97-0221 (Old Town Specific Plan Amendment) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. The Planning Commission continued this item from the luly 7, 1997 agenda to the July 21, 1997 meeting. DISCUSSION The following Findings have replaced the Findings in the previous Staff Repon's Resolution: . e , The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, sa/ety, convenience or welfare of the City. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. The proposed Specific Plan shah ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. Attachments: . Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 2 Planning Commission Staff Report, July 7, 1997 - Blue Page 5 R:IOLDTOV/I~A~.~q~.PCI 7/1~7 m I STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1997 Planting Application No. PA97-0221, Old Town Specific Plan Amendment, Parking In Ueu Fee Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: . ADOPT Resolution No. 97-. recommending approval by the City Council of Planning Application No. PA97-0221 (Old Town Specific Plan Amendment) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: A request for approval of an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan to allow for the payment of the parking in-lieu fee in place of the required parking spaces. LOCATION: Old Town BACKGROUND By adopting Old Town Specific Plan, the City Council committed to provide public parking lots to attract tourists and residents to Old Town. The studies in the Specific Plan identified a short-fall of 360 parking spaces at the build-out of the Tourist Retail Core. The purchase, design, and construction of the Sixth Street Parking Lot/Restrooms with 78 parking spaces was the first step towards providing the needed parking spaces in Old Town. The 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program includes approximately $875,000 for acquisition, design, and construction of future parking spaces in Old Town. The Specific Plan.also encourages the adoption of an in-lieu parking fee to help the City pay for the construction of these parking lots. DISCUSSION The proposed amendment adds the language necessary to give developers in Old Town a choice between providing the required number of on-site parking spaces or.paying the in-lieu parking fee, it should be noted that the payment of this fee is voluntary and does not constitute an ownership interest of parking spaces developed by the City, Rather, the payment of an in-lieu fee grants the developer the right to develop property with fewer on-site parking spaces than would otherwise be revised, The amount of the fee will be set by the City Council. R:\OI.DTOWI~4~DSPPR~PC 7/16/97 cad This amendment deletes the following language in Section III. F. 2., Parking, of the Old Town Specific Plan: .- ~ All parking requirements in the Specific Plan area shall be delineated in Chapter 9.24, Parking and Loading, of the Development Code unless specifically regulated differently in this Specific Plan. See section on Public Parking Program. This amendment proposes the following language for this Section: All parking requirements in the Specific Plan area shall be delineated in Chapter 17.24, Parking and Loading, of the Development Code. However, instead of the required number of on-site parking spaces, the developer/owner/operator may choose to pay the parking in-lieu fee for a portion or all the required on- site parking spaces. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan since it implements the Old Town Specific Plan and its goals and policies. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential impacts associated with the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Further, this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines. This section of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It also states that, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This amendment complies with the requirements for this section as there is no possibility that the adoption of this amendment may have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: . Resolution No. 97-... - Blue Page 3 Exhibit A (Ordinance No. 97- ) - Blue Page 6 It :\01.DTO UFt,,%U~SPPgJCPC 7/16/97 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 PARKING LOT SITE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION COST R:\OLDTOWNYPARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 m 2/~' COST ESTIMATES FOR A I ACRE SITE PROVIDING 100 PARKING SPACES Design Grading Staking Planters, Landscaping, and Irrigation Lighting 25@ $3,500 Electrical Paving 3" AC over 6" base Striping Driveway Approach 934,000 $10,000 $10,000 $180,000 $87,000 $1o,ooo $50,000 $1,500 $5,000 Design and Construction Total Land @$15 per Sq. Ft. TOTAL Cost Per Space (Total Divided by 100) Recommended Fee $387,500 $653,400 $1,040,900 $10,409 $10,400 R:\OLDTOWI~PARKINL.CC1 11/10/97 sa 25 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 DEVELOPMENT CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS R:\OLDTOWI~PA~.CC1 11/10/97 sn 26 CITY OF TEMECULA . Davelesbians Code residenc~ of Use Residemini - 3 or fewer bedrooms Multiple Family Residential - 4 or more bedrooms Mobile Home Pa~k Table 17.24(a) Spaces R uir !, , ~.... =..: :..== .= .'..'.....':.':" ... ':'i.i"..'!"-.i.'i: :."~i..='.:.'.' ?.!='= ... 2 eneJoesd 2 coveted s~aeea/unitr plus 1 ~u~t s~.ee/4 u~ 2 cov~ ~n~u~ p~s I ~ ~4 u~ 2 ~v~ ~a~u~ ~ tim 3 b~, ~ I spac~m for eddifi~l b~t plu~3 ~m ~ac~unit 1 co~ ~l~iior s~, plus 1 ~ ~ac~ trail~ .5 ~v~ minuet plus I uncov~ ~aca per 5 umu for ~ue~ Housing Com~lex/Conl~e~ete Cate Chu~h, ~apel, ~ligious fac~i~, cem~, mo~a~ ! I ~c~3 ~=d mu, a~ I ~ace/35 Cites I ~e~/3 .mu, plus 5 ~.ces for Performance Theater I ! "lmce/4 fixed .esto Union Halls, Clubs I s])ace per 33 SF offro~ assembly floor aru .AUtom'01ive. Uses-:...' ::::': :':' :-.'. :.: .....: ? :.- :.: .: i:::!i:~i::i!:: i:!;i:.:::! !: :!!:.:i:i...~. :..:: :....::.::!i.:.::;!::-i~i.i=:i i. '. :: ..i::.: i::--.-: ..... - .-...!.. .. .::;:?::!~ ............i ............i.. ......:.-::::.: Service and Repair ! 4 s~eces/servico ba~ Car Wish I Equivalent of $ spaces/20 f~t of internal washing capacity lSpae~ ma]~ be preyStied in open paved area for d~in.t cats Car Washing l=acility - Self Service I Equivalent of 2.$ spac~/wash boy. Spaces may be provided in open paved I area for d~in~ Furniture Stores, Bulk Ooods, Floor CoverinL Horne 2rovemerit General Retail with less than 25,000 SF-GFA Retail with 25.000 SF or greater Hotels and Motels Laundromat Plant Nurseries Outdoor Sales, including lumber yards, car tales, salvage Resmur. nu · Dine-in · Fast Food Shopping Center (25,000 SF-GFA or grestet) · Cinemas in shopping centers · Restaurant areas occupying gtestet than 15 pet=ent of total I space/500 SF of GFA ~ece/300 SF-GFA See Shopp~ (:;eater 1 space/guest room plus 1 space/10 looms for guests and 2 spaces for resident manelet. ~ac~3 webbing machines I space/50(} SF indoor OFA, plus I space/1,000 SF gross outdoor retail I space/1,000 SF gross outdoor sales area, plus I space/300 SF of indoor sale. area I space/100 $F-GFA, with a minimum of tO sp.ces in all cases .space/75 $F-GFA, with · minimum of 10 spaces in all cases. I spaces/300 $F-GFA with the following additions: 1 space/5 seats I space/100 GFA Abbreviations: GFA '" Gross Floor Area May 7, 1996 Chapter 17.24 · Off-street Parlcinff & Loading · 8 CITY OF TEMECULA Develovme~t Codt Table 17.24(a) of Use Number of $' Elementary and Junior High $chool School College or University Trade School. Business School, Adult Education ! Libraries, Museums. Art Galleries Care Facaities · Convalescent Hospital, Rest Home, Sanitarium Hospitals (providing acute care. clinical. mrlical. roaching, research and ofRo~ r~'vices) Medical Center (providing acute gate, clinical, ~urgical. research and Medical and Dental Offices Veterinary Office I ~paca/300 sf-43PA end Development (R&D}! I spac~/3:~O SF-43FA ...... General Manufacturing and Processin~ us. ( not including I space/400 ~F of/nmmrfacturin~ or industrial. plus I spaca/300SF of used exclusively Use office use. plu~, ! ,space/l.000,.Sl~ of warehouse area Warehouses used exclusively for stars I space/l,000 $F of warehouse a~r~, plus 1 spac,/300 SF of office use War [ I space/25 units or cubicles.,, plus 2 ~a?e,s for each caret~,kers unit. , Business and Professional $F-OFA Financial Services (banks and loans, ,ace13(]O $F~3FA Re~o, uses'" :~'::i: :::.":~ ?:-:..%:i'-':.?:.i ,':i:-.:'.~< ~.::~:.:.~:::: :' '.':i: ~.. ~:-ii:" :i?:':?ii~;:.:~i:i~:?i./i~i!:!i':~:,.:.~-i.;?:..: :::; '::::-:..i: ..../::::'~':::..':.-. ::? ........ :-' :':', :-.:" ',:* '~. == '..~ . Arts I spae~ per 200 $F of OFA .... Arcades, Hails Billiards/Pool Halls Dance Halls Drivine 1 Golf Course - Regulation and Pitch and Putt Ministara Golf Pool-Commercial Rink Ice or Tennis Courts spae~250 $P-GFA 2 spaces per cage, with ,o~her uses calculated separately i2 spaces per table , ,. , 3 spaces/Is ,ns, with restaurant uses calcu,!ated separately , .1.. space/7 gro~s $F. dang_e floor ams .. spaee/te~, ?ith other uses calculated ~epara. tel.v , , 6 spaces/hole, witit oth~ uses calgulated separately ! space/200,,SF gross rm~mation floor area 1,:$ spaces/hole. with othe,r uses Calculated asps_rs,rely ,, space/1000 SF gro~ recreation area. with other uses..calcul,ated separately space/1000 $F of lot area, plus I .~ace/2 employees spaces/court. with other use~ calculated separately Abbreviations: GFA = Gross Floor Area , 1, May 7, 1996 Chapter 17.24 · Off-street Perkins & Lotutin~ · o ITEM NO. 4 TO: FROM' DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Redevelopment Agency Board Members Mary Jane McLarney, Redevelopment Director November 18, 1997 Facade Improvement Program Amendment Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION That the Agency Members amend the Facade Improvement and Non- conforming Sign Removal Program. BACKGROUND: The Facade Improvement Program began in July, 1995. The program has been amended several times to meet the objectives of the program. The main goal of the program is to encourage and facilitate the revitalization of Old Town. The proposed changes are necessary to make it easier for the participants to take advantage of the program. Currently, the program provides three types of financial incentives which are the $10,000 Assistance Program, the Rebate Program and the Loan Program. The Incentive Program became available in July 1997 and is available through June 30, 1998. This incentive is for a maximum of $10,000 of which the initial $5,000 is paid by the Agency as a grant and the balance is funded by a loan that is forgiven after five years. The participant is not required to make monthly loan payments. However, if the property is sold or refinanced within five years the loan is due plus simple interest. DISCUSSION: Since the adoption of the Incentive Program in June 1997, staff has received many inquiries about the program. Through the administration of these inquiries, a few minor changes are recommended. Three changes are proposed to the program: 1) Waive the City development permit and plan check fees, 2) Allow use of 20% of the RDA's contribution to the program to be used for compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) with a 20% participation requirement for the applicant. 3) Eliminate the requirement to repay the $5,000.00 loan if the property owner refinances within the first five years. R:\OLDTOWN~ACADEXA~.CC 11/10/97 sa I Fee Waivers The City development permit and plan check fee waivers are recommended to further encourage the revitalization of Old Town. The respective departments will be reimbursed by the RDA for the waived fees. ADA Requirements During the past few months, it has become evident that compliance with the ADA requirements may hinder the revitalization of Old Town. Any project that requires a building permit is required by federal law to spend up to 20% of the cost of their improvements for ADA compliance. Two typical examples of these improvements include providing wheelchair access to buildings and making restrooms handicap accessible. The current Facade Improvement Program does not permit the applicant to use the RDA funds for ADA compliance on the interior of the building. Staff is recommending that a maximum 20% of the total RDA funds be available to be used for interior ADA improvements. The balance of the ADA requirements would be paid by the applicant. Refinancing Currently, the program requires the repayment of the $5,000 loan with accrued interest in case a property is sold or refinanced within 5 years. This requirement was established to reduce speculation using RDA funds. Since refinancing may not always occur for speculative purposes, staff is recommending deleting the repayment of the $5,000 loan when the applicants refinance. FISCAL IMPACT Currently there is a $145,444.57 balance in the Facade Improvement Program (Account No. 280-199-813-5804). There is $30,000 available for fee reimbursements (Account No. 280- 199-9995-385) Attachments: 1. Revised Facade Improvement Program - Page 3 R:\OLDTOWN~ACADEEa. M!~II~.CC 11/10/97 m 2 ATTACHMENT NO. I REVISED FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM R:\OLDTOWN~ACADE~VlHND4.CC 11/10/97 m 3 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program SECTION I INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula has identified a need to upgrade and revitalize existing buildings found in Old Town, specifically within the Tourist Retail Core. The Redevelopment Agency is offering this Old Town Facade Improvement Program as an incentive to participating businesses to rehabilitate existing non-residential buildings in need of external and internal 'rehabilitation work and to bring said structures up to existing building and safety codes. For example, if a building has seismic and code violations, the property owner may wish to consider the Facade Improvement Program as a source of funds to correct deficiencies, along with making other general exterior improvements that would make a visible impact in the Old Town area, such as exterior painting, rear entry treatments, etc. Improving and upgrading building facades within Old Town, especially in the Tourist Retail Core, is one of the important goals of the Redevelopment Agency. The Facade Improvement Rebate Program seeks to bring new life to existing buildings in the Tourist Retail Core which do not conform to the "Old West" design theme as specified in the City's Old Town Specific Plan. By assisting property owners to upgrade the appearance of their buildings, the aesthetic environment of Old Town is further authenticated, thus improving the economic climate for all merchants and the City as a whole. The Redevelopment Agency will offer financial assistance to property owners and tenants in the Old Town area in the form of grants, rebates, incentives and/or low interest rate loans, thereby making rehabilitation both affordable and desirable to participating businesses. The first and most expeditious funding process for participating businesses would revolve around the rebate program, where participating businesses complete the eligible work before funds are released. The amount of rebate varies between 30-50% depending on the type of improvements. The second option involves a more traditional loan approach with a repayment period of 5 years. Under this option, the participating businesses would need to qualify based on the Agency's criteria. The total amount of Agency assistance to any one business location is limited to $50,000. The third option is available until June 30, 1998. This option is for a maximum of $10,000 which the initial $5,000 is paid by the Agency as a grant and the balance is paid for by a loan that is forgiven after five years. If the property is sold within five years the loan is due plus simple interest based on prime rate and the duration of the loan prior to re-payment. R:\OLDTOWNWACADE~FCIMPPRM.CCI 11/10/9el sn 1 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program SECTION II PROGRAM BENEFITS The following are benefits to the businesses participating in the Facade Improvement Rebate Program: I · Financing in the form of grants, rebates, and low interest rate loans for the rehabilitation of commercial buildings in the project area; 2. All City development permit and plan check fees are waived. e Assistance and coordination with other City Departments, The Agency will provide the applicant with a list of departments and person(s) to contact who have review authority over such projects; and 1 Technical assistance as it relates to additional financing. The Agency will provide a list of additional financial programs and person(s) to contact in order to secure funding to assist in the upgrading of buildings and sites. R:\OLDTOWN~ACADI/~PCIMPPRM.CC1 11/10/9'7 sn 2 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program SECTION III TARGET PROJECTS The following are "target projects" that the Facade Improvement Rebate Program is designed to assist in order to upgrade the project area: I · Buildings with seismic deficiencies (URM Standards-eligible only on recognized historic masonry buildings in Old Town), or other Temecula City Code violations including but not limited to Fire, Safety, Planning, and Building Codes; 2. Buildings in need of facade renovation (including rear treatments); ~ Businesses in need of bringing existing signage into conformance with current code requirements; and 4, Businesses located in the Tourist Retail Core district· R:\OLDTOWN~ACADE\FCIMPPRM.CCI 11110/97 m 3 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program SECTION IV PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY In order to meet the requirements for project funding under the California Community Redevelopment Law, to comply with health and safety elements and requirements, and to leverage available funds to the greatest extent possible, the following eligibility criteria have been established: 1. The building shall be located in the Old Town Specified Plan area; 2, In the case of a rebate or incentive participants must be both the business owner and the property owner. If storefront is vacant, the property owner may be the sole applicant. In the case of a loan, the participant may be either the property owner or the business owner; 1 Participants must bring non-conforming uses and non-conforming signage into compliance with current applicable City and Agency requirements; The rehabilitation work must be consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan Design Guidelines in effect at the time of application; 1 The rehabilitation work must meet all appropriate City Codes, Ordinances, and Standards; , Participants seeking loans must meet all conditions of and receive loan approval from the Council; and 7. Project funding is subject to availability of program funds. R:\OLDTOWN~ACADE~FCIMPPRM.CCI 11/10/97 sn 4 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program SECTION V ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS The following construction, rehabilitation, and project activities are eligible for funding: I · Painting of entire building facade and sides of building visible from street (all painted surfaces are required to be repainted); . Awnings, marquees, parapet walls, doors, windows, arcade/canopy facade and display window lighting, signs; 1 Removal of non-conforming signs located in the Tourist Retail Core district in the Old Town Specific Plan; 4. Tile and pavement between door and sidewalk; 1 Corrections of conditions necessary to bring structures and/or signage into conformance with City Codes and Ordinances including but not limited to Fire, Safety, Planning, and Building Codes and/or seismic standards. 1 Compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) up to 20% of the RDA funds available for the project with he balance of the cost to be paid by the applicant; and, 7. Other similar facade improvements as approved by the City. R:\OLDTOWN~ACADE\FCIMPPRM.CC1 11110/97 m 5 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program SECTION Vl INELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS/RESTRICTIONS The following construction, rehabilitation, and/or project activities are not eligible for funding: 1. Maintenance type improvements such as roofing and landscaping; 2. All interior improvements, except display lighting; 3. General structural upgrade improvements; 4. New construction; 5. No existing work or completed improvements; 1 Any projects not specifically reviewed and approved by the Agency in conjunction with the Program; 7. Trade fixtures and equipment; 8. Operation and maintenance costs, including existing debt service; and 1 Businesses currently involved in other City or Agency loan programs must be current at the time of application and must maintain a current payment status. R:\OLDTOWN~ACADP-\PCIMPPRM.CCI 11/10/97 sn ~ City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program SECTION VII PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Below are the Facade Improvement Program requirements. These requirements are subject to change without notice. Additionally, project funding is subject to availability of program funds. 1. Applicants are to designate one person as the contact for the project; 2. All improvements must be approved in advance by the Planning Department, OTLRB, and as required, the Planning Commission; Applicants must submit two written bids from licensed contractors. Applicants of multiple businesses within a building are encouraged to work together to receive one set of bids for the entire building. This will reduce the cost per business; 1 All work must be completed by contractors licensed by the State of California. The applicant is responsible for selecting a contractor, and executing agreements. City staff will not provide assistance in obtaining bids which are requested by the applicant; . No work is to begin until after the signed Agreement. The Agreement will be signed by the City, property owner, and business owner; . A Facade Improvement Program sign will be displayed either on the exterior or in a front window of the building, from the date of the application approval until 30 days after completion of all improvements. 1 After the completion of the project the applicant shall submit to the City a statement indicating his/her satisfaction with the work performed by the contractor prior to releasing the funds to the contractor. Agency staff may consider up to a 50% advance to the contractor for materials. This will be a case by case determination. R:\OLDTOWN~ACADE\I~CIMPPRM.CC1 11/10/97 sn 7 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program SECTION VIII FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE The Agency will offer financial assistance in the form of grants, rebates, and loan interest rate loans thereby making rehabilitation both affordable and desirable to participating businesses in the project area. Assistance Package This incentive is available until June 30, 1998. It is for a maximum of $10,000 where the initial $5,000 is paid by the Agency as a grant and the balance is paid for by a loan that is forgiven after five years. If the property is sold within five years the loan is due plus simple interest based on prime rate at the time of the loan funding and the duration of the loan prior to re-payment. The Participants may request a grant based on the amount expended for rehabilitation and facade renovation work. At the discretion of the Agency, such a rebate would be paid upon completion of all improvements and rehabilitation work or an approved phase. Actual grant amounts will be determined based on the total project cost with a maximum grant of $5,000: Once the funds have been issued, applicants commit to properly maintain the improvements and keep storefronts clean and free from graffiti. If an applicant fails to meet the terms and conditions as outlined in the Agreement or is no longer the certified property owner, the grant will be due and payable within 60 days of notification. The loan portion of this program is only used when the applicant has used up the $5,000 grant portion of the program. The following will be the standard loan structure: 1. Loan Terms: 5 year with no monthly payments 2. Loan Amount: Loans amount will be a maximum of $5,000. 3. Interest Rate: Interest rates will be equal to Prime Rate at the time of City Council approval. R:\OLDTOWN'~ACADE~FCIMPPRM.CC1 11/10/97 sn ~ City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program 4. Loan Forgiven: After Five (5) years 5. Loan Due: Principle plus interest, if the property is sold within five (5) years Rebates/Incentives The Participants may request a rebate based on the amount expended for rehabilitation and facade renovation work.~ Actual rebate amounts will be determined based on the total project cost with a maximum rebate of $10,000: Cost of Improvements Amount of Rebate Up to $ 4,999 30% $ 5,000 - 9,999 35% 10,000- 14,999 40% 15,000 - 20,000 50% Buildings with existing multiple first floor businesses, which occupy individual units, are eligible for more than one rebate, however the maximum for one property owner will be five projects or $50,000. When the project is completed and finaled by the Building Department, the applicant must provide the Agency copies of all work receipts and invoices. If all work is complete and satisfactory, the Agency will issue a Certificate of Completion for the project and release the appropriate funds. Once the funds have been issued, applicants commit to properly maintain the improvements and keep storefronts clean and free from graffiti. If an applicant fails to meet the terms and conditions as outlined in the Agreement or is no longer the certified property owner, the rebate will be due and payable within 60 days of notification. Loan Program The level of Agency financial assistance for a loan will be determined based on the then current Prime Rate and the amount of the loan at the time of loan funding. The following will be the standard loan structure (see attached exhibit "A" for eligibility requirements): R:\OLDTOWNYFACADE\FCIMPPRM.CCI 11/10/97 sn 9 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program 1. Loan Terms: ,5 year maximum repayment period 2. Loan Range: Loans will range from a minimum loan amount of $10,000 to a maximum of $50,000. 3. Interest Rate: Interest rates will be equal to Prime Rate at the time of council approval. 4. Loan Fees: None Non-Conformino $ionaoe Removal Incentives Removal of non-conforming signs must be completed no later than four years from the date of this program's approval in order to be considered as part of the Facade Improvement Program. To meet this guideline, additional incentives have been developed: a. Year One (Program Expired December 1996) Free removal of nonconforming sign. Payment of an incentive bonus of 91,000 for roof signs and pole signs, 9500 for all others. Free design service to provide conforming, attractive sign sketches. * b. Year Two (Program Continues Through December 1997) Free removal of nonconforming sign. Free design service to provide conforming, attractive sign sketches. * c. Year Three and Four (Program Continues Through December 1999) · Free removal of nonconforming sign. Those participants availing themselves of the free design service must agree to utilize one of the alternative sketches provided and erect a new sign within three (3) months of receiving the sketch designs. If said new sign is not erected, the participant will be required to reimburse the City for the cost of the sign design service). R:\OLDTOWN~ACADt~\PCIMPPR~I.C~I 11110/97 sn 10 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program In granting these incentives, the City will apply the following priority ranking schedule: 1) Roof signs, 2) Pole signs (freestanding sign over 10 feet high), 3) Internally illuminated signs and 4) Plastic signs. R:\OLDTOWN~ACADE~FCIMPP~.CC1 11/10/9"/sn 11 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Old Town Facade Improvement Program I · . . e ~ 1 ~ EXHIBIT "A" LOAN ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Participating business must be organized for profit; Participating businesses less than one year old must contribute a minimum of 30% cash to the total project cost· Participating businesses one year or older must not exceed a debt/equity ratio of 4:1; Participating businesses must establish that they have or can obtain the necessary knowledge to operate a profitable business and establish the marketability of the product and/or service; Participating businesses must have sufficient collateral to cover the entire amount of the new loan; Participating businesses must substantiate the ability to repay the loan with financial reports; Participating businesses must have been declined by an SBA approved lender; and Participating businesses must be the development objectives of the Redevelopment Agency. R:\OLDTOWN~ACADE~FCIMPPRM.CCI 11/10/9'7 sn 12 ITEM 21 APPRO~fy CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAm0~E CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM. City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Community Development Directo~ DATE: November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Appeal No. I and Appeal No. 2 of Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Zev Buffman Entertainment Project) - the construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways) and an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project, located west of Old Town Temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission Recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97- 0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - APPEAL NO. 1), MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 7 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 APPROVING A CHANGE TO THE ROOF MATERIALS FOR THE ARENA AND DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - APPEAL NO. 2), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 103,564 SQUARE FOOT, 4,800 SEAT ARENA AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS (HARDSCAPE, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ROADWAYS) AND AN AND ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR FOR THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT) BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. R:\STAI~ZRPT~98PA97.CC1 11112/97 klb I BACKGROUND This project has two appellants. The first applicant, TEV, Inc., (hereafter "Appellant No. 1"), is appealing Condition of Approval No. 7 which requires a metal roof for the arena. His rationale for the appeal is contained in Attachment No. 3. Albert S. Pratt (hereafter UAppellant No. 2"), is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project. His rationale for the appeal is contained in Attachment No. 4 and will be discussed below. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on October 6, 1997 by a 4-0 vote. Commissioner Soltysiak abstained due to a potential conflict of interest. Three people spoke in favor of the project and none spoke in opposition. Appellant No. 2 sent a letter the Commission in opposition to the project. Staff addressed the issues raised in that letter at the hearing (reference Attachment No. 6). DISCUSSION Appeal No. I Appellant No.1 is requesting the Council allow flexibility regarding the material of the roof for the arena. He is requesting that only the color be specified at this time, not the material used for the roof. He states that he is unsure of the materials to be used at this time. Staff recommends the Council allow some flexibility regarding this matter. If the Council desires, a Condition of Approval can be added to the project which would allow the Community Development Director the authority to approve the material for the arena roof. Appeal No. 2 Staff reviewed the letter submitted by Appellant No. 2 which contained the rationale for the appeal. Based upon this review, staff determined the comments fell into one of the following five categories: general comments made by the appellant, which in staff's opinion have no bearing upon the basis of the current appeal; the previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project; the Addendum to the previously Certified (EIR)for the Old Town Redevelopment Project for the current project (Planning Application No. PA97-0298 - Development Plan); the Traffic Analysis (Analysis) for the current project; and the appellant's statement that the project was being "piecemealed." These are discussed below. General Comments Made b.v the A.o.oellant Comments No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 21, 22, 23, 30, 40, 41, 42, 45 and 46 of the appeal are general in nature. Some of these opinions are based upon factual events which occurred, while others are opinions which are not substantiated by any factual information. It is staff's opinion that these statements do not present information which would substantiate the grounds for the appeal. Previously Certified EIR Statements No. 10, 11, 19, 20 and 24 of the appeal pertain to the content of the previously certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. These statements do not have any R:\~T~95PA97.C~l 11/719t7 !db 2 bearing on the current project, as the EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project has already been certified. The fact that an addendum is being approved for the current project does not present the opportunity for further challenges to the originally Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. In addition, many of these issues were addressed in the court case referenced by the appellant on Page 1 of his appeal with the Court ruling in favor of the City. Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR Statements No. 8, 17, 37, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the appeal relate to the appellant's belief that an addendum to the previously certified EIR is insufficient to address impacts and subsequent or supplemental EIR should be required for the current project. The choice to prepare an Addendum to the previously Certified EIR was discussed in depth in the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment No. 5). An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was conducted to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031). In addition, an EIR Consistency Report was prepared. Based upon staff's analysis in the IES and the review and examination of the EIR Consistency Report, staff determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR should be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. An addendum was prepared because changes and additions were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions listed below (Section 15162 of the Guidelines) calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. According to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these occurred so staff determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR was appropriate. In addition, the appellant claims that there is no traffic mitigation monitoring plan required in the approval of PA97-0298. It should be noted that mitigation measures approved with the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) still apply to the current project. Traffic mitigation was included in the original project and the previously certified Environmental Impact Report for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. Traffic A~r~al¥sis Statements No. 7, 15, 16, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, and 44 relate to traffic - the methodology of the traffic analysis and the mitigation measures required for the project. The appellant raised issues regarding the adequacy of the traffic analysis for the project, and again challenged the compounded growth rate of 2.1% used in the previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Old Town Redevelopment Project and the Addendum to the EIR for the current project. This issue was raised and addressed in the original project and was upheld as a result of the court case referenced on Page 1 of the appellants's appeal. In R:~TAFFRPT~95PA97.CC1 11/7/97 ~b 3 addition, this same issue was raised by the same appellant during the appeal of Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Forest City Development). It was revealed during the appeal of this project by Robert A. Davis of Wilbur Smith Associates, that the compounded growth rate assumptions are reasonable and accurate. A Traffic Analysis for Phases I and 2 was prepared for this project by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA). The Analysis determined the amount of traffic generated by the current project and compared it to the traffic for the previously approved Old Town Redevelopment Project. The following statements, from the Analysis, indicated that the Analysis was sound, and the impacts from the current project were within the scope of the previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project: "Current event/show programming for the project generally schedule most weekday events and shows commencing at 7:30, 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. On weekends, the events/shows would be scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m., 3:00-3:30 p.m., or 7:30-8:30 p.m. If the event/show schedule times are implemented, related traffic impacts would be nominal during the typical traffic peak-hours on the study area street system." "The results of the WSA traffic update demonstrate that, the currently defined Phase 1 and 2 project would have significantly lower traffic impacts than the previous study estimated. Modifications to the project land uses, location of uses, and the programmed schedule of events/shows have cumulatively contributed to the reduction in traffic impacts." The Planning Commission, at a Workshop for the project on August 18, 1997, requested the applicant analyze the effect of mall traffic on the project, the underlying assumptions for baseline traffic, and the impact of the project on critical intersections where improvements are planned and the timing of such improvements (i.e., Interstate 15/SR79 South and Interstate 15/Rancho California Road). Again, the following statements (provided in a letter from Wilbur Smith Associates dated August 28, 1997) indicated that the Analysis was sound, and the impacts from the current project were within the scope of the previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project: "The estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with the Old Town Entertainment Center project would actually help in off-setting most of the added Mall traffic on Rancho California Road at the interchange and Ynez Roads as compared to the original EIR traffic impact assessment at this location." "The current schedule for State Route 79 South/1-15 Interchange shows completion of the improvement would occur by October or November of 1998. This indicates that both interchange improvements (Rancho California Road and State Route 79 South) would be completed before or at approximately the same time as the Wild West Arena is scheduled to open." While the analysis of the traffic generated by the Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects was less than the original project, the mitigation measures required for the original project will apply to the current project. The appellant states that he conducted traffic counts at two intersections on October 13, 1997 (a holiday). According to Public Works Staff, the methodology that was used was not R:\STAFFRFI~95PA97.CC1 11/"//97 idb 4 consistent with standard engineering practices. As a result, this analysis cannot be compared to the WSA Analysis. "Piecemealina the Proiect" Statements No. 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 25, 26, 46 of the appeal center around the appellant's belief that the current project is being "piecemealed" and that this is a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The appellant has stated several times that he believes that the project is being piecemealed and that "agencies cannot treat one project as a succession of smaller projects, none of which, by itself, causes significant impacts." While the appellant's statements on the requirements of CEQA are correct, the conclusion is inaccurate. The requirement of CEQA is that the entire development proposal be analyzed as a single project. CEQA requires that all related planning applications be considered as a single project for its environmental review. This is precisely what the City did with the originally certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. The current project is within the scope of the previously identified project that was analyzed in its entirety in the Old Town Redevelopment Project. The project was reviewed to determine if it was consistent with the underlying specific plan (Westside Specific Plan) and previously certified EIR. The Specific Plan looked at all components of the project. This project was envisioned by the Specific Plan, is within the scope of the Specific Plan and further implements the Specific Plan. If the City had done what was being suggested by the appellant, the City would have "piecemealed" the project's environmental review. FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments: . 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. Resolution No. 97- - Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Page 12 Rationale for Appeal No. 1 (TEV, Inc.) - Page 30 Rationale for Appeal No. 2 (Albert S. Pratt) - Page 31 Planning Commission Staff Report (October 6, 1997) - Page 32 Planning Commission Minutes (October 6, 1997) - Page 33 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Old Town Redevelopment Project - Page 34 R:\STANNR/FA298PA97.CC1 11/"/197 kib 5 ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:\STAFFRFI~98PA97.CCI 11/7/97 ~ 6 AT'rACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN- APPEAL NO. 1), MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 7 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 APPROVING A CHANGE TO THE ROOF MATERIALS FOR THE ARENA AND DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN- APPEAL NO. 2), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0295 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 103,564 SQUARE FOOT, 4,800 SEAT ARENA AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS (HARDSCAPE, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ROADWAYS) AND AN AND ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR FOR THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT) BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUIkIF_~T TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. WHEREAS, TEV, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) on October 6, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan); WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan); WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan - Appeal No. 1) was filed on by TEV, Inc. on October 13, 1997, requesting additional design flexibility with respect to the material for the roof of the arena; R:\STAFFRP'B298PA97.CC1 11112197 klb 7 WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan - Appeal No. 2) was filed by Albert S. Pratt on October 13, 1997 requesting the City Council. deny the approval of the Planning Commission and require a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public heating pertaining to Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan - Appeal No. 1) on November 18, 1997, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. PA97-0298; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding Planning Application No. PA97-0298; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. findings; to wit: That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following 1. The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: A. On July 13, 1995, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95-49 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0031 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 15, EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA RIVER," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Westside Specific Plan and Planning Application No. PA95- 0003 (Westside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the Property. B. An amendment to the project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1996 and by the City Council on March 26, 1996, at which time a finding was made that no further environmental review was required for the project; C. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study (IES), dated September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which IFS is incorporated herein by this reference. D. An Initial Environmental Study OF_S) was conducted to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031). Based upon this analysis, staff R:\STAFFRFl~298PA97.CC1 11/7197 klb 8 determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Addendum was prepared because changes and additions were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Mitigation measures approved with the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) will apply to this project. E. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, the WesBide Specific Plan, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Final Environmental Impact Report) and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). Minor changes to the project have been reviewed and examined in an Addendum to Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). F. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence and the Addendum, the City Council hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the City Council: 1. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendum prepared for the Development Plan (Planning Application No. PA97-0298). 2. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 4. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which wood show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR. 5. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR. R:\ffrAFFRPT~98PA97.CC1 11/7/97 klb ~ 6. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. 7. There is no new information since the certification of the FE1R which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Section 2. findings; to wit: That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following 1. 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. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including the City's General Plan and the Westside Specific Plan. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Conditions. That the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan - Appeal No. 1), modifying Condition of Approval No. 7 of Planning Application No. PA97-0298, to approve a change to the roof materials for the Arena and denies Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan, Appeal No. 2) and hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision approving Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) for the construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways) and an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project based upon the analysis contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof R:~TAFFRFr~98PA97.CCI 11F//97 klb '[ 0 Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 18th day of November, 1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of November, 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.CCI 11/7197 klb '1 '[ EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~.STAFFRPT~98PA97.CC1 11/'7197 klb 1 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) Project DescripUon: The design and construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways) Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 940-310-013, 940-320-002 and 940-320-001 Approval Date: October 6, 1997 Expiration Date: October 6, 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project I · The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of '"-- ~'~ ...... ~ ~-L_ _ ::u,~dr~d Tw~nty-E~ght D~,::o,o ($1,320.00) which -' ........ '~ ....... ~,./I I~II IUU~OI lU :lund,=d --~ F;fty Dollar ($1,250.00) f==, ,=q~,,=~ by F~sh and ~--- ~-~- ~--':-- ~1 lU ggl I I~ %UUg gg~[IUI I 711.4(d)(3) plus th~ Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Addendum to the EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within sa~d fo~y-~ght ' t~u~ hO~i- --L ............ I zL __ __~ -- ' ....... t t--=l .... as required ~v=. the .~,~v=, for ..... 9ranted shall bo void by ,=~,, ~, ,~,,~,~ LI I~ ~1 ~J~L of condition, Fish --~ ~ .... ~-~- =,,~ ~=,,,o ~= ~=~,,~,, 711 ~'-' ..t~. Amended at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. General Requirements . The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, 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 Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. . 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· R:\$TAFFRFI~98PA97.CCI 11r//97 Ub 13 . The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan), and approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0298, or as amended by these conditions. a. Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Westside Specific Plan requirements. b. Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. C. A linkage to Old Town shall be provided as depicted on Exhibit D-1 and shall meet all ADA requirements. . Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. . Building color elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. . Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G (color and material board), or as amended by these conditions. Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (walls) Synthetic Stucco/Concrete(accent) Wood (trim applique) Concrete (roof shingle) Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (4" stripe) Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (6"/10" stripe) Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (12" stripe) Concrete (textured panel) Synthetic Stucco (8" stripe) Concrete (textured band) Wood (shutters) Glass Synthetic Stucco (8" cap stripe) Concrete (42" high divider) Wood (6'x6' column w/4'x4' strut) Metal (roof) Wood (8'x8' column w/accent trim) Metal (door) Synthetic Stucco (2" stripe) Colors Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Similar to Cedarlite Concrete Muirwood-Shake Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172) Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172) Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) & (Hickory: SP172) Clear Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Bone: SP112) Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172) Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14) Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14) R:\STA~98PA97.CCI 11/7/97 klb 14 . Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these conditions. a. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the 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. b. Landscaping south of First Street shall be consistent with the landscaping north of First Street. Slopes to the west of the Western By-Pass Corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a similar manner to those to the north of First Street. Slopes on the east side of the Western By-Pass Corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a similar manner to those to the north of First Street. C. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or the application submittal for Phase II of development, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for the parking lot areas immediately adjacent (to the south and west) to the Phase II component (Rogersdale). Said plans shall provide parking lot landscaping consistent with Section II.B.4.e. (Landscape requirements) of the Westside Specific Plan. d. Prior to transplanting any oak trees on the site, the applicant shall submit a relocation plan prepared by a qualified arborist for review and approval by the Planning Manager. Should the trees die after transplanting, the applicant shall replace the dead trees with a minimum 48" box tree, the type of which is approved by the Planning Manager. Added at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. . Prior to any expansion to the seating capacity (above 4,800 seats) of the arena, or the application submittal of Phase II of the project, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a parking study to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. Said study shall analyze the adequacy of existing parking facilities, the possibility and feasibility of reciprocal parking, and make recommendations for the amount of additional parking which will be required to accommodate the uses on-site. 10. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. 11. The project shall comply with the provisions contained within and the Conditions of Approval for the Westside Specific Plan. 12. In the event the applicant alters its constituency from that which comprises TEV, Inc. as of the date of the resolution approving this project, the project approval shall be reconsidered by the City Council for the purpose of ensuring the scope of development remains consistent with the approval. Added at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. R:\STAFFRP'I~98PA97.CC1 11/7/97 klb 15 Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), if applicable. 14. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans, for all slope areas created as a result of the grading operation, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. All slope areas to the east of the Western By-pass corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a manner similar to those areas on the east side of the Western By-Pass Corridor on the approved conceptual landscape plans. All slope areas to the west of the Western By-pass corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a manner similar to those areas on the west side of the Western By-Pass Corridor on the approved conceptual landscape plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These 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. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 15. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to guarantee the installation of plantings and irrigation for all slope areas in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 16. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 18. All slope landscaping and irrigation shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. 19. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. In addition, all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features shall be included on the plans. These 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 R:\$TAFFRPT~298PA97.CC1 11/7/97 kn, 16 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. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 20. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 21. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 22. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 23. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and 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. 24. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 25. Bicycle racks shall be installed. R:\STAFFRPT~298PA97.CCI 11/7/97 klb 17 26. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 27. All major and minor entry features and monumentation shall be installed. 28. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 29. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 30. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 31. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 32. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 33. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 34. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 35. Provide path of travel to all areas of the buildings including stage area and lower arena floor. 36. Provide conceptual seating plans for arena floor area and show exiting requirement from lower area. 37. Show handicap seating areas. 38. Exit widths don"t comply with Uniform Building code, show compliance for complete occupant load, which half of required load to go through main exits. 39. Provide exit widths and cross-aisle sizes for compliance with exiting requirements. 40. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 41. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. R:\STAFFRPT~295PA97.CCI 11/7/97 klb 18 42. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 43. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 44. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. Women's restrooms are required to be equal to mens restrooms as per Appendix C of the Uniform Plumbing code. 45. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 46. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 47. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 48. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 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 tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 49. A Grading Permit for rough and/or precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 50. 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. 51. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 52. All roadway, slope and utility easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 53. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.CCI 11/7197 k. lb 19 54. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public/private improvements within 18 months in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a, Western Bypass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) from the intersection of Front Street and State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, landscaped median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b, Vincent Moraga Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) extension to south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor and restriping of the existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road to accommodate the proposed improvements. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. C. In relation to the above item, Ridge Park Drive "T" intersection configuration with Vincent Moraga Drive. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. d. First Street (78 feet full width right-of-way) extension from Pujol Street west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. e, · · _.~ ~_L _ · · A traffic signal o, ,,,~ First Street/Western ~ ...... Corridor; uy ~JOOO II I[~10GbLIUI I OIIU .,,,, the traffic -'---' ....... ~ o~ 7~ So~h~Wes~er~ =ypass Corridor [r,~ersec~o~. Deleted at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. Affect the full improvements of the Main Street extension from Pujol Street west to the project site's proposed escalators for the pedestrian connection. Amended at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. g. Storm drain facilities within the road right-of-way. h. Landscaping (slopes and parkways). i. Erosion control and slope protection. j. Sewer and domestic water systems located within the road right-of-way. k, Undergroundlng ,.,, proposed ~,,,,,~ distribution I-'--il~.~ ..... L!-- the road right-of-way. III ¥¥11.1 III I Deleted at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. R:\STAFFRPT~98PA9'7.CCl 11~7/97 klb 20 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way. 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. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 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. 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. The impact of the site to any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and to any adjacent floodways and necessary protection mitigation measures shall be identified. Adequacy of capacity of existing and proposed downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. 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. 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. R:\STAl~$PA97.CCI 11/7/97 klb 21 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Caltrans Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers 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. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. ~''--,,U,,,,,=,,LO, ~.U,,OL,°,,,~ .~,,=~ shall b= ....... ' '- -'-': ..... identified ~./I ~fll ~u [~ g~111 I~[~ enwronmer, ta] ~,,~,,,~ ~,,~ shall b~ pern~anently" ~ w~th the - '-- -~- ~' ~ff,~ of =' I lieu ~,,u,,,~,. A copy -' the "~" -~-" ~ ...... : ...... the ~ann~nG ~., ,,,,o,,, for rewew ~1 ~g ~1 U~ LIOlI~IIIILL~U LU I~11 · ~¢. Deleted at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed "Western bypass Corridor and Vincent Moraga Drive" in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.CC1 11/7197 klb 22 Prior to Issuance of e Building Permit 70. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 71. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 72. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: 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 Standard Nos. 207, 207A, 208, and 401 (curb and sidewalk). Cm Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. ee All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. 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. ge All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under-sidewalk drains. 73. Private roads MUST be designed by the engineer of record, reviewed, and approved by the Department of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be limited to: a. Minimum paved road widths of 32 feet within adequate right-of-ways or easements. b. Knuckles being required at 90° 'bends' in the road. c. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards. d. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.CCI 11/7/97 kib 23 e. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required. 90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a minimum safe distance from intersections. g. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°). Amended at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. 74. Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. 75. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 76. v=,,,~u,o, access shall b= ..... -'-'-' on V~ce~t" ..... Driv=. W=o.=,,, "- .ooo Corridor, I GOLI IUL~U --~ ~ .... ~ ....... ~-- th6~, s~w~ ~ the 6~¢ove~ -'re 16yo~t Deleted ~t the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1 77. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 78. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 79. 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. 80. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 81. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and City attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be submitted to the following Engineering conditions: a. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the Developer's sole cost and expense. b. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. R:~STAFFRFT~9$PA9'7.CCI 11/"//97 kro 24 C. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. d. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and related facilities. e. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the Owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. All parkways, open areas, on-site slopes and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. ii. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map, or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 82. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 83. The Developer shall complete the following infrastructure improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy: Western Byoass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) shall be constructed from the intersection of Front Street and State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, landscaped median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). Vincent Moraga Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) shall be extended south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. The existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road shall be restriped to accommodate the proposed improvements. R:\$TAFFRPT~95PA97.CC1 11/"/197 klb 2 5 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. In relation to the above item, Ridoe Park Drive shall form (be reconstructed to form) a "T" intersection with Vincent Moraga Drive. First Street (78 feet full width right-of-way) from Pujol Street shall be extended west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. A traffic signal warrant analysis (utilizing criteria established by the State of California Department of Transportation) indicates that the First Street/Western ByDass Corridor intersection shall be signalized. It is recommended, therefore, that traffic volumes be monitored at this location to determine the precise scheduling of this installation by the Developer. Moreover, when constructed this traffic signal shall be interconnected with the traffic signal proposed at the Front Street/State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor intersection. A traffic signal at the First Street/Western Bypass Corridor intersection and interconnection with the traffic signal proposed at the Front Street/State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor intersection. Added at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. The Developer shall affect construction of ~ full improvements of the Main Street extension from Pujol Street west to the project site's proposed escalators for the pedestrian connection. Amended at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. Sufficient parking for and a local transit system shall be provided to satisfy the parking demands of the project. Amended at the Planning Commission hearing October 6, 1997. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City Standards and in compliance with the site traffic impact analyses, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, drainage facilities, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. All traffic signal, traffic signal interconnection and signing and striping shall be installed per the approved traffic signal, traffic signal interconnection and signing and striping plan, respectively. The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersection and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance as directed by the Department of Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~9$PA9'7.CC1 11/"//9'7 klb 2 6 92. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 93. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 94. 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 and use and Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 95. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. 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. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 96. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill.B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 ½" 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 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. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 97. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 98. 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 70,000 lbs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 99. 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 70,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) R:\STAFFRIrI~98PA97.CC1 11/'7/97 klb 2 7 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 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. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) 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. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) 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 suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) 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. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) 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. (UFC Article 10) 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. (UFC 902.4) 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. (UFC 902.4) R:~TAFFRPT~9SPA9?.CC1 11/7/97 klb 2 8 OTHER AGENCIES 109. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's's transmittal dated September 18, 1997, 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 permits, based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 110. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated September 4, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 111. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated September 12, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 112. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated September 12, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 113. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated September 3, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned 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 Planning Department approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.CC1 11/7/97 klb 29 DAVID P. ZAPPE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California g2590 Ledies and Genfiemen: RIVE~','~E, CA e250J ~75-1200 ~9~88-9965 FAX 7829.1 The District does not non'nal~ .mcom~ condO)ns ~ ~n~ ~ o~ other ~In~ u~e ~ases in inoorporatecl cities. required. ~ This project proposes channels, ..~!x~n drains 3~ _Inc!!es._ o~..!ger in diameter, .fir_ _othe[faciaies that eould be ..coA~le.' ~dmgru~_.l in nature ancot a k~k~ ax~ens,~ dlt~'adopt~. v-. MasMr,..Dra~_ag~.. Plan. The. District wou~ ~ _a~M:181~..'_. ___ _~__._.e. _t,__ ~: ......~__ ..eft _rea..u~s~ _ .~ Thl ~e~ iI locited w~h~ ttle Iid ~t DJslr~s K (J&A' Area GENERALINFOR _MArilyN . has detem~ined ~at ~ pro]eel has been gmlFa~ I ~ ~x Is f~:vm t~ I~ exempt. until Ihe City If th~,ir~ invoh~es $ Federal Emerg~ Man~. e._~.. nt ~ (F..B~). ~ flood plain. then me o~ mCl[ applicant to pmvkte all $tud~.sz_?~!~._-_,,~tio~. st j~.n$ an~ omer Iriwt~on ~_ ulr~ to meet requirements, ahd ~houid ~.fiher re~i. ulre that me_ .mppm=ant e~an a ~al Leti' of Map_ Rg. vlston (¢LOMR) prior to g~ading, reoordation or ome~ final approval of ~e ~ and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy, If a netuml w~.. Icrcourse ~' n'mppe~l ~ plain is ~ ~ ~~ ~ C~ t~u~ ~yim ~ 8~li~n[ to ob~ a ~ 160111603 ~f~nt ~m ~ ~1~ ~ .~nt ~ Finn and Oa~ ana· Ol~ wmr ~ ~ 4~ P~ ~ ~e U.S. ~ ~ of ~~, ~ ~ ._ _.~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i~U~g ~ pm~ a exem~m ~ ~O)m~n~: ~~ W~ ~ ~ 401 ~ Qua~ ~'~ ~y ~ '~ui~ ~m ~e ~! California ~manat wamr qual~ ~~ ~ p~ ~ i~ of ~e ~s 4~ ~& Very truly yours, STUART E,. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Enginee~ Water September 4, 1997 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Board o£ Di,'(-ctor.~: Michael R. McMillan Pre.~ld(!n t Csaba F. 5r. Vice Pru~tdc'nt Ralph H. Daily Lisa D. Herman Doug Kulberg Jeffrey L. Minklet George M. Officers: John F. Hennigar General Manacer Phillip L. Forbes Director of' ¥mnncv- Treasurer E. P. '~ob" bernohs Kenneth C. Dealy & blaimen~nc~. Perry R. Louck ('Olll I'E,I It'r SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY, PARCELS 23, 24, AND 25 OF PARCEL MAP 18254, APNS 940-310-013, 940-320-001, AND 940-320-002, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 Dear Mr. Fagan: 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. This development may require the relocation of existing RCWD water facilities and the construction of additional water facilities to provide domestic and fire protection service for this development. The relocation of existing RCWD facilities and the construction of new facilities will be the responsibility of the developer. When domestic and fire protection services are determined, the customer will Li.,-',~,.~re.os- need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements [)~:~trrct ~t,cleLar'~' Administrative ' .%c.r vit't.: .Ma na~t'r C.~,iehaelCo~'~tt ~pWater availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Bcs! Best & Krieger '~ .......""': .......'Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. if' you have any questions, Representative at this office. please contact an Engineering Services Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 97/SB:eb 168/F012/FCF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor itnnc'ho C;difornin Water District September 12, 1997 Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 RE: Planning Application No. PA97-0298 Dear Mr. Fagan: RTA recommends moving the transit stop facility, located near the proposed First street. further away from the intersection. A 40-foot transit vehicle requires a minimum of 140 feet and preferably 160 feet after a turn for a bus stop zone on the far-side of the intersection. This allows the vehicle to clear the intersection. In addition, RTA recommends relocating the second transit stop facility, located near the arena bus and employee parking, from the northeast to the southeast comer. We are concerned about the safety of the bus stopping and disabled passengers boarding and alighting on a 4.5% grade. If you have questions or comments, please call. Enclosed are copies of text and diagrams from RTA's Design Guideline. Sincerely, Anne MacCracken Transit Planner AM:cam enclosure CC' Stephen C. Oiler, Director of Operations & Resource Development When a large percentage of passengers using a stop are destined for a single trip generator (a school, office, shopping center or similar generator), the stop should be located to minimize pedestrian activity through the intersection. Depending on the location of the generator, the preferred stop could be farside (Figure 6) or nearsicle (Figure 7B). District staff should be consulted whenever special circumstances regarding bus stop placement arise. Bus stop zones can usually be accommodated on-street'in the parking or curb lane, bike lane, or in right-turn lanes (see Figure 8). In cases where there are no parking or right-turn lanes, or where traffic speeds or bus volumes are high, a bus turnout may be necessary (see discussion under Bus Turnout). Complimentary stops for both directions of travel and crosswalks at intersections must also be provided on two-way streets. Deslan, Criteria: For 40-foot transit vehicles, bus stop zones for nearside and farside stops should be a minimum of 115 feet long and preferably 160 feet long. Bus stop zones for mid-block stops should be a minimum of 130 feet long and preferably 170 feet long. Sidewalks and wheelchair access ramps should be provided at all stops. For articulated bus stop zones, the bus berth position should be 70 feet long (as compared to 50 feet for. the 40-foot vehicle), thereby increasing the overall length of the zone by 20 feet. These dimensions for bus stop zones are illustrated in Figure 9. At some bus stops, more than one vehicle may be at the stop at a given time. Figure 10 provides a sample of how two or three buses could be accommodated at a single stop. Distdct staff are available to determine whether single or multiple berths are required at a given stop. The curb adjacent to the bus stop zone should be painted red and signs posted to clearly identify the area as no parking or stopping except for buses. A solid white 6 - 8 inch lane line separating the bus stop from adjacent traffic lanes and/or "Bus Stop" pavement stencils should be provided in areas of heaw congestion. Where possible, or necessary due to high traffic volumes, bus stops should be accompanied by coricrete pads to reduce lung term maintenance costs. A typical concrete pad cross section is shown in Figure 11. A number of passenger amenities are typically provided at bus stops and should be arranged to maximize passenger convenience and minimize disruption to pedestrian flow adjacent to the stop. A typical layout is shown in Figure 12. The front or rear door of many 40-foot transit coaches is equipped with a drop-down wheelchair lift that allows wheelchair passengers to safely and easily board RTA buses. To ensure that sufficient clearance is provided to allow wheelchair patrons to maneuver and enter or exit these lifts safely, special attention should be made to provide a clear zone in the vicinity of the doors on the coaches. Figure 13 details the clearance zone necessary for safe use of these wheelchair lifts. The "kneeling" feature on the front end of many buses, which reduces the step height for mobility impaired patrons, requires no special bus stop design features to operate. 20 60' O~S. 60' ~.S. ,,, -~ ~ Z~ ~ ~s~ s~ sf~ III MID-BLOCK STOP 'i~~, Stl'l~4111t ~0,*dl Sill FARSIDE STOP I II I ,I NOT ) MI Qll Ills St410 SIIpl NEARSIDE ' 40' Minimum for low speed and low vQlume streets 60. desirable for high speed ~ high ~olume street. STOP '1 I "This SO' berth is for a single large 40' long vehicle. For articulated vehicles, a 70' berth is necossarf. Theie dimensions are for one IDLm position only; if more pMitiom are required at a stop, see Figure 10 on how to estimate the length needed for multiple berths. TO SCALE FIGURE 9 DIMENSIONS FOR ON-STREET BUS STOPS 22 I ! ! ! ! I I I ! I I I I I I I ! ! I I ! I I I ! ! I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I ! ! ! I ! .Ok 26 u-m0 Eastern Municipal Water District September 12, 1997 Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 SUBJECT: Westside SP/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center -Wild West Area (PA97-0298) Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office describing a proposal to construct a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways). The subject project is indicated to be located west of Old Town temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan. Please be advised the proposed project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District for sewer service. The provisions of service are contingent upon the timing of the subject project and status of the District's permit to operate. The developer must co~ua~= the District's Customer Service Department for plan cf service, plan check, connection fees and agreement for service. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 766-1810, extension 4467. Sincerely, Warren A. Back Civil Engineer Customer Service Department was/ Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 · San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Pettis, CA 92571 · Telephone (909) 928-3777 · Fax (909) 928-6177 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO: ., CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan DATE: September 3, 1997 ,. FROM RE: GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV · . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA97-0298 .. ': ~ '~ ~ '.~.1 ?,,,-~a~ 1. Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA97-0298 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. GD:dr (909) 285-8980 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RATIONALE FOR APPEAL NO. I TEV, INC. R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.CCI 11/7/97 klb 30 -, Appeal Planning Application No. PA 97-0298 Reason or iustification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue which the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every item of evidence. In a discussion with our engineers and architects after the Planning Commission hearing, we ~vere urged to have a level of flexibility for the roof material other than the single choice of Metal. We are however in agreement with the color specified by the Planning Commission. Therefore, our request, if granted, will not have any visual impact on the project. Further, we have appealed the Approval of the Planning Commission to the City Council because we believe that the project is of such significance to the Citizen~ of Temecula that the final decision as to its consistency with community objectives should be made by their elected representatives. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RATIONALE FOR APPEAL NO. 2 ALBERT S. PRATT R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.CCI 11nl9'7 klb 31 C~lifomia R~imr~io~: Civi! F.~ine~' No. 7697 Smx~m~l ~ No. 650 ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Tcmecula, CA 92591 (Emafl: sampratt(~alphainfo. corn) (909) 699-8689 Friday, October 17, 1997 OCT1? lg97 / Mrs. June Greek City Clerk Tcm~cula City Council City of Tcm¢cula 43200 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92590 (909) 694-6444 FAX (909)694-1999 Subject: Appeal to Tcmccula City Council - Planning Comm/ssion's Action of Octob~ 6, 1997 on Albert S. Pratt Pctition for a Subscqucnt or Supplcmcntal Enviromncntal Impact Rcport on PA97-0298 (Dcvclopmcnt Plan) and all data references arc a part of this appcal. Applicant: TEV, Inc. (Zcv Buffman) Reference Documents which arc a matter of Record with the City of Tcmocula and arc includcd by reference in support of this appeal: Case No. 280260 - Ccr6tie. d Administrative Record of the Proceedings of the City of Tcmccula concerning the City's 1996 Approval of Modifications of Portions of thc Conditions of Approval for a Master Conditional Use Permit, A Tentative Tract Map and the Wcstsidc Spccific Plan. Trial Date: October 25, 1996. Volumes 1 through 6. Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Applicant: Forest City Dcvelopmcnt, Inc. Temecula City Manager's Letter of June 20. 1997 A.S. Pratt Letter to Tcm~ula Planning Commission of June 2, 1997 A.S. Pratt Lctter to Tcmocula City Manager, Tcmccula City Council, Tcmccula Planning Coremism'on and Tcmccula Redevelopment Agency of June 29, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan- Appeal), Hearing of August 4, 1997 at 7:00 PM Addendum to Anneal filed on Jul_v 21. 1997. Applicant: Forest City Dcvclopmcnt, Inc., Appellant: Albcn S. Pratt, Dated August 4, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0298 ~elopmmt Plan), Applicant: TEV, Inc. (Zev Buffman), Dated October 6, 1997 ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Eraall: sampratt~alphainfo. corn) (9O9) 699-8689 ¢alifmaia P~aimatioa: Civil i~i~'a~r No. 7697 8auca~ F. asi~ No. 650 . The ~t~r ca~ attention to past cvcnts which a large number of citizens of Tcmccula banded together in opposition to the Old Town entertainment Center. Initially thcrc was an "advisory vote" to determine the acceptance of the proposcd project. The result of this vote was, initially, those opposed prevailed by 18 votes. Efforts by the City Clcrk and City Attoracy, thc day following thc election, rcsultcd in a new vote total of a plurality of 49 votes in favor of the project. This unusual step of intcrfcring with the voting proccsscs by City officials and the resulting plurality of the "advisory election", cvcn though the total vote was in the thousands, was interpreted by the City Council as a "mandatc" to proceed with thc project. 2~ The 'mifi~ agreements with the developer provided total authority over the scope of thc project with the City providing all the ncccssary financin8 including fun~ the project dircctor, Mr. Zcv Buffman. Tlgs was a no risk position for thc devcloper and an unlinu'tcd risk for the taxpayers. e The opposition continued their efforts to stop the project under these circums~ccs. The City Council, supportcd by spccial interests, developed an adversary position against the citizens opposed to the project. Our elected officials made no attempt to inform the opposition of the many agreements prepared to execute the dcvclopmcnt and construction of the Old Town Entertainment Center. Instcad for all practical purposes considered them the "enemy' in the development of this venture. . The opposition continued to pursue their efforts to stop the project, including a lawsuit undcr CEQA. Thcsc dclays havc r~sultcd in hundrcds of thousands of dollars spent by the City and thc dcvcloper opposing thc intcrcsts of thousands of citizens. . After several years the project is yet to commence, due to financial problems on the par~ of the developer, resulting in a major change in the project from the Origh~ Old Town Entcrtainmcnt Project to a Wild West Arena and the inigal phase rcsulting in many Old Town property owners and merchants losing ~heir property and their businesses, all because of the City Council's lack of concern over the welfare and quality of life of all of its citizens. . We continue to oppose the project, and have voiced many of our objectiota verbally and in writing. Probably the major concern impactin~ the quality oflifc of our city is the mitigation of traffic resulting from the development of this project, ,aft.BERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cow Temeeula, CA 92591 (Email: ~pratt~alphainfo. corn) Calif~a Re~im~im: Civil ~ No. 7697 (909) 699-8689 and particularly now the there is a complete change in focus in the location of the project, and the current abandonment of the Original Old Town Entertainment Centcr to somc future datc lcaving thc merchants and property owners "high and e Local analysis of traffic congestion, rather than relying on prepared "traffic models" is suggestcd in official rccommendafions. These comments are included in the appeal filed in rcgard to traffic mitigation in thc Forest City Mall Project, and is a part of the record of proceeding of at the hearing on august 4, 1997. e This appeal requests that thc current project, the Wild West Arena and supporting development not be app o, A supplemental or subsequent EIR must be prepared addressing all of the changes since the original EIR was Certified over three years ago. The traffic analysis and up date does not address the existing and future traffic congestion of thc City of Tcmccula. 9. The City must face the fact that the opposition will continue their efforts in opposition to this project. Three years have been lost in which during that period a new updated traffic analysis, based on field data, could have been prepared and other new environmental issues impacting the project that have resulted in changes circumstances could have been address, resulting in the preparation of a supplcmcntal or subscquent EIR. Should thc conclusions be in favor of thc project, thc project would proceed. Should thc conclusions not support the project the projcct would bc abandoned in its entirety. It is a disservice to all of thc c'flizens to continue thc adversarial policy of our present City Council. 10. The Original Draft EIIL SCH #94072039, was prepared as a "Focused EIR". CEQA Section 21158 (a). "A focuscd environmental impact report is an environment impact report on a subsequent project identified in a master environmcntal impact report." Guide to California Environmental Quality Act, Chapter X, D, 2, (c). "A focused EIR must incorporate the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR)." The Original Draft EIR does not reference the MEIR. 11. The preparcd "Focused EIR" addresscs the impact of the project traffic congestion and mitigation on only the immediate area. It does not address the traffic congestion and mitigation on the entire City of Temecula and the surrounding ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Tcmccula, CA 92591 (Email: sampr~phainfo.oom) (909) 699-8689 ¢alifomi~ Re~islmion: Civil ~No. 7697 ~ ~ No. 650 12. Planning Application PA97-0298, violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Ouidelinos Section 15130 (a), (b) and (c), Cumulative Impacts. 13. Agencies cannot "piecemeal" multi-stage projects; that is agencies cannot treat one project as a succession of smaller projects, none of which, by its sclf, camcs significant impacts. 14. This is an attempt to "downsize" a portion of the total project for approval, and avoid CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 "Cumulative Impacts". 15. Certain previous lraffic mitigation measures have been deleted or delayed as a condition of approval for PA97-0298, as a result of thc "picccmcal" approach which violates CEQA and GEQA Guidclincs. None of the traffic mitigation measures proposed in the Original Draft EIR and to bc cxccutcd by the City of Temecula, and other public agencies have been constructed. 16. Specifically they are complete the widening of SR79S to the interchange with I-15, Thc improvements to the Rancho California/I-15 Overpass, First Street Bridgc, the We, stem Bypass, Vincent Moraga Drive south of its c~t intersec6on with Ridge Park Drive, the intcrscction at Santiago Road and Front Street, extend First Strcct west of Front Street to intersect the Western Bypass including the bridge across Murricta Creek, the intersection travel lanes indicatcd in Figure 16, Chapter 5, of the Sitc Traffic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Old Town Redevelopment Project - Phase I. 17. Substantial changes and new information have occurred, in three (3) years, in the traffic density affccting air quality, noise and traffic circulation since the Original Draft EIR of 1994 requiring a supplcmcntal or subsequent EIR. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. 18. Projcct Description/Use: To construct a permanent 4,800 scat Wild Wcst Arena and Associatcd parking and Landscaping, PA97-0298 does not meet CEQA or CEQA Ouidelincs and must not bc approvcd. This is onc projcct of a proposcd "picccmcal" mulfi-stagc projccts planned by thc dcvcloper TEV,Inc. 19. The Old Town Redevclopmcnt Project Draft Environmental Impact Rcport - Volume I, State Clearing House #94072039, of December 1994, prepared for the ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt~alphainfo.com) (909) 699-8689 Civil F_~ No. 7697 ~ F. nsinm' No. 650 City of Tcrnecula, Draft Focused EIR, Introduction, Page 2-2, paragraph 2, "The CEQA requires that the City of Tcmecula, the CEQA Lcad Agcncy, consider the information in the environmental record, including the Focused EIl~ prior to making a discretionary decision on the Old Town Redevelopment Plan. 0e The discretionary decisions that will be considered by the City of Tcmecula include: a Master Conditional Use Permit for consideration and operation of the entcrtaimncnt facilitics; thc Westside 8pccific Plan; and a General Plan Amendment to ensure consistency between the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. This Focused EIR evaluates the cnvir~~ effects of constructing and operating the entertainmcnt facilities, commercial facilities, and hotel and constructing and oper~ the entertainment facilities, commercial fac'tliges, and hotels and construc~ and occupying the residential area included in the Wemidc Specific 21. On March 26, 1997, at the Community Center on Pujol Street, Mr. Zev Buffm~ presided at a Forum to inform the citizens of T emecula and the merchants and property owners of Old Town of thc change in plato and order of development of the Old Town En~ent Center and thc Westside Specific Plan. The focus would be on the initial development of the West Sidc Spccific Plan as Phase I. 22. Mr. Buffman had opened several escrows with Old Town property owners for property that would be used to construct the Old Town Entertainment Project. Mr. Buffman informed thc group that certain resWaints made it necessary to change the order of construction of the overall project affecting starting times and time of completion ofvntious ~ of th~ total concept. 23. Mr. Buffram defaulted on cscrows with property owners of the Old Town area and informed thosc present that, henceforth, new construction would be entered in the area of the Westside Specific Plan necessitating the immediate construction of the Western Bypass access road to serve the Westside Specific Plan as it develops. The Old Town Entcrtainment Center would bc abandoned until successfid development and operation of the Westside Specific Plan, which would now be Phase I, but that The Old Town entertainment Center would be phased in at a later date, and presumably those who lost money in opening escrows would benefit cvcn~ in the development of Phase 1I. 24. The original approved EIR SCH #94072039, covers environmental impacts of the entire completed project including traffic mitigation. C~ivil ~ No. 7697 ~an~ural ~ No. 650 ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Tcmecuia, CA 92591 (Eraall: sampratt~phainfo. tom) (909) 699-8689 25. 26. 27. 28. PA97-0298, covers only one "piece" of this major project, and renders the application and supporting documents invalid as they violate CEQA and CEQA Guidelines by taking out of context enough data to support only the construction of the 4800 Seat arena and ignoring the build out of the project as a whole and the Agency must not approve the application.] Appellant has stated the application for the Project a 4800 scat arena violates CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Traffic circulation and mitigation reduces the mitigation approved in the Original 1994 EIR, SCH #94072039. This is a "piece" of a major combined West Side Specific Plan and a now future Old Town Entertainnmnt Center. This approach violatin CEQA and CEQA Guideline. The traffic addendum of Wilbur Smith Associates of August 28, 1997, is prepared to addm~ the issue of only the 4800 Seat Wild West Arena. It ignores the traffic impact of the entire project at build out, and is not acgeDtable as a docu~.ent to support approval of PA97.7.0298, by the Platoting Comtni~on and the Agency, thc City Council of the City of Temccula. Wilbur Smith Associates addendum violates CEQA and GEQA Guidelines by attempting to show an erroneous traffic mitigation conclusion. The addendum presented ignores all prcsmt traffic. Is based on a compounded traffic growth rate of 2.1%, which was presented in the Original Draft EIR. The traffic consultant Wilbur Smith Associates has relied on a SCAG transportation trafi~ distribution model in spite of a caveat to factor in local traffic conditions that result in serious congestion. The 3CAO traffic model is certainly a best effort toward solutions of a constantly changing traffic environment. However, its use many times can result in "garbage in - garbage out". No "in sire" traffic checks have bern made in the 3 years since the original tragic survey was made by Barton-Aschman even though the population of the City has grown to nearly 50,000 froma 1934 population of 36,472 in 3 yea~s, an 11.1% compounded growth rate. To update a traffic plan based on a compounded traffic growth rate of 2,1% per year in the face of an 11.1% compounded population growth rate is an irresponsible presentation to the Platoflag Commission in order to obtain their project approval. This in the face of estimated traffic growth in the Tomecula area in which the tra~c mitigation had not been executed due to lack of attention by the Platming Department, Planning commisa'on and Temecula City Council. No. 650 A!.RERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cov~ Tom~ula, CA 92591 (Eraall: ~q~ratt~alphainfo.com) (909) 699-8689 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. As of this date, 1997 no traffic 'tmtigati~ measures ~d in thc Draft EIR for the original Old Town Entertainment Center and the West Side Specific Plan have been started, much less completed. In the revised traffic analysis by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA). An allempt is made to show that the peak traffic hours of the Wild West Arena will be at times other than the pcak traffic hours in thc surrounding areas. The peak traffic hours of the Wild West Arena in its self requires mitigation. The 4800 seat arena, can generate a minimum of i'o00 cars per hour fi;~ng Arena, and at the completion of an event create traffic mi6g~tlon demands of 1600 cars within a period of 30 minutes. Add to this the proposed additional Arena capacity of 1200 seat~ for a total of 6000 seats resulling in a minimum of 2000 cars arriving within a 45 minute timc f~ame and at thc completion of an event c~ traffic mitigation demands of 2000 cars within a period of 30 minutes. In the traffic analysis a new study has to be donc compamg Ternecula's ambient traffic to the traffic generated 90 minutes before an event would start at the Wild West Arena. This would give the best indication of the impacts of the Project's traffic on Teme~ula's ambient traffic. The 4800 seat ar~m has parking facilities for 1600 cars. This estimates that there will be an average of 3 persons per vdticlc. Assuming that the first cars arrive one hour before the proposed entertainment, and the last arrive I0 minutes before the ~d~minm~att this is an nv~ra~ parking rat~ of 35 minut~ ~ cnr to fill th~ lot to capacity. This parldng congestion could result in a parldng rate of 1600 cars per hour (optimum) to 2560 cars per hour. On might expect the latter figure as the rate the arena would empty after the event. This is a far cry from the 220 cars per hour mentioned in the Wilbur Smith Asnociates report. In any event the cumulative impact of traffic for the project at build out cannot be ignored under CEQA. The ~ed Western BylmsS discharges tra~c onto existing surface streets. Referring to the appellmt's Appeal to the Planning Commis~on of October 6, 1997, the applicant is not required to have the Western Bypass connec~t to a completed 8R79S interc~e, and to have 8R795 widened to 6 lanes as proposed in thc Original Draft EIR. Thcsc ~mpro,~mcn~s wcrc schcdulcd to occur by 1996, ~i! P. aS/m~r No. 7~97 am~m~ ~ ~o. s~o ^{.RERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Covo - Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt alphaido. corn) (909) 699-8689 (which affect their, Wilbur Smith Associates, analysis) and now, late 1997, these improv~nonts havo not boon started. 37. There is no traffic mitigation monitoring plan rcqu~d in the approval of PA97- 0298. 38. The writer made a traffic count on October 13, 1997 (a Holiday) at apM~ximately 4:07 p.m. at the south end of Front Street just before the stop sign to I-15, and found a weekday traffic count of 414 cars per hour. Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) Drawing 4a, Phase I Project Traffic indicates lg 1 cars per hour. Existing traffic on a Holiday is 2.67 times projected traffic from the Wild West Arena. 39. Further traffic count on October 13, 1997, at 3:35 p.m. at the south wcst comer of Rancho California Road (easterly directly) at the intcnection with Front Street found a weekday traffic count of 828 cars per hour. WSA Drawh~ 4a indicates 10 cars por hour. Existing traffic is 82.8 time projected traffo from the Wild West Arona. The WSA figures are erroneous. An Internal Memo, October 1, 1997, by Mathew Fagan of the Plamdng DeparUnent, Item 21, "The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Conununity Facilities district, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee district for the construction of the proposed "Western Bypa~ Conidor and Vincent Moraga offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney". This will rmult in public funds b~ usod to provido accoss to the Wostsido Specific ?lan Entofiahunent Center. ~t was tho understanding that th0 Dovoloper would provid~ private funds for the construction of this facility. 41. The same above reference Internal Memo, Item 35, "The Developer shall complete thc following infrastructure improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy: Western Bypass Corridor, et. al. This statement is in conflict with Item 21 in which publk funds will be used to construct the Western Bypass Corridor. 42. The Project is not feasible without the Western Bypass Corridor for access constructed and maintained with nublic funds. 43. We take exception with Item 2.0 of the Letter of Jus~tion; "Would the proposed us© and design havo a substantial adverse affect on traitic circulation and on Civil ~ No. 7697 Sinmini ~ No. S$0 ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Tcmocula, CA 92591 (Email: unq t alphainfo.com) (909) 699-8689 planned oapaoity of the street s~stem?" The appear statc~ the project would have a major nosativo effect on traffic circulation and the planned capacity of the street system. The information furnished the developer by Wilbur Smith Associates does not reftoct exitins and future traffic circulation and the planned capacity of the 44. W'dbur Smith Associates lcttcr of October 1, 1997, RE: Impact of Mall Trips on Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Tomocula Entertainment Center Traffic Analysis: In 'justifying their analysis of the lack of major impact a compoundcd lraffic growth of 2.1% is used. Our position from ficld chocks, population gro 'wth, motor vchiclc focs, gas tax, and sales tax revenue indicated a compoundcd traffic growth of over 4 limo the amount considered by WSA. WSA has taken no field traffic counts 45. The City of Murriota formerly protested the impact of the For~ City Mall traffic on their city traffic circulation. The addition of a major cntertahuncnt venue, the Wesmide Specific Plan/Old Town Tomocula Entmahunont Center will further cxaccrbatc the Murrieta traffic congosgon. The alwmpt by the Dg~opor and approved by the T omocula Planning C~'on i~ to "launch" the Wes~dc $pocifio Plan/Old Town Tomooula mtonahunont Center in increments in violalion of CEQA and CEQA Cmidolino~. 4~7e Wc take exception with Item 3.0 of the Letter of Ju~ification; 'Would the propo~d mo imvo a substantial advor~ impact on the gonor~ weftare of the por~m~ residing in the community"? The 1ooation of the Wild West Arena and its lm~xmcd multi- use w~l result in the schodulin~ of rock concerts and the associated ~ dec~el noise level. Substantial housing additions have occurred, adding to the preyiota housing developments, since the Original Draft EIR of 1994, on the high ground on the east side of I-15. These hundreds of residents are on a direct line with the proposed Wild West Arena and win be seriously impacted by a high docibel sound level. No noise level data was provided for these homes. A subsequent or Supplemental EIR must address this serious issue. 48. Thc circumstances have changed in regard to the use of the W'dd West Arena from the Original EIR stated used to thc new pro~ uses. CEQA Section 21166 Co). CEQA Guideline Section (a) (2). ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Emil: urapra alphainfo.com) Civ~! .V.~ ~ 7697 Stomatal gssin~ No. 650 (909) 699-8689 49. Planning Conm6ssion Memorandum From: Debbie Ubnoako, Platoting Mmmgor, Date: August 18, 1997, Prepar~ by Mathow Fagan, Associate Plannor, Page 3: "Lowering the Height of the Western Bypass Corridor (WBC) by an average of (15) foot. - Tlds grading plan differs from the ap~ grading plan oonoopt in the Westaide Specific Plan. The changes have occurred because of modifications to the project, as well as lowering of the Wesma Bypass Corridor." 50. This lowering of the Western Bypass Corridor is a substantial change propreed in the project, which w/l require major rcvim'ons of the ~viromnental impact report. There is no grading plan to review to account for the handling of thousands of cubic yards of roadway excavation. How and where will it be placed? What is the effect on the present Old Town area during the constmc~ procesn? I-I(nv will constallion noise be 'natigated? What w~l be the effect on local traffic due to the constant movement of comm~ction grading equipment?. 51. W'dl the appearance of the project be advtn~ly altected? What will be the environmontal offect on the g~ology. What will be the effect on po~iblo Indian Burial sites and artifacts? Will endangered sp~ies be affected due to the removal, in d~pth of the surfac~ nell? 52. What will be the effect of the placed compacted fill on all species, including endangered? Will the 1owe~/ng of the trade by (15) feet affect air quality due to exhaust emissions being dosor to lower inhabited areas? What will be the affect on adjac~t property facing the WBC as to access and other factors? A Supplemental of Sul~quent FJR must be prepared and circulated. CEQA Section 21166 (a) and CEQA Ouidzlinzs Sc~ion 15162 (a), (1). 53. All of the requirements of CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA C-uidolines Section 15162 are "triggered" by PA97-029g. Albert 8. Pral~ ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 6, 1997 R:\$TAFFRPT~298PA97.CCI 11/7/97 klb 32 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 6, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: · ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving an Addendum to a Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and make Findings that a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR are not required; and . ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan), based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: TEV, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Engineering Ventures PROPOSAL: The construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways) LOCATION: West of Old Town Temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan (SP) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Light Industrial (LI) Specific Plan (SP) - Westside Specific Plan Specific Plan (SP) - Old Town Temecula Specific Plan Specific Plan (SP) - Westside Specific Plan PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP) and High Density Residential (H) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:~TAFFRP'I~295PAF7.PC1 10/2197 vgw I SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Single-family residences/multi-family residences Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Site Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Arena Height: 33.1 acres 1,441,618 square feet 103,564 square feet 341,715 square feet 966,339 square feet 1,626 spaces 1,684 spaces Seventy-five (75) feet BACKGROUND The pre-application submittal for this project was made to the Planning Department on Monday, August, 4, 1997. Staff held a pre-application meeting with the applicant and his design professionals on Thursday, August 7, 1997. A Planning Commission Workshop was held on August 18, 1997. The Commission provided direction on the site plan, grading plan, landscape plan and arena elevations. In addition, the Commission requested additional information regarding traffic in the vicinity of the project. Staff provided detailed comments to the applicant as a result of the Commission Workshop in a letter dated August 20, 1997. The application for Phase I of development was formally submitted on August 28, 1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on September 11, 1997. The project was deemed complete on September 22, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the construction and operation of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways). Hardscape improvements include: the arena, walkways, driveways, parking areas and drainage facilities. Landscape improvements include: slopes on the west side of the Western By-Pass Corridor, all on-site slopes, street scape on First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor, and Vincent Moraga Drive and median landscaping on the Western By-Pass Corridor. Roadway improvements include: First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor, and Vincent Moraga Drive. ANALYSIS The site will take access from First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor and Vincent Moraga Drive. Pedestrian access from Old Town will be from Main Street and First Street. A north- south drive lane has been provided on the site and will run the length of the project from First Street in the south to Vincent Moraga Drive to the north. This drive will be intersected by access drives from the Western By-Pass Corridor and will provide access drives to the parking areas. Two transit stops have been included on the main north-south drive lane within vicinity of the proposed attractions. R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 v~,w 2 The site plan shows details for Phase I of the development and has identified areas for Phase II of the development. Phase II development will require additional application submittals. The scope of improvements to be installed with Phase I has been listed above under the Project Description portion of this Staff Report. The applicant has indicated that the application for the Phase II component will be submitted soon after the Planning Commission considers Phase I of the project. It is the applicants contention that both Phases of the project will probably be completed at the same time. The arena requires a longer construction period than the remainder of the project, and as a result, is being processed first. Landscape Plan The landscape plan has been provided on multiple sheets at a scale of 1" =40'. The plan shows the size and types of plants for the following: the parking areas, slope plantings on the east side of the project (which serve as a buffer to the existing residences along Pujol Street), slope plantings to the west of the Western By-Pass Corridor (to re-vegetate the slopes when the project is graded), around the walkways and around the arena. Enlarged details have been provided for the following: parking lot islands (diamonds and fingers), the slope west of the Western By-Pass Corridor, the main entry landscaping, parking lot perimeters, Western By-Pass Corridor Streetscape and raised landscape median, and the slope on the eastern side of the project (behind Pujol Street). A Condition of Approval has been added to the project which will require landscape and irrigation plans for all slope areas which will be disturbed by project grading be approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In addition, a Condition of Approval has been added which will require the applicant to post a bond for the installation of the slope landscaping and irrigation prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This includes the slope areas created within the project itself, plus those slopes created south of First Street (to Front Street) and along and adjacent to Vincent Moraga Drive. Staff has met several time with the applicant's landscape architect and the City's landscape architect. Staff feels the landscape plans are comprehensive and address the Commission's concerns regarding buffering residences along Pujol Street from the project and the Commission's concerns regarding the re-vegetation of the slopes to the west of the Western By-Pass Corridor. Arena Elevations The arena is the only structure proposed during Phase I of the development. The design of the arena contains some elements of a old western fort (towers, doors, etc.). The height of the arena will be seventy-five feet. Colors used for the arena are earth-tones: shades of white, tan and brown. These colors will blend in well with the surrounding hillside. The base color of the arena will be Dunn Edwards "Baja White" (see color and material board) and will be stucco. The arena roof material will be metal and painted Dunn Edwards "Bone." Other elements include: wood trim, simulated wood shake roofing (for other roof areas), concrete and glass. Metal roll- up door will be located on the northern side of the building and will provide access for large vehicles for events at the arena. These doors will be painted the same as the base color Dunn Edwards "Baja White" and will be compatible with the rest of the building. R:~'TAFF~98PA97.PCI 10/21F'/vgw Traffic Issues The Planning Commission requested the applicant analyze these traffic issues: the effect of mall traffic on the project and the underlying assumptions for baseline traffic and the impact of the project on critical intersections where improvements are to occur (i.e., Interstate 15/SR79 South and Interstate 15/Rancho California Road). The applicant has submitted two letters, dated August 28, 1997 and September 21, 1997 further clarifying these issues. These have been included in the Addendum. Page 4 of the August 28, 1997 letter states: 'the estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with the Old Town Entertainment Center project would actually help in off-setting most of the added Mall traffic on Rancho California Road at the interchange and Ynez Roads as compared to the original EIR traffic impact assessment at this location." This is further quantified and clarified on page 4 of the September 21, 1997 letter. The August 28, 1997 letter also addresses the timing of roadway improvements at the SR79 South/Interstate 15 Interchange. According to page 4 of this letter, the current schedule for State Route 79 South/1-15 Interchange shows completion of the improvement would occur by October or November of 1998. This indicates that both interchange improvements (Rancho California Road and State Route 79 South) would be completed before or at approximately the same time as the Wild West Arena is scheduled to open. SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY A General Plan consistency analysis was performed for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (reference Attachment No. 4). Staff has reviewed this analysis and has determined the project is consistent with that analysis, and is therefore is consistent with the General Plan. The applicant performed an analysis entitled 'Westside Specific Plan Project Description and Consistency Evaluation" (Westside Specific Plan Consistency Report) which made a determination that the project as proposed is consistent with the Westside Specific Plan. The Westside Specific Plan Consistency Report was included in the Commission Workshop Staff Report and has again been included as Attachment No. 5 to this Staff Report. Based upon this analysis, Staff has determined the project is consistent with the Westside Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff conducted an Initial Environmental Study (IES) to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031). In addition, the applicant prepared an EIR Consistency Report which was included in the Commission Workshop Staff Report. Based upon staff's analysis in the IES and review and examination of the EIR Consistency Report, staff has determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR shall be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. An addendum has been prepared because changes and additions were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The addendum has been included as R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 4 Exhibit A of Attachment No. I to this Staff Report. The Addendum contains the following: a recommendation for adopting an Addendum, the IES(which includes the determination to prepare an Addendum and Evaluations of Addendum Issues) and supporting (Traffic Analysis and Visual Simulations for the Aesthetic Impact Analysis), Mitigation measures approved with the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) will apply to this project. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project consists of the construction and operation of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways). The site will take access from First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor and Vincent Moraga Drive. The site plan shows details for Phase I of the development and has identified areas for Phase II of the development. Phase II development will require additional application submittals. The arena is the only structure proposed during Phase I of the development. The Planning Commission requested the applicant analyze these traffic issues: the effect of mall traffic on the project and the underlying assumptions for baseline traffic and the impact of the project on critical intersections where improvements are to occur (i.e., Interstate 15/SR79 South and Interstate 15/Rancho California Road). The applicant has submitted two letters, dated August 28, 1997 and September 21, 1997 further clarifying these issues. A General Plan consistency analysis was performed for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (reference Attachment No. 4). Staff has reviewed this analysis and has determined the project is consistent with that analysis and is therefore is consistent with the General Plan and the Westside Specific Plan. staff has determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR shall be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. FINDINGS Addendum to the Previously Certified EIR . The project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and an addendum to the previously certified FEIR is appropriate for the following reasons: A. On July 13, 1995, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95-49 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0031 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 15, EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA RIVER," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Westside Specific Plan and Planning Application No. PA95- 0003 (Westside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the Property. R:~I'A~SPA97.PCI 10/?./97 v~,w 5 al The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study (IES), dated September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which IES is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, the Westside Specific Plan, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Final Environmental Impact Report) and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). Minor changes to the project have been reviewed and examined in an Addendum to Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). D. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: lm The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendum prepared for the Development Plan (Planning Application No. PA97- 0298). 1 There have been no subsequent changes to the Project which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. . Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. . There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR. 1 There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR. 1 There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. R:~'~TAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 1 There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Develooment Plan le 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. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including the City's General Plan and the Wes,side Specific Plan. 0 The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: · e . 0 PC Resolution - Blue Page 8 A. Addendum to EIR - Blue Page 13 PC Resolution - Blue Page 19 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 23 Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Old Town Redevelopment Project - Blue Page 40 General Plan Consistency Analysis from the Old Town Redevelopment Project - Blue Page 41 Westside Specific Plan Consistency Report - Blue Page 44 Exhibits - Blue Page 45 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan D-1. Linkage to Old Town E. Arena Elevations F. Color Arena Elevations G. Color and Material Board H. Landscape Plan H-1. Color Landscape Plan I. Floor Plan J. Grading Plan R:~'TA~SPA97.PCI 10/2197 vgw ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION 97- R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw ~ ATFACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 9% A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIk~ EIR AND FINDINGS THAT A SUBSEQUENT EIR IS NOT REQUIREr} ON 33.1 ACRES LOCATEr} WEST OF OLD TOWN TEMECULA (100 FEET WEST OF PUJOL STREET), 700 FEET SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE/VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, WITHIN THE WESTSIDE SPECIHC PLAN AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 940-310-013, 940-320-002 and 940-320-001 WHEREAS, Tev, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, Staff conducted an Initial Environmental Study (1ES) to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) and determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95- 0031) and Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) on October 6, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) and Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan); 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. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project makes the following findings: R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.PC1 10/2197 vgw 9 1. The project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and an addendum to the previously certified FEIR is appropriate for the following reasons: A. On July 13, 1995, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95-49 entitled 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0031 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA~S OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 15, EAST OF THE CITY'S WES~ BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA RIVER," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Westside Specific Plan and Planning Application No. PA95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the Property. B. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study (IF_S), dated September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which IES is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, the Westside Specific Plan, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Final Environmental Impact Report) and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). Minor changes to the project have been reviewed and examined in an Addendum to Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). D. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: 1. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendum prepared for the Development Plan (Planning Application No. PA97-0298; 2. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. R:~STAFFR¥1~95PA97.PCI 10/2/9'7 vgw "[ 0 3. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 4. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show .or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR. 5. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR. 6. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. 7. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was conducted to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031). Based upon this analysis, staff determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The addendum was prepared because changes and additions were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Mitigation measures approved with the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) will apply to this project. Section 4. ~ That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project and Findings that a Subsequent EIR Is not required on 28.15 acres located west of Old Town Temecula (100 feet West of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-310-013, 940-320-002 and 940-320-001 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 v~, '[ '[ Section $. PASSEr}, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of October, 1997, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES' PLANNING COlVllVlISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMlVlISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~'TAFFRFI~98PA9'/.PCI 10/2/97 vgw ] 2 EXHIBIT A ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT R:\STAFFRIrI~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vk, w 1 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Recommendation for Adopting an Addendum ............................. 15 Initial Environmental Study Checklist for Addendum ....................... 16 Determination Evaluation of Addendum Issues Traffic Study .................................................. 17 Traffic Study dated August 11, 1997 Letter from WSA dated August 28, 1997 Letter from WSA dated September 21, 1997 Letter from WSA dated October 1, 1997 Visual Simulations .............................................. 18 R:~TAFFRPTY298PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM R:~'T~98PA97.PC1 9/26/97 mf 1 5 Recommendation for Adopting an Addendum In 1995 the City of Temecula approved the Old Town Redevelopment Project, including the Westside Specific Plan CvVSP) and certified a Final EIR as the appropriate CEQA determination for the project. The project envisioned about 12-14 entertainment venues as part of a western themed entertainment complex and support commercial and residential uses that would be constructed in two phases. Substantial infrastructure improvements were also required to support the project, including construction of several bridges, a major portion of the Western By-pass road, and improvements to interchanges between major local roads and Interstate 15. Over the past two years, the project proponent, Temecula Entertainment Ventures, Inc. (TEVI), has evolved the design of the project from its original design concept with approximately 1,045,500 square feet (It'-)of commercial facilities to a current design concept with approximately 459,700 ft2. Along with this reduction in the number of initial facilities that are proposed to be constructed, the TEVI proposes to focus all initial development in the WSP area. Because of these changes, the City decided to reevaluate the potential environmental effects of the current design concept which is being reviewed for approval as a Development Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 11) provide that an agency shall prepare an Addendum to a certified EIR when some changes or additions are necessary and where no substantial changes occur in the project. Section 15164 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." To ascertain whether the conditions in 15162 apply to the current design concept for the proposed project, the city prepared an Initial Study to evaluate each environmental issue and substantiate the need for either a subsequent EIR or an Addendum to the certified EIR. The attached Initial Study indicates that for all environmental issues, the physical changes of the project are either reduced compared to the project approved in 1995, or are directly comparable to the impact forecasts contained in the certified E1R. Two technical study updates, for traffic and aesthetic impacts, were prepared to verify the conclusions presented in the attached Initial Study. Based on these findings, the City intends to adopt this Addendum to the certified Final EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project as the appropriate CEQA determination for the Development Plan and related project approvals (such as the grading plan) currently before the City. The Addendum consists of this recommendation and summary of findings; the Initial Study substantiating the findings; the technical data and materials prepared in support of this environmental finding; and the various engineering and technical reports submitted in fulfillment of conditions of approval and mitigation measures established as part of the original decision and certified EIR. If the Development Plan and related implementation plans are approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination for the Addendum following the final hearing on this matter. INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CHECKLIST FOR ADDENDUM R:~qTAFFRPT~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 v~w 1 6 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist for Addendum . . . . . . . .a. 8.b. Project Title: Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Nmnber: Matthew Fagan, (909) 694-6400 Project Location: The Westside Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 153.1 acres south and west of Pujol Street in the City of Temecula. The mapped location of the proposed project areas can be found on the Murrieta and Temecula 7.5' topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey, at Latitude 33° 28' North and Longitude 1170 09' West. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: TEVI, 41934 Main Street, Temecula 92590 General Plan Designation: Westside Specific Plan Zoning: Westside Specific Plan Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The original project consisted of a conceptual description of the facilities and their proposed activity patterns. The Final EIR, Chapter 3, contains the detailed descriptions of the proposed facilities and activities. The following summary is based on Chapter 3 of the Final EIR and the project summary contained in the adopted Statement of Overriding considerations. The facilities consist of: Cabaret Theaters: Two cabaret theaters are proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. Both cabaret theaters would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. One cabaret is proposed to contain about 27,000 square feet (R2) and 40 feet high and the second theater is proposed to contain about 45,000 ft2. These cabarets are designed to entertain a maximum of about 600 and 900 people per event, respectively. Each show is expected to last for approximately two hours and it is initially anticipated that the theater will hold 13 shows per week. Westem Saloons: Two saloons are proposed to be located in the OSTP core area. Both saloons would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project and each saloon is proposed to contain approximately 10,000 fd in a one-two story structure. Each saloon will be designed to entertain .approximately 350 persons, 250 at tables and about 100 at or adjacent to the bar. A small stage will be provided for typical bar entertainment, such as dancing girls. Staged bar fights, shootouts and other entertainment will be provided. The saloons xvill operate every day of the week. R:~'ORMS\CEQA.IES 9/22/97 Idb ] .C. .e. 8.g. 8.h. Ooera House: An opera house is proposed to be located in the OTSP. It would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. The opera house is proposed to be a two story structure with the proscenium approximately 50 feet high. The opera house is expected to encompass 85,000 It2 of space with a building footprint of approximately 75,0002. Estimated seating capacity will be 1,400 persons on the first floor and 800 seats in the balcony. A television and radio studio will occupy approximately 2,500 It2 within or adjacent to the opera house. It is anticipated that the opera house will have 13 performances per week. Showboat: A western showboat facility with a showroom is proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. This facility would be implemented during Phase 2 of the project when adequate demand for additional entertainment space justifies its construction. The showboat will be a two-story structure, with the smokestacks approximately 30 feet high. It is proposed to be approximately 21,000 It2 and it would have the capacity to entertain an estimated 600 persons per event, seven days per week. Wild West Arena: A 4,800 seat tent designed wild west arena that will be similar to Buffalo Bill's touting we, stem tent show is proposed to be located just west of OTSP core area within the Westside Specific Plan area. It would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. This is an outdoor/indoor facility that will operate all year but have a 16 week summer "high" season. The arena will encompass approximately 175,000 square feet and the tent poles will raise the height of the facility to approximately 85-90 feet above the ground surface. During the 36 week regular season two shows per week are expected to be performed, primarily on the weekends. During the arena high season it is estimated that several shows will be performed per day, primarily on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Virtual Reali _ty. Pavilion(s): Three virtual reality pavilions with two theaters in each are proposed for development within the OTSP. One pavilion with two theaters will be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the project. The other two pavilions will be implemented as part of Phase 2 when sufficient demand justifies their construction. The theaters will be constructed in the Plan core area. Each theater will seat about 50 persons. Maximum occupancy of these two-story structures (height about 25-30 feet) is estimated to be about 200 persons. Each pavilion will encompass about 19,000 it2 for a total of-57,000 it'- if all three pavilions are implemented. Each show requires about five to six minutes with the theater portion running about three to four minutes. Performances would be continuous after the facility opens each day. "Quick Draw" Competition Area: In the Old Town core area a plaza or town square will be constructed which is proposed to contain a quick draw competition area. This facility will be constructed as part of Phase 1 and is proposed to encompass approximately 8,000 it2 outdoors in or adjacent to the plaza. This will be a westernized "police academy" type of facility where an individual will walk through an outdoor maze of targets. Ten people can participate in each five minute trip and scores will be posted on a large electronic board. .Hotel: One major hotel is proposed for construction in the vicinity of the wild west arena within the Westside Specific Plan. The initial configuration of the hotel is proposed to be four stories in height and provide a total of 350 rooms. It is proposed to be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. A 5.7 acre pad will be provided for this facility and it is proposed to contain approximately 300,000 ft2 of building space. The hotel may be expanded with 150 additional rooms during Phase 2 if sufficient demand justifies such an expansion. The hotel is proposed to include approximately 50,000 .it2 of related retail space when constructed in Phase I and the range of retail uses includes restaurants, service commercial uses, and retail commercial uses. An additional 50,000 it: of retail space may be constructed during Phase 2 if demand for the commercial capacity is sufficient. RAFORAIS\CEQA.IES 9/22/97 m 2 g.i. Retail Commercial: The City anticipates 50,000 to I00,000 ft2 of the retail commercial area identified in the OTSP will ultimately be developed in Old Town to support the entertainment facilities/activities. It is estimated that 30,000 f~: will be developed during Phase 1 as a component of this project. No specific locations have been selected for these retail activities. 8.j. Visitors Center/Ticket Office: One or more visitors centers/ticket office facilities will be located in the downtown area for ticket purchases and to provide information. This facility/facilities may encompass up to 5,500 ft: of area. It will be open during normal business hours and during evenings when events are scheduled at the entertainment complex. 8.k. Administrative Space: An additional 20,000 square feet of space for administrative offices and back- of-house areas may be constructed to support the project. Some of this space may be located within the opera house facility and others on the second floor of other structures or within independent structures. As originally envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Town portion of the City and within the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western Bypass corridor, southwest of Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were approved for a mixture of commercial entertainment facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and residential uses by the City in 1995, as outlined above. The actual construction of the entertainment venue has been delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays due to legal challenges to the project and the efforts to justify funding of the extensive infrastructure that must be installed when the project is developed. A few of the major infrastructure components include: the Western By-pass and First Street bridges over Murrieta Creek; installation of the required paved section of the Western By-pass from the Front Street/Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 interchange to Vincent Moraga Drive; and all of the water, sewer, and other utility infrastructure systems required to support the facilities permitted by the Westside Specific Plan. In order to obtain the significant funding commitments required to construct the entertainment venue in the City in conformance with the City's 1995 approvals, the project has evolved from the original concept as outlined above, to a current concept that has been designed to be consistent with the Westside Specific Plan, yet reflect the fundamental project components that are necessary to attract the substantial funds required to build all facilities, including the extensive infrastructure required to support the project. As originally envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Town portion of the City and within the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western Bypass corridor, southwest of Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were approved for a mixture of commercial entertainment facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and residential uses by the City in 1995. A comparison of the original and proposed design components is presented below. Note that certain uses have been transferred from Old Town to Area "A" of the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) as "ancillary" uses to the hotel and wild west arena. This has been necessary to support the costs of the required infrastructure improvements defined in the original approvals. It also overcomes the lack of economically viable sites in Old Town where no specific sites were shown in the original applications because of the difficulty of consolidating adequate building and parking areas. Keep in mind that Phase 1, as defined in the original certified EIR and summarized above, encompassed almost all of the proposed entertainment facilities. Phase 2 was proposed to consist of commercial and residential uses as required to support the overall success of the entertainment venue. Table I summarizes the square footage for each proposed entertainment venue facility and other facilities approved by the City of Temecula, such as the hotel. The square footage of facilities as envisioned in the original design concept and the current design concept are presented below. Where a facility is not shown in the current design concept side of Table 1, it is being deferred to the future as discussed above. R:~FORMS\CEQA.IES 9J22/97 idb 3 Table ! · Square Footage Summary of Entertainment Facilities Original Design Concept Do Go d. Cabaret Theatre (2) 27,000 Pt2/45,000 Pt2 Location: Old Town g. Western Saloon (2) 10,000 Pt2 each Location: Old Town h. Opera House 75,000 Pt2 building footprint Location: Old Town Showboat 21,000 if2 Location: Old Town Wild West Arena 175,000 fi2,85-90 feet height Location: WSP area Virtual Reality Pavilion (3) 19,000 Pt2, total 57,000 Pt2 Location: Old Town "Quick Draw" Competition Area 8,000 ft2 Location: Old Town Hotel 300,000 Pt2 initial; additional 100,000 Pt2 for additional 150 rooms when justified in future Location: WSP area Current Design Concet)t Cabaret Theater/Western Music Dinner Theatre (1) 20,000 ft2 · Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area Western Saloon/Rockin Rodeo(l) 12,000 Pt2 Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area Opera House/Celebrity Auditorium 50,000 fi2 building footprint Location: ancillary to Hotel in the WSP area Showboat (deferred to future) No change at this time No change at this time Wild West Arena 105,000 Pt2,75 feet height Location WSP area Virtual Reality Experience 7,200 Pt2 Location: WSP, a part of the Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Museum, ancillary to Wild West Arena "Quick Draw" Competition Area (deferred to future) No change at this time No change at this time Hotel 125,000 Pt2, 275 rooms Location: WSP area Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Exhibition -23,000 Pt2, including Virtual Reality Experience Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena R:~FORMS\CEQA.IES 9/22/97 idb 4 Temecula Wine & Food Exhibition 30,000 ft2 Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena ko Chapel 1,600 fi2 Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena Hotel Retail Commercial 50,000 f~2/50,000 fd Location: WSP area, ancillary to hotel Hotel Retail Commercial 69,600 f[2, kiosks, shops, restaurants Location: WSP area, ancillary to hotel m. Retail Commercial 50,000-100,000 f[2 Location: Old Town Deferred to the Future no Visitor Center/Ticket Office (1 +) 5,500 fi2 Location: Old Town Visitor Center 2,500 ft2 Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena Oo Administrative Space 20,000 ft2 Location: open Administrative Space Same Location: WSP area, part of Arena or Theatre po Festival Square 20,000 ft2 Location: Old Town Arena Plaza/Sons of the Pioneers Music Plaza Small gazebo stage/--500-1,000 fi~ Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena . Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The Westside Specific Plan area has residential uses to the east and northeast, open space to the northwest, west, southwest and south, and residential uses to the southeast. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g. permits, financing approval or participation agreement.) Permits or other approvals may be required from the State Water Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, San Diego Regional Board, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, Metropolitan Water District, Riverside Count3' Flood Control, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. RSFOILMS\CEQA. IE$ 9/22/97 klb 5 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 and Planning [ ] [ ] Population and Housing [x] [ ] Geologic Problems [ ] [ ] Water [] Ix] Air Quality [ ] [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] [ ] Biological Resources [ ] [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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. Ix] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but these effects 1) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) have been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. The evaluation in this Initial Study, including updated traffic and visual impact analyses, constitute an Addendum to the Final EIR and the analysis in this Addendum indicates that none of the conditions in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines call for the preparation of a S~~~IR ~,~ Dart/~~ Sigr~mre Prmte0dN~~~~er n For R:TORMS\CEQA. IES 9/22./97 klb ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? [] [] Ix] [] Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [] [1 Ix] [] c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? [] [] Ix] [] Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? [1 [1 [ ] Ix] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? [l [l [ ] Ix] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: Land use was one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the EIR. All land use impacts, including land use conflicts and consistency with existing General Plan land use designations, are mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application of mitigation. Land uses within Area A remain consistent with the original uses as outlined below. A review of the proposed current design concept indicates that the same mitigation will ensure that all land use impacts are mitigated to a nonsignificant level. The designation of the open space area remains as originally envisioned (all property west of the Western By-pass Road), and other potential land use conflicts are reduced even further than envisioned in the EIR by inclusion of the additional noise attenuation in the design. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and land use impacts will be reduced to a nonsignificant level. Consistency issues are further addressed in the following evaluation. As originall>, envisioned, the Temecuia entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Town portion of the City and willfin the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western Bypass corridor, southwest of Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were approved for a mixture of conunercial entenaimnent facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and residential uses by the City in 1995. As the City is aware, the actual construction of the entertainment venue has been delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays due to legal challenges to the project and the efforts to justify funding of the extensive infrastructure that must be installed when the project is developed. In order to obtain the significant funding commitments required to construct tlie entertainment venue in the City in conformance with the City's 1995 approvals, the project has evolved from the original concept as outlined in Attaclunent A, to a current concept that has been designed to be consistent with the Westside Specific Plan, yet reflect the fundamental project components that are necessary to attract the substantial funds required to build all facilities, including the extensive infrastructure required to support the project. To demonstrate consistency of the current design concept for the entertainment venue with the original approvals, particularly the Westside Specific Plan, a comparison of the original and proposed design components is presented below. Note tlmt certain uses lmve been transferred from Old Town to Area "A" of the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) as "ancillary" uses to the hotel and wild west arena. This has been necessary to support the costs of the required infrastructure improvements defined in the original approvals. As is demonstrated below, the proposed conceptual design now being presented to the City is fully consistent with the total scope of facilities envisioned and approved in the project original approvals, and even though the current focus has shifted from Old Town to the WSP area, P,:WORMS\CEQA.IES 9/22/97 idb 7 1SSUF.,S AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No · Impact Incoq~orated Impact Impact additional facilities remain to be sited in Old Town as demand for additional entertainment facilities evolves in the future. Table 1, in the project description, summarizes the square footage for each proposed entertainment venue facility and other facilities approved by the City of Temecula, such as the hotel. The square footage of facilities as envisioned in the original design concept and the current design concept are presented below. Where a facility is not shown in the current design concept side of Table 1, it is being deferred to the future as discussed above. Based on the summary provided in Table 1, the total square footage of building space under the original design concept is 1,045,500 f~, excluding the outdoor facilities such as the "Quick Draw" and Festival Square areas. Of this 1,045,500 f~, the total square footage permitted within the WSP area in the original concept design and with City approvals is estimated to be about 695,000 ft2, including the full 100,000 ft2 of commercial area allocated in Phases 1 and 2 of the hotel and the 20,000 ft: administrative area. The current design concept encompasses approximately 459,700 ft:, including 69,960 ft: of commercial support uses. Thus, the total square footage of all proposed facilities falls well within the total square footage and is approximately 235,300 ft: less than originally authorized by the City when it granted approvals in 1995. What are the major differences between the current and original design concept? Perhaps the greatest change is a decision to disaggregate the massing of square footage originally allocated to the hotel and Wild West Arena into several structures. All of the facilities proposed in the current conceptual design are ancillary or supportive to the two primary facilities (hotel and Wild West Arena) that were approved for Area A of the WSP. Some uses have been transferred from the Old Town area, but it is our interpretation that comparable facilities were envisioned in the WSP authorization, such as the auditorium (opera house), wine and food exhibition hall (exhibition uses), and cabaret theatre (dinner theatre) in support of the hotel, and the museum (Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Museum/Exhibition facility) in support of, or as part of the Wild West Arena. Similarly, the approximately 69,600 ft2 of commercial area is consistent with the Phase 1 and 2 allocations of commercial square footage allocated as part of the hotel. Although the original footprints of buildings have been altered, the focus on the western theme for the entertainment venue has not changed and by disaggregating the facilities through redesign, the visual impacts of the large hotel and arena structures will be reduced, enhancing the visual setting compared to the original design concept. In particular, the original design concept of the hotel showed a very large massed visual feature (up to 300,000 fi2 in Phase 1 and an additional 100,000 fi: in Phase 2) and the arena was envisioned as a large, circus/tent-like structure (175,000 fi:) with stripes. In the design concept presently under consideration by to the City, both of these facilities have been redesigned by creating several structures, thereby reducing the overall visual impact of the project. In addition, by enclosing the arena structures and providing for insulation and climate control, potential noise impacts to residences along Pujol have been substantially reduced. For these reasons, the proposed, i.e. current, design concept is fully consistent with the WSP requirements and overall approvals granted to the project in 1995. Based on this rexSew, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant land use effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant hand use effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant land use effects not pre,~5ously discussed. Therefore, land use impacts from implementing the current design concept remain within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. R:WOP~,IS\CEQA.IE$ 9/29.2/97 Idb 8 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? [] [] Ix] [1 Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? [] [l Ix] [] c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Evaluation of Addendum Issues; [1 [1 Ix] [] The population issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact because population increases associated with the original project were not forecast to exceed growth thresholds. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter tiffs conclusion since the total development proposed under this concept is less than half of the scope of development envisioned in the original project. Population increases should be comparably decreased, thus, population impacts remain nonsignificant. Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant population effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant population effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant population effects not previously discussed. The development proposed is likely to reduce overall potential population impacts of the project because a lower demand will be created for new employees. Therefore, population impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. The housing issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact because housing demands associated with the original project were not forecast to exceed housing development capacity. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the total development proposed under tiffs concept is less than half of the scope of development envisioned in the original project. Housing demand increases should be comparably decreased, thus, housing impacts remain nonsignificant. Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant population or housing effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred wlfich may cause new, significant population or housing effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant population or housing effects not previously discussed. The development proposed is likely to reduce overall potential housing demand impacts of the project because a lower demand will be generated by new employees and a lower population forecast. Therefore, population and housing impacts from implementing file current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in tile certified EIR. R:~ORMS\CEQA.IES 9/22/97 klb 9 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless ~ Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? [1 [l [x] [ ] b. Seismic ground shaking? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [] [] Ix] [1 d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? [1 Ix] [ ] [ ] g. Subsidence of the land? [1 [] Ix] [ ] h. Expansive soils? [] [x] [ ] [ ] i. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The earth resource issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience an), significant adverse impact. Detailed geotechnical studies were available for the project site and none of the earth resource circumstances has clmnged since the approval in 1995. Although the current design concept envisions more structures, the total square footage proposed in the current design concept encompasses 459,700 square feet (ft2) which is less than could have been built under the City's 1995 approvals (695,000 fi2 )as summarized in Enclosure 1. All mitigation measures identified for the project in the Initial Study were adopted by the City and all of these measures can and will be implemented by the applicant. The basic footprint of grading activity for the project remains essentially the same (encompassing WSP areas A, B and C, as proposed in the original EIR, with proposed cut slopes identified for the Western By-pass being implemented at a 1.5/1 slope ratio (horizontal to vertical). This is consistent with the original topographic modifications, but with slightly longer slopes (20 feet maximum) due to the eleyation at which the Western By-pass Road will be constructed. Such slopes require certification as suitable by a qualified geotechnical professional before they can be constructed and the modifications are consistent with the discussion in the EIR. With certification by the geotechnical engineer, the earth resource impacts can be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. Based on fitis review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new. significant earth resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant earth resource effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant earth resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, earth resource impacts from itnplementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. RAFORbtS\CEQA.IES 9/2.2/97 klb ] 0 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impaa Ineorporat~ Impact Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff?. [] Ix] [] [] b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? [] Ix] [] [] Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidit),)? [1 Ix] [] d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body7 [] Ix] [1 [] e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? [] [] Ix] [ ] Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? [] [] Ix] g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [] [] Ix] [1 h. hnpacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? [1 [l Ix] [] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The water issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact. Three issues were addressed under this topic: surface runoff and flood hazards; water qualit)'; and water consmnption. Tile evaluation in the Initial Study showed that surface runoff/flood hazard impacts would be controlled by retaining added surface runoff from development on Area A and delivering it to Murrieta Creek without causing increased flooding downstream or erosion. This circumstance has not changed with the current design concept. The uses and area affected by tile project ltave not changed and the water quality mitigation will apply equally to the current project. Finally, overall water consumption will be reduced due to the overall reduction in square footage of uses. With imple~nentation of the identified mitigation measures, the current design concept impacts will continue to be mit'gated to a nonsignificant level. Based on tlfis review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant water resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant water resource effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant water resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, water resource impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. R:~FOI~MS\CEQA.IES 9~2/97 klb ] ] ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Ix] [] [ ] [ ] b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? [ ] [1 [x] [] d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: Air quality was one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the EIR. Both short- and long-term air quality impacts were quantified as being significant. A review of construction emissions indicates that fugitive dust emissions calculation was based on a total of 87 acres of construction at a given time. The proposed project will encompass approximately 80 acres of area (47 acres in Area A), ten acres of adjacent area for mass grading, and about 23 acres in the First Street and Western By-pass corridors. Thus, construction emissions, including fugitive dust, are forecast to be less than identified in the EIR and, even though significant, the current design concept will not cause greater construction emissions. Project operation, or long-term emissions, were based on traffic flows associated with a total of 1,045,500 square feet (ft:) of facilities and the proposed project envisions only 459,700 ft2 of facilities. Emissions from these facilities will be less, both because facilities will utilize less energy and because overall traffic flow will be reduced due to fewer square feet of entertailunent venue destinations. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented as required, but both short- and long-term air quality impacts will remain significant, but well within the forecast contained in the EIR. Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant air quality effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant air quality effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant air quality effects not previously discussext. Therefore, air qualit), impacts from implementing the current design concept remain within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. RAFORMS\CEQA.IES 9/2~97 idb 12 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact lm~nact 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] Ix] [ ] [] b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [1 Ix] [] [] c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [x] [] d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [] Ix] [] [] e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] Ix] [] [] f. Conflicts xvith adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [] Ix] [] [] g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [l [1 Ix] [l Evaluation of Addendum Issues: Transportation/circulation issues were one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and they were, therefore, evaluated in the EI1L All transportation/circulation impacts are mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application of mitigation, including the construction of major infrastructure improvements such as two bridges, free~y interclmnge improvements, and the Western By-pass road to Vincent Moraga Road. A review of the proposed current design concept indicates that traffic will be redirected from Old To~vn to Area A of the WSP, and the mitigation for access to Area A, as identified in the revised traffic report, will ensure that all transportation/circulation impacts are mitigated to a nonsignificant level. The mitigation includes relocation of Vincent Moraga to the northwest and extension of the Western By-pass road a few hundred feet to this new intersection. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR and the revised traffic study will be implemented and traffic/circulation impacts will be reduced to a nonsignificant level. The traffic study is attached as Enclosure I to this document and it includes responses to issues raised at the August 18, 1997 Planning Commission workshop. Based on fitis review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant transportation/circulation effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant transportation/circulation effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant transportation/circulation effects not previously discussed. The bottom line with the tmnstx)rtation/circulation impacts for the current design concept is that impacts can be fully mitigated as outlined in the attached traffic study. Therefore, transportation/circulation impacts from implementing the current design concept remain within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. RAFORMS\CEQA.IES 9/22/97 lob 13 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? [1 Ix] [ ] [ ] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? [l [l Ix] [] c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? [1 Ix] [ I [1 [] Ix] [ ] [ ] e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [1 Ix] [ ] [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: Biological resources were one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the EIIL All biological resource impacts, including endangered species, habitat and wetland issues, were determined to be potentially significant, but mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application of extensive mitigation. A review of the footprint of the proposed current design concept footprint indicates that the same amount of acreage will be disturbed in the WSP area, in the bridge corridors, and in the First Street areas of disturbance as projected in the EIR. Within the WSP and along the Western By-pass the EIR evaluation assumed that all 87.9 acres would be disturbed, including the area required for cuts and fills along the corridor. No specific definition of the boundaries of the cuts and fills was possible when the EIR was completed, but an accurate estimate of disturbance was possible based on the footprint of the total area of disturbance. Subsequently, negotiations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified mitigation that was accepted for the area to be disturbed as defined in the EIK understanding that exact acreage could not be precisely determined until final engineering was completed. As a result, extra mitigation for disturbance was proposed and accepted by FWS and full mitigation has been provided for endangered species and habitat losses. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and based on negotiated regulator), permits, the impacts will remain within the forecast contained in the EIR. Based on tlfis review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant biological resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant biological resource effects; and no new infomarion shows the project will have new, significant biological resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, biological resource impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [1 [l [1 Ix} b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [] [1 Ix] [ ] Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 11 [1 Ix] 11 R:~J:ORMS\CEQA.IES 9/29../97 klb 1 4 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The natural resource, mineral and energy, issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact because no mineral resources will be affected by the project and adequate energy resources are available to meet forecast demand for the foreseeable future. The proposed current design concept has not potential to alter this conclusion since no such resources occur within the area of potential effect and energy consumption will be reduced because of less one/half of the square footage will be constructed and the arena is now an enclosed, not open, area. Thus, natural resource impacts remain nonsignificant. Based on this review, implementation of the cmxent design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant natural resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant natural resource effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant natural resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, natural resource impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? [1 Ix] [ ] [ ] b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [] [] Ix] [ ] c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [] Ix] [] [ ] d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? [] Ix] [] [ ] e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? [1 Ix] [1 [1 Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The risk of upset issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact because policies and measures included in the City's General Plan guide management and control of such upsets. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the same policies and measures apply to the new project. Thus, risk of upset impacts remain nonsignificant The health risk issues were also addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse health risk impact because the proposed uses do not entail activities that create health risks. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the uses remain the same and total development proposed under this concept is less than half of the scope of development envisioned in the original project. Health risk impacts should be comparably decreased, thus, health risk impacts remain nonsignificant. Based on tlfis review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, signfificant risk of upset or health risk effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant risk of upset or health risk effects; and no new inforumtion shows the project will have new, significant risk of upset or health risk effects not previously discussed. Therefore, risk of upset and health risk impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the RAFORMS\CEQA.IES 9/2.2/97 ~]b 15 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Signalleant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signdie. ant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact certified EI1L 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [1 [xl [1 [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Isles: Noise was one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the EIR. Both short- and long-term noise impacts were quantified and determined to be potentially significant, but mifigable to a nonsignificant level. A review of the proposed current design concept footprint indicates that the same general amount of acreage will be disturbed during construction, the noise impacts can be reduced to a nonsignificant level through the mitigation measures identified in the EI1L The noise impacts from operating the facilities in Old Town becomes a moot point since no facilities are initially proposed in this area. The noise impacts from the arena and other facilities in Area A will be reduced even further than proposed mitigation because the arena will be a solid, insulated structure that will contain noise from operations much better than the original tent. All pertinent mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and based on implementation of these measures, the impacts will remain within the forecast contained in the Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant noise effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant noise effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant noise effects not previously discussed. In fact, the current design concept will reduce overall operational noise impacts. Therefore, noise impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 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. Fire protection7 [] [x] [ ] [ ] b. Police protection? [1 Ix] [1 [1 c. Schools? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [] [x] [] [] e. Other governmental services? [1 [1 Ix] [1 Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The public service issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact. Pubhc service impacts will be mitigated by providing resources (infrastructure and capacity increases) to addresg those service impacts where demand requires mitigation, and through no effect for other impacts, like recreation facilities. These same measures must be applied to current design concept and, as a result of reduced demand because of the reduced size of the project, the net result is that there will be no increase in public service demand impacts. With implementation of the required mitigation measure, the public service impacts either remain R:q:ORMS\CEQA.IES 9/22/97 idb 16 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Pot~tially LMI~ ~ Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Ineo~orated Impact Impact no/~significant, or can be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant public service effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant public service effects; and no new infomarion shows the project will have new, significant public service effects not previously discussed. Therefore, public service impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? [ ] [] [x] [ ] b. Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities7 [] [x] [ ] [] d. Sewer or septic tanks7 [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] e. Storm water drainage? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] f. Solid waste disposal? [ ] [] [x] [ ] g. Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The utility issues were addressed in the Initial Study. It was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse utility impacts because adequate infrastructure connections are available at the property's periphery. As a result of reduced demand because of the reduced size of the project, the net result is that there xdll be no increase in overall utility demand impacts. With implementation of the required mitigation measure, the utility impacts either remain nonsignificant. Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant utility effects; no substantial changes in cirmmstances have occurred which may cause new, significant utility effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant utility effects not previously discussed. Therefore, utility impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. RSFORMS\CEQA.IES 9/22/97 ldb 17 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Pot6-ntia!iy Significant Potentially Unleas Leas Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ~mpac~ Incorporated h~pa~ Impac~ 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] Ix] [l [] c. Create light or glare? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: Aesthetic/visual impacts were one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and they were, therefore, evaluated in ~e EIK All aesthetic impacts were determined to be mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application of extensive mitigation, including rapid revegetation of the cut slopes along the Western By-pass Road and on the berm adjacent to residents on Pujol Street. A review of the proposed current design concept indicates that the original pad elevation will be lower than shown in visual simulations; that the large mass of the hotel will be divided into several structures; and the tent-like arena will be replaced with a smaller, building. Cut slope length will be increased relative to that previously shown, but the combination of lowered pad elevation and landscape revegetation identified to mitigate this impact will be implemented as envisioned in the certified EIR and provided in the current landscape plan. This is shown in the new visual simulation of the project developed to illustrate the changes from the original design concept. This new simulation is available at the Planning Department for review and consideration. Implementation of all proposed mitigation measures can ensure that all aesthetic impacts will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and aesthetic impacts will be reduced to a nonsignificant level. The light and glare issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact. Light and glare impacts are controlled by meeting performance requirements (absolute thresholds) established by Cal Tech for the Mt. Palomar Observatory. These same measures must be applied to current design concept and the net result is no additional light and glare impacts. With implementation of the required mitigation measure, the light and glare impacts can be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. Based on this revie~v, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant aesthetic effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant aesthetic effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant aesthetic effects not previously discussed. The net effect with the aesthetic impacts for the current design concept is that impacts can be full.,,, mitigated in the same manner as for the original design concept by utilizing the same intensive cut slope revegetation program. Therefore, aesthetic impacts from implementing the current design concept remain within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. R:~FORMS\CEQA. IES 9/22/97 ldb ] 8 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unl ~r,s ~ Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impac~ hnpac~ 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] b. Disturb archaeological resources? [] [] [x] -[] c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [] [] Ix] [] e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [] [] Ix] [1 Evaluation of Addendum I$~e$: The cultural resource issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse cultural resource impact because no cultural resources occur within Area A based on site specific surveys and because no facilities will be placed within Old Town at this time where historical structures exist. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the uses remain the same and the area affected remains the same. Cultural resource impacts remain nonsignificant under the current design concept. Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant cultural resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant cultural resource effects; and no new infomarion shows the project will have new, significant cultural resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, cultural resource impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [1 Ix] [1 [1 b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [] Ix] [] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The recreation issues were addressed n the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse recreation impact because the proposed uses provide recreation and do not affect any existing or future recreation uses. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the uses remain the same. Recreation impacts remain nonsignificant under the current design concept. Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant recreation effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant recreation effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant recreation effects not previously discussed. Therefore, recreation impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. R:U:ORMSXCEQ^.IES 9,22/97 Idb 19 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [l [xl [1 [1 b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Ix] [1 [l [] Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). ix] [] [] [] do Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [1 Ix] [l [1 Evaluation of Addend!~m I$$u¢$: The purpose of this analysis has been to determine whether the current design concept, which represents two years of design evolution and facility selection for Area A of the WSP, will cause additional or different significant effects than those forecast in the Final EIR certified by the City in 1995. Fundamentally, the current design concept remains relatively close to the original in terms of focus and types of uses. As discussed in the project description in this Initial Study and the Land Use evaluation 1, the original structures in Area A of the WSP have been separated into individual support uses that were originally envisioned to be contained within one facility, such as the auditorium/opera house being separated from the hotel and the museum being separated from the wild west arena. Based on the evaluation of the nexv design concept as presented above, implementation the current project would not alter the findings reached within the certified Final EIR. The only issues of real concern are the change in the cut slopes which will be lengthened, not increased in absolute elevation or visibility, due to lowering the elevation of the Western By-pass road and traffic flows, which have been reduced overall from the original project. The new traffic study, the new visual simulation, and the required mitigation illustrate how the aesthetic impacts remain as depicted in the Final EIR. As described in the final EIK the cut slope impacts can be reduced to a nonsignificant level by implementing the rapid and effective revegetation of these slopes in accordance with mitigation requirements and as demonstrated in the landscape plan being reviewed for the current project by the City. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIK 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. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The certified Final EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project was relied upon in preparing this Initial Study and Addendum. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. AII impacts evaluated in this R:heORMS\CEQA. IES 9,'22/97 idb 20 document include mitigation measures, and monitoring plans, that were adopted when the original project was approved and the Final EIR certified in 1995. 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-specie conditions for the project. No revisions to original mitigation measures have been required for the current project, but specific measures are more well defined at this point. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. Old Town Redevelopment Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, 1995 R:heOILMS\CEQA. IE$ 9/22/97 ldb 2 ] TRAFFIC STUDY R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 17 WILBUI, SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS ° PLANNE~ 2300 E. KATELLA AVE. · SUITE 275 · ANAHEIM. CA 92806-6047 , (714) 978-8110 · FAX (714) 978-1109 Aug~. t 11, 1997 Zev Buffman President Temecula EntertaLurhent 41934 Main Street Temeeula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Buffman: · . Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) is pleased to submit thisFina. lReport which documents the key findings of the traffic study update we have completed for the Old To~T~ Entertainment Center project located in Temecula California. The purpose of this study is re-evaluate traffic impacts of the project based on various revisions which have been made to the Old Town Entertainment Center since the EIR traffic study was performed in October 1994. The focus of the traffic study update is to assess impacts of the proposed project revisions on traffic generation, and traffic distribution. The general scope of WSA's work is designed to respond to the City of Temecula's request to review the currently proposed project plan and verify the net change in traffic impacts from the original EIR study, which would result from the revised plan. A more detailed description of work task. s which were involved in the preparation of a "traffic study update" for the Old Town Entertainment Center (OTEC) is provided below: 1) Review land use components of the currently defined OTEC and note differences which will require a re-evaluation of trip generation. Any change in the seating capacities and/or planned "show" schedules for the major project venues will require adjustments in trip generation. 2) The traffic generation assessment generally applies previously accepted methodology (used in the Barton-Aschman study) to re-assess vehicular traffic generation for the project. As addressed in the Barton-Aschman study, traffic generation for the revised p/'oject is estimated for both the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak-hour condition. These peak-hour periods represent the critical period of operation for the street system in the vicinity of the project. It is d~,ring this period that additiona.l traffic generated by t.he .* A,L...q.AJ,,ff, IN"/,, ANJ~JVt-. CA · AII.~N'IA. C;:A ,, CAI'10. EGYr"q'., CHAFd.,ESTON. ~_. · COL~. ~, COLUIv'!3L~. OH ,. ~ MO:I' .4C~a. IA. FALLS C:}-R.I"'~I-I. VA · 140NG KC't'4C. HOUSTON. TX · ~!J.E. 1~1 · LEX:NGION. KY · LONDON. I~IGL~.ND · M'J.WAUI~E. Wi * NEW HAVEN. Cl · OAXI.,NkiO. CA · Or4.ANOO. FL. PITISBUf'~. PA · RALFJGI~.. NC r~CHMC;NO. VA · ROSELLE. IL · SAN Fr~ANCLSCO. CA. · SAN JOSE. CA · $1NGAPOI~E · IALL~.HAS~EE. FL · TAMPA. I:L · 1C, I1ONIO. CANADA · WASH~NGTOt,I. DC EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY Zev Buffman August 11, 1997 Page 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES project could potentially have the most significant impact on area traffic operation. A comparative analysis is presented of the 'updated project traffic generation study findings and the previous study traffic generation estimates. 3) Vehicle trip distribution characteristics for the project were re-evaluated and adjusted based on the current spatial distributioff of activity nodes within the project as well as planned parking facilities. 4) Based on the updated project traffic generation (estimated in Task 2) and revised trip distribution characteristics (evaluated in Task 3), updated traffic assignments of project- related traffic were developed for the study area street network. Updated project traffic assigmrtents were developed for b~th the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak-hour condition. A comparative analysis was made of the updated project traffic assignmenu and the previous study traffic assignments.. 5) WSA reviewed the proposed northerly relocation of the Vincent Moraga connection with the Western Bypass concerning traffic operations and parking accessibility. Updated Project Land Use Current ~roject land use, as defined by Temecula Entertainment, is summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that Phase II uses.include one theater (refered to as the "Palace Theater") which is actually anticipated to be implemented in a third development phase. For purposes of the cummulative project traffic generation analysis, it is conservatively assumed that this entertainment venue occurs in Phase II. Based on discussions ~vith Temecula Entertainment, it is our understanding fixat Phase I and Phase II are expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 1998 and fourth quarter of 1999 repectively. Project Trip Generation WSA has carefully reviewed the principal land use components of the revised project including seating capacities, floor areas, and event schedules. It was also important to gain a good understanding of the planned operations and interrelationships of the various project uses. il '0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E o 0) rr' 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o o W '~ 0 0 0 d n Z 0 Z Zev Buffman August 1 I; 1997 Page 3 ...... V V ILUL/I~, ............. SMITH ASSOCIATES One critical refinement which has bccn made since the last study, relates to the planned scheduling of shows and events which would occur at the arcna and various theaters within the project. These schedules, which we understand would be controlled by the project operator/manager, have a direct affcct on the magnitude of project-related traffic impacts which would be experienced during the normal .weekday evening (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and Saturday midday (! :00 to 2:00 p;m. peak-hour periods. Current event/show programming for the project generally schedule mo~t weekday events and shows commencing at 7:30, 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. On weekends, the events/shows would be scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m., 3:00-3:30 p.m., or 7:30-t~:30 p.m. If these cvcnt/show schedule times are implemented, related traffic impacts would bc nominal during the typical traffic peak-hours on the study area street system. WSA has taken a very conservative approach in the methodology used to derive project-related traffic during the highway peak-hour' periods. In the case of' the arena and theaters, it is assumed that all venues are operating at maximum seating capacities that a minimum of i0 percent of' the generated trips for the event/show would occur during the preceding highway peak-hour regardless of the time differential. Typically, all attendees arrivc well within a 90 minute period preceding "show time." The trip generation analysis also includes the conservative assumption that the "Food and Wine Court" would a~ the same lavel as featured dining establishment in terms of its ability to draw public to the project. In reality, most food court facilities typically operate as an "amenity" to the major attractors such as retail and principil event/show venues and rarely draw public to a project on'their own. It should be noted that some of the land uses within the project were assessed to be incidental or passive in nature and are not expected to contribute significantly to the primary attraction of vehicle trips to the project. These include the chapel, Roy Rogers Experience/Museum (and down-sized virtual reality venue), and informal/incidental entertainment components of the dining and retail core. As described to us, the chapel located on the central courtyard portion of the project site, would serve as an informal place of rest and self-reflection/meditation for visitors. The Key Rogers Experience/museum and virtual reality ride as well as other general entertainment components of the project arc considered as a secondary-level attractions available to visitors attending the primary events/shows, dining establishments and retail shopping attractions. Based on similar entertainment-oriented projects, these secondary-level uses become incidcntal to the primary attractions. Traffic generation for these uses is considered insignificant relative to traffic generation for the primary attractions. - Zev Buffman August II, 1997 Page 4. 'VVILDUI< ' SMFI'H ASSOCIATES Assumptions used in the derivation of traffic generation .for each of the primary project land uses (which are exp.ected to generate traffic) have been summarized by project phase and are attached. A summary of gross vehicle trips estimated to be generated by project Phase I and Phase II dm'ing the weekday and Saturday peak-hour periods is presented in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. A comparison of the gross vehicle trip generation for the currently defined project Phase I with the earlier Barton Aschman study indicates a substantial reduction in gross weekday peak-hour trips (170 vs. 1,825 inbound vehicles and 50 vs. 780 outbound vehicles). The reduction in ~oss Saturday peak-hour vehicle trips is also significant (170 rs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and 170 vs. 850 outbound vehicles). A similar comparison of cummulative gross vehicle trip generation for the currently defined project Phase I and II with the earlier Barton Aschman study of Phase ! indicates a smaller but still significant reduction in weekday peak-hour trips (841 rs. 1,825 inbound vehicles and 435 rs. 780 outbound vehicles). For the Saturday peak hour, the current estimate of cumulative Phase I and II gross peak-hour vehicle trips is again substantially lower than that estimated for Phase ! in the earlier Barton Aschman study (996 vs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and 660 rs. 850 outbound vehicles). Gross trip estimates developed for the project are adjusted to reflect the interaction of trips between individual uses on the project site and Old Town Temecula. This trip interaction is referred to as "internal trip-making" and occurs in the pedestrian mode of travel. For Phase I of the project, the analysis conservatively assumes that no internal trip-making occurs. In reality, there would be opportunity for trip interactions between the arena and Old Town. For Phase II, it is assumed that up to 65 percent of. the hotel trips would be internal to the project and Old Town. It in also assumed that up to 50 percent of the dining and retail trips would be internal to the project and Old Town,. These. are basically the same.internal trip-making assumptions applied in the previous study. Illustrated summaries of the f'mal "adjusted" trip generation assessment for Project Phase II (Weekday Evening and Saturday lVfidcl,~y Peak-Hour) conditions are provided in Figures 1 a and 2a. Also provided, for comparison, are the previous traffic study trip generation summaries Table 2 Phase I Trip Generation Old Town Entertainment Center .WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR (5:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M.) LAND USE COMPONENTS Wild West Arena Administration/Back of House la VE!~IICLE TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL 160 0 160 10 5O 6O 170 50 22o SATURDAY PEAK HOUR (1:00 P.M. TO 2:00 P.M'.) LAND USE COMPONENTS Wild West Arena Administration/Back of House 1 a ab VEHICLE TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL 160 160 320 10 10 2O 170 170 340 Table 3a Phase I! Trip Generation (4) WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR (5:00 P.M. TO $:00 P.M.) Old Town Entertainment Center LAND USE COMPONENTS GROSS VEHICLE TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND .TOTAL la Wild West Arena 200 0 200 2 Celibrity 73 0 73 3 Studio Theater 25 25 50 4 Western Dinner Theater 17 0 17 7 Palace Theater 73 0 73 Sub-Total 388 25 413 5 Food and Wine Court 60 30 90 6a Dinlng ~ 60 20 80 6b Retail 220 220 440 Sub-Total 340 270 610 8 Hotel 103 90 193 lb Administration/Back of House 10 50. 60 Total 841 435 1,276 (1) Yrip generation represents gross vehicle trips without adjustment for internal trip-making. · Table 3b Phase Ii Trip Generation (~) SATURDAY PEAK HOUR (1:00 P.M. TO 2:00 P.M.) Old Town Entertainment Center LAND USE coMPONENTS GROSS VEHICLE TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL la Wild West Arena 200 200 400 2 Ce!ibdty 73 0 73 3 Studio Theater 75 10 85 4 Western Dinner Theater 42 0 42 7 Palace Theater 73 0 73 Sub-Total 463 ' 210 673 5 Food and Wine Court : 60 30 90 6a Dining 60 20 80 6b Retail 300 300 600 Sub-Total 420 350 · 770 8 Hotel 103 90 193 o. lb Administration/Back of House 10 10 20 · Total 996 660 1,656 (1) :l'rip generation represents gross vehicle trips without adjustment for internal trip-making. Zev Buffman August 11, 1997 Page 5 V V ILL/L/IN SMITH ASSOCIATES for the same analysis .periods. These are shown in Figure lb and 2b for the weekday and Saturday peak-hours respectively. Findings of the updated trip generation analysis are as follows: Net vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I land use is 170 inbound and 50 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 170 inbound and 170 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. Net cumulative vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I and II land use is 539 inbound and 216 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak horn- and 672 inbound and 322 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. .: For comparison, the net vehicle trip generation for the earlier defined project Phase I land use was 995 inbound and 325 outbotmd vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 1,475 inbound and 330 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. Trip generation for the currently proposed Project Phase I represents less than 17 percent of the total weekday peak hour trip generation estimated in the EIK traffic study. In this case the reduction in peak hour trips is fairly evenly distributed between inbouad and outbound traffic. Saturday midday peak hour trip generation for the revised Project Phase I represents less than 19 percent of the total trip generation estimated in the EIR traffic study. For the Saturday peak hour, the greatest reduction in trips occurs in the inbound traffic direction. The new outbound traffic estimate represents approximately 52 percent of the outbound traffic given in the EIR study. Cumulative weekday peak hour trip generation for the currently proposed Project Phase I and II represents approximately 54 percent of the total Phase I EIR study trip generation with close to equal trip reduction in both the inbound and outbound directions. 0 I ! _ I ~:c~ oo ,° 0 0 0 0 0 o [.u O' a: Og ,,,~ ILl ,¸ILl I-- 0 0 0 Zev Buffman August I1, 1997 Page 6 ..... WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES For 'the Saturday .midday peak hour, proposed Project Phase I and II cumulative trip generation is 'estimated to represent only 55 percent of the total trips estimated for Phase I in the earlier study. For the Saturday analysis condition, most trip reductions associated with the current project plan occur in 'the inbound direction. The outbound trip generation level is currently estimated at approximately 98 percent of'that given in the Phase I EIR study. Project Trip Distribution and Axsignment WSA has reviewed the trip distribution assumptions included in the previous EIR traffic study. Adjustanents have been made in the inmaediate study area to reflect the shift of all project land uses out of the central Old Town area and consolidated on the site adjacent to the Western By- pass. A major factor considered in the re-distribution of project trips is also the revised location of designated parking areas oh the project site and existing parking in Old Town. The revised project-related trip distribution is provided in Figure 3. All but approximately 8 percent of the traffic is estimated to approach the project via the Western Bypass, 1st Street, and Vincent Moraga Drive. Based on the revised trip generation and trip distribution, Phase I and Phase I and II combined project trips were assigned to the area street system for the weekday and Saturday analysis scenarios. The results of the assignment procedure are presented in Figures 4 and 5 which also show the previous study traffic assig.nment. As can be seen in Figure 4a and 4b, all of the current Phase I traffic volumes at the affected intersections are substantially lower than those previously estimated. With the currently proposed Phase I, project traffic volumes would be less than 19 percent of that previously estimated for the weekday peak-hour condition and less than 25 percent of the previously estimated for the Saturday peak-hour c6ndition. Traffic assignments shown in Figure 5a and 5b indicate that the cumulative Phase I and II traffic volumes resulting from the current proposal would be be lower in almost all cases at individual intersection movements and in all cases based on total traffic added to the intersections. N.T.~ , LEGEND OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ENTERTAINMENT ' CORE" F. NTF:.RTA]NMENT ' CORE' TRiP DISTRIBUTION · PRO"JECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION CITY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I I -- I i I ~ I I r N.T.S. PHASE %.~ P~oJEC'T' "T',~F'FI~ PROJEC':i' WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES J Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. CITY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT %' R~ htT.$. "PROJECT SATURDAY. MIDDAY PEAK'-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES' [ B~z"tor~-AscbtTtaz~ Associates. FIGU'R'EJ 'CITY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT · Callfornl, · · ,, N.T.S. PROJECT WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES !'Baz'ton-Aschz'~z~ Associ. ates. Inc. CITY OF TEMEC;ULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT · Zev Buffman August l l, 1997 Page 7 .... WIEBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Vincent Moraga Drive. Extension Realignment The specific issue ~hich was requested to be addressed involves the proposed realignment of Vincent Moraga Drive extension to the Western Bypass at the north end of the project site. In the Conceptual Master Plan, the proposed alignment of the Vincent Moraga Drive extension resulted in a bisection of the parking area located at the north end of the site. This presented a situation which required access drives to three separate parking Iota formed by the road alignment. This parking access layout would have resulted in a relatively high potential 'for turning movement conflicts, related accidents, and traffic congestion. As currently proposed, the alignment of the Vincent Moraga Drive extension is shifted north in a manner which would essentially plat6 all parking on the south side. With this configuration, only two parking lots would be formed with a collector-type street serving as access to both lots. The proposed intersection spacing along the Vincent Moraga Drive extension is more favorable than in the Conceptual Master Plan and fewer potential turning movement conflicts would result. With the current street alignment and parking layout WSA recommends parking access locations as depicted in Figure 6. Conchtsions The results of the WSA traffic upda. te demonstrate that, the currently defined Phase I and combined Phase I and II project would have significantly lower traffic impacts than the previous study estimated. This is evident by the comparative findings of both the trip generation analysis as well as the trip assignment evaluation. Modifications to the project land uses, location of uses, and the programmed schedule of events/shows have cumulatively contributed the reduction in traffic impacts. ./ Zev Buffman August 11, 1997 Page $ WILBU!,~ ...... SMITH ASSOCIATES Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-8110. Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Planner RAD:rad Attachments lb C) --. It&DO X o, !& = 'l ~ .v;t. Hm.,~-S 1~/Se.~u,~ i/gBcu, ub · .'. " 160 .. .'f ~O A~ lo' p~t~ ~ ~'l :oo T, z~ ~ . ! ~(~OO X O, fO' = 'l~O".V,ot/~zE,E.. · .. X ~. I0 = %~ vra/ra.~ ~ v~ I~~ 30 'G I. Z ??v = ZS" t/~lEl. r.S' OuT~o~u.b .5':00 77/,tco~,l :~7:oop~ Fo&: 5"".oo %'& :ao pt/. · . Cob ?, ,Pr~L ITF--. RtlT'g_. 5':~D.'l~ 6:oDPM 7'AlP~ '- 22D. V~c./-~ Dtrr~oo~aZ) · 103 VC/gtC./.[S )NBovtJ~) ~D 'V~:t~ leL~ Om-govO~ Xo. ID-- ~ 'ZOO VF-,,,,, O I:oo .T~ 2_:00 P~ 10D X ~. /6 -- IO V~tI/O. EX buTB~b '733 X O. I O -- m[3 I/[_.l-/to..E5 l~IOouxJO DID ¥~tt I~/go~u~ WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNERS '"' 3600 Lime Street, SLji!e 226 · River:;irte, CA 92501 · (714) 274-0566 · FAX (714) 27Zl-9220 August 28, 1997 Zcv Buffman President Temecula Entertainment 41934 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Wild West Arena Formal Site Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Submittal Dear Mr. Buffman: In preparation of the referenced submittal package for the City of Temecula Planning Department, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has been requested to address the subject of traffic impacts related to the proposed Old Town Entertainment Center project. In response to this request, WSA has prepared the following discussion which addresses traffic impacts for Phase I - Wild West Arena and responds to traffic issues raised at the recent Planning Commission Workshop for the project. Traffic impacts related to Phase I of the project have been studied and are addressed in WSA's letter report dated August 11, 1997. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate traffic impacts ofthe project based on revisions which have been made to the Old Town Entertainment Center since the EIR traffic study was performed in October 1994. The focus of the traffic study update was to assess impacts of the proposed project revisions on traffic generation, and project traffic distribution on the surrounding street system. The study scope was designed to respond to the City of Temecula's request to review the currently proposed project plan and verify the net change in traffic impacts from the original EIR study, .which would result from the revised plan. The following provides an overview of the findings of the project Phase I analysis. Phase I of the project consists of the Wild West Arena which will have an initial seating capacity of 4,800 persons. the current development schedule anticipates completion of Phase I by December of 1998. ! ,, L ~,NY. NY · ALLIANCE, OH · CAIRO, EGYPI' · CliARLESTON, $C · COLUMBIA, ,tic, COLUMBUS. O1-1 · [)ES MOINES, IA · FAI. I.5 CIKIRCIt, VA Z,~qG KONG, HOUS[ON. TX · g,',IOXVlLLE, I'N · LEXINGTON. KY · !..ONDON. ENGLAND · I,.OS ANGL:I.ES. CA · MIAMi. FL. · NI'I'NAII. gW HAVEN. Cl' · OAKLAND. CA · OI~LANDO. EL · PlTTSt3URGlt. PA · POI?TSMOUTII. Nit · PROVIDEr, IcE. I.!1 · .' MCND. V/, · ,:.,,,,r,',.~,r-c CA, eO':Fl.l F. ~L * SAN rI',)ANCI$CO, CA · SAN JOSE, CA · SINGAPORE · TOI~ONl'O. CANADA · WA:;!I'?~C-'I'ON. DC EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY Zev Buffman August 28, 1997 Page 2 WSA has reviewed the traffic generation assuming full utilization of the seating capacity and the planned event schedules for'the arena. These schedules, which would be controlled by the project operator/manager, have a direct affect on the magnitude of project-related traffic impacts which would be experienced during the normal weekday evening (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and Saturday, midday (1:00 to 2:00 p.m..peak-hour periods. Current event/show programming for the Wild West Arena generally schedule weekday events and shows commencing at 7:30. On weekends, the events/shows would be scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m. and/or 7:30 p.m.p.m. If these event/show schedule times are implemented, related traffic impacts would be nominal during the typical traffic peak-hours on the study area street system. A comparison of the gross vehicle trip generation for the currently defined project Phase I with the earlier Barton Aschman study indicates a substantial reduction in gross weekday peak-hour trips (170 rs. 1,825 inbound vehicles and 50 vs. 780 outbound vehicles). The reduction in gross Saturday peak-hour vehicle trips is also significant (170 rs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and 170 vs. 850 outbound vehicles). For Phase I of the project, the trip generation analysis conservatively assumes that no internal trip- making occurs. While in reality, there would be opportunity for trip interactions between the arena and Old Town, none of the vehicle trips estimated to be generated by the project were discounted. Findings of the updated trip generation analysis have been reported as follows: Net vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I land use is 170 inbound and 50 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 170 inbound and 170 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. For comparison, the net vehicle trip generation for the earlier defined project Phase I land use was 995 inbound and 325 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 1,475 inbound and 330 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. Tr/p generation for the currently proposed Project Phase I represents less than 17 percent of the total weekday peak hour trip generation estimated in the EIR traffic study. In this case the reduction in peak hour trips is fairly evenly distributed between inbound and outbound traffic. Zev Buffman August 28, 1997 Page 3 Saturday midday peak hour trip generation for the revised Project Phase I represents less than '19 percent of the total trip generation estimated in the EIR traffic study. For the Saturday peak hour, the greatest reduction in trips occurs in the inbound traffic direction..The new outbound traffic estimate represents approximately 52 percent of the outbound traffic given in the EIR study. Daily trip generation for Phase I of the project is estimated at approximately 9,750 total vehicle trips for the weekday condition and 19,500 for the weekend condition. It is important to note that the Wild West Arena in anticipated to have only one show per week on a weekday (Friday) and occasionally two sh6ws per day on the weekend days. As such, the above daily traffic generation estimates should not be interpreted as "average" daily traffic. WSA's reviewed of the trip distr/bution assumptions used in the previous EIR traffic study included adjustments in the immediate study area to reflect the consolidation designated project parking areas on the project site adjacent to the Western Bypass Road. The revised project-related trip distribution estimates all but approximately 8 percent of the traffic approaching the project via the Western Bypass, 1st Street, and Vincent Moraga Drive. According to the re-distribution analysis, all of the current Phase I traffic volumes at the affected intersections are substantially lower than those previously estimated. With the currently proposed Phase I development, project traffic volumes would be less than. 19 percent of that previously estimated for the weekday peak-hour condition and less than 25 percent of the previously estimated for the Saturday peak-hour condition. The results of the WSA traffic update demonstrated that, the currently defined Phase I project would have significantly lower traffic impacts than the previous study estimated. This is evident by the comparative findings of both the trip generation analysis as well as the trip assignment evaluation. Modifications to the project land uses, location of uses, and the programmed schedule of events/shows have cumulatively contributed the reduction in traffic impacts. Additional:.,traffic issues raised at the recent Planning Commission workshop included concerns regarding traffic which would be added by the opening of the Temecula Mall and timing questions related to the programmed interchange improvements at Rancho California Road and State Route Zev Buffinan August 28, 1997 Page 4 79 South. The Temecula Mall project will add an increment of new traffic to the Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange which was not defined at the time the original EIR traffic study was performed. The estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with revised Old Town Entertainment Center project would actually help in off-setting most of the added Mall traffic on Rancho California Road at the interchange and Ynez Road as compared to the original EIR traffic impact assessment at this location. Even more significant, is the mitigative impact of the programmed Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange improvement. According to the most current construction schedule obtained from the City of Temecula Public Works Department, the Rancho California Road interchange improvement is expected to be open to traffic by December 1998. This improvement combined with the reduction in project-related traffic impacts would result in better traffic operating conditions than anticipated in the original EIR traffic study, even with the additional Mall traffic. The current schedule for the State Route 79 SoutlgI-15 interchange shows completion of the improvement would occur by October or November 1998. This indicates that both interchange improvements would be completed before or at approximately the same time as the Wild West Arena is scheduled to open. Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-8110. Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal T, ransportation Planner WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNERS 2300 E. KATELLA AVE · SUITE 275 · ANAHEIM. CA 92806-6047 · (71,~) 978-8i !0 · FAX (71,4) 978-i 109 September 21, 1997 Zev Buffman President Temecula Entertainment 41934 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Development Review Committee Traffic Circulation Comments on Planning Application No. PA97-0298 Westside Specific Plan Dear Mr. Buffman: Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has been requested to address traffic circulation comments made by the City of Temecula Development Review Committee relative to the proposed Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center project. In response to the traffic issues raised by City staff, WSA has conducted additional analysis of the current project plan and has prepared the following discussion of the analysis findings. Review of Project Circulation Plan WSA has carefully reviewed the circulation plan proposed for the project and has analyzed issues related to: access location and spacing; sight distance; vehicle stacking requirements for principal turning movements; the need for deceleration and acceleration lanes; and traffic control requirements including traffic lane configurations and intersection controls. Also addressed in the study are turning radius considerations for larger vehicles (such as buses and tracks) expected to use the on-site circulation roadways, fire truck access and specific parking areas. Access ConsMerations- Primary access for the project, would be provided via the Western By-pass. Secondary access would be provided by Vincent Moraga Drive and 1st Street. Access spacing along the Western By-pass road is a minimum of 1,320 feet (1/4-mile) for full movement intersections and a minimum of 450 feet for right-in/right-out only access drives. This spacing generally meets the City's arterial spacing policy and should provide favorable flow conditions along the Western By- pass road. ALB~, NY * ANAkEIM. CA · ATLANTA. GA · CA.!~. EGYPT · CHAR,Esrorq. ,SC · COLU~v~A, SC * COLUM~JS. OH · DES I~YDII"JE5, IA · FALLS CH:.J;?C~.id. VA · H:.' ~'~:; ~-:'Z~,.- HOUSTON, TX * KNOXVILLE, ~ · LEXINGTON, K'Y * LONDON. ENGLAND · M!LWAUKEE. Wi · NEW HAVEN. CT * OAKLAND. CA · OI-&ANDO, FL * P~,'~',Ji"~4. P~ · &.;,,~F.,,Z-,~, ;.~? R!CHMOND, VA · ROSELLE. IL * SAN FRANCISCO. CA · SAN JOSE. CA · SINGAPORE · TALLAHASSEE, FL · TAMPA. FL * IORONTO. CANADA · W;,'3,!i.~4G?_';~< ~',~ EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY Zev Buffman September 21, 1997 Page 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Minimum access spacing is 365 feet on Vincent Moraga Drive and 430 feet on 1st Street. This spacing should be adequate for these Principal Collector roadways. It is important to consider that the peak traffic periods for the project do not coincide with those of the adjacent land uses. Impacts of the project during the typical highway peak hour would be considerably less than most other potential uses for the site. Sight Distance- Given the current layout of on-site roadways, sight distance appears to be adequate at all intersection locations along the perimeter of the site. On-site intersection sight distances are also adequate at all locations with one exception. The eastbound approach of the northernmost access drive, to the north-south access road, could have a sight distance problem (looking north) if a pedestrian crosswalk is provided. A retaining wall along the west side of the north-south access road could obstruct motorist's ability to see oncoming traffic if the limit line is located behind a crosswalk. As such, pedestrians flows should be directed to cross the north-south access road north of the intersection and proceed along the east side of the access road. The final landscaping plans for the site should be reviewed to insure that comer sight lines will not be obstructed. Vehicle Stacking- WSA has reviewed general stacking requirements for peak period traffic conditions at key intersections and is working with the site engineer to display the recommended striping plan. Left-turn lanes provided on the Western By-pass road and Vincent Moraga Drive for entering project traffic should be a minimum 200 feet in length. Along First Street, between the Western By-pass road and the north-south access road, peak inbound and outbound left turn movements would require more storage length than can be provided by a back-to-back center left- mm lane. The options are to eliminate the shoulder areas and strip the two left-turn lanes side-by- side or provide a "reversible" center left-ram lane which could be "coned" during peak entering and exiting periods. Since the demand for left turn movements at this location would be very "directional" during peak periods, the reversible left-turn lane concept would work quite well. Stacking for exiting traffic along the on-site access roads would be adequate. Given the typical peaking characteristics of traffic exiting from a major events, them will be some delays to traffic exiting the parking lots. With a moderate amount of manual traffic control a key on-site locations, exiting traffic would operate in a more orderly fashion with minimal delays. It is our understanding that manual traffic control would be typically provided during major events/shows. Zev Burman September 21, 1997 Page 3 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Deceleration and Acceleration Lane Considerations- As designed, the Western By-pass road provides a cross-section of 33 feet in each direction. WSA proposes that two through lanes (one 11- foot inside lane and a 12-foot outside lane) be striped in each direction. This would leave a 10-foot outside shoulder area on each side. With this shoulder configuration, which .is similar to that provided along Winchester Road east of 1-15, inbound right turn traffic movements can be made from the shoulder area. Given the "directional" nature of event traffic, and the ingress/egress distribution of project traffic, there would be negligible weaving movements (inbound right tums across outbound fight tums) at these locations during peak project traffic conditions. Traffic Control Features- As previously mentioned, WSA is working with the site engineer on the definition of circulation system lane striping and intersection traffic controls. It is our understanding that the conceptual striping layout is currently being incorporated into the plans. This includes a revised traffic control plan/circulation configuration for the centrally located drop-off/pick-up area. WSA will continue to work with the site engineer and City staff in the refinement of these plans. The intersection traffic control plan generally calls for two-way or all-way stop sign controls at all intersection locations except the main access intersection on the Western By-pass. Although a one- way stop control would be adequate at this location for project Phase I, a signal is recommended for project Phase II. Bus/Truck Access Considerations- WSA has reviewed the circulation layout relative to Bus and truck access. Various intersection curb radius and parking layout modifications have been suggested and are being incorporated in the plans. These modifications would provide the necessary circulation design features to adequately accommodate these larger vehicles. Vincent Moraga Drive Alignment and Parking Access In WSA's August 11, 1997 addendum traffic letter, we discuss the more favorable characteristics of the currently proposed alignment of the Vincent Moraga Drive extension. In this letter we also suggest various access drive locations to on-site parking lots. It should be noted that these parking access suggestions were made prior to reviewing the revised grading plans. Based on the difference in elevation between Vincent Moraga Drive at Ridge Park Drive and the adjacent overflow parking lot, we do not recommend access to the parking lot from this intersection. Zev Buffman September 21, 1997 Page 4 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 1-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Traffic Impacts As further clarification of WSA's discussion of traffic impacts associated with the Temecula Mall project, we are providing the following supporting traffic data: The Mall project is projected to add 208 vehicles to the northbound I- 15 ramp intersection and 116 vehicles to the southbound I-15 ramp intersection during the weekday evening peak hour. · During the Saturday midday peak hour, the Mall is projected to add 284 vehicles and 159 vehicles respectively to the northbound and southbound I-15 ramp intersections. The currently proposed Westside Specific Plan reduces impacts at the interchange by 34 vehicles (northbound ramp intersection) and 62 vehicles (southbound ramp intersection) during the weekday evening peak hour. Similarly the current project reduces impacts at the interchange by 42 vehicles (northbound ramp intersection) and 86 vehicles (southbound ramp intersection) during the Saturday midday peak hour. As can be noted from these traffic adjustments, the estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with revised Westside Specific Plan project would help in off-setting a significant portion of the added Mall traffic impacts on Rancho California Road at the interchange as compared to the original EIR traffic impact assessment at this location. The mitigative impact of the programmed Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange improvement provides an even more significant mitigative effect on the added traffic. This improvement, combined with the reduction in project-related traffic impacts would result in significantly better traffic operating conditions than anticipated in the original EIR traffic study, even with the additional Mall traffic. The Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange improvements were not assumed to be completed in the original EIR traffic study analysis and is now scheduled to be completed prior to opening of Phase I of the Westside Specific Plan. Zev Buff~an September 21, 1997 Page 5 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-8110. Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Engineer Wi;LBUR '" .- :SMITH" ASSOCIATES' ENGINEERS * PLANNEI~ 2300 E:KATELLA AVE. · ,SUITE 275 · ANAHEIM, CA 92806-6047 · (714) 978.-8110 *, FAX (714) 978-1109 October 1, 1997- Matthew Fagan Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive .. Temecula, CA 92589 0.11 lgg7.' By..,..._..____ Impact of Temecula. Mall Trips on Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center Traffic Analysis Dear Mr. Fagan: In response to your request, Wilbur 'smith Associates (WSA) has prepared-' the:. fol!0.win'g statement of clarification related to our assessment of:"the impact of Temeculii" 'lq;i"a~i;""t~'i~'~'i'~)n '/lie' Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center traffic analysis. In our letter dated August 28, 1997, WSA addressed the Mall traffic issue which had been raised at the August Planning Commission Workshop for the project.. In'this lefter,'WSA 'states that the Temecula Mall development would add an increment of traffic to the interchange area roadways which was not speeifical:ly called.out in.the' original .EIR traffic.' .study,. This statement. should .be clarified to say, that the added Mall traffic was not ide'n~ed':,sp'eeifie'aliy'i'. as a component of the forecasted traffic but the. analysis included an assumption of growth in background traffic.equal .to 2.1 perecru compounded annually. This .generai traffic,.growlh assumption was. intended to account for increases in area traffic related to ongoing and future developmeni' 'pr0ji~ci~s.' AlthOUgh 'the' Temecula Mall project was not identified specifically, the compoundod traffic. growth:assumption. is, intended .to compensate for .traffic increases related to area development projects such as the Mall. ' ....................... -~I'h~- ~ubj ~ct-u£ M~dl ..... ' .............. ~ ' ':--- comments" letter dated September 21, 1997. The estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with revised Westside Specific Plan project discussed in this letter would further reduce the increment of traffic added by the Mall at the Rancho California Road/I-15 ,, interchange. · ALBANY. NY · ANAl-ElM, CA · ATLANTA, GA · CA,tO. EGYPT · CHARLESON, SC · COLUIVI]IA. SC; · COLUMBUS, OH · DES MOINES. IA · FALI~ CHUI~H, VA · I-ICING KCNG HOUSTON, I'X · KNOXVILLE, TN ..LEXINGTON, KY · LONI:X:)N. EN~ *-MILWAUKEE, WI. NEW HAVEN, CT · O~. CA · ~, R. * PfiTSSL,~,~-i; PA · IYd. EIGH, NC RICHMOND, VA · r'<OSELLE, IL · SAN i:RANCISCO. CA · SAN JOSE, CA' · SINGAPO!~ · TALLAHASSEE, FL · TAMPA, FL · TORONTO, CANADA · WASHINGTON; DC EMPLOYEE*OWNED COMPANY . . Matthew Fagan October 1, 1997 Page 2 -WILBUR · , SM:ffH ASSOCIATES In addition, it is also relevant to' note that the Westside Specific Plan EIR included' a City/General Plan Build-Out Scenario Traffic Study which addressed long-term project impacts and ultimate area circulation needs. This analysis essentially resulted in the deftnit/on" of circulation system improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative traffic conditions which would result from'build outof the ori .ginally defined Westside 'Specific 'Plan.as wel! as the remaining undeveloped portions of the City. The build-out scenario-traffic analysis includes full implementation of the Temecula Regional Center. We hope that this added information helps clarify the issue of traffic. impacts related to the TernecOa Mall. Should you have any qu~sti.ons conce'min.'..g our fm.dings, p!e.as..e co~'~'~t'me' (714) 978-8110. ~ Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Engineer VISUAL SIMULATIONS R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION 97- R:~STAFFRPI~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vk, w' 1 9 AT~AC~ NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-~98 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 103,564 SQUARE FOOT, 4,800 SEAT ARENA AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS (HARDSCAPE, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ROADWAYS) ON 33.1 ACRF~ LOCATED WEST OF OLD TOWN TEMECULA (100 FEET WEST OF PUJOL STREET), 700 FEET SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE/VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, WITHIN THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 940-310-013, 940- 320-002 and 940-320-001 WHEREAS, Tev, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) on October 6, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMLqSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit: 1. 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. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including the City's General Plan and the Westside Specific Plan. R:~'TAFFRFI~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw ~)0 2. The overall development of the land is designed for protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study 0ES) was conducted to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031). Based upon this analysis, staff determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The addendum was prepared because changes and additions were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Mitigation measures approved with the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) will apply to this project. Section 4. ~ That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) to construct and operate a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat Arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways), an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR and Findings that a Subsequent EIR Is not required on 28.6 acres located west of Old Town Temecula (100 feet West of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-310-013, 940-320-002 and 940-3204)01 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:\$TAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgat 2 'l Section 5. PASSED, APPROVE1) AND ADOPTEl) this 6th day of October, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of October, 1997, by the following vote of the Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.1N21 10/2/97 vgw 22 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 23 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways) Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 940-310-013, 940-320-002 and 940-320-001 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project . The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of 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/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements . The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, 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 Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. . 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 development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan), and approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0298, or as amended by these conditions. R:~STAFFRPT~295PA97.PC1 10/2/F'/vgw 24 . . . 8, a. Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Westside Specific Plan requirements. b. Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. C. A linkage to Old Town shall be provided as depicted on Exhibit D-1 and shall meet all ADA requirements. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. Building color elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G (color and material board), or as amended by these conditions. Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (walls) Synthetic Stucco/Concrete(accent) Wood (trim applique) Concrete (roof shingle) Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (4" stripe) Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (6"/10" stripe) Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (12" stripe) Concrete (textured panel) Synthetic Stucco (8" stripe) Concrete (textured band) Wood (shutters) Glass Synthetic Stucco (8" cap stripe) Concrete (42" high divider) Wood (6'x6' column w/4'x4' strut) Metal (roof) Wood (8'x8' column w/accent trim) Metal (door) Synthetic Stucco (2" stripe) Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Similar to Cedarlite Concrete Muirwood-Shake Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) & (Hickory: : SP74) : SP74) SP172) SP172) SP172) SP172) Clear Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) Dunn-Edwards (Bone: SP112) Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172) Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14) Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14) Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these conditions. a. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the 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. R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/F'/vgw 25 b. Landscaping south of First Street shall be consistent with the landscaping north of First Street. Slopes to the west of the Western By-Pass Corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a similar manner to those to the north of First Street. Slopes on the east side of the Western By-Pass Corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a similar manner to those to the north of First Street. Go Prior to the issuance of a building permit or the application submittal for Phase II of development, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for the parking lot areas immediately adjacent (to the south and west) to the Phase II component (Rogersdale). Said plans shall provide parking lot landscaping consistent with Section II.B.4.e. (Landscape requirements) of the Westside Specific Plan. . Prior to any expansion to the seating capacity (above 4,800 seats) of the arena, or the application submittal of Phase II of the project, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a parking study to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. Said study shall analyze the adequacy of existing parking facilities, the possibility and feasibility of reciprocal parking, and make recommendations for the amount of additional parking which will be required to accommodate the uses on-site. 10. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. 11. The project shall comply with the provisions contained within and the Conditions of Approval for the Westside Specific Plan. 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), if applicable. 13. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans, for all slope areas created as a result of the grading operation, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. All slope areas to the east of the Western By-pass corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a manner similar to those areas on the east side of the Western By-Pass Corridor on the approved conceptual landscape plans. All slope areas to the west of the Western By-pass corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a manner similar to those areas on the west side of the Western By-Pass Corridor on the approved conceptual landscape plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These 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: am Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). R:\STAFFRFI~98PA97.PCI 10/2797 vgw 26 d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 14. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to guarantee the installation of plantings and irrigation for all slope areas in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 15. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 17. All slope landscaping and irrigation shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. 18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. In addition, all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features shall be included on the plans. These 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. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). 19. d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 20. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 21. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 22. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and 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. R:\STAFFRFT~95PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 27 23. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 24. Bicycle racks shall be installed. 25. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 26. All major and minor entry features and monumentation shall be installed. 27. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 28. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 29. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 30. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 31. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 28 33. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 34. Provide path of travel to all areas of the buildings including stage area and lower arena floor. 35. Provide conceptual seating plans for arena floor area and show exiting requirement from lower area. 36. Show handicap seating areas. 37. Exit widths don"t comply with Uniform Building code, show compliance for complete occupant load, which half of required load to go through main exits. 38. Provide exit widths and cross-aisle sizes for compliance with exiting requirements. 39. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 40. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 41. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 42. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 43. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. Women's restrooms are required to be equal to mens restrooms as per Appendix C of the Uniform Plumbing code. 44. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 45. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 46. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 47. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 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 tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. R:\STAFFRFf~95PA97.PCI 10/21F7 vgw 2 9 General Requirements 48. A Grading Permit for rough and/or precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 49. 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. 50. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 51. All roadway, slope and utility easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 52. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 53. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public/private improvements within 18 months in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. Western Bypass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) from the intersection of Front Street and State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, landscaped median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Vincent Moraga Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) extension to south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor and restriping of the existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road to accommodate the proposed improvements. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. C. In relation to the above item, Ridge Park Drive "T" intersection configuration with Vincent Moraga Drive. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. dl First Street (78 feet full width right-of-way) extension from Pujol Street west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. R:~STAFFRP'I~298PA9'/.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 30 so A traffic signal at the First Street/Western Bypass Corridor intersection and interconnection with the traffic signal proposed at the Front Street/State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor intersection. fl Full improvements of the Main Street extension from Pujol Street west to the project site's proposed escalators for the pedestrian connection. g. Storm drain facilities within the road right-of-way. h. Landscaping (slopes and parkways). i. Erosion control and slope protection. j. Sewer and domestic water systems located within the road right-of-way. k. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines within the road right-of-way. 54. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 55. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 59. 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. 60. 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. The impact of the site to any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and to any adjacent floodways and necessary protection mitigation measures shall be identified. Adequacy of capacity of existing and proposed downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading R:\STAFFRP~295PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 31 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 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 Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Caltrans Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers 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. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Special Study Zones information shall be on the ECS. R:\STAFFRPTY298PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 32 68. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed "Western bypass Corridor and Vincent Moraga Drive" in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 69. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 70. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 71. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: 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 Standard Nos. 207, 207A, 208, and 401 (curb and sidewalk). C. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. f. 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. gl All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under-sidewalk drains. 72. Private roads MUST be designed, reviewed, and approved by the Department of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be limited to: a. Minimum paved road widths of 32 feet within adequate right-of-ways or easements. b. Knuckles being required at 90° 'bends' in the road. R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 v~w 3 3 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. c. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards. d. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. e. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required. 90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a minimum safe distance from intersections. g. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°). Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Vincent Moraga Drive, Western Bypass Corridor, and First Street other than shown on the approved site layout. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 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. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and City attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be submitted to the following Engineering conditions: a. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the Developer's sole cost and expense. b. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. R:~STAFFRPT~95PA97.PC1 1012197 v~,w 34 The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. d. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and related facilities. e. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the Owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. All parkways, open areas, on-site slopes and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. ii. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map, or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 81. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 82. The Developer shall complete the following infrastructure improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy: Western By_,ass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) shall be constructed from the intersection of Front Street and State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, landscaped median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). Vincent Moraga Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) shall be extended south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. The existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road shall be restriped to accommodate the proposed improvements. R:~STAFFRF~295PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 35 In relation to the above item, Ridae Park Drive shall form (be reconstructed to -- form) a "T" intersection with Vincent Moraga Drive. ~ (78 feet full width right-of-way) from Pujol Street shall be extended west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. A traffic signal warrant analysis (utilizing criteria established by the State of California Department of Transportation) indicates that the First Street/Western Bynass Corridor intersection shall be signalized. It is recommended, therefore, that traffic volumes be monitored at this location to determine the precise scheduling of this installation by the Developer. Moreover, when constructed this traffic signal shall be interconnected with the traffic signal proposed at the Front Street/State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor intersection. 83. The Developer shall construct full improvements of the Main Street extension from Pujol Street west to the project site's proposed escalators for the pedestrian connection. 84. Sufficient parking and a local transit system shall be provided to satisfy the parking demands of the project. 85. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City Standards and in compliance with the site traffic impact analyses, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, drainage facilities, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 86. All traffic signal, traffic signal interconnection and signing and striping shall be installed per the approved traffic signal, traffic signal interconnection and signing and striping plan, respectively. 87. The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works. 88. 89. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersection and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance as directed by the Department of Public Works. I All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 90. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 91. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 92. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~298PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 36 FIRE DEPARTMENT 93. 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. 94. 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 and use and Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 95. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, ~r automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 96. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 ½" 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 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. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 97. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 98. 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 70,000 lbs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 99. 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 70,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) 100. 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. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) 101. 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. (UFC 902.2.2.4) R:\STAFFRP'I~95PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 37 102. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC $704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 103. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) 104. 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 suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) 105. 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. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) 106. 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. (UFC Article 10) 107. 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. (UFC 902.4) 108. 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. (UFC 902.4) OTHER AGENCIES 109. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's's transmittal dated September 18, 1997, 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 permits, based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 110. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated September 4, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 111. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated September 12, 1997, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 38 112. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated September 12, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 113. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated September 3, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned 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 Planning Department approval. Applicant Name R:\$TAFFRFIA295PA97.PCI 10/2/97 v~w 39 '_~,EF' Z.,Z ' 97O,Z: OSFT'I DAVID P. ZAPP£ Gandhi Mmn.:_~.Clficf .F.,ngipe. ct P..I~R. SIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Te_mecula Ptannin~ Department 43200 I~u$iness Park Drive Temec~la, California 92590 Attention:_ ~ Fl'r'r'/,/'_~/,d.. Ledies and Gentlemen: Ins _l~Ction will be mqu~r~d mr ocsm~ aooelxanoe. ~,lan ~ ~ required. .j~ that c~uld Uasta',,~n~ pan. m.~ _ _u~x~___,___~w~_ ~ .?R?,.?~ ~-~E..,.m~.?~,-"~' "" -"'"' Very truly youre, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer September 4, 1997 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Board of Directors: Michael R. McMillan President Csaba F. Ko St. Vice President Ralph H. Daily Lisa D. Herman Doug Kulberg .Jeffrey L. Minklet George M. Woods O£ficers: John F. Hennigar General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance- Treasurer E. P. '~ob" Lemons Director of Enmneering Kenneth C. Dealy D~rectm' (,f Operations & Maintenance Perry R. Louck ('ontr.ller SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY, PARCELS 23, 24, AND 25 OF PARCEL MAP 18254, APNS 940-310-013, 940-320-001, AND 940-320-002, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 Dear Mr. Fagan: 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. This development may require the relocation of existing RCWD water facilities and the construction of additional water facilities to provide domestic and fire protection service for this development. The relocation of existing RCWD facilities and the construction of new facilities will be the responsibility of the developer. When domestic and fire protection services are determined, the customer will ~i~;~;.[7~j.~7 .....i ....,p~eed to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. .%e rvice~ .Manager C. Michael Cowett ,cs,,est~ariegerLLpWater availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an o .......-a,~ .......,Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. if-you have any questions, please contact Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 97/SB:eb168/F012/FCF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor an Engineering Services lhmcho California Water District September 12, ! 997 Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 RE: Planning Application No. PA97-0298 Dear Mr. Fagan: RTA recommends moving the transit stop facility, located near the proposed First street, further away from the intersection. A 40-foot transit vehicle requires a minimum of 140 feet and preferably 160 feet after a turn for a bus stop zone on the far-side of the intersection. This allows the vehicle to clear the intersection. In addition, RTA recommends relocating the second transit stop facility, located near the arena bus and employee parking, from the northeast to the southeast comer. We are concerned about the safety of the bus stopping and disabled passengers boarding and alighting on a 4.5% grade. If you have questions or comments, please call. Enclosed are copies of text and diagrams from RTA's Design Guideline. Sincerely, Anne MacCracken Transit Planner AM:cam enclosure CC: Stephen C. Oiler, Director of Operations & Resource Development Ge When a large percentage of passengers using a stop are destined for a single trip generator (a school, office, shopping center or similar generator), the stop should be located to minimize pedestrian activity through the intersection. Depending on the location of the generator, t!~e preferred stop could be farside (Figure 6) or nearside (Figure 7B). District staff should be consulted whenever special circumstances regarding bus stop placement arise. Bus stop zones can usually be accommodated on-street in the parking or curb lane, bike lane, or in right-turn lanes (see Figure 8). In cases where there are no parking or right-turn lanes, or where traffic speeds or bus volumes are high, a bus turnout may be necessary (see discussion under Bus Turnout). Complimentary stops for both directions of travel and crosswalks at intersections must also be provided on two-way streets. Desi(]n Criteria: For 40-foot transit vehicles, bus stop zones for nearside and farside stops should be a minimum of 115 feet long and preferably 160 feet long. Bus stop zones for mid-block stops should be a minimum of 130 feet long and preferably 170 feet long. Sidewalks and wheelchair access ramps should be provided at all stops. For articulated bus stop zones, the bus berth position should be 70 feet long (as compared to 50 feet for. the 40-foot vehicle), thereby increasing the overall length of the zone by 20 feet. These dimensions for bus stop zones are illustrated in Figure 9. At some bus stops, more than one vehicle may be at the stop at a given time. Figure 10 provides a sample of how two or three buses could be accommodated at a single stop. Distdct staff are available to determine whether single or multiple berths are required at a given stop. The curb adjacent to the bus stop zone should be painted red and signs posted to clearly identify the area as no parking or stopping except for buses. A solid white 6 - 8 inch lane line separating the bus stop from adjacent traffic lanes and/or "Bus Stop" pavement stencils should be provided in areas of heavy congestion. Where possible, or necessary due to high traffic volumes, bus stops should be accompanied by coricre~e pads to reduce lung term maintenance costs. A typicai concrete pad cross section is shown in Figure 11. A number of passenger amenities are typically provided at bus stops and should be arranged to maximize passenger convenience and minimize disruption to pedestrian flow adjacent to the stop. A typical layout is shown in Figure 12. The front or rear door of many 40-foot transit coaches is equipped with a drop-down wheelchair lift that allows wheelchair passengers to safely and easily board RTA buses. To ensure that sufficient clearance is provided to allow wheelchair patrons to maneuver and enter or exit these lifts safely, special attention should be made to provide a clear zone in the vicinity of the doors on the coaches. Figure 13 details the clearance zone necessary for safe use of these wheelchair lifts. The "kneeling" feature on the front end of many buses, which reduces the step height for mobility impaired patrons, requires no special bus stop design features to operate. 2O MID-BLOCK STOP FARSIDE STOP 2S* St~a~#t SQ' kfoJ~ Itiit l~rll NEARSIDE ' 40' Minimum for low speed and low relume streets 60' deeirable f(x high speed ~ high Yolume streets STOP '"This 50' berth is fcx' a single large 40' long vehicle. For articulated vehicles, a 70' berth is nocessaJT. These dimensions are for one bus position only; if more positions are required at a stop, see Figure 10 on how to estimate the length needed for multiple berths. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 9 DIMENSIONS FOR ON-STREET BUS STOPS zz c~ L W~ ~W 26 Eastern Municipal' at er District General Manager John B. Brudin Legal Counsel Redwine and Shetrill Director of The Metropolitan Water Disrdc~ of Southern Gdifirnia Cheerer C. Gilbert Treasurer Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA September 12, 1997 Board o/ Dim'~n Richa.,d R. Hall, President David J. Slawson, Vice President Marion V. Ashley Clayton A. Record, Rodger D. Sicres Secretary Mary C. White Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 SUBJECT: Westside SP/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center -Wild West Area (PA97-0298) Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office describing a proposal to construct a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways). The subject project is indicated to be located west of Old Town temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan. Please be advised the proposed project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District for sewer service. The provisions of service are contingent upon the timing of the subject project and status of the District's permit to operate. The developer must contact the District's Customer Service Department for plan cf service, plan check, connection fees and agreement for service. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 766-1810, extension 4467. Sincerely, Warren A. Back Civil Engineer Customer Service Department WA / Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 · San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Pettis, CA 92571 · Telephone (909) 928-3777 · Fax (909) 928-6177 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: September 3, 1997 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan FROM RE: GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA97-0298 1. Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA97-0298 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the Califomia Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. GD:dr (909) 285-8980 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 40 MITIGATION MEASURES THAT APPLY TO TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Old Town Rexl~elopmmt PIm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General ImoaCt The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow in 1996. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.1 To mitigate 1996 with-project circulation system impacts at the Rancho California Road/I-15 North Ramps, the following steps must be taken: On the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or restripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left- turn lane at the 1-15 South on-ramp, one through lane, one optional through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right-turning traffic onto the 1-15 North on-ramp, said on-ramp will require widening just north of Rancho California Road; these two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of 1- 15 North. (Note: The need for these dual right-turn lanes and the widened 1-15 North on- ramp will be eliminated, however, when the scheduled "loop" on-ramp accommodating eastbound Rancho California Road-to-northbound 1-15 traffic ultimately is provided.) Soecific Process Engineering drawings incorporating these improvements shall be provided to the City for implementation and funding made available for their implementation. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed as drawn after they are constructed. Mitieation Milestone The drawings and funding shall be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation. Responsible Monitorine Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prereouisite Action(s~ For 10-85 Ol~ To~n Rcdcvclo~ Plan MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Funding has to be identified. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. 10-86 Okl Town lt~ve~cmt ~ Focused MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Impact The local circuhtion system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow in 1996. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.2 To mitigate 1996 with-project circulation system impacts at the From Street/Western Bypass Road intersection, the following steps must be taken: On the southbound intersection approach, Front Street shah contain one left- turn lane and one optional left-turn/right-turn lane. (Note: Because Front Street will extend north of the Western Bypass Road to Santiago Road as a five-lane facility (two through lanes per direction plus a two- way-left-turn lane according to the City), this southbound approach (intersecting the Western Bypass Road) could contain three lanes; two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane. If this three-lane alternative is implemented, the intersection's Level of Service (LOS) would be even better than that cited in Table 4.6-6. Snecific Process Engineering drawings incorporating these improvements shall be provided to the City for implementation and funding made available for their implementation. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed as drawn after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The drawings and funding shall be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation. Remonsible Monitorine Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prereouisite Action(s~ For Funding has to be identified. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. 10-87 Old To~ Red~e~ Pi~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 10-88 OM Town Redevelopment Plan Final Poeuaed EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Imt~act The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow in 1996. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.3 Barton Aschman's traffic study identifies several additional road design measures that are recommended to reduce overall traffic impacts. These are reproduced in Appendix 8.4 in Volume I of the Draft Ell{. (They are also located in Section 6 of Appendix Ill located in Volume H of the Draft Ell{.) These recommendations shall be implemented as part of the proposed project at a time determined by the City to prevent deterioration of traffic How below LOS D. The status of the circulation system components addressed in the recommendations shall be assessed as part of the City's annual traffic survey and evaluation. Soecific Process Engineering drawings incorporating these improvements shall be provided to the City for implementation and funding made available for their implementation. The City shall verify that these improvements axe installed as drawn after they are constructed. -- Mitigation Milestone The drawings and funding shall be in place when the City determines they axe needed based on their annual traffic surveys or other studies as appropriate. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerem_uisite Action(s) For Funding has to be identified. Drawings muat be complete~ prior to submittal to the City. 10-89 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 10-90 Old Towa Re.d~~ Plm Fi~l Foe,.-sed FIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Imoact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.4 The City shall require installation of transit facilities at centralized locations within Old Town and the hotel/arena complex. The City shall work with regional transit agencies to provide service to these locations in the future when such transit service becomes ava'dable. Soecific Process Engineering drawings incorporating the transit facilities in Old Town and at the hotel/arena complex shall be provided to the City for implementation and funding made available for their implementation. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed as drawn after they are constructed. Mifieafion Milestone The drawings and funding shall be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing tli~ir installation. Resoonsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works and/or Planning Departments Prereouisite Action(sl For Funding has to be identified. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. 10-91 OM Tow~ lh~v~ PI~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow at project build out. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.5 The City shah require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvement at the Rancho California Road/l-15 Southbound ramps. This funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. There are three alternatives available to the City to mitigation significant traffic flow impacts at these ramps. They are: widen the Rancho California Road bridge on the south side to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane; construct a southbound loop on-ramp in the northwest quadrant of the interchange; construct a new southbound off-ramp at Santiago Road. Shetitle Process Fair-share funding requirements shall be identified and the City shall identify when funds will have to be provided to support the improvements dependent upon this fair share-funding. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed when required and place as-built drawings in the file after they are constructed. Mitieation Milestone The funding shall be identified prior to initiating operation of any project facilities and the funding shall be in place when required by the City. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation. Resoonsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prereouisite Action(s~ For Funding has to be identified. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. 10-92 Old Town Redeveiopmemt Plan Final Focused MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 10-93 MrrIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Imnact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow at project build out. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.6 The City shall require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvements at the at SR 79 South and the 1-15 Northbound ramps. This funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. The proposed Assessment District 159 improvements shall be modified to include provisions for a double left turn configuration at the off- ramp approach to SR 79 South. It was also recommended that the ultimate interchange improvement plans include a provision for three eastbound through lanes at the intersection. Sr~cific Process Fair-share funding requirements shall be identified and the City shall identify when funds will have to be provided to support the improvements dependent upon this fair share-funding. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed when required and place as-built drawings in the file after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The funding shall be identified prior to initiating operation of any project facilities and the funding shall be in place when required by the City. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation. Resnonsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prereauisite Action(s) For Funding has to be identified. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. 10-94 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 10-95 OM Town Redevelopment Plan F~,~ Focused E[R .. General Imoact MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow at project build out. Mitivafion Measure 4.6.4.7 The City shall require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvement at the at SR 79 South and 1-15 Southbound ramps. This funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. At the SR 79 South and 1-15 Southbound ramps, adequate mitigation requires construction of a new southbound loop off-ramp in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Implementing this measure would require relocating the southbound on-ramp across from the terminus of Front Street where it intersects the Western Bypass Road. $_tmcific Process Fair-share funding requirements shall be identified and the City shall identify when funds will have to be provided to support the improvements dependent upon this fair share-funding. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed when required and place as-built drawings in the file after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The funding shall be identified prior to initiating operation of any project facilities and the funding shall be in place when required by the City. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prereauisite Action(s) For Funding has to be identified. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. 10-96 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FROM THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT R:\$TA--VFRPf~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 41 G~ PLAN CONSISTENCY Staff has reviewed the adopted City General Plan to determine the consistency of the project with the adopted Plan. Based upon this evaluation, the Director of Planning has determined that the projects are consistent with the adopted General Plan. Specifically, the projects are consistent with following goals and policies contained in the General Plan: Land Use 1.2: 2.1: 4.1: 6.4: 6.5: Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Overlay to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure. Provide physical and visual buffer areas to create a transition between rural residential and agricultural areas and commercial, industrial and other higher density residential development. Enforce hillside grading standards to... require the preservation of unique natural features and to encourage a broad range of hillside architectural and site planning solutions. Develop a plan to provide for additional parking in and around the Old Town area. Encourage the revitalization of Old Town through the Old Town Specific Plan. Circulation 1.2: 5.3: Require an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior to project approval, and require adequate mitgafion measures prior to, or concurrent with, project development. Provide additional public parking in the Old Town area, where feasible, through common parking areas or the establishment of a parking district. Housing 2.1: Promote a variety of housing opportunities that accommodate the needs of all income levels of the popularion, and provides opportunities to meet the City's fair share of low- and moderate-income housing. Open Space 1.6: 3.1: 3.6: 5.1: 6.2: Encourage the enhancement and preservation of significant natural features. Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering; selective preservation; the provision of replacement habitats; the use of sensitive site planning techniques including wildlife corridor/recreational trails; and other appropriate measures. Limit the recreational use of designated open space areas where sensitive biological resources are present. Pursue the conservation of the western and southern ridgelines, ... through the development review process and as a condition of approval. Require sites proposed for future development to be evaluated for archaeological resources in accordance with the procedure established in a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Infomarion Center at UC Riverside. RfiSTAFFRP~298PA97.PCI 10/2/9~ ~ 42 6.3: 6.8: Require sites proposed for future development that are identified in this Element as being of high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity to be evaluated by a quality vertebrate paleontologist. Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the Old Town Specific Plan Area and areas adjacent to the Specific Plan area. Public Facilities 5.5: Encourage the provision of cultural facilities within the community, including: art museums, theaters, a performing axts center, ~ exhibitions, an outdoor amphitheater, and Indian Cultural Interpretive Center. Air Quality 2.6: 2.2: Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for residents of Temecula to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing. Maintain an orderly flow of traffic and improve mobility through the use of transportation systems management techniques. Community Design 1.5: 7.1: 7.6: Maintain and incorporate natural amenities ... to protect the environment and provide natural landscaping, protect views, and to provide recreational opportunities in order to maintain the quality of life. Encourage the development of public spaces and plazas within commercial developments that can accommodate cultural and social events and function as community gathering areaS. Promote the provision of cultural facilities within the community, including: art museums, theaters, a performing arts center, special exhibitions, an outdoor amphitheater, and special cultural exhibitions. Economic Development 6.3: 6.4: Revitalize and enhance Old Town to expand its role in local tourism and to improve its attractiveness, accessibility, and economic role. Enhance the City's image through development of cultural facilities, including performing arts and museums. No General Plan goals or policies were identified as being inconsistent with the proposed project. R:\STAFFRPT~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 43 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY REPORT R:~STAFFRFI~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 44 WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONSISTENCY EVALUATION l,}troducti.0n. As originally envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Town portion of the City and within the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western Bypass corridor, southwest of Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were approved for a mixture of commercial entertainment facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and residential uses by the City in 1995. The approved land uses were perhaps best summarized in the "Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations" adopted by the City of Temecula when it approved. the whole project and certified Environmental Impact Report in 1995. Attachment A contains a list of project components approved for development as summarized in the "Facts,"which can be developed, with appropriate subsequent review, in the two phases of the project.. See Attachment A. As the City is aware, the actual construction of the entertainment venue has been delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays due to legal challenges to the project and the efforts to justify funding of the extensive infrastructure that must be installed when the project is developed. A few of the major infrastructure components include: the Western By-pass and First Street bridges over Murrieta Creek; installation of the required paved section of the Western By-pass from the Front Street/Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 interchange to Vincent Moraga Drive; and all of the water, sewer, and other utility infrastructure systems required to support the facilities permitted by the Westside Specific Plan. In order to obtain the significant funding commitments required to construct the entertainment venue in the City in conformance with the City's 1995 approvals, the project has evolved from the original concept as outlined in Attachment A, to a current concept that has been designed to be consistent with the Westside Specific Plan, yet reflect the fundamental project components that are necessary to attract the substantial funds required to build all facilities, including the extensive infrastructure required to support the project. '!'o demonstrate consistency of the current design concept for the entertainment venue with the original approvals, particularly the Westside Specific Plan, a comparison of the original and proposed design components is presented below. Note that certain uses have been transferred from Old Town to Area "A" of the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) as "ancillary" uses to the hotel and wild west arena. This has been necessary to support the costs of the required infrastructure improvements defined in the original approvals. It also overcomes the lack of economically viable sites in Old Town where no specific sites were shown in the original applications because of the difficulty of consolidating adequate building and parking areas. Keep in mind that Phase 1, as defined in the original certified EIR and in the approvals referenced in Attachment A, encompassed almost all of the proposed entertainment facilities summarized in Attachment B. Phase 2 was proposed to consist of support commercial and residential uses as required to support the overall success of the entertainment venue. As is demonstrated below, the proposed conceptual design now being presented to the City is fully consistent with the total scope of facilities envisioned and approved in the project original approvals, and even though'the current focus has shifted from Old Town to the WSP area, additional facilities remain to be sited in Old Town as demand for additional entertainment facilities evolves in the future. A time line (schedule) for the project as currently proposed is provided as Attachment C to this document. Table 1 summarizes the square footage for each proposed entertainment venue facility and other facilities approved by the City of Temecula, such as the hotel. The square footage of facilities as envisioned in the original design concept and the current design concept are presented below. Where a facility is not shown in the current design concept side of Table 1, it is being deferred to the future as discussed above. Table I Square Footage Summary of Entertainment Facilities 'Original Design Concept Current Design Concept Cabaret Theatre (2) 27,000 f~2/45,000 ~2 Location: Old Town Cabaret Theater/Western Music Dinner Theatre (1) 20,000 fi2 Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area . Western Saloon (2) 10,000 ftz each Location' Old Town Western Saloon/Rockin Rodeo(l) 12,000 fi2 Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area . Opera House 75,000 f~2 building footprint Location: Old Town Opera House/Celebrity Auditorium 50,000 fi2 building footprint Location: ancillary to Hotel in the WSP area . Showboat 21,000 fi2 Location: Old Town Showboat (deferred to future) No change at this time No change at this time Wild West Arena 175,000 fi2,85-90 feet height Location: WSP area Wild West Arena 105,000 fi2,75 feet height Location WSP area . . . . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Virtual Reality Pavilion (3) 19,000 if2, total 57,000 R: Location: Old Town ..- "Quick Draw" Competition Area 8,000 ft2 Location: Old Town Hotel 300,000 ft2 initial; additional 100,000 ft2 for additional 150 rooms when justified in future Location: wsP area Hotel Retail Commercial 50,000 ft2/50,000 ft2 Location: WSP area, ancillary to hotel Retail Commercial 50,000-100,000 ft2 Location: Old Town -. Visitor Center/Ticket Office (1 +) 5,500 ft2 Location: Old Town Administrative Space 20,000 fi2 Location: open Virtual Reality Experience 7,200 fi2 Location: WSP, a part of the Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Museum, ancillary to Wild West Arena "Quick Draw" Competition Area (deferred to future) No change at this time No change at this time Hotel 125,000 ft2, 275 rooms Location: WSP area Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Exhibition ---23,000 ft2, including Virtual Reality Experience Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena Temecula Wine & Food Exhibition 30,000 ft~ Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena Chapel 1,600 ft2 Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena Hotel Retail Commercial 69,600 fi2, kiosks, shops, restaurants Location: WSP area, ancillary to hotel Deferred to the Future Visitor Center 2,500 ~2 Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena Administrative Space Same Location: WSP area, part of Arena or Theatre 16. Festival Square 20,000 ft2 Location: Old Town Arena Plaza/Sons of the Pioneers Music Plaza Small gazebo stage/~500-1,000 ft: Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena Based on the summary provided above, the total square footage of building space under the original design concept is 1,045,500 f~2, excluding the outdoor facilities such as the "Quick Draw" and Festival Square areas. Of this 1,045,500 f~2, the total square footage permitted within the WSP area in the original concept design and with City approvals is estimated to be about 695,000 ~2, including the full 100,000 f~ of commercial area allocated in Phases 1 and 2 of the hotel and the 20,000 administrative area. The current design concept encompasses approximately 459,700 f~:, including 69,960 ft2 of commercial support uses. Thus, the total square footage of all proposed facilities falls well within the total square footage and is approximately 235,300 ft~ less than originally authorized by the City when it granted approvals in 1995. What are the major differences between the current and original design concept? Perhaps the greatest change is a decision to disaggregate the massing of square footage originally allocated to the hotel and Wild West Arena into several structures. All of the facilities proposed in the current conceptual design are ancillary or supportive to the two primary facilities (hotel and Wild West Arena) that were approved for Area A of the WSP. Some uses have been transferred from the Old Town area, but it is our interpretation that comparable facilities were envisioned in the WSP authorization, such as the auditorium (opera house), wine and food exhibition hall (exhibition uses), and cabaret theatre (dinner theatre) in support of the hotel, and the museum (Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Museurn/Exhibition facility) in support of, or as part of the Wild West Arena. Similarly, the approximately 69,600 f~2 of commercial area is consistent with the Phase 1 and 2 allocations of commercial square footage allocated as part of the hotel. Although the original footprints of buildings have been altered, the focus on the western theme for the entertainment venue has not changed and by disaggregating the facilities through redesign, the visual impacts of the large hotel and arena structures will be reduced, enhancing the visual setting compared to the original design concept. In particular, the original design concept of the hotel showed a very large massed visual feature and the arena was envisioned as circus/tent-like structure with stripes. In the design concept presently under consideration by to the City, both of these facilities have been redesigned by creating several structures, thereby reducing the overall visual impact ofthe project In addition, by enclosing the arena structures and providing for insulation and ' climate control, potential noise impacts to residences along Pujol have been substantially reduced. For these reasons, we believe that the proposed, i.e. current, design concept is fully consistent with the WSP requirements and overall approvals granted to the project in 1995. ATTACHMENT A Entertainment Venue Summary of Project Components Summary_ of Approvals The City of Temecula approved Master Conditional User Permit (Planning Application No. 94-0061), the Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 95-0003), Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 (Planning Application No 95-0004) and Development Agreement No. DV95-0001). These approvals were granted by the City Plarming Commission and City Council in June, 1995 to facilitate development of a variety of entertainment facilities, hotel, commercial and residential uses. Summary_ of Pr..oject Components Cabaret Theaters: Two cabaret theaters are proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. Both cabaret theaters would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. One cabaret is proposed to contain about 27,000 square feet (ft2) and 40 feet high and the second theater is proposed to contain about 45,000 ft2. These cabarets are designed to entertain a maximum of about 600 and 900 people per event, respectively. Each show is expected to last for approximately two hours and it is initially anticipated that the theater will hold 13 shows per week. . Western Saloons: Two saloons are proposed to be located in the OSTP core area. Both saloons would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project and each saFoon is proposed to contain approximately 10,000 ftz in a one-two story structure. Each saloon will be designed to entertain approximately 350 persons, 250 at tables and about 100 at or adjacent to the bar. A small stage will be provided for typical bar entertainment, such as dancing girls. Staged bar fights, shootouts and other entertainment will be provided. The saloons will operate every day of the week. . Opera House: An opera house is proposed to be located in the OTSP. It would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. The opera house is proposed to be a two story structure with the proscenium approximately 50 feet high. The opera house is expected to encompass 85,000 fi2 of space with a building footprint of approximately 75,0002. Estimated seating capacity will be 1,400 persons on the first floor and 800 seats in the balcony. A television and radio studio will occupy approximately 2,500 ff2 within or adjacent to the opera house. It is anticipated that the opera house will have 13 performances per week. . Showboat: A western showboat facility with a showroom is proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. This facility would be implemented during Phase 2 of the project when adequate demand for additional entertainment space justifies its construction. The showboat will be a t'WO-Story structure, with the smokestacks approximately 30 feet high. It is proposed to be approximately 21,000 f~2 and it would have the capacity to entertain an estimated 600 persons per event, seven days per week. o Wild _W_est Arena: A 4,800 seat tent designed wild west arena that will be similar to Buffalo Bill's touring western tent show is proposed to be located just west of OTSP core area within the Westside Specific Plan area. It would be constructed during Phase I of the project. This is an outdoor/indoor facility that will operate all year but have a 16 week summer "high" season. The arena will encompass approximately 175,000 square feet and the tent poles will raise the height of the facility to approximately 85-90 feet above the ground surface. During the 36 week regular season two shows per week are expected to be performed, primarily on the weekends. During the arena high season it is estimated that several shows will be performed per day, primarily on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. . Virtual Reality Pavilion(s): Three virtual reality pavilions with two theaters in each are proposed for development within the OTSP. One pavilion with two theaters will be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the project. The other two pavilions will be implemented as part of Phase 2 when sufficient demand justifies their construction. The theaters will be constructed in the Plan core area. Each theater will seat about 50 persons. Maximum occupancy of these two-story structures (height about 25-30 feet) is estimated to be about 200 persons. Each pavilion will encompass about 19,000 ft2 for a total of-57,000 ft2 if all three pavilions are implemented. Each show requires about five to six minutes with the theater portion running about three to four minutes. Performances would be continuous after the facility opens each day. . "Quick Draw" Competition Area: In the Old Town core area a plaza or town square will be constructed which is proposed to contain a quick draw competition area. This facility will be constructed as part of Phase 1 and is proposed to encompass approximately 8,000 t~2 outdoors in or adjacent to the plaza. This will be a westernized "police academy" type of facility where an individual will walk through an outdoor maze of targets. Ten people can participate in each five minute trip and scores will be posted on a large electronic board. . Hotel: One major hotel is proposed for construction in the vicinity of the wild west arena within the Westside Specific Plan. The initial configuration of the hotel is proposed to be four stories in height and provide a total of 350 rooms. It is proposed to be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. A 5.7 acre pad will be provided for this facility and it is proposed to contain approximately 300,000 ft2 of building space. The hotel may be expanded with 150 additional rooms during Phase 2 if sufficient demand justifies such an expansion. The hotei: is proposed to include approximately 50,000 ft.2 of related retail space when constructed in Phase 1 and the range of retail uses includes restaurants, service commercial uses, and retail . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. commercial uses. An additional 50,000 fi~ of retail space may be constructed during Phase 2 if demand for the commercial capacity is sufficient. Retail c6'mmercial: The City anticipates 50,000 to 100,000 ft2 of the retail commercial area identified in the OTSP will ultimately be developed in Old Town to support the entertainment facilities/activities. It is estimated that 30,000 ft2 will be developed during Phase I as a component of this project. No specific locations have been selected for these retail activities. Visitors C. ent~r/Ticket Office: One or more visitors centers/ticket office facilities will be located in the downtown area for ticket purchases and to provide information. This facility/facilities may encompass up to 5,500 if2 of area. It will be open during normal business hours and during evenings when events are scheduled at the entertainment complex. Administrative Space: An additional 20,000 square feet of space for administrative offices and back-of-house areas may be constructed to support the project. Some of this space may be located within the opera house facility and others on the second floor of other structures or within independent structures. Area A: This area encompasses 47.7 acres and the Plan designates it for Special Event Commercial (SEC). The SEC designation is designed to be an extension of the OTSP and it will allow for tourist and hotel commercial uses. Allowable uses include wild west type facilities, shows, and support uses, including a variety of public assembly activities. Hotel and supporting retail activities, such as restaurants, service commercial operations, and retail shops would be allowed under this designation. Area B: Area B comprises 5.4 acres of land that is designated Community Commercial/Tourist Support (CCTS). The CCTS designation is designed to meet the need for commercial facilities to support SEC uses within the Westside Specific Plan. Area C: Area C contains 18.1 acres of land that is designated High Density Residential (HI)R). The HDR designations provide multiple family housing to meet the needs of future employees of the proposed project. According to the City, the HDR designation would allow a range of 13 to 20 units per acre in the Westside Specific Plan. Assuming 15.1 net acres (excluding road rights-of-way), the number of residential units that can be constructed assuming 16 units per acre is 241. Area D: Area D contains 12.7 acres of land that is designated High Density Residential (HDR). The HDR designations provide multiple family housing to meet the needs of future employees of the proposed project. A range of 13 to 20 units per acre is allowed. Assuming 11.8 net acres (excluding road rights-of-way), 16 residential units per acre a total of 188 units can be constructed. Area E: Area E consists of 2.8 acres that is designated Mixed Use (MU). This use provides 17. office, commercial, light industrial and overflow parking that will serve the local residents and the commercial uses associated with the Arena and hotel. Area F: Area F encompasses approximately 67.4 acres of land that is designated Open Space (OS). This area includes the steeper hillsides to the west of the Western By-Pass which will not be developed. The intent is to preserve this area as potential habitat mitigation and visual open space. About 57.7 acres are forecast to remain undisturbed with the remainder being affected by the footprint of the Western By-Pass. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRP'~295PA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw 45 CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SITE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ,.~'~'~.:~ ~,~. EXH~mT B- ZONING ~P DESIGNATION - ~PECI~IC EXHIBIT C - GENE~L D~51GNATION - BP IBU~INE~ PARK}. H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) P~NNING APPLICATION N~. PA~-O2~ (DEVELOPMENT P~NNING CO~I~ION DATE: OCTOBER CITY OF TEMECULA · , .i PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA J And Link Te I I ~ · i Old Town Temecula I I -~ I Specific PIo~ %,..~ ' ~. ~ ~ [XmTING:SING~-rAMILY-RCSIOtH~[S~~ I' I./, 2tl I.).NOSCAJ)C SlIM PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT D-1 LINKAGE TO OLD TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER._~_~.6 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA NORTH ELEVATION Sam 1/~4' I ~' IIlI I/If'. I ',,.~ ~I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 {DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT E ARENA ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA SOUTH ELEVATION ,..,, ,/;~'~,:~. EAST ELEVATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT E ARENA ELEVATIONS PI.ANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6~ 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA NOT INCLUDED PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXIHBIT F COLOR ARENA ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6~ 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA NOT INCLUDED PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXItIBIT G COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6~ 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA MATCH LINE: SEE SHEET L-? PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXmBIT It LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6~ 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA MATCH LINE: SEE SHEET L-6 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXIHBIT H LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA -MATCH LINE. SEE SHEET L-5 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXttIBIT H LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA ¥,, h:. ~est Are,'c MATCH LINE: $££ SIn'gET L-4 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXIHBIT H LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA MATCH LINE: SEE SHEET L-3 ExS' NS S.~,C,_L m~"_' RES DS~.C:5 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXtHRIT H LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA MA'rcH LINE SEE SHEET L-8 ,/ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT H LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA I I I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT H-1 COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA 'J F,,I. OOR PLAN,,- ARENA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT I FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA '~_F,LOOR,,, pLAN ~ UPPER ARENA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXtHBIT I FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA IK¢(d~ 10 rLOOl~ ~ 'J FLOOR PLAN - ARENA SEATING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT I FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA CROSS SECTION LOOKING SOUTH CROSS SECTION LOOKING WEST ~ ,~,'.,.-,' PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXIHBIT N/A ARENA CROSS SECTION PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6~ 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA ~XISTING SINGLIt FAMILY , !. ~.- ....~i~' .~ :. T,..... C., .... I I ~ t.~k To Old Town Temeculo Sp,~c~f~C Pton ~ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6~ 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA Ii gXlSI'~G SINCA.[ Ir~.Y R~$10~NC~S I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXIHBIT J GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA VACANI' / :N, AI'URAL/V~G[TATION :. I ' .' " / .~ .... · PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA ., · ., : .. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXtHBIT J GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1997 R:\$TAFFRPTk295PA97.CC1 1]/7/9'7 klb 33 ® PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0170 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMID ZB INVESTMENT Continued to the October 20, 1997, Planning Commission meeting; see page 2. ® PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN} TEV. INC. (ZEV BUFFMAN} The construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena, and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping, and roadways). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department staff that the Planning Commission approve the request subject to the recommended conditions of approval. By way of overhead projection, Associate Planner Fagan, reviewed the staff report (of record)in detail, highlighting the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Arena Elevations, and traffic issues; advised that Phase I as proposed, only includes the arena and that any other future development on the subject site will require a Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit as mandated by the Westside Specific Plan. Proceeding with a detailed review of Phase I (4,800 seat arena), Associate Planner Fagan noted the following: that the applicant intends to complete Phase I and II and its associated components at the same time; that typically, landscaping plans, irrigation plans and construction drawings (for slope areas) are submitted to staff prior to the issuance of a building permit, but in order to ensure timely revegetation of the slopes, staff has requested that these plans, drawings and a bond, be posted prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit; that since the Planning Commission Workshop of August 18, 1997, the arena elevations have been refined to ensure sufficient detail; that the elevations have not changed in terms of design; that the highest point of the arena will be 75 feet which complies with the Specific Plan; - that the project will comply with the Specific Plan/General Plan standards; that the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the original Old Town Project will apply to the proposed project; that the previously approved project, as identified in the EIR, was overall larger in square footage area (including the hotel and arena); R:~PLANCO~fiOxJvlINLrI'ES\1997~I00697.WPD 10/30/97 vgw 4 that because of changes and additions made to the original project, staff was of the opinion that an addendum to the previously certified EIR would be appropriate. Referencing a letter staff received on October 6, 1997, from Mr. Sam Pratt, Associate Planner Fagan relayed Mr. Pratt's concerns with regard to this project such as traffic, noise/light and consistency with the Specific Plan. Associate Planner Fagan noted that the Specific Plan depicts a 4,800 seat arena. With regard to the recommended Conditions of Approval (per staff report), Associate Planner Fagan noted the following amendments with Principal Engineer Parks providing the following dadfication: Condition No. 1 - that because the applicant has previously paid the Fish and Game Fee of $1,328.00, it is recommended that this condition be modified to require the applicant to pay only the $78.00 County administrative fee; Condition No. 93 - that because this is a statement versus a condition, all conditions from this point forward should be renumbered, deleting Condition No. 93. That after a meeting with the applicant, the Public Works Department is requesting the following modifications/deletions: Condition No. 53 e. - "Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (add), a traffic signal at the ..." Condition No. 53 f. - "Affect the (add) full improvements of the Main Street extension ..." Condition No. 53 k. Delete (Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines within the road right-of-way) Principal Engineer Parks clarified that this standard condition is not being deleted but that the requirement to bond for it prior to the issuance of a grading permit is being deleted; Condition No. 67 delete ("An Environmental Constraints Sheet [ECS] shall be prepared to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer...") Principal Engineer Parks advised that a condition of this nature would be attached to a Tract Map or Parcel Map. Condition No. 72 - amend. "Private roads must be designed by the Engineer of record (add), reviewed ..." Condition No. 75 delete (Vehicular access shall be restricted on Vincent Moraga Drive, Western Bypass Corridor, and First R:~I. ANCO~$\I 9~A100697.WPD 10BO/97 ~w 5 Street other than shown on the approved site layout) Principal Engineer Parks advised that a condition of this nature should be imposed on the Tentative Map/Parcel Map, not a Site Development Plan. Condition No. 83 - amend. "The Developer shall affect construction of full improvements ..." Principal Engineer Parks clarified that the obligation has not been deleted but that this amendment would permit the Developer to have someone else complete the work. Condition No. 84 - amend. "Sufficient parking for a local transit system ..." Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that the applicant has requested the imposition of one additional condition: "that if the applicant were to change, the plan shall be readdressed by the City." Community Development Director Thornhill further clarified that the applicant has requested this condition in order to limit this application to this sole applicant. Attorney Cudey recommended the following verbiage: "that if the applicant who submitted the application ceases to be the project proponent, the project will be returned to the City for review and approval." With regard to Condition No. 82 (the Developer shall complete the following infrastructure improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy..."), Commissioner Miller expressed concern that the issuance of occupancy is not contingent upon the completion of the lower SR 79 improvements. Principal Engineer Parks clarified that the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor would be included in the County/City joint project (anticipated completion date November/December 1998), which will relocate the intersection of Front Street and SR 79 South, along with widening the interchange on- and off- ramps for Interstate 15 terminus at the proposed southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive. He further advised that the applicant proposes to complete the arena and associated components by mid 1999; and that the County/City project does not include widening of the bridge and, therefore, should be completed within 12 months. In response to Commissioner Slaven, Principal Engineer Parks advised that Phase I has not been conditioned to contribute additional funds, other than the Development Impact Fees, toward the County/City joint project; that the Rancho California Road Bridge improvements are part of the Specific Plan and part of the approved Tentative Tract Map; and that these improvements are out to bid at this time. Community Development Director Thomhill noted that a condition of the Specific Plan requires the applicant to make a contribution toward the permanent improvements. For Commissioner Slaver~ Principal Engineer Parks confirmed that the applicant will comply with the recommendation of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to relocate two bus stops. R:~PLANCOI~I~ffi~3T~S\1997~I00697.WPD 10/30/97 vSw 6 Mr. Zev Buffman, applicant, 40576 Via Herradura, Murrieta, commended Planning Department staff on their efforts associated with this project and briefly reviewed the project, noting that a tremendous amount of interest has been expressed by national tours/attractions for the use of the proposed facility. Mr. Randy Fleming, 43500 Ridge Park Drive, Temecula, Project Engineer, further elaborated on specifics of the proposed project, noting the following: Grading/engineering - heavily landscaped, creating a buffer to residents on Pujol Street; Arena area - fiat grades; Driveways - maintained a maximum of 6% slopes; Retaining walls - minimized the design of any retaining walls on site -- four on site (maximum height 25 feet for the retaining wall located northwest of the arena -- next to the arena); all walls will be interlocking landscape walls with the exception of the 25 feet wall which will be structural but will be landscaped; Interior driveways - designed as per City of Temecula standards and regulations; driveway width will be constructed as per City of Temecula standards and regulations; Northern driveway - steepest driveway on the property; staging vehicle parking area will be out of sight of main entrance area; Private driveway - transverses the property; will provide handicapped access ramps, driveway approaches, and proper vertical site distances; Driveway grades - dropped by approximately 20 feet which enabled the applicant to minimize grades, creating safe sight distances and easy traffic circulation; - Storm drainage - consistent with original grading plan; - Transit stops - modified as per RTA; Landscaping - entire front slope will not be graded but will be landscaped; which, in some areas, exceed the Westside Specific Plan requirements; a 5 feet high landscaped berm, running the entire length of the slope, will be constructed to mitigate visual as well as noise impacts of the arena; Air-conditioned arena - will be enclosed to further lessen potential impacts on view, light, and noise; - Lighting - consistent with the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance; R:~PLANCO~\1997~I00697.WPD 10/30/97 vsw 7 Access points -- Vincent Moraga Drive, First Street, major entryway, and two secondary access points; that traffic effects resultant from the proposed project on the City's infrastructure have been greatly minimized; - ADA requirements - access to Old Town will be achieved by way of Main Street; In closing, Mr. Fleming concurred with the recommended conditions of approval and expressed appreciation to the Planning Department staff' for their efforts with regard to this project. Mr. Sergio Martinez, architect representing the applicant, resonding to Commissioner Slaven, advised that a facility of this size could accommodate a three-to-four day rodeo as it relates to livestock (housing, dean-up, etc). Commissioner Guerriero requested that particular attention be paid to ensu~~~'~ concealment of the scaffold lines. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Glenn Schmidt, landscape architect representing the applicant, provided a brief description of the proposed trees; reviewed proposed landscaping for the Western Bypass Corridor slope, commenting on the use of hydroseed mix for a long-term impact in addition to planting one-gallon shrubs every 80 square feet in order to provide a more immediate landscaping impact. Mr. Schmidt advised that without the removal and relocation of the two existing oak trees, they would be destroyed because of grading. In response to Commissioner Guerrero, Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer representing the applicant, described the design of the Western Bypass Road; referenced projected project traffic; and commented on the typical rate of arrival time for special events. Because the widening of Rancho California Road improvements will be completed prior to the completion of Phase I, Principal Engineer Parks, responded to Commissioner Slaven, reiterated that Phase I has not been conditioned to make a contribution toward these improvements. Commissioner Slaven relayed her desire to ensure that the proposed project be required to make the necessary contributions toward the needed improvements. Further reviewing a condition of the Tract Map, Community Development Director Thornhill advised, the applicant shall contribute to the City's improvement project in an amount equal to the cost of the interim improvements. The applicant shall also contribute his share, within 30 days of the City's award of the construction contract, for the ultimate improvements. With regard to a previously recommended condition, Commissioner Miller stated opposition to the installation of a freeway sign directing traffic to the proposed project by way of lower SR 79. Community Development Director Thomhill commented on the difficulty in obtaining Cultruns' approval for the installation of such a sign. For Commissioner Slaven, Traffic Engineer Davis, as per his letter of August 28, 1997(of record), dadfled how additional traffic from the proposed project will assist in offsetting added Mall traffic on Rancho California Road at the interchange and Ynez Road. R:~PLAlqCOMM~ffi~Yrg~I\1997~I00697.Wl~D 10/30/97 ~ 8 Mr. Buffman further elaborated on the traditional time schedule of shows, noting that traditionally evening shows are scheduled between 7:30 P.M. and 8:30 P.M.; that family attractions are scheduled on Saturday mornings and Saturday evening; that Union regulations do not permit three shows a day and that scheduling of weekday shows will not be consistent week after week. He said the traffic study indicates one show a week (Friday); because Fridays are usually a heavier traffic day, this day was chosen, for study purposes only, in order to reflect the worst-case scenario; and that any manager of such a facility would stay away from scheduling an event during peak hours. Because Phase II of this project, in her opinion, will attract people at all times, Commissioner Slaven requested that the applicant, at the time Phase II will be reviewed, be prepared to address the cumulative affect of Phase I and Phase II. In response to Chairwoman Fahey's concern, Mr. Buffman advised that in light of the anticipated El Nino, grading will probably not commence until March of 1989 and complet_iotld~ the project would be around April/May 1999. DRy? ~ Responding to Commissioner Miller's suggestion to impose a condition requiting the applicant to complete the SR 79 South improvements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Mr. Buffman commented on the difficulty in obtaining funding from banks with the imposition of such a condition. Principal Engineer Parks reiterated that the signalization and widening of the on- and off- ramps of Interstate 15 at SR 79 South must be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Having followed this project since 1993, Mr. Dennis Frank, 27475 Ynez Road, recommended approval of the project because of the short- and long-term benefits it provides to the citizens and the City of Temecula. He cited proper economic development of its contribution to marketing the City of Temecula. As well as its direct economic benefit on the Old Town residents. Mr. Frank noted that all issues of concern have been properly addressed. With regard to Mr. Pratt's letter, Mr. Frank questioned the accuracy of Mr. Pratt's studies and noted that Mr. Pratt is not a traffic engineer. Having followed this project since 1993, Ms. Joan Sparkman, representing the Temecula Chamber of Commerce and EDC, spoke in support of the project because of the economic and aesthetic values the project will have on the community, she also noted that the proposed conditions of approval address previously noted issues of concern; and confirmed Mr. Buffman's comment with regard to bankers hesitancy to fund a project conditioned on specific road improvements. Having reviewed the staff report with regard to this project, Mr. Neil Cleveland, 28465 From Street, business and property owner in Old Town, recommended approval based on the imposed conditions of approval and noted that the proposed project would be of long-term benefit to Old Town. At 8:18 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:29 P.M. R:~PLANCOMM~tlNIJ~S~1997~100697.WPD 10/3(g97 vgw 9 Commissioner Slaven pleased with the proposed changes to the arena as well as the entire project but stated she is continuing to express some concern with regard to the potential traffic impact the project will have on the surrounding neighborhoods. She noted that traffic is ever changing and cannot be totally controlled but the recommended conditions of approval address the issues of concern relative to this project Commissioner Slaven stated as the City continues to grow, it is incumbent on the governing body, particularly the City Council, to address City-wide infrastructure problems. Although he does not concur with traffic engineer Bob Davis, traffic engineer, that the level of service under the SR 79 South bridge will rise to a service level of"C", Commissioner Miller addressed Mr. Pratt's letter and noted considering a recent denial of an appeal initiated by Mr. Pratt, during which similar traffic issues were addressed,he was not interested in readdressing those traffic and environmental issues again. In response to Commissioner Miller's recommendation, Principal Engineer Parks advised, a standard condition of the Erosion Control Plan would impose a condition on the applicant, requiring that any empty undeveloped pad must be hydroseeded or a building must be built~~,~ to occupancy. DR With regard to a condition noted in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Commissioner Miller expressed opposition to the City being held responsible for construction of a sound attenuation wall in the event unacceptable noise levels (65dba) occur as a result of this project. He noted that such a condition should be the responsibility of the applicant. Community Development Director Thomhill confirmed that the intent of the condition was for the City to monitor, not construct. He stated the Commission has the authority to amend the condition. It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the condition, requiring the applicant to construct the sound attenuation wall if necessary. The applicant expressed no opposition. With regard to the relocation of the two existing 30 feet oak trees, Community Development Director Thomhill, in response to Commissioner Miller, suggested that an arborist, approved by the City, dictate the exact relocation of these two trees as well as determine a time frame in which it could be determined whether or not these trees would be negatively impacted by the move. Commissioner Miller requested that in the event these two trees die, two 48" box spedmen trees should be planted to replace the trees. Mr. Buffman informed the Commissioners that a tree could be impacted by such a move as long as 10 years later and voiced no objection to an arborist overseeing the relocation. In closing, Chairwoman Fahey reviewed the amended/deleted conditions as earlier referenced by staff; reiterated the Commission's amendment to the condition, requiring the applicant to construct a noise attenuation wall if necessary; and commented on the Commission's recommendation that an arborist oversee the relocation of the two oak trees; that if these trees were to die, they be replaced with two 48" specimen trees; and that the arborist make a determination as to whether or not the trees were negatively impacted by this move. R:~PLANCO~S\1997~I00697.WPD 10/30/97 ~ 10 MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to adopt an addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which was previously certified; to make Findings that a subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR were not required; to adopt Resolution No. 97- , approving PA97-0298, based upon analysis and findings contained in the staff report subject to conditions as modified and added. He also moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Soltysiak absent). PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT As per written material of record, Planning Manager Ubnoske responded to issues which were previously addressed by the Commissioners. Commissioner Slaven expressed appreciation to Planning Manager Ubnoske for addressing the issues and responding to the Commission in a timely manner. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to Commissioner Guerriero's objection to the number of campaign signs placed in the public fight-of-way or attached to fences -- locations which violate the Sign Ordinance, Community Development Director Thornhill advised that a letter will be sent to all candidates informing them of this issue and requesting them to comply and warning that all illegal signs will be removed. ADJOURNMENT Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 P.M. to Monday, October 20, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. Linda Fahey, Chairwoman Planning Manager Ubnoske R:~PLANCO~S\1997~100697.WPD 10/30/97 v~ 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT R:\STAFPRFI~98PA97.CC1 11/7/97 klb 3~ Old Town Redevelopment Project Final Environmental Impact Report SCH g94072039 Prcp~ for: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 Prepared by: Tom Dodson & Associates 463 N. Sierra Way San Bernardino, Ca 92410 June 13, 1995 Old Town Redevelopment Project Final Environmental Impact Report $CH g94072039 Prepared for: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 Pr~axed by: Tom Dodson & Associates 463 N. Sierra Way San Bernardino, Ca 92410 June 13, 1995 City of Temecula Planning Department TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: County of Riverside P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Notice of Determination II Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. State Clearinghouse No.: 94072039 Project Title: Old Town Redevelopment Project Project Location: Generally located west of Interstate 15, east of the City's western border, south of Rancho California Road and north of the Santa Margarita River, in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Project Description: The Old Town Redevelopment Project consists of 10 entertainment and support facilities in the Old Town core area, a hotel (with supporting commercial uses) and a wild west arena west of Old Town Temecula. The project includes necessary roads, parking areas, and other infrastructure needed to support the redevelopment of Old Town. The project also includes the protection of significant open space areas. Lead Agency: City of Temecula Contact Person: David Hogan, Associate Planner '. Telephone Number: (909) 694-6400 This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of Temecula has approved the above described project on June 13, 1995, and ha~ made the following determinations regarding this project: . . The project ([X'] will [ ] will no0 have a significant effect on the environment. That fiX] An Environmental Impact Report [ ] A Negative Declaration) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures ([X] were [ ] were no0 made a condition of the approval of the project. A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([gq was [ ] was not) adopted for this project. Findings ([X] were [ ] were no0 made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. I I I I This is to certify that the Environmental Impact Report with comments, responses, and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590. Signature: t~z~~)~c3' COUHTY ~K DatL~~t-~l~.. ' Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning [~ U [L ~) Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders...~UN 1 5 1995 · .tl. q 1 5 1995 · . ~- . ~ .v,e -' "' /7-~" I, -..- - Old Town Redgvelopm~t TAR~.~ OF C0~$ CITY OF TEMF, CLq.,A OLr) TOWN REi)EVEI~~ PROJECT FINAL ~O~AL IMPACT STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 9- R.ES~NSE TO COMMENTS Pa!~c 9-1 SECTION 10- MYrlGA~ON MONITORING PROGRAM 10-1 A. INTRODUCTION 10-1 B. MITIGATION lV~_-~~Kg IDEN'rlFH~ IN TI-IE INITIAL STUDY 10-3 C, MITIGATION MI=ASU'RI=_~ IDl~qTIPm~ IN TIlE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 10-31 Old Town Redevelopment Plan F~nal Foc'u~d Ell?, RESPONSES TO COMMENTS CHAPTER 9 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula received written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopmere Project (SCH #94072039) from six governmere agencies. The following agencies submitted written comments which are addressed in the Responses to Comments which is provided as Chapter 9 to the Final EIR. The eight chapters included in the Draft EIR are not reproduced herein and this chapter, Chapter 9, should be placed with the Draft ~ to constitute the Final EI~. Respomes to comments begin on the following page. Agencies submitting comments include: . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. State Clearinghouse Departmere of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers Departmere of Transportation, Cahrans District 8 County of l~iverside Transportation and Land Managemere Agency City of Murriem Southern Ca~omia Association of Governments 9-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 14{:)0 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 RECEIVE [~ ..... 2 6 ........... . January 23, 1995 DAVID W. HOGAN CITY OF TEHECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 43174 BUSINESS PARK DR. TEMEC~, CA 92590 Subject: OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SCH #: 94072039 1-1 Dear DAVID W. HOGAN: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have-comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in ~his matter, please use the eight-' digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ... Chief, State ClearingHouse 9-2 Old To~n Redew. lopmm~ Plan Fin~! Focused E;TR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT L~t-t-~ #1 STATE CLF. ARINGHOUSE 1-1 This letter verifies that the City of Temecula has complied with the California Enviror~rnen',al Quality Act review requirements for the Draft EIR which addresses the Old Town Development Project. This information will be made available to the City Council when it cons/ders the proposed project for dec/sion. 9-3 Planning Department .. Auafor's PuuJ lb.: .%~:~:~.~__ -f~,~=l,'_.p: _S. Panic: __W. NiLice of' Completion · Corem Perure: !:bvid I4oSM ~k: Prop0s i~ (909) [ ),~OP [ ]Hcl.~iv. !::.~ru~oe [ )Suppimmm EXR [ JEll (Prior SCH/). [ ~.omld P~t !~oject Luua Discuad in Document ln~escrit L.~nd Use: Va~mt. comm~mi&l. amd rusld~m~l. Current 2,ot~f~: S!mciRc PLta. M-aufacmrinl-See~ic& Coremfinial. GeaJeru] Commel~ia], lodumrLd Padt. i ResidemLtl- Alncuin,~ (200 ic~ II~Jl~mum). Germ'LI ~ Use: Cammural7 Commamill. l. tilbway-Tourisl Commerckl. Sm~r~ ComemhJ. Medium ,.,,i HiJb Deusil7 Pro)ec~ of Old To~ (gAt) 44S-0&23 $C~1 CC~PLZAIIC1: : -- __~oMra~ __ __Bnor~ Cm NAHC __ __To~ R91 Plan I~.¥ TO ATI'ir, MIlON DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. ¢ORI~ OF ENGINEERS 3OO NORTH LO$ ANGEL.ES STREET LOS ANGEL.ES. CALIFORNIA MXTI2 December 20, 1994 ee A,',s'd... ....... . 2-1 2-2 City of Temecula Planning Department At-m: David Hogan 43174 Business Park Drive Ternecula, California 92590 Dear Mr. Hogan: This letter is in regard to the Dra/t Environmental Impact Report (DHIR), dated December 1994, for the Old Town Redevelopment Project in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, Califon~a. According to the D]~]]~, the proposed pro}ect would include the construction or replacement of four bridges crossing Mug-hera Creek, impacting approximately 1.4 acres of weftand habitat. Construction of these bridges would result in a discharge of fill into waters of the U.S. and would require a Section 404 perm/t/rom the Army Corps of Engineers. As you are aware, Riverside County Flood Control District (District) is currenfiy proposing to construct flood control facilities within lviurrieta Creek. Because the bridge crossings associated with your proposed project are sufficiently related to the District's proposed flood control project, we will need to evaluate the impacts associated with the bridge crossings in light of the District's overall plan for Mumeta Creek. Specifically, the DEIR states that the bridges would be 150 feet long; however, the most recently proposed design for Mumeta Creek through Old Town Temecula includes a channel width between 220 and 245 feet. The Corps would not authorize construction of bridges in Old Town which would preclude design alternatives for the Mumeta Creek project. Therefore, construction of the proposed bridges would not be authorized until a ~ design for Mutt/eta Creek has been approved by the Corps. There are three options by which you could obtain Section 404 authorization to construct the proposed bridges across Murrieta Creek. First, you could request that the District include the proposed bridges as part o/their l~mit application/or the Mumeta Creek flood control proiect. Second, you could wait/or the Corps to approve a design/or Mumeta Creek and then apply/or a separate permit to construct the bridges. Third, you could apply/or a permit to construct the bridges before Corps approval oi the District's Mumeta Creek proiect if the bridges were designed to span the widest alternative currently being considered/or Murrieta Creek through Old Town Temecula. 9-5 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT I.I:'-TTER #2 LOS ANGELES DISTRICI', CORPS OF ENGINEERS 2-1 2-2 The Draft EIR specifically identifies the Corps as one of the permitting agencies that the City of Temecula will have to consult prior to implementing the proposed project. Your coremera indicates a misunderstanding of the 150 fore distance discussed in the Draft EIR. The 150 foot distance represents an estimate of the current width of the exists Murrieta Greek channel at each of the proposed crossing locations. It was used to estimate the specific area that would be subject to Corps jurisdiction when it comes time to obtain the Section 404 permits from the Corps. If the Old Town Redevelopment Project is approved by the City, any bridges included in the approval would have to be engineered in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District and Corps design requirements. If the bridges must be 220 to 245 feet in width to meet the ul)iraate ch~--el design for Murrieta Greek, then the City will meet thi~ design requirement. However, for the purposes of calculating the area currently within the channel and subject to the Section 404 permit process, the estimated 150 foot width was the ~tppropriate value in the ~ If the Old Town Redevelopment Project is approved, the City will evaluate the three alternatives for obtaining Section 404 authorization identified in your comment in the context of the required timing tO meet the proposed project's schedule. If the bridges will be constructed before the Corps approves the Flood Control District's Murrieta Creek project, the City will design the bridges for to span the widest alternative currently being considered as suggested in your comment. 9-6 -2- 2-3 2--4 If you choose to pursue the second or third option, the followin§ considerations should be taken into account with regard to the nationwide permit program (see enclosure): Nationwide Permit 26 permits discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters. Because the locations of the proposed bridges are below the headwaters of Murrieta Creek, which is not an isolated waters, Nationwide Permit 26 would not apply to your proposed project. Nationwide Permit 14, which permits fills for roads crossing waters of the United States, limits the filled area to no more than a third of an acre and no more than 200 linear feet of fill for the roadway placed in any special aquatic sites, includin§ wetlands. A 220 to 245 foot lon~, 100 foot wide bridge would impact between 0.50 and 0.56 acres of waters; therefore, Nationwide Permit 14 would not apply to your proposed project. Nationwide Permit 25, which permits structural discharges, and Nationwide Permit 33, which permits temporary construction access and dewaterin~ may apply to your proposed proje~ provided the proje~ m~ts all the general terms and conditions of the nationwide permit pro,ram at 33 CFR Part 330, Appendix A(C). H all bridge abut:merits and related bank prot~-tion are placed outside of waters of the U.S., the bridge may comply with the conditions of the nationwide permit pro,'ram, provided it can be desi§'ned in a manner which will not result in greater than minimal individual or cu.muiative adverse environmental effects. If your project cannot comply the terms and conditions of any of the nationwide permits, an individual permit would be required. H an individual permit is required, you will need to submit an alternatives analysis satisfying the Section 4Ot(b)(1) Guidelines and a review of all public interest factors relevant to the proposal, including the cumulative effects thereof. The followini; information would be required as part of either an individual or nationwide permit application: a. bo c. d. A conceptual mitigation plan for impacts to all aquatic resources affe~ed by all phases of the project. A final mitigation plan can be prepared concurrent with permit application processing and review. Verification that you have contacted the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the resolution of all outstanding cultural resources issues. Verification that you have contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the presence of all federally listed species on the proposed proiect site. Focused spedes surveys for all proposed, threatened or endangered species which may be impacted by the proposed project. Please be advised that these surveys are generally only valid for a period of one year. 9-7 Old Tram Rm~ev~lopment Plan Fin.! For._~_d ~R RESPONSES TO COMMENTS :2-3 Your comments are norad and will be made available m the City Council when it considers the proposed project for decision. A decision regarding the specific type of permit-(nationwid¢,or individual.).cannot..b¢,made, amil-the .bridge designs are completed by the City. The bridge designs will only be undertaken if the Old Town Redevelopment Project is approved by the City, 2-4 Please refer to response to comment 2-3. Your comments are noted and will be made available to the City Coundl when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. 9-8 2-5 We encourage you to arrange a pre-application meetin~ with us at an appropriate time SO that we can further discuss pern~tting of your proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEI1L If you have any questions, please contact Eric Stein of my staff at (213) 894-0352. Please refer to this letter and Project No. 95-00093-F_.S in future correspondence. Sincerely, ~ohn A. Gill Chief, ResPatory Branch Enclosure USL~A; Arm: ]ames Romero USFWS; Arm: John Kone~y CDFG; Arm: Dee Sudduth Tom Dodson and A.~aociates; At'm: Tom ~ 9-9 Old Tom,n ~e~t P~an l~nal Foeus~ EIR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 2-5 If the project is approved, the City intends to hold a pre-application meeting with the Corps and the Flood Control District to discuss alternative bridge engineering designs and processing requirements and schedules. 9-10 .i i i i ii DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION II I I 3a.~ua.T'~ 25, 1995 08-R/v-15-4.9 ..... · .5 C~ -.94022 03 9 :~. Dav'J.d Hogan, Pz'o~ecl: Manage= city o~ ?eriecuba 43174 Business Park Drive Temecu. la, CA 92590-'"'- ': Dear l~.r. Hogan: 01d To~n ~edevelop~e~% ~o4ect l~'a~l~ ~nviron~ental ~mDact Report We have reviewed ~he above-referenced document and request consideration of ~he following co=ments: 3-1 ~ This document should include project trip-ends generated per day. 3-2 The pro~ect "Transportation/Circulation" section does no= adequately disclose the cumulative nor project's direc~c ~raffic impacts to mainline Interstate 15 (I-15). The traffic study portion of this report should be amended to include %he following from a worst case scenario: existing and build-out pro~ec=ed ' average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. · 3-4 ~' 3-5 As stated in the Draft Route Concept ]~epor~ for 1-15 (January, 1992) the ultimate corridor plan in the project area is a ten (10) lane freeway including two (2) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOW) lanes within foot right-of-way. The City should utilize Transpoz~cation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) or other development fee programs aG a method for each development to fund improvements to mitigate the deterioratio~ of the level of service (LOS) for which it is responsible. The improvements to state ~acili=ies iden:ified :o mitigate the ~roJect impact should be completed prior to t. he relevant phase of developmen~ which generates the additional traffic. We urge a continuous liaison with Caltrans on all proposed plans as they affec~ state highways. 9-11 Old Town Rr. dev~3pm~nt Plan RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 RESPONSES TO COM]VIENT I.~:-i-l'/.;R #3 DEPARTME~ OF TRANSPORTATION C4~TRANS DISTRICT 8 The techr,i_~] Analyses conducted by Banon-Aschman Associates, linc., as specified by the City of Temecula. Deparrment of, lhiblic-.Wo~ks.cousidered.oniy the weekday evening peak hour occurring between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM and the Sau,u'day midday peak hour occurring between 12:00 noon and 2:00 PM. No analysis of the 24-hour dam was required for the project-specific evaluation aher conferring with Cakrans, County, and City representatives in an agency "scoping" meeting held prior to preparing the tr,~ic studies. This meeting was held April 2(5, 1994 at the City of Temecula City Hall. It was concluded that the 24-hour traffic data would not be needed to make a worst-case traffic impact evaluation which is provided by the focus on the peak hour impacts of the project. Barton-Aschman's su.umm. ry report "Congestion Managemere Program TrafiSc Analysis of the Proposed Old Town Redevelopment Project," October 28, 1994, contains analyses of exis~g (1994), 1996 (Phase 1 Project), and 2010 (full Project Development) conditions along 1-15. This document was provided to the public in the Draft EIR Technical Appendices. For 1996 and 2010, analyses both without and with the Project traffic are included. However, the analyses are based upon weekday evening peak-hour data as specified by Cal~ the Riverside County Transportation Co~nmi_~sion, and the City of Temecula in a technical "scoping" meeting held April 26, 1994, at the City of Temecula City HaH. This scenario was selected as a worst- case analysis of potential u'affic impact and is, therefore, indicative that the 24-hour impacts will not be significanfiy adverse. Your coremera is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopmere Project for derision- The City will require funding of infrasumcmre improvemenu associated with the Old Town Redevelopment Projea to be funded concurrently With development of the projea or prior to occurrence of a significant impact on a particular infu'asrruaure system. As noted in response to comment 3-3, the City will require circulation system improvements associated with the Old Town Redevelopment Project to be completed concurrenfiy with the developmere or when required to mitigate potential trafiSc impacts below a significant level as outlined in the Draft EIR. The City has consulted Caltrans since the inception of the Old Town Redevelopmere Project applications. If the Old Town Redevelopment Project is approved, the City will continue to consult and work closely with Caltraus to implement improvemenu that may affect state highways. 9-12 ~r. David Hogan, Project Manager January 25, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Cecil KarBtansen a= (909) 383--42~3 or FAX (909) 283-7934. sincerely, Transportation Planning 9-13 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND SYST~W-q ~G~_xr~_t~ DIVISION RECEIVED N.r. Gar~ Thornhill, Planning Director City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Old Town Redevelopment Dear ~r. Thornhill: 4-1 4-2 4-3 The Riverside County Transportation Department has reviewed the above referenced project and offers the following comments: i · The Department did not receive the Technical Appendices that were referenced in Volume I, and therefore staff could no= perform a de=ailed review. However, based on the information provided, the Department does not anticipate any unacceptable degradation in Level of Service (LOS) on County maintained roads due to the projec=. ~ection 4.~.4.6 and 4.~.4.7: Assessment District 159 plans for the State Rou:e 79 South/Interstate 15 Interchange are complete and are expected :o be signed by Cal:rans within 60 :o 90 days. The County of Riverside an=icipa:ed bid adver=isemen= in :he summer of 1996. Inclusion of any modifications to 'the improvement plans for either =he interchange or State Route 79 South would have to be proposed' in :he immediate future for the County =o consider. An agreemen~ between the County of Riverside and the project developer requiring the developer to cover all redesign and increased construc=ion costs associated wi=h the interchange modifica=ions would be necessary. The documen: proposes massive infrastructure improvements for the City, bu% does no~ identify the responsible par~y(s) for construc=ion. Page 3-12 and 13 indicates the City has identified a range of improvements =~at would enhance circulation in the project vicinity and that they are expected to be in place by Phase I of (1996) the project. Does this mean that the City has programmed these improvements. It is no: clear whether :he applicant will be providing any of the improvements. 9-14 4080 Lemon Sircot. Sih Floor · Riverside, C31iforni3 92~01 · (909) 2?5-6740 P.O. Box 1090 · Riverside, Californi:) 92502-1090 · F..~X (909) 2T$-6721 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER #4 COUNI~ OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 4-.1 .....Your Cornmere is noted.and..wlll. be.made_available .Io .the_Ci~ .Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. The City has provided the County with a copy of the Teehnical Appendices in response to thi_~ coremera. 4-2 Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when i~ considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. H the project is approved, the City w/ll confer with both the County and Caltrans to incorporate design changes that will be necessary to accommodate the Old Town Redevelopment Project. Arrangements can be made at that time regarding funding for any redesign costs and any consequent increases in construction costs attributable to the Project. 4-3 The City will not make any formal commitments to the infrasu-ucture improvements required to implement the Old Town Redevelopment Project until a decision is made on the application. If the project is approved, the City and the Zev Buffman Group would assume responfibility for emuring these ir~asu-uaure improvements, including circulation system improvements outlined in the Draft E~., are in place prior to the occurrence of any significant project impacts. 9-15 Old Town Redevelopmen= January 23, 1995 Page 2 The cons=ruc=ion of =he Western Bypass and =wo new bridges over ~urrie=a Creek will have significan= environmen=al impacts · There are numerous gramma=ical errors., as well as illegible and upside down exhibi=s =hroughou= =he documen=. The Transpor=a=ion Deparnmen= apprecia=es =he oppor=uni=y =o review and cornmen= on nhe project. We should reques= =ha= upon cornpie=ion of ~he EIR process, =he Depar=men= will receive complete copies of =he Draf= and Final EIR's wi=h =he accompanying Technical ~ Appendices. If you have any ques=&ons regarding ~his le==er, please con=ac= Ru=hanne Taylor Berger, Senior Transpor:a=ion Planner, a= (909) 275-2076. Sincerely, Edwin D. S:udor Transpor=a=ion Planning Manager RTB:mw cc: Laurie Dobson Bob Harvey, Cal=rans Dis=ric: 8 La Keda Johnson, Cal=rans Dis=ric= 8 9-16 RESPONSES TO COMME~S Your comment is noted'and wfil be made available to the Cily Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. The construction of these facilities will contn'buTe to the short-turin air qualily and noise impacts that are ..identified as significant in the. Draft FIR. 4-5 Your coremera is noted and will be made available to the City Council when considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for derision. 4-/; Copies of the Technical Appendices and the Final EIR will be provided To the Department as requested. 9-17 CITY OF M U R R I ETA ~6442 Be~ Co~n, Mumet~. CA 92~62 Telephone: 909-698-1040 Fi~ 909-698-(509 .Tanuary 24, 1995 Mr. Gary Thomhill, Director of Planning City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr~ Temecula, CA 92590 SuB,rECT: Public Comments - Old Town Redevelopment Project, Zev Buffman Group Dear Gary: 5-1 5-2 5-3 Attached are the City of Murricta comments after review of the Old Town Redevelopment Project Draft ~Our comments, by Hank Mohle City .Traffic Engineer, relate to impact concerns that should ]include a larger martic analysis area on the 1-15.and 1-215 corridor TArough Mumeta. AWe are also concerned about the 'spillover' effect of project traffic on our reach of 3efferson ve. to the interchanges at 1-15 and 1-215. I Lastly, a concern focuses on the trip distribution assignment at SR?9/Front St. Interchange rs. I 1-15/Rancho California Road all as addressed by Mr. Mohle. We appreciate the opportunity provided to us to critique the E.I.R. and stand ready to work with Ternecula towards cooperative resolvemerit of mutual waffle concerns in our cities. Attachment: Mohlc memo of 3an. 19, 1995 Sincerely, N. Minamide, P.IE. Director of Public Works/City Engineer CO: Stephen G. Harding Steve Mandoki Fred Buss Ernest Perea Dan Clark Mayor & City Council 9-18 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER CI'IY OF MURRIETA 5-1 5-2 5-3 The comments by the City's Traffic Engineer are addressed on the following pages. .,. See .particularly response.~o comment .~6. Based on the traffic impact evaluation provided in the Draft EIR, all traffic flow into the entertainmere facilities that would be constructed under the Old Town Redevelopment Project can be managed without a signi/icam impact after improvements are installed, primarily at the SR-79fi-15 interchange with some traffic u 'uiizing Rancho California Road. The data indicates that litfie or no Project traffic is forecast to affect the Winchester Road and 1-15 interchange and the related surface streets, such as Jefferson Avenue/Front Street. Mitigation of impacts includes signage on Interstate 15 to direct entertainment facility traffic to the SR- 79/I-15 interchange, the Western Byp=~_~ and the majority of the parking facilities which will be located on the south side of the City of Temecula, well away from the areas of concern identified by the City of Murrieta. See also responses to comment 5-4 and 5-8. Please refer to response to cornmen! 5-2 Which also addresses this comment Experience at other major entertainmere venues is that traffic flow on a freeway, in this instance 1-15, can be direaed to the preferred interchange, in this case the SR- 79/I-15 interchange, by use of passive and active signage and, if necessary, traffic officers w comrol the flow of traffic. See also responses w coremera 5-4 and 5.8. 9-19 MEMORANDUM TO: ]~en Minamide, Director of'Public Works FROM: I lank Mohle, Traffic Engineer ~ DATE: January ] 9. ! 995 SUI}J'ECT: Old Town ~edevclopment Project l)ra~ Environmental ]nipact P, eport, City ofTemecula; Zev Buffman Group; Public Review Period December 7, 1994, to January 25, 1995 · I · II II · Summary Comments Thc overall project h~ t~o phase. Phase 1, anticipated for operation in ] 996, will consist of the following to bc located in the Old Town area of Temccula: · Cabarm Theatcrs~n¢ at 27,000 square feet and a second at 45,000 square feet · Western Saloons---']'wo at ] 0,000 square · · Open House--eS,000 square feet · Wild West A. rena---17S,000 square feet · Virtual E. eality Pavilions One pavilion with two theaters with $0 sets ~ch · "Quick Draw" Competition ^rcn--[~.000 square feet · Hotel ....;350 rooms · E. etaii Commercial----30.000 square feet · Visitors Center/Ticket Office--$,000 square feet · Administrative Sp~ce---20,000 square feet Phase 2 of the project, to be.built at'a future unclerefrained time, will consist of the following: · Showbo~tt---21,000 square feet · ¥irtual ~eai. ity Pavilions--Two pavilions · Hotel-- Expansion o£Phase ] hotel with 150 rooms · P, ctaii Commercial---20,000-70,000 square feet · 9-20 Old Town Redevelopment Pro~act Draft Environmental Impact :Report, City of'Ternecula; Zev Buffman Group; :Public Review Period December 7, 1994, to January 25, 1995 Janu&ry 19, 1995' Page 2 5-4 The 'bottom line' to Murrieta is that visitors traveling on ]-] 5 to/from the entertainment complex may find the l-15 at Rancho California Road interchanse is excessively congested e~ch time they' attend n performance and will, therefore, change their muting to use Jefferson Avenue to Front Street or to Date Street to Die7. Ro~d to Rancho California :Road to :Front Street. This routing can be.used when there.is-a bridge-on.l;)ate--Street-over-Murrieta-Creek.-.-Thi$.route would represent a "b-~.k way' to the complex. Thered'ore, ]vlurrieta Jedrerson Avenue traffic volumes may be imp,,cted by the project. The exact impact cannot be reliably quantified at this time. Continued cooperation between both cities to develop the I-I 5/I-215 corridor system is my best recommendation. · ]:)ctnilcd Comments The project is expected to generate 995 inbound and 32S outbound p.m. peak-hour net vehicle trips during a typical weekday. The project is ~so expected to generate 1.475 inbound and 330 mid-day peak-hour outbound net vehicle trips during a typical Saturday. The pro~ect traf~c is e~pected to have the. f'o!!ow~ng distribution of'franc: · 60% on 1-! $ north of'the pro, act; · 20% on I-15 south of'the project; · - 5% on Rancho Calif'ornie Road, bmh east and west of'the pro, act; · 5% on Santiago Road east of'the project; and · 5% on State Route 79 east of'the project. The following signalized intersections are projected to operate at the following levels of' service. with mitigation, in 1996, including the project's trat'fic: ],lerscetion Rancho C. alifomia Rd. ~.~ Diaz Rd. Ran~m Calil'omia Rd. f.n~ l=ront St. Rancho California Rd. ~ ]. 15 S/~ ]btn~o Cali£omia Rd. ~.~ l-15 N/13 SR79 S/B/Front St. ~ 1-15 SR?9 S/~ ¢~ 1-15 Front St. (~.J Western By-Pass Weekday P.M. Saturday Mid-Day Pe. nk-Ro,r I.OS p. enid-Rout LOS D D C C D D D C B' C C C 9-21 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 5-4 As cited in Banon-Aschman's summary report "Site Traffic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Old Town Redevelopment Project-Phase 1,' October 28, 1994, Table 6, p. 40 (Draf~ EIR Technical Appendices) the primary intersections involving Rancho C~lifornia Road which would serve the Project would operate at level of service D .... nr better in 1996 assuming.the implementafionaf P. roje, a-P, hase- 1 and certain other mitigation measures. These primary intersections include the 1-15 North ramps, the 1-15 South r=mps, Front Street and Diaz Road. The provision of LOS D operating conditions in the Rancho California Road corridor would not be expected to encourage Project patrons to exit 1-15 in advance of Rancho California Road in the City of Murrieta during the first phase of the Project in 1996. Further, as cited in Banon-Aschman's summary report "Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Old Town Redevelopment Project," October 28, 1994, Table 4, p. 28 (Draft EIR Technical Appendices) 1-15 would operate at level of service B-D north of Rancho California Road in 1996 assuming implementation of Project Phase 1. The provision of LOS D.operating conditions on 1-15 north of Rancho California Road would not be expected to encourage Project patrons to exit 1-15 in advance of Rancho California Road in the City of Murrieta during the first phase of the Project in 1996. However, in 2010, LOS F is projected north of Rancho California Road assuming Project buildout. Therefore, if alternative routes (to 1-15) exist which would provide noticeably faster travel times than 1-15, it is feasible that traffic 'would be diverted from 1-15 to parallel surface strcem However, because LOS E-F is projected without the Project, such diversion b.v non- Project would be anticipated as well, thereby raising a question as to whether noticeably faster travel times on surface streets would, in fact, be feasible. Please refer to responses to comments 5-2 and 5-3. The City of Tcmecula does not expect any impact in the area iden_~fied in Thk comment, but the use of traffic officers to control traffic flow so it does not affect this area can be implemented if it is found to be a problem in the future. The City of Temecula will be implementing traffic management plans in cooperation with Caltrans and Riverside County to ensure traffic flow to entertainment events is managed without significant .impact to the freeway and local surface streets. The City of Murrieta can be included in the development and implementation of these traffic management plans to ensure that the areas identified in your comment do not become significantly impacted by implementation of the Old Town Redevelopment Project. 9-22 Old Town P. edevelopment Project Dntfi Environmental Impact Report. City of'Tcmecula; Zev Buffmen Group: :Public Review Period December ?, 19~)4, to January 25.1995 January 19, 1995 Page 3 The f'oliow'mg Conscation Management Ptollrnm (CMP)-desigrmted freeway/highway segments' arc projected to operate at the following levels of'service in 1~)96, inclucling the pro~cct's tra~c: .-Weekday .P.M. Seemeat Dir~ Peak-Hour LOS I-! 5 14/O Rancho California Rd. (N/B) I3 ]-15 NIO Rancho Califomia Rd. (S/B/ D 1-15 betweea Rasmho California Rd. & SR79 (N/B) B 1-15 between Ranclm'Cali£omia Rd. & SK79 (S/B) C 1-15 S/O SE.79 (N/B) C I- !.'~ SIO SR ?9- (S/B) D SR79 ~./0 two-way B The following signalixed intersections arc projected to operate at the following levels u~' service, with mitigation, at build-out. including tile project'$ tra~c: Weekday P.M. Intersection Peak-14onr I.OS Rancho California Rd. (~ Vincent Moraga Dr. C Rancho California Rd. @ Di~ Rd. D R.~cho California Rd. (~ Front St. D P.~tcho California Rd. ~ I* 15 N/B Eancho Califomi~t Rd. (~ I-IS S/B D/B Santiago Rd. ~ Front St. D SR79 ~ ]-I$ N/B D SR?9 ~ J-IS $/B B Western Bypass @ Front St. C Wenera Bypass .~J Front St./l-15 S/B On-Ramp C (with n~v 1-15 S/B loop off-ramp) Tl~c following CNl]'-designated £reeway/ldghway segments are projected to operate et tho following levels of' service in 2010, without ~nd with the project's ~ra~¢, respectively: .. g-23 Old Town Redevelopment Project Dra~ Environmenttl Impact Report, City of'Temecula; Zcv Buffman Group; Public Review Period December ?, ]994, to January 25, ! 995 J~nuary 19. 1995 · P~gc 4 5-5 5-6 Weckdny P.M. Dir~. Petlk-Hogr LOg (N/n) Fn: (S/B/ El: (N/B) F/F (S B) D;D twu-way F/I: h hc CMP-dcsignatcd roadway segments tabulated above resulting in a level of' service of"F" with e project's traffic do not comply with the requirements of' the Riverside County CMP. erefore, z de. ficie.nc'y plan will be filed with RCTC, as recommended in the report. . As a result of. the review of the report, the following concerns m:ist, on behalf of the City of Murrieta: 5-7 5-8 The CMP traf~c study should analyze a larger area, particularly the 1-15 and 1-215 freeway segments in the Murfieta sphere of influence. The City of Murfieta is potentially conc:mr.d about impacts of the project on the 1-15 and ]-215 freeways through Murrieta. A potemial concern exists ov~ the possible "spillove~ ~ccts of traffic assodat~ with the project from l-15 onto Jefferson Avenue in Mu~ieta. Due to the in~e~ing cong~ntion at 1-15 internsages in the City of T~e~la, many motorists ~~tly utilize Municta intcr~ang~ and ~efferson Av~uc to bypass the I-I 5 route to/from Tcmccula. The project trip distribution (Volume. It, Appendix ]II, page 3] of tile draft :EIR,) appears to favor the SR79/Fron! Street Interchange ovcr the Rancho California Road Interchange for the 60% t~f the project traffic expected to utilize 1-15 to the north of the project site. Although it is logical to assume that a shift in project traffic oriented along l-l 5 to tile north will occur from the Rancho California Road Imerchange to the SR79/l:ront Street Interchange due to the severe congestion at the Rancho California Road Interchange, it seems unrealistic to assume that 90% of this 60% project trafftc split will utilize the SR79/1:ront Street Interchange. The Rancho California Road Interchange provides a much closer means of access to/from the I-IS for the project titan does the SR79/l:ront Street Interchange and was only assigned ~0% of the 60% share. 9-24 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 The Old Town Redevelopment Project is not forecast to cause any significant impac~ on local roadwa~ However, if such a problem should occur in the furore, the City would develop a deficiency plan for implementation through the RCTC. Please ..refer. to responses .to.-comments.-%..2,-.~-3,-. and 5.-4. .The Congestion Management Plan study area was explicitly defined by the Riverside County Transportation Commi-~-~ion, the Congestion Managemen! Agency for Riverside County, in a technical "scoping" meeting held April 26, 1994, at the City of Temecula City Hall This study area was endorsed at that r/me by Caltrans and the City of Tem¢cula. The City of Tem¢cula believes the scoping meeting identical the roads and road segments tha! would incur the most significant impact from the projects. The City does not agree that additional traffic impact analysis is required at thi_~ time. Please refer to responses to comment $-3 and 5-4. No adverse impact due to the Project is forecast to affect the-Winchester Road/l-IS interchange and adjacent surface streets for the reasons outlined in the Draft EI~ Technical Appendices and the above referenced response. Please refer to responses to comments 5-3 .and 5-4 which indicate that traffic flow to entertainment facilities will be managed to ensure that the SR-?9fI-I$ interchange is utilized as the primary access. All Project traffic to/from the north on 1-15 was assumed to utilize either the I-IS/Rancho California Road interchange (10 percent) or the 1-15/SR-79 South interchange (90 percent). The precise distribution or "split" between these two interchanges was based upon (a) the congestion anticipated along Rancho California Road west of I-IS and along $R-17 South/Western Bypass west of I-IS, (b) the location of the Project's primary off-street parking fadlities, and (c) the City of Temecula's expressed desire to encourage (via freeway signing and waffic 'management plans) Project traffic -and Old Town Temecula u'affic, in general-to use the 1-15/SR-79 South interchange. Based upon these three factors, the 10:90 "split' was adopted by the City of Temecula. The proposed circulation improvements will ensure adequate quality of traffic flow at this interchange, and the implementation of a traffic management plan in conjunction with Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, and local jurisdictions can ensure that traffic will use this interchange instead of the Rancho CalffomiafI-l$ interchange. 9-25 Old Town l~.edevelopmcnt Project Draft Environmental Impact'P,¢port, City of'.T~mecula: Zev Buffman Group: Public KeyJew l'eriod December 7. 1994. to January 25, 1995 January ! 9. 1995 Page When and if a l~u~c~emcculn joim uniform mitigation fee is ~opz~ by both cArles, the proj~t should pay its fair shar= toward mitigating deficient facilitics in both agencies. 9-26 RESPONSES TO COUNTS 5-9 ' Where appropriate and necessmy, the City of Temecula will fund its fair share under a jo/nt -~iform mitigation fee toward mitigation deficient fadlities. 9-27 I.,EGEND, OLD 'rOw. $P£C~rtC Pt, AN · £NI£1~TAINM[N3 -wf:STSJD£ SP£¢lr~ PL.U~ xx(xx) - [kI1[R'IJdNU[N!' 'CC)RC' 1'RIP DIS1RIBU'I'ION (W[STSID[ SP[C~'IC PLAN IRJP DISIRIBUTION) PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION !,]9~.~'t~on-~,schm~z~,,, AsSociates. Inc. ' CITY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEV~L~)PMEN'T PRO,~EGT · 9-28 B",8 Wost S~vonLh ~tnmt,12th Floor ~ Los klg~lBu,'C~lllofnla 00017-~43~ I t {213)236-1800 * FAX {213) 2~6-'1B2S J.: ru ry :2, 19 )$ ]dr. Dlvid Hopn, Project Manax~ City u£ ?mzw, cula 43 J~4 ]~uliness P~rlr Z)rlv~ T n uiz. 92590 RF.: Cmmnts~J on th~ Draft I~]R for the Old Town P. cdcvehpunnt Project - SC&C N~. I 950OOO9 l~ear Ivir. 14ojan: 'l~ank you for the opportunity to review n~ ~mm~it on t~ ~ra~ ~vlmn~tal Impact R~ (~R) J~r tlic Old Towu ~dcve~pntml Proj~l. As ~uwidc cl~inci-~ fttr tcci~ly zignitwit pmj~, ~CA~ ~ts ~il~m. ~unti~ and o~ a~i~ to r~i~ p~j~ a~ p~ns for eon~istency wi~ regional plans. ~c atm~l~ ~)~~ m~ m~l to pmvMe ~uida~ f~ ~d~in; ~c p~ Pmj~t within d,e o)nt~t tif our rcgitu~ B~ ~ pluM. whl~ ~ 5~ jn pa~ u~n s~e ~ f~e~ ~ndatu ~ ~t~ h~cin. Tr you have ~y ~iom a~ut ~mu ~mmm~, ~ ~m~ Glen ~lo~om ~13) 236-1~6. Sincerely, ERIC. IX. ROTN Manager, Intorgovcrnment~ l~-~iow 9-29 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 Mr. David Fr, br~uy 2, X'up. nort pruvl~lont atut incentiw. z created by I,L'ulJurLsdlctiom to n,rnc~ houzm£ Itrm~Ji inj,b- rich $uhtvginnz ar~Job grOW/h In housing-rich s~lgg~Jom. SCA(~ .ntzff c. mment.~.' ~ PtOjat:l J~ ]Ocatcd in thc Wc~Im'n ]t. ivcrx~le Coumy .~ubregion which is ~ hou~ing-ricl~ ~ubrqlloa. 'lla~ Proj~t will ~efv¢ m imptoro Ih~ jnhs-hou~h,g h~lanc~ r~tio ~n d,e subtel=ion in IJ~at. although 429 housing unit~ m*e being propor. cal. the added h.uring would bc *more than off.~t hy dm-crr. atioz~ of*~lq. uxim-tdy.2.400 rmw job opportunltlaa. £ncuura&# dgvelojm~ntx in and aramuI uctlvfry ~uerz. Iransportalion neda cnrridnrz, undtrmilized itt[rtutr#t~urc :y~t¢~n~ and arras tu,~tlin~ recyclin~ and rr.d~wloJament. $CAG s~afT c~mmcn/.<: The Old Town ar~ Is re~ard~ a~ an activity ccmr~ and tzaUSl~r%zfion male for the City ol'Teatmada. IZncauragc planned dtudnlmKm in localIota lea~l !ikgly to cause adve~t environmental bnpacL Support t~olicit'.~ atuf actioux titat prgtez've. open apace areas Identified in local, state. atul fgderal plans. S~CAG .~taff c~m,,mvm;: The Project w~uld he ~m~=m whh tb~e t~ ~1ict~ in ~m it pmvidm that ~ dev01opm~tt ~mld he p~mitt~ wifidn a 6~.4~cr~ op~ tpaeo huff~ along Mu~ima ~k whi~ hL~t~ tim ~rnJ~t. ,Encourage mitigutlon nlg. t~ure.~ that reduce nhi.~ In ce. rtuin lot'arline, met~urc.$ oimexl at prc~'grvaIlon of biological and etndt>gicnl rr:suurt. r~' measure~ titat would reduce exposure to .~ti~tic ht, tztarda', minimi:~. eurlltqual, c damage anal Io deceitip ettlgrgettt.~, rra~onJ'e ata,l recovery grant. SCAG_ .ntaff ommmnt~; The Draft I':JR for lhc Pruj~ ~mtalK< Ih.r,m~h a~lyxm .f the a:vimmn~l i~npacts of d,~ Pmj~l ~ pr~cltLX a full a~lg of mitigation ~ut~ ~idt would ~)~ m Im ~~e to prot~ cxLnting rc~mre~, prnvid~ m,~ m~uf= 'J~e new R~ion~ Mnhility Chq~cr uf Ihc Rcgiumd ComprAe~ivc Plan also h&< ~diciu p~in~t to the Proj~~. O~O Of ~e ~t r~,am nf ~c ~ Om mm d~ing with Tm~ponat~n Ma~g~m~ ~DM) ~ folluw~: Pratnote TDM l, rogramx along ~ttt transit anti ridcsharing fa&~!iti~ as a Habit and d~irable lmrt of the m~rall taobility program while recognizing the. Im, rticadnr ngedx of buJiy~daal ~ubrtllont. · SBm Endcrotn. 9-30 Z:c.:_ gill W. I~,veslll: 5he~t, 121h I't<w~ · L.at An0M~i, CA lo017~435 n (213) 2'J4- IM~I · FAX (2t31236-102~ Old To~ P~dt~v.~opm~ PI~ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMNIENT !.KTTER #6 SOUTHERN CALIFO~ ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-$ Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when considers the Old Town Redevelopmcnt Project for decision. Your comment is noted and will be made ava/lable to the City Councfi when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Courtall when it co,~slders the Old Town Redevelopment Project for dechion. Your comment is noted and will be made ava/lable to the City Council when considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. Your comment is noted and wRl be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. The Old Town Redevelopment Project provides a good oppommlty for implcmentinl/an effective u'ansportafion demand management program. 9-31 Mr. David Hogan Pohruxry 2, 1995 $CAC Cotmnent~ on 0~e Draft FIR l'(w the 6-6 6-7 DE..qcRIpTION OF -'l'he' propos~ Old Town. Rcdcv~opmont..Projc~ .I.c.a -joint..pul~lic/prlv~tc ..vmturc co::.~isti,g ,r l 0 cmeflainrn~nl and support. fxc|lities in the Old Towh core ar~a of%he City ofTemecu)a. )t would Include ;~ 350-room Iratel with ~upp(snhtg conu.~ci:d u.~t~ aml a 4,lgg~.-,-t Wild We.~t Arena we, cs nf Old Tow~t. The Project would include necerasry roads, p~rking areas. and other infrnstructure in order to support the r~twclupmr. nt uf Old Town. Provision would be wade for the mnstn~tion of up to 429 dwelling units in multiple fatnlt}, structures it) mr. el the nee, ds of fuim c r. nlployms of the propox~i Project. There would hc provixinn ftmr thc prole, c:tion tTf a (',7.4 ac. zc m~dcv~hqw. A re'ca as lx~te. nfiaJ h~,it~ mitil~alion and visual ofx:n ~pacc. The P~'oJcc! would aim includo the li,fitnl~e of d~ Old Town enlcnninmenl flcllllies with Arena through in.,~tallation of · ti,um:d Ira~pnrt 'rySte. zn ·long lhc main COI~.gI.~TFENCy WITII REGIONAl. C. OMPREtIEN~IYE pLAN AND GUIDE POLICIF...c~ The rcccmly adopted Growth.Matugcmc:nt Ch:q~l~ (GMC) of the R,.-~Jona! Cnmprchenslve PlAn mmain.q a number of polici~ tha! arc particularly ~ppJJ~t~ie to the Projects. The following are ielected growth managcm,:m fx)lici=~ of the GMC in itaik.-s ;u,d $CAG '.~.~tff curetaunts r~arding tide cn~l.,~tcncy ,f the Project wllh those policies: Encnurt~Rt pa,zrnx of urban d~,£1,pment and Iond usg ~i~ich reduce cnzsx on infrastructure. conxtruclinn and make. better uxe of r.~ixdnx.faclli~i~. $CAG staff comm=ntsl Tid.~ iz un 'i,fill' projc4:t. Ils !.,rl,c~= ~ to xetain amJ =duane,= lb,.' hl,~tu~ ic western tlw4.~ ,,/' tim Old Tow. '~.ca of lilt Cily. £t:coura£e $ubrt'x. ion$ to dt'.fne an economic xtraleZy IO nmtnlai, the economic vitality of the · xubr~.Rion. includtn$ the dew:lolm, em mul -~e eft mur'~zlJ,.f prozramx' and oth~'.r t'canomic i, ctmi,~$. whlci: z#~porl a,ainn:c. nt of $#hrejional Sotllx and polici~.$. SC..AG .~laff cnmmcplx: 'Fhi. I~nqmmt:d redcvelnpmnnt prnje~ d~mign~! ~nund O:c Ihcmc of Ihc 'old w~' reproeats a {~ example ~fthe type of ~m~mic strNe~y envision~ by this re, ions{ plan ~dicy. Jt k mtticil)ai~ that tl,c Pr,,j~ would at~a~ a sigtdfi~nt ~.,ls~ of Itlar{s~ from ouLm~0 ~e region ~ w~l am r~idencm from wilhln I S~ Enci~ote. 9-32 e18 W. ,~d)vomh Sireot, 121h Floor · Lof. Anooic:&, CA ~UOl?.:)E3S n (21:]} 23e-11100 u FAX C2t2{ 22&-11125 Old Tram lqnal Focused RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 6-6 6-? Your cor~mem is noted and will be made available to the City' Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project/or decision. Your coremera is noted and will be made avafiable to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. 9-33 6-g Mr. David H0~s~ Febfurry 2, 1995 Pa~ 4 Draft ~R omno~b. ~= Drift PJR ~dr~ ~M prn~= m Ap~~ B.4 whl~ }c ~~ foHowz: 6-8 'A Transporter'ran t4nnngement Plan should be d~elopcd which includ~ loc',d/intcm~l trarf'~c circulatio~ and parki.g requh'gments of the Project. 'lT~ts plan should addre3s both vehicular and ped~tri~ circularkin, includbtg tlt~ Pmj~=t'a proposed people-mover and shuttle ayetam.' It is not clear howuver, from the .,rammary prnvidcd in Table S-I uf the Draft EAR, th~ th~s mitigat'ion mca.xurc 'luts bce. n pruposed to be implemented as n condition of approval for the Project. SCA~; ~-tn!T c~mmem.~. The gnviroumental documema~.m for Ihe Project should be clarified to require preparation. nf a TransIreS t~thm Manecement Plnn Ihat in¢iud~ the. fo.'ttures recommended ]n tire l~artnn Aschn~n 199(; Rr, c~mmc~ationx. CONCI.USIONS AND Rl~COMMENDATIONS described in tho Draft EIR, the Prujr~.t appmo~ to bc s~hmant'rally coxt~Jstent with regional RotIs and p:,iici~ with the one possible exc0plJon noted above. All mitigallon mea~urcs a~socintcd with any approval pn~r..~t should b~ mtmhor~d ~n accordanc~ with AD 31 S0 r~luirf. m=nt~. ENDNOTI~ SO~ll IIr. RN CAI.AFOttNIA A-~'~}CIATION OF (~OVE. RNM~q'T~ Role~ and ,~uthorftie~ SC^G I~ a ./oi~ Pe~ve~ AEen¢~ ~=hlidted u.dcr Califmnia Gov¢mmm. Code S~.-tion 6502 e~ *~=1. Under letlcral and slal= l'-*w, SCAG ~ designated as a Council o1' Governments (COG). a Regional 'l'ran.spOrlallun Plauniftg Al~cncy (RTPA), aml ~ Mclr.lmlilun !'lmming t')rgn~lizathm (!VlPO)..qCAG's mamlat,..d ~;d~ and respom, ibilitle~ i-clud~ die SCAG is designated by Ih¢ federal l*.ovcrnmcm n.,~ the !~Rkm's Adel~po~n Pinning O~a~ion m~ mu.dat~ Io mainMin ~ ~minuing, ~mpe~tive, ~ ~mpr~ivc ~s~lion plmmlng prnc~ r~ulti~ in a Rc;~;~ ~'a~ponation Plan m~ a Rcgto~ Trn~lm~tlon Impmv~ Prn~ ~rsu~t m ~ U.S.C. ~l~0O, 49 U.S.C. 51~(0-~) m ~.. 23 C.P.R. ~50, ~ 49 C.F.R. ~613. SCAG is al~ ~c d~i~~ Re~ion~ ~mt~lJo~m P~,i~ ~n~, a~ ~ ~ch E r~~ihl= for truth llll W. ~lrv~.lh I~lrC~l.l~qlh I"~mul · LOI A.~l~S. CA 9DUI'J'-~435 O (21~)2.16,-I(~D e FAX (213} 2qJ(~.lU2"a Old T~ i~.de~)opmcm Pin F~ns! Fc~,~ RESPONSES TO COMMENT5 6.8 Mitigation measure 4.2.~.14 requires ~he preparation of a "ride share" program and · measure 4.23.16 requires the provision of preferential parking for car and van pool employees. These measures were used to implement the n'ausportation managemere plan requirement by the Project. Measure 4.2~.14 will be, revised..to.indude the requirement of a transportation management plan in addition w the required ride share program. This. m/figafion measure will be implemented as a condition of approval of the proposed project. 6-9 Your comment h noted and will be made available to the CiD' Coundl when i~ considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program win be implemented by the CiD' for this Project in accordance with AB 3180 requirements. 9-35 Mr. David Ho~ Pobru~ry 2. 1995 ?a~o 5 prcp3ratiun uf the Rcc~nal 'l'ntmpofi~tion Plan (R'FP) and Rcgiona! Transfxwo,tlon Impmvcmcm Program ('RTIP) SCAG k rcsponzlMe fi~r dcvdopinE the dmnoL~qdfic ju'njecfinni tnd the integrated land use, hoLminC. employrio:nS, and treation procrams. measures, af~d strnte~im portions of tile .~o~h ~o~t A/r i~ualil.~ Managg~a~/'/an, pursuant tO Califnmia Hcallh mul ~aty Code Scctlan 404fiO(h)*(c). SCAG · i~ also dmigmtt*'d undgr 42 U.S.C. §7504(I) as a Co-Lem/_Aj, t#cy for air quality pLImninl~ for the Central Coast am1 $oummsst D~m't/Lit' tim;In District. · SC..^C; is rcspOnAihlc undm' Ilar'. Prslr. ml C. lcan Air Act f~tr dctm'miniug Cm0rorm/Y.y ofPrnjm:ts. Plmxs und Programs to the Air Plan, pursuant to 42 U.$.C.. ~/$06. Pur~ttant tu C. aliftmda Govcmnu:nt Cudc Sm:tion 65089.2, $CAG is responsible for Colfg¢$tiO~l Man~glg~lE J~an$ (CA/Pt) for ~olt~j$1gnc~? wilh r~io~gtJ trossgj~orgatJols jmJd~ r~cjulrod by $CClion 6,5080 of the Gnvcrnmcnt Code. SCAG muEt alu~ avaluat¢ tim txmzir, lmtcy and c. mpat~ility zuch pmgr-ams within th= r~i,m. SCAG [~ tar authorb~J r~iunal agmcy fur Inrtt~.ovtrsmenml IrerifF or Prngrama. proposed for federal fiuancisl a~istancc and direct develupm~t m:tivJtlas, pursuant I(, Pre.~ldential Executive Order 12,372 (replm:ing A-OS Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. tim authur~ul Arca~'Zdt Wu~t~ Trrm'mea; Mana~rmgnt Planain£ SCAG is re~pormiblc for preparmiun of thc RrZ'ion~d 11om'ln~ Nreds' A.~e~.mrnt, p.r~uam tu Calif. n,ia Crovemmemt Code Section 65584(l). XCAG is r~alm~iblc (with risc. Sun Di~go A~xtmiatlun uf Govc~c~s ~d tim Sam= Barl~ CnumylCiti~ Ar~ Pla,ning Camt~il) for p~ng the ~e~ ~d~ Ila~o~ W~e ~an~,~g~ PlAn pur&uan[ tu ~li~u,'Jita Jl=lth a~ Saf~y Cc~c 'S~iun ~135.3. 9-36 ,~ 818 W. ~11t L'lnOel,1211~ Floor · Lot Anoddeu, CA 9001~.342S I.J ~13) ~JG-11100 · FAX (213) ~3G. IB2S ITEM NO. 22 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOI~,, II CITY MANAGER II TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Murrieta Creek Update RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file. BACKGROUND: I will be attending a meeting at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers office in Los Angeles on Wednesday, November 12, 1997. The purpose of this meeting is to finalize the Interim Maintenance Plan for Murrieta Creek. Since this meeting is subsequent to the agenda deadline for the City Council meeting on the 18th of November, I will provide a brief oral report, with a written report to follow on the subsequent City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None R:~AGDRPT~97\1118\CREEKMOW.UPD/ajp ITEM NO. 23 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER'~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance November 18, 1997 SUBJECT: 1997-98 Community Service Funding Request Recommendations PREPARED BY: Linda Norton, Administrative Secretary~"~' RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and approve the 1997-98 Community Service Funding requests per the attached table outlining the committee's recommendations. DISCUSSION: At the City Council meeting of August 26, 1997 the Council appointed Council members Jeff Stone and Steve Ford to the 1997-98 Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Committee to allocate grant funds to community service organizations. On October 28, 1997 the Committee Members, along with staff members Shawn Nelson, Linda Norton and myself, reviewed the requests for funding based on criteria previously adopted by the entire council. Attached are the committee's recommendations which provide funding to 20 organizations (plus 5 additional organizations through the Arts Council) totaling $90,000 from the City's 1997-98 Community Service Funding Program. At the meeting of August 26, 1997 the Council declined a $6,000 grant request by the Arts Council to fund other organizations and instead, requested that those organizations apply through the City's CSFunding Program for funding. Staff worked with the Arts Council and distributed applications to 18 organizations referred by the Arts Council. However, at the committee meeting of October 28th, the committee recommended that all five of the Arts organizations that applied for funding be referred to the Arts Council for their consideration. Further, the Committee recommended that the Arts Council be allocated $10,000 instead of $6,000, and that they distribute these funds as they deem appropriate. If approved, these applications will be returned to the Arts Council for their consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: 'A total of $89,000 is recommended for Council approval. Adequate funds are available in the Community Service Funding Program account number 001-100-999-5267. Attachment R:tNORTONLIAGENDASICSFAPPRV. AGN 11/10/97 E 0 0