The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About081391 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER - 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE AUGUST 13, 1991 - 7:00 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION - Closed Session to be held at 6:00 PM in the Main Conference Room at Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive - Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) to discuss Jones Intercable vs City of Tomecula and 54956.9(c) to discuss potential litigation. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-30 Resolution: No. 91-80 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Pastor Erik Krag Temecula Evangelical Free Church Flag Salute Councilmember Moore ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Presentation to the Temecula Valley High School Soccer Team - CIF Champions PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 1 5 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about 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 and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 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. 21~rd~0813~ I CONSENT CALENDAR 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 2.2 2.3 Approve the minutes of July 16, 1991. Approve the minutes of July 22, 1991. Approve the minutes of July 23, 1991. 3 Resolution ADoroving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Amendment to Standstill Aareement with Bedford Properties Regarding Permit Fees RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the amended standstill agreement and Authorize the Mayor to execute same. 21egende/081381 2 08/0e/~1 ~ 5 Uodate of Authorized Positions and Titles Listing for FY 1991-1992 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, TITLES AND SALARY RANGES. 6 Aoorooriation for Commission Recognition Dinner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Appropriate an amount not to exceed $2,500. from the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance to Employee Recognition Account No. 001- 150-999-42-5265. 7 Aooroval of Contract Awards for Plan Review Services RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the award of contract to ESGIL Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive,//208, San Diego, CA 92123, as the primary plan review firm to provide complete plan review services to the Building and Safety Department for an initial one year period. 7.2 Approve the retention of Van Dorpe/Chou and Associates, Inc.; MGM Associates and Grayner-Rogers Engineering to further support the plan review needs of the City's Building and Safety Department. 8 Memorandum of UnderstandinQ with Caltrans - Access to Winchester Road end State Route 79 South RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 21eoendW081391 3 08/09/91 9 Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-7 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 9.2 Authorize the release of street, sewer and water system Faithful Performance warranty bonds and material and labor bonds in Tract No. 20735-7. Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 10 Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-8 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize the release of street, sewer and water system Faithful Performance warranty bonds and material and labor bonds in Tract No. 20735-8. 10.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 11 Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-9 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Authorize the release of street, sewer and water system Faithful Performance warranty bonds and material and labor bonds in Tract No. 20735-9. 11.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 12 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 21765 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 21765. 12.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 2/Ninde/081381 4 08/00/91 13 Solicitation of Bids for Construction of a Traffic Signal at the Main Entrance to the Towne Center Shoooinq Center on Rancho California Road Aooroximatelv 1000 Feet East of Ynez Road. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit bids for the construction of a traffic signal at the entrance of the Towne Center Shopping Center on Rancho California Road approximately 1000 feet east of Ynez Road. 14 National Pollutant DischarGe Elimination System Storm Water Dischame Permit Imolementation A;;reement RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. 15 Ordinance Aoorovinq Zone ChanGe No. 5755 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5755 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M- SC (MANUFACTURING-SERVICE COMMERCIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ON 6.2 NET ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DIAZ AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROADS, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-020-058 AND 059. 16 WCM & Associates Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve a consulting contract with WCM & Associates (Bill Meacham) for a six-month period through December, 1991. 21lOinoil/081381 5 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. 17 Plot Plan 29 and Parcel MaD 26232 - Wall Street Prooerties (Proposal to construct a 214,650 square foot multi-tenant commercial center on the property located at Nicolas Road, east of Winchester Road) RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration 17.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 29 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI- TENANT COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH OF NICHOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NUMBERS 911-150-027,028,029,; 911-160-027, 029,; 911-170-017; AND 919-350-053 (Proposal to create 17 commercial parcels and one remainder parcel in conjunction with a multi-tenant commercial center [Plot Plan 29] located east of Winchester Road at Nicolas Road) RECOMMENDATION: 17.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 26232 TO SUBDIVIDE A 70 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18 PARCELS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 911-150-017, 028, 019,; 911-160-027, 029,; 911-170- 017 AND 919-450-053 2lagerda/081391 6 08/00/~ 1 18 Chanoe of Zone No. 16 (Proposal to change zoning for the one acre site at 27628 Jefferson Avenue from R-R [Rural Residential] to C-P-S [Scenic Highway Commercial]) RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 16 including a De Minimis Fee Exemption. 18.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 16 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON ONE (1) ACRE OF LAND FROM RoR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) LOCATED AT 27628 JEFFERSON AVENUE ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-130-026 18.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 16 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) LOCATED AT 27628 JEFFERSON AVENUE, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-130-026. 19 Ordinance to Grant a Franchise to Southern California Gas Comoany RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE PIPES AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES UNDER, ALONG, ACROSS OR UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS AND PLACES, AS THE SAME NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST WITHIN SAID MUNICIPALITY. 2/~end~81 $~ 1 7 05/0~/~1 COUNCIL BUSINESS 20 Jones Intercable of San Die(~o vs. City of Temecula U.S.D.C. No. CV 90-3501 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the settlement of the above-described law suit and authorize the Mayor to execute the Stipulation for Entry of Judgement. 21 Business License Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM 21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A FEE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS CERTIFICATES 22 Designation of Voting Deleqate for Lea¢~ue Annual Conference RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Appoint a voting delegate and an alternate to represent the City of Temecula at the Annual League of California Cities Conference Business Session. 23 Discussion of Paradise Chevrolet Temoorarv Sales Lot on Ynez Road (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mufioz) RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Receive and file report. 21egenda/081391 8 ol/oe/e I 24 Consideration of Aooointments and Structure of Old Town Historic Review Committee (Continued from the meeting of July 23, 1991) RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Reappoint a five (5) member Old Town Historic Review Committee, to serve as a sub-committee of the Planning Commission and approve the general provisions for operation of this Committee. 25 Procedure for Extension of the Historic Preservation District RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Consider the alternatives presented and direct staff to: A. Prepare an Ordinance to provide for the establishment of an Historic Preservation district, or B. Prepare an Old Town Specific Plan which would include the existing Historic District and expanded surrounding areas to establish land uses and development standards. 26 Moratorium on the Construction of A0artments RECOMMENDATION: 26.1 Select on of the following three alternative actions: A. Determine that no further action is required and direct staff to discontinue study of the issue; or B. Table the item for a specific time and direct staff to agendize this item for further direction at a later date; or C. Discuss the item and refer to staff for further study of options, issues and legal input and report at a specific date. 21a~eflda/081381 9 27 Stoo Sians Located at Motor Parkway and Ynez Road (Continued from the meeting of July 23, 1991) RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 Receive and file report. CITY MANAGER REPORT CiTY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: CIP Workshop - August 20, 1991, 5:30 PM to be held in the Main Conference Room of City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA. Next regular meeting: August 27, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00) CALL TO ORDER: President J. Sal Mu~oz ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz PROCLAMATIONS/ PRESENTATION: Presentations to: Temecula Valley Little League Rancho California Little League PUBLIC COMMENT: DISTRICT BUSINESS 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 1.2 2/egendW0813e 1 Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Approve the minutes of the meeting of July 16, 1991. Approve the minutes of the meeting of July 23, 1991. 10 ol/oe/e I 2 Award of Bid - Restroom/Snackbar Project RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Award construction contract to Mahr Construction for the Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting August 27, 1991,8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENT: AGENCY BUSINESS 1 Minutes 1.1 1.2 Chairperson Peg Moore presiding AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Approve the minutes of the meeting of July 16, 1991. Approve the minutes of the meeting of July 23, 1991. EXECUTIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting August 27, 1991,8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 21agenda/0813~ 1 11 08/0~/91 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Coach Kim Thomas has placed the Temecula Valley High School Soccer Team into the CIF playoffs for the past three years; and WHEREAS, the 1990-1991 season was a spectacular season for the Temecula Valley High School Bears; and WHEREAS, The Bears had a season record of 19-1-5; and WHEREAS, during the CIF payoffs, the soccer team defeated five teams and in the final game against Yucaipa they won the CIF Championship by the score of 2 to 0; and WHEREAS, the City desires to extend sincere congratulations to the administration, faculty, staff, coaches and players for bringing honor to the City of Temecula on the playing field, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald I. Parks, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby declare this Thirteenth day of August, 1991 to be: TEMECULA VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL SOCCER TEAM APPRECIATION DAY! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and mused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 13th Day of August, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD JULY 16, 1991 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 9:20 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, addressed the Council regarding the uncollected funds from the County for Developer Fees. City Manager Dixon stated the City has collected 1.4 million dollars and is actively pursuing the remaining funds owed. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks recessed to an executive session at 9:20 PM, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, for the purpose of considering personnel matters. The regular meeting was reconvened at 10:51 PM. CITY MANAGER REPORT None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None given. Hinutes\07\16\~1 - 1 - 07/17/91 City Council Minutes July 16, 1991 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Parks declared the meeting adjourned at 10:51 PM, to a meeting on July 22, 1991 at Temecula Valley High School, Performing Arts Center, at 7:00 PM. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk #inutes\07~16\91 -2- 07/17/91 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD JULY 22, 1991 A joint meeting of Temecula City Council and Temecula Planning Commission was called to order in the Performing Arts Room at Temecula Valley High School, 31555 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California at 7:16 PM, Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks ABSENT 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark J. Ochenduszko, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, City Attorney Scott Field, and City Clerk June Greek. PUBLIC COMMENT Howard Reimer, 27600 Sunday Drive, Temecula addressed the need to control the dust being generated from the Johnson -I- Johnson project adjacent to Rio Nedo Avenue in the vicinity of Winchester and Diaz. Mayor Parks requested that staff refer this matter to the Building and Safety Department. COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS Consideration of Prooosed Handbill Ordinance' Chief Building Official Tony Elmo presented the staff report. Councilmember Mu~oz questioned if the ordinance addresses the placing of handbills on mailboxes. Mr. Elmo responded that it does. Mayor Parks asked about the provisions for fines and penalties. Mr. Elmo stated that City staff would always look for voluntary compliance and would only impose fines and penalties as called out in the ordinance after exhausting all methods of seeking voluntary cooperation. Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned if the posting provisions address the tacking up of signs on trees and electric and telephone poles. Mr. Elmo stated that posting of that sort are considered signs, not handbills, and would be addressed in the sign ordinance. Linda Cloghen 41304 Bravos Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance, stating that many worthwhile, non-profit organizations use this method to disseminate information. She suggested that provisions need to be added to deal with exemptions for these kinds of organizations. Councilmember Lindemans stated he is concerned that this is another form of effective advertising and in the current economy, the City should be not be prohibiting businesses from advertising in the most cost-effective manner. He suggested that this be continued for at least a year. Councilmember Mur~oz, spoke in favor of exemptions for non-profit organizations and also for political activities. Councilmember Moore explained that she requested this type of ordinance be considered because the incautious placing of handbills on automobiles can cause property damage to the vehicles as well as causing unsightly litter. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Parks to table consideration of this matter. Planning Director Gary Thornhill, in response to a question from Councilmember Moore, advised that the staff is working on an interim sign ordinance. Commissioner Steven Ford arrived at 7:35 PM. Councilmember Mur~oz requested that the motion be amended to continue consideration rather than table the matter. Councilmember Lindemans and Mayor Parks withdrew the motion and second. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to continue this ordinance consideration for a period of 60 days to allow staff the opportunity to address the concerns expressed by the Council and Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall 2/Minutee/072291 2 General Plan Process Planning Director Gary Thornhill introduced the staff report and outlined the process required by State statutes for adoption of a general plan. He introduced Susan DeSantis, of the Planning Center who introduced the members of the consulting team who will be making presentations during the workshop. AI Bell, of the Planning Center defined the study area and explained that it was based on the area of incorporation and the areas in the City's proposed sphere of influence. He stated that the first stage of strategic planning, "establishing the program approach, inventories of existing conditions, and identifying and analyzing issues" is the most important step to be taken. He then explained the seven (7) mandated elements of the plan. Mr. Bell outlined the steps in the land use planning phase including developing alternate plans and selecting the preferred plan. He described the third major step in the process as the document preparation phase which requires the preparation of an environmental impact report. The final step he outlined as preparing for and conducting the public hearings. Councilmember Lindemans expressed his frustration with having so much prior approval of projects by the County which does not permit the Council to make changes for the better. Commissioner Fahey questioned if the City has the ability to correct any previously approved land uses. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if the City has the ability to use discretion on the ultimate use of property prior to the adoption of the general plan, or must they approve or disapprove projects as they come up. Mr. Bell responded that this is at the option of the Planning Commission and City Council and they can approve or disapprove projects during the process on the basis of substantial conformity to the future general plan. Jim Ragsdale, of the Planning Center spoke regarding the tools the consultants will be utilizing during the process. He explained that the working notebook, distributed for this meeting, will be kept up to date and on file in the office of the City Clerk. He also addressed the guidance package contained in the notebook and requested that the Commission and Council review this information and make any comments they might feel appropriate. He also briefly outlined the citizen participation program and the types of meetings which will be taking place during the process to elicit citizen input. Councilmember Lindemans asked if a fiscal impact report will be a part of this general plan process. Mr. Ragsdale responded that a report of this type will be included. 2/MinuteelO72291 3 RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:55 PM, the meeting was reconvened at 9:10 PM. AI Bell explained the preliminary vision statement contained in the workbook. He pointed out the dimensions of the community vision which will be used in defining the ultimate community. Commissioner Blair requested that the Planning Commission be provided with copies of the City's mission statement. Mayor Parks suggested altering the agenda to permit the Public Comments portion to take place at this point rather than at the end of the presentations. PUBLIC COMMENTS Joe Ashcraft, 40397 Calle Medusa, spoke regarding the traffic and safety problems on Calle Medusa and asked that these be addressed and corrected by the general plan. He referred to two maps provided to the meeting participants, labeled Exhibit A and B and stated that this is no present viable alternative to this street being used as a major arterial road. Frank Klein, 30180 Santiago Road, stated that he was speaking as a private citizen and he addressed the fact that he knew of no action being taken to clean up the creekbed and homeless problem. He also stated that bike paths are needed and that traffic lights need to be synchronized. He added that the City's infrastructure is not keeping up with the demands of its growth, and that the rural character of the community needs to be preserved. He also spoke in opposition to high density housing, citing increased crime in these areas and he suggested that this use should be limited to senior citizen facilities. Steve Sander, 40213 Holden Circle, also speaking as a private citizen stated that he welcomes this process and he also discussed the varying demographics figures which are being reported by various agencies in the valley. Bob Pipher, 41825 Green Tree Road, addressed the need to establish a rural residential area along Green Tree in the form of a specific plan for that area. Bill Perry, 28645 Front Street, addressed the need to prioritize the specific planning of Old Town. He also encouraged additional public input in the process. Don Peterson, 29915 Los Nogales, spoke in favor of the City of Temecula and the City of Murrieta working together to develop their general plans. Councilmember Mur~oz requested that staff look into the possibility of a joint planning process with the City of Murrieta. AI Bell stated that the Planning Center is hoping to establish a partial list of the key 2/Minutee/072291 4 issues the City Council and Planning Commission want to have them address. He cited incompatible land uses and rural/suburban development as examples. Susan DeSantis suggested that the document provided the participants regarding the vision statement and used in conjunction with the City's mission statement can serve as the guidelines for the Council and Commission to provide this input to the consultants in written form. At the suggestion of Mayor Parks, Mr. Ragland requested that the deadline for providing this input be August 15, 1991. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz, to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 PM, to a regular meeting to be held on Monday, July 23, 1991 at 6:30 PM at the Temporary Temecula Town Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, CA 92590. The motion was unanimously carried. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk 2/Minutee/072291 5 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD JULY 23, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:35 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks recessed at 6:36 PM to a closed session regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). Councilmember Mu~oz joined the Executive Session at 6:38 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 7:08 PM by Mayor Parks with all members present. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Roger Sowder, Oak Springs Presbyterian Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall. PUBLIC COMMENTS R. Jane Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, addressed the City Council regarding traffic problems adversely affecting tourism and suggested placing a traffic director on the Rancho California Bridge at peak hours on the weekends. Bill Harker, 31130 So. General Kearny Road, asked that the boundaries of the Old Town Historical District be expanded as soon as possible. John Dedovesch, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, asked the status of the Used Car Lot on Ynez Roa.d. He also asked if citizens would be responsible if their 60 gallon trash cans were stolen. Councilmember MuQoz requested that the matter of the used car lot on Ynez Road be placed on the next agenda. Hinutes\07\23\91 '-1- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 Dan Atwood, 26631 Ynez Road, representing Toyota of Temecula, addressed the City Council regarding the Balloon Ordinance, asking that the time allotted for balloons to remain in place be extended to 15 days. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Lindemans requested the removal of Item No. 1 3 from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Moore requested the removal of Item No. 6. Councilmember Birdsall requested the removal of Items 3 and 1 2 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemarts to approve Consent Calendar Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 14 and 15. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes 2.1 2.2 Approve the minutes of June 25, 1991 as mailed. Approve the minutes of July 2, 1991 as mailed. City Treasurer's RePort 4.1 Receive and file report, Ni~tes\O~23\91 -2- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes 5. June 11, 1991 Resolution of Intention to Award Franchise to Southern California Gas Company 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO GRANT A FRANCHISE FOR THE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Release of Monument Bond Tract No. 19939-1 7.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-1. 7.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Release of Monument Bond - Tract No. 19939-2 8.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-2. 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Release of Monument Bond - Tract No. 19939-F 9.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-F. 9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 10. Acceptance of Public Improvements -Tract No. 20591 10.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 20591 and authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds. 10.2 Accept the subdivision warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount and approve the subdivision agreement rider. 10.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. #inutes\O?\Z3\91 -3- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes 11. Temecula Valley Unified School District Agreement June 11, 1991 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDING THE DISTRICT NO COST REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES TO ALL DISTRICT SCHOOL BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA 14. Ordinance for Air Quality Management Plan Imolementation 14.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION 15. Ordinance Amending ZoninQ MaD in Change of Zone No. 11 15.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 11 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA'ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108 Resolution Approving List of Demands Councilmember Birdsall asked why so many refunds for swimming lessons appear on the list. Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer, reported that when classes are canceled, refunds are given. Councilmember Birdsall asked if payments to PERS will be made on a monthly basis in the future. Mary Jane Henry explained that documentation needed for the program was received in May and it required two months to input it into the City's system, however future payments will be made on a monthly basis. Hinutes\07\23\91 -4- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes o June 11, 1991 Councilmember Birdsall suggested that the City research fleet discounts for City employees using gasoline credit cards. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS ND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Approval of Allocation - Street Banner Program Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None Councilmember Moore stated she feels this program may be inconsistent with the pending sign ordinance. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he is in opposition to this proposal because banners are not aesthically attractive in the community. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $6,000 FOR STREET BANNERS The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Linderoans, Parks None None Ninutes\07\Z3\91 -5- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 12. Resolution of the Traffic and Transportation Commission to Initiate a Coordinated Effort to Develop a Transportation Plan for the Communities of the Temecula/Murrieta Valley Councilmember Birdsall asked if this will be done prior to, or concurrently with the General Plan. Tim Serlet, City Engineer, stated the purpose of this Resolution was to let the Council know the Traffic Commission would like to be involved. He explained that no action will be undertaken without first notifying the Council. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Linderoans tO receive and file Resolution No. TC 91-01. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13. Approval of Memoranda of Understanding Councilmember Lindemans expressed concern regarding the fact that some properties covered by the Memoranda of Understanding are within City boundaries, and stated it appears that agreements are being made without going through proper channels, City Manager Dixon stated staff would bring this back in two weeks with more detailed staff reports, outlining that these agreements are not providing for any extraordinary services. Councilmember Lindemans requested a report describing the fiscal impact each of these properties would have on the City if included in the incorporated area. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to continue this item to the meeting of August 13, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None #inutes\07\23\91 -6- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS 16. June 11, 1991 Change of Zone No. 5755 Planning Director Gary Thornhill introduced the staff report. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if staff recommendations are based on SWAP or if each case is researched on an individual basis. Mr. Thornhill reported that each case is considered on an individual basis, however SWAP is used as a guideline. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:51 PM. Gary Katz, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, representing Bedford Properties, stated he believes the Zone Change from M-S-C to Commercial is warranted, because the site is located on the corner of a signalized intersection, and the need for more commercial zoning in this area of the City. He stated that in order to market this property, zoning must be in place and once sold, plot plans would be submitted which would be subject to public hearing. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 7:55 PM. Councilmember Birdsall asked if the Council will have the opportunity to approve the Plot Plan if the Zone Change is approved. Gary Thornhill explained that the Planning Commission has the authority to approve Plot Plans, and it would only come back to the Council on an appeal. Councilmember Moore stated she feels there is a need for more commercial property zoning east of the freeway. Councilmember Mu~oz expressed concern regarding overturning a unanimous Planning Commission Vote. It was moved by Councilmember, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve the Zone Change and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Linderoans, Moore, NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Parks Hinutes\07\23\91 - 7- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes June 1 1, 1991 RECESS Mayor Parks declared a recess to accommodate the previously scheduled Temecula Community Services Meeting at 8:02 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the TCSD Meeting at 8:37 PM. Councilmember Lindemarts asked that the Item No. 22 be taken out of order. Receiving no objections from Council, Mayor Parks reordered the agenda. COUNCIL BUSINESS 22. Costco\Owner Participation and Sales Tax Allocation Agreement It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A SALES TAX ALLOCATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA DATED AS OF JULY 23, 1991 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ADDeal NO. 16 - Parcel Mao No. 25349 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Tim Serlet, City Engineer, stated the condition being appealed is generally a condition more appropriate to tract maps and parcel maps. He stated that the Planning Commission was concerned about earthquake faults, a utility easement and drainage, and therefore imposed the condition requiring a comprehensive grading plan prior to recordation. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:45 PM. #inutes\07\Z3\91 -8- 07/30/91 .... City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 Richard Cruzen, 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 100, representing the applicant, stated the owner of the property would like to sell three custom lots, and does not feel it is appropriate to submit a comprehensive grading plan when individual owners may wish to change the building pad locations. He stated the benefit to the City for eliminating this condition is that the property would not be graded prior to lots being developed. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:46 PM. Councilmember Moore asked if the City would loose control over the grading if this condition was removed? Mr. Thornhill stated that the individual grading plans would still have to be submitted and approved, so no control would be lost. Mayor Parks recommended deleting this condition, stating that no control would be lost since grading permits would have to be approved, and greater flexibility would be available. Councilmember MuQoz asked if the Planning Commission addressed this issue. Planning Director Thornhill stated that this issue was not discussed. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to uphold Appeal No. 16 - Parcel Map No. 25349. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5. COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18. Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report, outlining the two changes to the ordinance are a minimum spacing requirement of 500 feet and a maximum allowed time period reduction from 15 to 10 days. Councilmember Birdsall asked why the time frame was reduced. Mr. Thornhill stated 10 days would allow for two weekends of advertising. Councilmember Birdsall stated that due to the cost of these balloons, 10 days seems to be an unfair restriction. Minutes\07\Z3\91 -9- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 Councilmember MuQoz said many locations have CC&R's that restrict balloon advertising and stated he is concerned about aesthetics. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:00 PM. Brad Gagre, 28710-B Las Haciendas, Ste 112, asked that the distance allowed between balloons be reduced and also asked that the 15 day time frame be restored. He stated this type of advertising has benefitted businesses in Temecula and 15 days would make it more cost effective. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:07 PM. Councilmember Birdsall asked where the spacing is measured from. Mr. Thornhill answered the spacing is measured from the center of the balloon. Councilmember Moore stated she is not in favor of using balloons for advertising, explaining she much prefers the use of monument signs which would be visible from the freeway. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve staff recommendation as follows with modifications changing the allowed period of time to 15 days, and reducing the minimum distance allowed between balloons to 350 feet. 18.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-04 PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS 'rhe motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Hinutes\07\23\91 -10- 07/30/91 June 11, 1991 Citv Council Minutes COUNCIL BUSINESS 19. Urgency Ordinance Amendment Regarding Speed Limits on Calle Pina Colada and Roripaugh Road Tim Serlet, City Engineer, introduced the staff report. Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, addressed the Council in support of the proposed ordinance amendment. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to read by title only and adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 12.02.010(d) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS ON CALLE PINA COLADA AND RORIPAUGH ROAD AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None 20. Reconsideration of Stop Signs Located at Motor Parkwav and Ynez Road Councilmember Mu~oz explained he asked that this matter be reconsidered, due to the delay in the installation of the stop light. He stated that he feels it is unfair for the entire City to be inconvenienced seven days a week for the benefit of one member of the community. He also said that he feels erroneous information regarding the time frame for signalization has been given. Mayor Parks called a brief recess at 9:21 PM to change the tape. Ron Roberts, 27685 Commerce Center Drive, speaking as a private citizen, stated the ACS construction has passed the point where a stop sign is needed. He also stated that a stop light was promised in 60 to 90 days. Richard Dietrich, 39233 Risinghill, addressed the City Council in favor of removing the stop signs located at Motor Parkway and Ynez Road. He suggested if traffic control is needed the City should utilize traffic guards. Ninutes\07\Z3\91 -11- 07/]0/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 John Dedovesch, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, suggested setting a completion date for the traffic signal and fining ACS if it is not completed on time. City Engineer Tim Serlet stated that staff is concerned about the delay in completing this traffic signal, however they are also concerned that a driving pattern has been established in that area. He advised that if signs are removed, a minimum 10 day notice would be required prior to removal and the estimated date signals should be operating is August 30, 1991. Councilmember Lindemans suggested referring this matter to City Manager Dixon for a report with possible solutions. City Manager Dixon stated staff could bring back a status report on August 13, 1991. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to refer this matter to staff with direction to report on the status at the meeting of August 13, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Linderoans, Moore, MuQoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 21. Consideration of Reaooointments - Old Town Historic Review Committee Councilmember Lindemans reported that in July of 1990, the Old Town Historic Review Committee was appointed by the City Council for a six month period of time. He stated that they have been meeting regularly but have never been reappointed. He also suggested directing staff to give that committee guidelines as to what architecture designs were prevalent in the late 1800's. Councilmember Birdsall reported that the committee has held 19 meetings and one member has never attended. For this reason, she suggested reducing the committee size to five members. She also suggested establishing guidelines for reappointments and term of office. Councilmember Moore stated that an Old Town Task Force put together a report that could be used as a resource in establishing historical guidelines. City Manager Dixon stated he could bring this item back at the next meeting for the Council to look at reducing the membership from six members to five members. He stated staff would put together a scope of work, responsibilities and terms of office #inutes\O7\Z3\91 -12- 07/30/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 and suggested that the Council may wish to consider this as a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Mayor Parks asked if the term of office needs to be approved now. City Attorney Field stated that the terms shall remain in effect until so addressed. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to refer this matter to staff with direction to prepare a report for the agenda of August 13, 1991 recommending the appointment of the committee, the terms of office and performance guidelines for the committee. A schedule for the expansion of the Historical area is also to be prepared. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Linderoans, Moore, Mudoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon reported he recently had the opportunity to speak with major car dealers at a John Powers Seminar, and more people now know that Temecula exists. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Coun(~ilmember Birdsall addressed the need for a police phone number for citizens wishing to anonymously give information without being recorded and tracked. Police Chief Rick Sayre stated that 911 calls are recorded, however two other numbers are available. He said the first is an 24 hour 800 number (1-800-950-2444), which goes directly to dispatch and is not recorded. Chief Sayre also explained for service during business hours citizens can call 694-4367. Councilmember Lindemans requested that the matter of traffic signals in and out of the Target Center be addressed. Minutes\O?\23\91 -13- 07/30/91 .... City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 Councilmember Mu~oz requested that the matter of the used car lot on Ynez be placed on the agenda of August 13, 1991. Mayor Parks requested that staff develop a policy for use of City stationary by the members of the City Council. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at 10:05 PM to a joint meeting of the Temecula City Council and the Murrieta City Council on August 5, 1991 at 7:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: 'June S. Greek, City Clerk Hinutes\07\23\91 -14- 07/30/91 RESOLUTION NO. 91- 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 have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $663,938.51. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 13th day of August, 1991. ATrF_ST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Re,os 201 o z uJ < LU t. IJ I.-- 0 U. 0 0 z z n.- 0 o ILl LU 0 (J Z n- o o z z o (J uJ uJ 0 (J o -.I 0 I-- o uJ 0 z z 0 0 uJ uJ 0 0 z (J uJ -~- o o uJ o Z r~ 0 0 Z 0 0 0 Z 0 0 uJ n- O U. uJ rr 0 z uJ t,- z 0 .J 0 U. I'-- LU 0 o Z uJ z 0 0 (J uJ uJ uJ j ,0 C'4 ,-t ~ ,.'% 1'-'1 t~ W 'N ¢q 0 · ]> > .=. ¢.J ,~ ('4 (~ ~ ¢q ,r.,,i ,-~ ,,~ :1' 0 u C~ 0 L. I CO Z LU I-- · I-- bJ ~ I-- ,,,J 0 I,U :3 tJ 1"3 r-. r,. ll,- t~ I-q- I~ I- .,% r.. /", 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ U ~ U ~ U ~ U ~ U W~ U ~ C't r' 0 H U'I ~0 Z~, n ~J 0 o~ Z 0 Z r~ Z .J Z z~ Z z O~ ~J b. uJ r~ · 0 ¢'4 ,~ O, O, 0', ¢q ("4 !',, 0 I- v u W e- h ~ C4 X. W L~ \ 'x '.'2 .,%. ITEM 4 /MEMl10562 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER-~'~/ CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY AUGUST 13, 1991 AMENDMENT TO STANDSTILL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND MESA HOMES RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Amended Standstill Agreement. DISCUSSION: Bedford Development Company has paid under protest it planning and subdivision permit processing fees, principally its engineering fees. The City is attempting to negotiate a settlement of the protest. In order to facilitate the settlement, the City and Bedford entered into a "Standstill Agreement," which tolls the statute of limitation while the parties complete their negotiations. Bedford later realized that the Agreement should have been extended to Mesa Homes, its subsidiary. Typically, Mesa pulls permits, not Bedford. Accordingly, it is recommended the Standstill Agreement be extended to Mesa Homes. ATTACHMENT: Amended Standstill Agreement -1- Amendment to Standstill Agreement (Per~it Fees) This Amendment to Standstill Agreement (this "Amendment") is made by and between the City of Temecula ("City") and Bedford Properties, Inc. and Bedford Development Company (collectively, "Bedford") and Mesa Homes ("Mesa") to be effective June 11, 1991. Whereas, the City and Bedford previously entered into a Standstill Agreement effective April 9, 1991 regarding the challenge by Bedford of such permit processing fees as enumerated in Government Code Section 66014 (the "Standstill Agreement"); and Whereas, Mesa Homes, a separate corporation affiliated with Bedford, has paid and does pay some of such fees on behalf of Bedford; and Whereas, the parties wish to extend the Standstill Agreement to include Mesa Homes. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: The Standstill Agreement is amended to include Mesa Homes as a party thereto and all provisions of the Standstill Agreement shall apply to Mesa Homes as if Mesa Homes had been an original party to the Standstill Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date hereinabove first written. City of Temecula ATTEST: By: Ron Parks, Mayor June Greek, City Clerk BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY By: MESA HOMES P~epared By: LDP Ar~)ro¥ecl By: Legal :$t~ty~st [ .agr BY: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER .--/Y"( '--~ ~ J CITY MANAGER "~ ~j/? TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' City Council Mark J. Ochenduszko Assistant City Manager August 13, 1991 SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, TITLES AND SALARY RANGES RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution Of The City Council of the City of Temecula No. 91-_ Providing For The Establishment Of Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges." BACKGROUND: Attached is the Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges for Fiscal Year 1991- 92. The revision and updated copy of the Resolution and position/title listing are provided for Council approval. The Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Range listing is consistent with the City's current organization. a:schedule RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, TITLES AND SALARY RANGES WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority under Chapter 2.08.060 of the City's Municipal Code, the City Manager has the authority to hire, set salaries and adopt personnel policies; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended and the City Council now wishes to adopt authorized positions, titles and salary ranges; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: SECTION 1. The attached list of position Titles and Salaries (Exhibit A) is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 45001 of the California Government Code. Such list is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The list of Position Titles and Salaries shall become effective immediately and may be thereafter amended. SECTION 3. The City Manager shall implement the above list of Positions Titles and Salaries and has the authority to select and appoint employees in accordance with the City's personnel policies. SECTION 4. All prior resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby rescinded. PASSED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of August, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 202 CITY OF TEMECULA Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary RanQes Schedule "A" Basis # of For Exempt/ Positions Exempt Non-exempt Title Minimum Maximum Ran~e # 2 NE 1 NE 1 NE 1 A E 7 NE 1 E E 0 NE 0 NE 3 NE 1 P E 1 E E 1 E E 1 NE 5 Elected E 1 E E 1 E E 1 NE 1 A E I E E 1 E E 1 NE 1 A E 1 E E 1 E E 1 E E 3 NE 0 A E .5 NE 1 A E 12 NE 1 P E 3 NE 1 P E 2 NE 1 E E 1 NE 1 P E 2 NE 1 E E 1 NE 3 A E 3 A E 2 NE 1 P E 1 NE 76.5 Account Clerk Account Technician Accountant Finance Administrative Assistant Administrative Secretary Assist. City Mgr./Dir. Admin. Serv. Assistant Planner Associate Planner Building Inspector Chief Accountant Chief Building Official City Manager Code Enforcement Officer Councilmember City Clerk City Engineer/Dir.of Public Wks Development Assistant Deputy City Clerk Director of Community Services Director of Planning Duplicating Technician Executive Secretary Finance Officer Maintenance Superintendent Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Worker Management Analyst Minute Clerk Network Administrator Office Assistant Permit Engineer Planning/Building Technician Principal Engineer Recreation Leader Recreation Superintendent Secretary Senior Accountant Senior Building Inspector Senior Development Assistant Senior Maintenance Worker Senior Management Analyst Senior Planner Senior Public Works Inspector Traffic Engineer Traffic Technician $1,600 $1,993 $2,498 $2,105 $1 702 $5 763 $2 464 $2 885 $2 431 $3 377 $5 236 $2,193 $ 300 $4,148 $5 763 $1 926 $2 414 $5 236 $5 236 $1 303 $2 285 $5 236 $3 331 $3 331 $1 667 $2 498 $1 454 $2 498 $1 303 $3,047 $2,193 $3,794 $1,424 $3,331 $1,454 $2,788 $2,675 $ 2,193 $1,926 $2,807 $3,424 $2,675 $3,047 $2,105 $1,993 $2,481 $3,111 $2,621 $2,120 $7,176 $3,068 $3,592 $3,027 $4,205 $6,519 $2,731 $ 300 $5,165 $7,176 $2,398 $3,006 $6,519 $6,519 $1,624 $2,846 $6,519 $4,148 $4,148 $2,076 $3,111 $1,811 $3,111 $1,624 $3,794 $2,731 $4,725 $1,774 $4,148 $1,811 $3,471 $3,331 $2,731 $2,398 $3,495 $4,236 $3,331 $3,794 $2,621 1164 1196 1229 1204 1173 1351 1227 1250 1225 1273 1337 1210 1303 1351 1191 1224 1337 1337 1134 1216 1337 1271 1271 1170 1229 1150 1229 1134 1258 1210 1290 1147 1271 1150 1245 1239 1210 1191 1246 1275 1239 1258 1204 Basis For Exemption: E = Executive A -- Administrative P = Professional rev.8/7/91 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of August, 1991, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~-~%~,~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: August 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Commission Recognition Dinner PREPARED BY: City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: The the City Council appropriate an amount, not to exceed $2,500, from the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance to Employee Recognition Account No. 001-150-999-42-5265. BACKGROUND: In the late fall of last year, the Council indicated a desire to recognize the contributions of the members of the various City commissions and committees. Staff was directed to plan an appropriate event which was not to be held during the holiday season. Tentative reservations have been secured at the Temecula Creek Inn for Saturday, September 14th. This recognition dinner would honor the members and spouses of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic and Transportation Commission, Public Safety Commission, the Old Town Architectural Overlay Committee, the Council's appointee to the County Library Advisory Committee and those members of the City Staff who serve as Commission staff support. ITEM 7 APPROVAL: CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~)~,* CITY MANAGER ~,,~,~ - CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Chief Building Official August 13, 1991 Approval of Contract Award for Plan Review Services RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the award of contract to the ESGIL Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, as the primary plan review firm to provide complete plan review services to the Building and Safety Department for an initial one (1) year period. It is further recommended that the City Council approve the retention of Van Dorpe/Chou and Associates Inc., MGM Associates and Grayner-Rogers Engineering to further support the plan review needs of the City's Building and Safety Department. DISCUSSION: Staff received twelve responses to the request for proposal (RFP) for plan check services. The proposals were reviewed first for qualifications and experience after which personal interviews were conducted at the offices of the six (6) most qualified firms. Following the personal interviews, each firm's fee proposal was opened and recorded. Based upon each firm's proposal, references, interview and fee proposal, a recommendation was made. The plan review services will be performed on an as needed basis. Approval of Contract Award for Plan Review Services Page 2 The City collects a plan review fee equal to 75% of the building permit fee. Of this amount, a percentage is paid to a consultant for providing complete plan review services. Presently, Willdan Associates performs all Building and Safety Plan Review. ESGIL Corporation charges a flat rate of 69% of the plan review fee collected by the City. Turnaround time for plan review was examined with proposals ranging from ten (10) to twenty (20) days. ESGIL Corporation proposes a maximum of twelve (12) days for first plan review turnaround. References were contacted for each firm. Those contacted regarding ESGIL, supported this twelve day turnaround service. Proximity to the City of Temecula was taken into consideration along with the available means of transporting plans between offices. All firms reviewed agreed to establish a plan pick-up service whereas ESGIL has a messenger presently traveling through the City twice a week. FEE PROPOSALS .. ESGIL Corporation Van Dorpe/Chou Associates, Inc. MGM Associates Willdan Associates Melad and Associates Grayner-Rogers Engineering 69% of Plan Check Fee Collected By City 65% of Plan Check Fee Collected By City 60% of Plan Check Fee Collected By City 75% of Plan Check Fee Collected By City 70% of Plan Check Fee Collected By City 75% of Plan Check Fee Collected By City ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~--'i~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ' >~i CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works DATE: August 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding - Access to Winchester Road and State Route 79 South PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer That the City Council APPROVE the Memorandum of Understanding with CalTrans and AUTHORIZE the Mayor to sign. DISCUSSION: Attached you will find a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Temecula and the State of California CalTrans. This MOU sets forth access criteria to be used by the City and CalTrans in approving future development along Winchester road and State Route 79 South (SR79S). The need for this MOU is due to differing views by each agency on what access spacing is appropriate for each highway corridor. Although each highway is within the boundaries of the City of Temecula, prior to this MOU the City and developers were subject to a somewhat arbitrary 1/2 mile access interval imposed by CalTrans. City Staff has negotiated closer access spacing, as denoted in the MOU, which is now acceptable to both agencies. CalTrans is currently discussing the portions of each corridor within the County with County personnel to develop a similar understanding. As a side note, CalTrans personnel has stated to City Staff that this is one of the first MOU's of its type in the State of California. STFRPT~MOU-WIN 1 FISCAL IMPACT: None currently. Since it will be easier to cite commercial development along each corridor using the new criteria, sales tax revenue to City may be increased in the future. DMS:ks STFRPT~MOU-WIN 2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is between the State of California, Department of Transportation (hereinafter Caltrans) and the City of Temecula (hereinafter the City). This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes solely a guide to the respective obligations, intentions and policies of the City and Caltrans to use in approving new development along north and south State Route 79. This MOU has not been designed to authorize funding for project effort, nor is it a legally binding contract. It is the intent of this MOU to establish a mutual policy which will lead to a cooperative agreement between Caltrans and the City within approximately twelve (12) months after the execution of this MOU. The basic understanding is as follows: NORTH ROUTE 79 0NINCHES'IER ROAD) Route 79 shall have up to three lanes for through traffic and up to two lanes for local circulation. Realignment may be necessary upon future development along Route 79. The City shall protect the right-of-way for said realignment. Route 79 is to have 1/4 mile intersection spacing with 1/8 mile spacing for limited access driveways (i.e. right in, right out only) from 1-15 to Margarita Road on the north side and is to have 1/4 mile intersection spacing on the south side. 3. From Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road the spacing shall be 1/4 mile intersections. 4. Intersection spacing beyond Murrieta Hot Springs Road will be 1/2 mile. 5. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU are excepted. SOUTH ROLrFE 79 1. Route 79 is to have 1/2 mile intersection spacing and 1/4 mile limited access driveway spacing from 1-15 to Anza Road. 2. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU are excepted. APPLIES TO NORTH & SOUTH ROUTE 79 Intersection and limited access design shall be developed in accordance with policies, procedures, practices and standards normally followed by Caltrans and the City. Eventual realignment of Route 79 may be necessary due to development along current Route 79. The City shall provide Caltrans future right-of-way protection for Route 79 realignment through negotiations. I Concur: KEN STF. F.I.F., District Director District 8 RONALD J. PARKS, Mayor City of Temecula Date Date SEE ATrACHED MAPS ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of Temecula Scott F. Field, City Attorney STFRPT~MOU-WIN RANPAC STATE ROUTE 79NORTH AUG 1991 EXHIBIT-A POST MILE 17.61.'.'5 coNSTANCE B ST. CONSTANCF A ST. -~ )EDEDIAH SMITH ROAD- POST MILE LA PAZ POST MILE 19.4§1 ,FORD CT. POST MILE 19.782 POST MILE 17.376 TRACT NO. 23299 POST MILE 19.00-· DE MISSIONS TRACT NO. 23267 POST MILE 18.27-* POST MILE 19.005 F'ALA RD. I~1 POST MILE 19.007 )LD PALA RD. POST MILE 19.146 IASI I LN. ~ TO TEMECUL FRONT ST. Z ITEM NO. 9 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER. CITY MANAGER ~?~'~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Depart,~ of Public Works August 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-7. PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of street, sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-7 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On February 16, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Warmington Homes 3070 Pullman Street Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 for the improvement of streets, the installation of water and sewer systems and setting of Subdivision Monuments. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Developers Insurance Company as follows: STAFFRPT~TR20735-7 Bond No. 950740S in the amount of 9513,500.00 to cover street improvements Bond No. 950740S in the amount of 941,000.00 to cover water improvements Bond No. 950740S in the amount of 947,500.00 to cover sewer improvements Bond No. 950741S in the amount of 96,500.00 to cover setting of lot stakes and subdivision monuments. On June 4, 1990, The County of Riverside accepted these improvements and retained the following secured amounts for a one-year maintenance period: Street 951,350.00 Water 9 4,100.00 Sewer 9 4,750.00 On July 24, 1990, the County of Riverside released the Monument Bonds. No maintenance period is required for this portion of the work. The one year maintenance period having passed with minor maintenance or repairs required and completed, staff recommends that the subject warranty-maintenance bonds be released. The developer is also required to post material and Labor Bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by statute after the Governmental Agency has accepted the public improvements. The Riverside County Transportation Department indicates that no liens have been filed against this project and a period in excess of the statutory lien period having run, Staff recommends that these Materials and Labor Bonds also be released. The affected streets are Big Sage Court, and a portion of La Serena Way, Willow Run Road, Margarita Road, Yankee Run Court, and South General Kearny Road. Attachment: Vicinity map AC/vgw STAFFRP~TP.20735-7 2 Te Project Sit I~mf~h~ ... Location Map eclle 1' · 4000' ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '~ ~ ~--~-- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Depart,~_.~ of Public Works August 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-8. PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION' That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of street, sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-8 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On February 16, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Warmington Homes 3070 Pullman Street Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 for the improvement of streets, the installation of water and sewer systems and setting of Subdivision Monuments. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Developers Insurance Company as follows: STAFFRFIATR20735-8 1 Bond No. 950742S in the amount of $218,000.00 to cover street improvements Bond No.950742S in the amount of $30,000.00 to cover water improvements Bond No. 950742S in the amount of $43,500.00 to cover sewer improvements Bond No. 950743S in the amount of $6,000.00 to cover setting of lot stakes and subdivision monuments. On June 4, 1990, The County of Riverside accepted these improvements and retained the following secured amounts for a one-year maintenance period: Street $27,450.00 Water $ 4,350.00 Sewer $ 4,200.00 On July 24, 1990, the County of Riverside released the Monument Bonds. No maintenance period is required for this portion of the work. The one year maintenance period having passed with minor maintenance or repairs required and completed, staff recommends that the subject warranty-maintenance bonds be released. The developer is also required to post material and Labor Bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by statute after the Governmental Agency has accepted the public improvements. The Riverside County Transportation Department indicates that no liens have been filed against this project and a period in excess of the statutory lien period having run, Staff recommends that these Materials and Labor Bonds also be released. The affected streets are Meade River Court and a portion of Yankee Run Court and Willow Run Road. Attachment: Vicinity map AC/vgw $TAFFRP~TR20735-8 ~. 1'o Ill.f~'ki:k Project S ITEM NO. 11 ,,~-. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~--~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '/~!f CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: DATE: Depart.~f Public Works August 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-9. PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: · That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of street, sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 20735-9 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On February 16, 1988, the Riverside County~ Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Warmington Homes 3070 Pullman Street Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 for the improvement of streets, the installation of water and sewer systems and setting of Subdivision Monuments. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Developers Insurance Company as follows' STAFFRPT~TR20735-9 i Bond No. 950744S in the amount of $335,000.00 to cover street improvements Bond No.950744S in the amount of $69,500.00 to cover water improvements Bond No. 950744S in the amount of $76,500.00 to cover sewer improvements Bond No. 950740S in the amount of $13,000.00 to cover setting of lot stakes and subdivision monuments. On June 4, 1990, The County of Riverside accepted these improvements and retained the following secured amounts for a one-year maintenance period: Street $35,000.00 Water $ 6,950.00 Sewer $ 7,650.00 On July 8, 1990, the County of Riverside released the Monument Bonds. No maintenance period is required for this portion of the work. The one year maintenance period having passed with minor maintenance or repairs required and completed, staff recommends that the subject warranty-maintenance bonds be released. The developer is also required to post material and Labor Bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by statute after the Governmental Agency has accepted the public improvements. The Riverside County Transportation Department indicates that no liens have been filed against this project and a period in excess of the statutory lien period having run, Staff recommends that these Materials and Labor Bonds also be released. The affected streets are Bitter Creek Court, White Rocks Circle, Kowa River Court, and a portion of Willow Run Road. Attachment: Vicinity map AC/vgw STAFFRPT~TR2073J-9 2 Project Sit 7"~ACT~I£ Location Map ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '~/~C___ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM' DATE: Departme~,~ Public Works August 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 21765 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 21765 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION' On October 31, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with' Gateway Meadowview Associates, Ltd. 2385 Camino Vida Robie, Suite 110 Carlsbad, CA 92009 For the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Indemnity Company of California On May 14, 1991, City Council reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) maintenance period. STAFFRPT\TM21765-A No action was taken on the monument bond at that date as several technical requirements had not been met. The necessary requirements have now been satisfied. The inspection and verification process relating to the above item has been completed by the County of Riverside Transportation Department and City Staff, and the Engineering Department recommends the release of the monumentation bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to exonerate this bond as follows: Bond No. 976546S in the amount of $5,000.00 to cover Survey Monumentation. AKC:ks Attachment: Location Map STAFFRPT\TM21765-A 2 To Sin D,ego ,~A~I ~'~_~A~OItVO M~I~I~N ~ Location Map leila 1': 4000' ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works August 13, 1991 Solicitation for bids for the construction of a traffic signal at the main entrance to the Tovvne Center Shopping Center on Rancho California Road approximately 1000 feet east of Ynez Road. Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer That the City Council authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the construction of a traffic signal at the main entrance to the Tovvne Center Shopping Center on Rancho California Road approximately 1000 feet east of Ynez Road. The plans, specifications, and estimates have been completed for construction of a six (6) phase signal at the above mentioned location. The signal has been designed to include the Opticom System for emergency vehicles and to provide an inter-connect conduit for future coordination with the signal at the' intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The contract documents have been prepared with two alternative bid schedules. The schedules are identical with the exception of the number of working days allowed. Alternative I has allowed thirty working days to complete the project while alternative II allows ninety working days to complete the project. In either case, the contract documents require the contractor to provide the City with I V:\WI~AGDRF]5081391 .BID proof that all the material necessary to construct the signal has been ordered within ten working clays of the Notice of Award. The primary reason for delay in the construction of traffic signals involves the fabrication of the signal standards and the mast arms. Due to the various striping configurations and street widths, the mast arms on the signal standards are different lengths for each intersection causing the suppliers to fabricate them based on individual orders. The alternative bid will provide the contractor the opportunity to negotiate with a supplier the possibility of accelerating the standard/mast arm fabrication. The following schedule of events is anticipated: Alternative I Alternative II Authorization to Advertise Notice of Award Notice to Proceed Completion of Construction 08/13/91 08/13/91 09/24/91 09/24/91 10/10/91 10/10/91 11/26/91 02/24/92 The Engineer's opinion of probable cost is $94,110 including a 10 percent contingency. The City has reserved the right to reject all bids. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: The construction of the traffic signal will be financed by the City of Temecula and Radnor/Landgrant Rancho California Town Center Partnership, a California General Partnership, the owners of the shopping center. A cooperative agreement has been prepared, approved by the city attorney and is presently being executed by the developer along with a maintenance easement. The agreement stipulated that each party will be responsible for 50 percent of the construction cost with the City bearing the additional cost of design, administration, and inspection. The agreement, when executed by the developer, will be brought to the Council for ratification prior to the award of the construction contract. Funds are available in the Department of Public Works Street Maintenance Budget for the City's share of the construction cost. V:\WP~GDRFI~081391 .BID ITEM NO. 14 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER ~----- CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works August 13, 1991 SUBJECT: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement, San Diego Region (Santa Margarita Drainage Area) PREPARED BY: Tim D. $erlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. DISCUSSION: In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act and the following year the Environmental Protection Agency published its first set of stormwater regulations intended to implement the policies of the Clean Water Act. The initial set of regulations exempted those flood control channels and storm drains carrying stormwater runoff uncontaminated by industrial or commercial activity unless those particular discharges had been identified by the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency as significant contributors of pollution. The EPA felt that due to the intermittent and variable nature of stormwater flows, problems associated with them could be better managed at the local level. However, over the next several years, environmental groups challenged the stormwater policies and in 1987 Congress enacted the Water Quality Act which amended portions of the Clean Water Act. P~N0 I\TDSVd EM~NPDES The Clean Water Act now requires that municipalities with populations of 250,000 or more apply for permits first, then municipalities with 100,000 - 250,000 next, and by 1992 all municipalities must apply for stormwater permits. Defining a municipality as a City presented several regulatory- administrative problems. Since watersheds do not generally coincide with city boundaries, a city requiring a permit may have stormwater runoff originating outside of its geographical boundaries, but getting into the city's pipeline where it is considered a pollutant source. Additionally, the Flood Control District would have the same problem since they could own all or part of the outlet but have no or little control over land use regulations. As a result the State Water Control Board encouraged and issued permits on' a system or jurisdiction wide basis to cities and counties as co-permittees. The Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District applied to the San Diego Water Quality Board for a stormwater permit for the Santa Margarita Drainage Area and included the City of Temecula and the county of Riverside as co-permittees subject to City Council approval of the attached implementation agreement. The permit application was approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality and the Regional Board has now requested that the agreement for implementation of the NPDES permit be executed by all parties and returned to them. The permit allows the Flood Control District, the County of Riverside, and the City of Temecula to continue discharging stormwater from its facilities into the waters of the United States while a program to monitor and control the quality of the stormwater is developed. The implementation agreement establishes the responsibility of the Flood Control District, the City of Temecula, and the County of Riverside concerning compliance with the Stormwater Discharge Permit. It is anticipated that the agreement will be amended in the near future to include the City of Murrieta. The Riverside County Flood Control District has been designated the "Principal Permittee" and is responsible for preparing the required fiscal analysis, compiling and submitting the existing data, performing a reconnaissance - -- 2 -- PW01 \TDS\MEMq~DES FISCAL ANALYSIS: survey, preparing and implementing a drainage area management program, performing all stormwater monitoring, and preparing all NPDES Program Analysis Reports as required. The city of Temecula will assume the following primary responsibilities, at no cost to the district, to meet the requirements of the permit for land area and facilities within City Jurisdiction: 1.) · Provide existing data as it relates to stormwater facilities within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. 2.) Assist in developing, reviewing, approving, and implementing a reconnaissance manual. 3.) Reviewing, approving, and implementing the "Best Management Practices" section of the Drainage Area Management Plan. 4.) Provide reports to district and other information to district regarding budgets, analysis, or reporting requirements of the district,. It would be possible for the City of Temecula to pursue its own permit, but it could not be done as economically or efficiently as the Riverside County Flood Control District has done. In the event the district requires the services of a consultant to prepare manuals, develop programs or perform studies, the costs will be shared with the district as Principal Permittee being responsible for 50% of the cost and the co-permittees being responsible for the other 50%. The co-permittees will share their cost based on the proportion of their population to the total population within the Santa Margarita Watershed. The agreement specifically specifies that the total cost of a consultant shall not exceed $36,000. There are adequate funds within the Department of Public Works "Drainage Maintenance" and "Consultant Services" accounts to cover related program costs. Related costs could involve the hiring of consultants to perform the responsibilities of the City under the permit. However, with the - 3 - PWOI\TDS\M~M~rPDES expansion of city Staff it does not appear that this will be necessary. The County Flood Control District is proposing the formation of an assessment district to finance their estimated obligation of $165,500 for Fiscal Year 1991-92. The district has chosen to assess the land with the watershed on the basis of the proportionate stormwater runoff from each parcel. Assessments will not be imposed on property owned and utilized by federal, State, or Local Government; parcels used for agricultural purposes; and vacant land. The district is proposing that the annual assessment for Fiscal Year 1991-92 be levied at a rate of $3.18 per benefit assessment unit. The district has selected a single family residential use on a 7200 square foot lot as its standard benefit assessment unit. - 4 - PWO 1 \TDS\N~_.A~NPD F_.S 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 &GREEHENT National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement San Diego Region (Santa Margarita Drainage Area) This agreement, entered into as of this day of , 1991 by the RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (herein called DISTRICT), the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (herein called COUNTY), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, (herein called CITY), establishes the responsibilities of each party concerning compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region pursuant to Order No. 90-46. RECITALS W~EREAS, Congress in 1987 added Section 402(p) to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. §1342(p)); and, W~EREAS, Section 402(p) requires certain municipalities and industrial facilities to obtain a NPDES permit before discharging stormwater into navigable waters; and, WHEREAS, Section 402(p) further requires the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations for NPDES permit applications; and, WHEREAS, the EPA promulgated such regulations and finally adopted them in November 1990; and, WHEREAS, the EPA delegated authority to the California - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20~ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region (RWQCB SDR) to administer the NPDES permit process within the boundaries of that region; and, WHEREAS, DISTRICT was created to provide for the control of flood and stormwaters within the County of Riverside and is empowered. to investigate, examine, measure, analyze, study and inspect matters pertaining to flood and stormwaters; and, WHEREAS, DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY applied to RWQCB-SDR for a NPDES permit in order to comply with Section 402 and in order to develop an integrated stormwater discharge management program designed to improve water quality in the County of Riverside and in the region; and, WHEREAS, RWQCB-SDR issued a NPDES permit to DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY before the EPA finally adopted its regulations; and, WHEREAS, the NPDES permit, in the absence of final EPA regulations, meets the statutory requirements of Section 402(p)(3)(B) and all requirements applicable to a NPDES permit issued under the discretionary authority vested in RWQCB-SDR pursuant to Section 402(a)(1)(B); and, WHEREAS, the NPDES permit designates DISTRICT as the "principal permittee" and COUNTY and CITY as "co-permittees"; and, WHEREAS, cooperation between DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY in the administration and implementation of the NPDES permit is in the best interests of DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY; and, WHEREAS, DISTRICT is willing to share the expertise of its 28 - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 staff with COUNTY and CITY so that they can join in implementing the requirements of the NPDES permit; and, WHEREAS, DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY are to perform certain duties prescribed in the NPDES permit that will benefit all parties; NOW,-THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: 1. Filing Status. DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY filed an application with RWQCB-SDR for a NPDES permit on May 16, 1990 (NPDES No. CA0108766). A NPDES permit covering Stormwater Systems in the Santa Margarita River Watershed portion of Riverside County was issued by RWQCB-SDR on July 16, 1990 pursuant to Order No. 90-46. DISTRICT is designated "principal permittee" in the permit and COUNTY and CITY are designated "co-permittees" in the permit. 2. Incorporation of Federal Guidelines. The terms of all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of the NPDES permit, as then written, or as changed during the life of this agreement, are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement and take precedence over any inconsistent terms of this agreement. The terms of any Federal and State laws and regulations not in effect at the time of issuance of the NPDES permit, including the final EPA regulations referenced in the recitals above, are not applicable to the permit or this agreement, unless such applicability is mandated by court order. - 3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3. Incorporation of the NPDES Permit. The NPDES permit issued to DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY by RWQCB-SDR pursuant to Order No. 90-46 is attached to this agreement as EXHIBIT A, is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agree- ment and is hereinafter referred to as the "NPDES Permit". 4. Delegation of Responsibilities. The responsibilities of each of the parties shall be as follows: a. DISTRICT, at no cost to COUNTY and CITY shall assume the responsibilities and meet the requirements of the NPDES Permit by: (1) Preparing budgets and reports in compliance with NPDES Permit Sections VI.l.e. (DRAINAGE AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM); VII.2.h. (STORMWATER SYSTEM MONITORING PROGRAM); and IX. (FISCAL ANALYSIS) (a) DISTRICT shall prepare the required narrative for said budgets and reports along with DISTRICT'S individual budget or report on DISTRICT activities. Each co- permittee will be responsible for preparing an individual budget or report on its activities and shall submit these to DISTRICT for incorporation with DISTRICT'S narrative. The co-permittees shall be allowed to review and comment on any budgets and reports prepared by DISTRICT prior to submittal to RWQCB-SDR. 28 - 4 - 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 (2) Complying with Sections I (RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRINCIPAL PERMITTEE) and III (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS). (3) Providing existing data for Section IV of the NPDES Permit (COMPILATION AND SUBMITTAL OF EXISTING DATA) as described in the following Subsections: IV.1. (Runoff Quality/Quantity); IV.2.a., b., d. & e. (System/Drainage Area Characterization); IV.5. (Stormwater/Urban Runoff Monitoring Program); and IV.7. (Other Pertinent Existing Information) pertaining to the hydrologic description of area. (4) Providing existing data as it pertains to DISTRICT facilities for Subsections IV.4. (Stormwater Management Program); IV.3. (Illegal Discharges/Illicit Connections); and IV.6. (Pollutant Information) of the NPDES Permit. (5) Performing all of the requirements as they pertain to DISTRICT facilities and operations as described in Section V (RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY) of the NPDES Permit. (6) Complying with Section VI (DRAINAGE AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM) of the NPDES Permit by: (a) Preparing or procuring a Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual in order to uniformly administer the drainage area - 5 - 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) management program. (b) Preparing an implementation plan for site specific BMP as described in Section VI.l.c. (c) Submitting a BMP implementation schedule to RWQCB-SDR as described in Section VI.2. (d) Submitting a progress report assessing the reduction of pollutants to RWQCB-SDR as de- scribed in Section VI.3. (e) Implementing BMP for DISTRICT'S facilities as described in Section VI. Performing all the requirements as described in Section VII (STORMWATER SYSTEM MONITORING PROGRAM) of the NPDES Permit. Performing all the requirements as described in Section VIII (RECEIVING WATER MONITORING PROGRAM) of the NPDES Permit. Performing all the requirements as described in Section IX (FISCAL ANALYSIS) of the NPDES Permit. Performing all the requirements as described in Section X (DATA ANALYSIS) of the NPDES Permit. Performing all the requirements as described in Section XI (PROGRAM ANALYSIS) of the NPDES Permit. Performing all the requirements as described in - 6 - 1 2 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be Section XII (IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT); and XIII (EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL) of the NPDES Permit. COUNTY and CITY shall, at no cost to DISTRICT, assume the responsibilities and meet the requirements of the NPDES Permit for land area and facilities within their individual jurisdictions by: (1) Providing existing data for Section IV of the NPDES Permit (COMPILATION AND SUBMITTAL OF EXISTING DATA) as described in the following Subsections: IV.2.c., & d. (System/Drainage Area Characterization); IV.3. (Illegal Discharges/Illicit Connections); and IV.7. (Other Pertinent Existing Information) as it pertains to jurisdictional boundaries. (2) Assisting DISTRICT in providing existing data as it pertains to CITY or COUNTY facilities for the NPDES Permit Subsections IV.4. (Stormwater Management Program); IV.3. (Illegal Discharges/- Illicit Connections); and IV.6. (Pollutant In- formation). (3) Assisting in developing, reviewing, approving and implementing a reconnaissance survey manual as described in Section V of the NPDES Permit. (4) Reviewing, approving and implementing the BMP Program as described in the NPDES Permit Section VI (DRAINAGE AREAMANAGEMENT PROGRAM) and - 7 - 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 provide information and data for the progress .... report as described in Subsection VI.3. (5) Providing to DISTRICT reports (on forms provided by DISTRICT) and any other information needed to satisfy budget, analysis, or reporting require- ments of the NPDES Permit. (6) Complying with Sections II (RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CO-PERMITTEES) and III (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS). 5. Shared Costs. In the event DISTRICT requires the services of a consultant to prepare manuals, develop programs or perform studies relevant to the entire permitted area, the costs of said consultant services will be shared by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY. The shared costs shall be allocated as follows: Party DISTRICT COUNTY & CITY Percentage Contribution 5O 5O The individual percentage contribution from COUNTY and CITY shall be a function of population. More specifically, such contribution shall be calculated as the population of COUNTY or CIT~ divided by the total population of all the co-permittees, multiplied by 50, i.e.,: Contribution (%) = 50 (Xn/Xtot) Xn = population of COUNTY or CITY Xtot = total population of COUNTY and CITY in the Santa Margarita Drainage Area 50 = total percentage excluding DISTRICT portion - 8 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The population of COUNTY and CITY will be based on the latest California State Department of Finance population figures issued in May of each year. The total cost of a consultant shall not exceed $36,000. The co-permittees shall be kept aware of and notified of DISTRICT'S request for proposals from consultants, selection of a consultant, consultant's fee, and contract timetable and payment schedule. COUNTY and CITY shall pay to DISTRICT their share of the shared costs within 60 days of receipt of an invoice from DISTRICT. 6. Term of the Agreement. The term of this agreement shall commence on the date the last duly authorized representative of DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY executed it. The term of the agreement shall be indefinite or as long as required for compliance with the CWA. 7. Additional Parties. Any city which incorporates after the date of issuance of the NPDES Permit and/or after the date of execution of this agreement may file a written request with DISTRICT asking to be added as a party. Upon receipt of such a request, DISTRICT shall solicit the approval or denial of each co-permittee. If a majority of the co-permittees, each having one, co-equal vote, approves the addition of the City, DISTRICT, on behalf of the co-permittees, will ask RWQCB-SDR to add the City to the NPDES Permit as an additional co-permittee. Once the City is made an additional co-permittee to the NPDES Permit, this - 9 - 2 3 5 6 7 8 lO ll 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 24 25 26 27 agreement shall be amended to reflect the addition, and the Cit, shall, thereafter, comply with all provisions of the NPDES Permit and this agreement. Upon execution of the amended agreement, the City shall be responsible for the shared costs discussed in Section 5 of this agreement for the current and any subsequent budget years. 8. Withdrawal from the Agreement. Any party may withdraw from this agreement 60 days after giving written notice to DISTRICT and RWQCB-SDR. The withdrawing party shall agree in such notice to file for a separate NPDES stormwater permit and to comply with all of the requirements established by RWQCB-SDR. In addition, withdrawal shall constitute forfeiture of all of the withdrawing party's share of the costs described in Section 5 of this agreement. The withdrawing party shall be responsible for all lawfully assessed penalties as a consequence of withdrawal. The cost allocations to the remaining parties will be recalculated in the following budget year. 9. Non-compliance with Permit Requirements. Any party found in non-compliance with the conditions of the NPDES Permit within its jurisdictional boundaries shall be solely liable for any lawfully assessed penalties. Common or joint penalties shall be calculated and allocated between the parties according to the formula outlined in Section 5 of this agreement. 10. Amendments to the Agreement. This agreement may be amended by consent of the parties which represent a majority of the percentage contribution as described in Section 5 of this 28 - 10 - 1 agreement. percentage contribution of each party as described in Section 5 of this agreement. No amendment to this agreement shall be 4 effective unless it is in writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of the majority of the parties. 6 11. Authorized Signatories. The Chief Engineer of DISTRICT, the Chief Administrative officer of COUNTY and the City Manager 8 of CITY (or their designees) shall be authorized to execute all 9 documents and take all other procedural steps necessary to file 10 for and obtain a NPDES Permit(s) or amendments thereto. 11 12. Notices. All notices shall be deemed duly given when delivered by hand; or three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. 13 Mail, postage prepaid. 14 13. Governing Law. This agreement will be governed and 15 construed in accordance with laws of the State of California. If 16 any provision or provisions of this agreement shall be held to be 17 invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and 18 enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way 19 be affected or impaired hereby. 14. Consent to Breach not Waiver. No term or provision 21 hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party waiving or consenting. Any consent by any party to, or waiver 24 of, a breach by any other party, whether express or implied, shall not constitute a consent to, waiver of, or excuse for any 26 other different or subsequent breach. 27 Each party's vote will be calculated according to the - 11 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. Applicability of Prior Agreements. This document and exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter; all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings are superseded hereby. // // - 12 - 1 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 24 25 ~6 ~7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed as of the day and year first above written. RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel BYDepu~ty ~ A. RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By Dated APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney DFG:JRC:pln:bjp:mcy agrmt506 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST- GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk (SEAL) - 13 - EXHIBIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO REGION ..... "771 Clliremont Mesa Blvd.. Ste B Jn D,ego. California 92124-1331 Telephone: (619) 265-5114 A GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor August 6, 1990 RIVE~S{Dc. AND V~,/ATE~I ~,ONS--'.=.VAT:'~?i Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested ¢Permittee~ Only) P 54! 305 609 Mr. Kenneth L. Edwards, Chief Engineer Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street P.O. Box 1033 Riverside. CA 92502-1033 Dear Mr. Edwards: ADOPTED ORDER NO. 90-46 (NPDES NO. CA0108766), WASTE DISCHARGE REOUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. AND THE INCORPORATED CITIES OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO REGION Enclosed is a copy of the subject Order which was adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, at its July 16, 1990 meeting. If you have any questions or comments concerning this Order, please call Mr. Chris Sandall at the above number. Very truly yours, BRUCE W. POSTHUMUS Senior Engineer Enclosure: Tentative Order No. 90-46 cc: Distribution List w/ Enclosure File: 10-0512.02 -2- DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR ORDER NO. 90-46 *Permittees Tim Serlit* Willdan Associates City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Dave Gibson* Administrative Office County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3651 Director ATTN: Water Branch U.S. Marine Corps Natural Resources Office Marine Corps Base, Bldg. 2276 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055 Tom Bilhorn Earth Science Consultants 18174 Viceroy Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Gary N. Cottrell, Chf. Admin. Officer* County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 David M. Hurt, Chairman Citizens for Responsible Watershed Management 24923 Adams Avenue Murrietta, CA 92362 Jim Marple 19290 St. Galleu Way Murrieta, CA 92362 California Regional Water ~uality Control Board San Diego Region 9771 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite B San Diego, California 92124-1331 =' FACT SHEET for - ORDER NO. 90-46 NPDES No. CA 0108766 Waste Discharge Requirements for Stormwater and Urban Runoff from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District the County of Riverside and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County Within the San Diego Region PROJECT Order No. 90-46, NPDES No. CA0108766, prescribes requirements for the control of pollutants resulting from stormwater/urban runoff from all incorporated cities and the unincorporated urban areas in Riverside County within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board. A 'Letter of Intent' ~o apply Tot and become a permittee to an area-wide stormwater permit has been received from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). The RCFC&WCD anticipates cooperation from the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula in becoming active co-permittees subject to the terms and conditions of the permit. PROJV. CT ~9~.A The permitted area is within the County of Riverside within the area under the Jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. WATER ACT ~.OUIR~M~.NTS The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate its NPDES permitting authority to states with an approved environmental regulatory program. The State of California is one of the delegated states. The Porter- Cologne Act (California Water Code) authorizes the State Board, through its Regional Boards, to regulate and control the discharge of pollutants into waters of the state and tributaries thereto. Section 405 of the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 added Section 402(p) to the CWA. Pursuant to Section 402(p)(4) of the CWA, the EPA is required to promulgate regulations for stormwater permit applications for stormwater discharges associated with municipal separate storm sewer systems serving a population of 100,000 or Fact Sheet -2- Order No. 90-46 NPDES No. CA 0008766 more· Section 402 (p)(4) of the CWA also requires dischargers of stormwater associated with municipa! separate storm sewer systems serving a population of 250,000 or more to file storewater permit applications by February 4, 1990. On December 7, 1988, EPA published its proposed regulations in the Federal Registe~ to solici~ public co~ents. Final ~egulations a~e tentatively scheduled to be promulgated on ~uly 20, 1990o ~n the absence of final stormwater regulations, a permit governing municipal stormwater discharges should meet both the statutory requirements of Section 402 (p)(3)(B) and all requirements applicable to an NPDES general permit issued under ~he issuing authority's discretionary authority in accordance with'Section 402 (a)(1)(B) of the CWA. AR~AWIDR $TOP4~WATFR PFR~IT To regulate and control stormwater/urban runoff discharges from urban areas to runoff conveyance systems and receiving waters, an areawide approach is essential. The management and control of the runoff conveyance system cannot be effectively carried out without the cooperation and efforts of all entities within Riverside County within the area under ~he Jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Board. The Regional Board has concluded that the best management. option for the area is to issue an areawide stormwater permit incorporating all land-use regulatory agencies using the discretionary authority granted to tJle Regional Board. Thus, the following entities have been named in the stormwater permit: RCFC&WCD, as the principal permittee, and the County of Riverside and City of Temecula as co-permittees. I~F. OUT~[ENTS CONTATN~.D TN ~ P~.RH?T Order No. 90-46 requires the entities named above to: Enter into an agreement regarding the roles and responsibilities of all co-permittees with regard ~o all requirements contained in the per~it. Perform and submit annual fiscal analyses demonstrating availability of funds to carry out the stolmwater management programs. Inventory existing stormwater pollution control programs, illicit discharge detection programs, monitoring programs and data, stormwater conveyance system maps, land use maps, and existing laws, ordinances, and codes giving the dischargers the authority to implement and enforce stormwater pollution control programs in their areas of jurisdiction and where necessary, promulgate the authority to carry out all functions Fact Sheet Order No. 90-46 NPDES No. CA 0008766 -3- of the stormwater management programs. Submit reports on the adequacy of the existing data after taking into considerationany requirements of NPDES stormwater regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency or as specified by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board. Develop and implement stormwater and receiving water monitoring programs to evaluate discharges of pollutants from stormwater conveyance systems to waters of the United States. Develop and implement an illicit connection/illegal discharge detection program to identify and eliminate non-stormwater discharges to stormwater conveyance systems. Prohibit illicit/illegal discharges from stormwater conveyance systems unless the permitted by the Regional Board. entering into discharge is Develop and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control discharges of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable to waters of the United States· Effectively eliminate all identified illegal/illicit discharges as soon as is practicable and not later than by July 16, 1995· Illicit/illegal discharges identified thereafter will be eliminated in the shortest time practicable. 10. Conduct an annual analysis of the effectiveness oft he overall stormwater pollution control management program in their areas of jurisdiction. If the water quality objectives of the receiving waters are violated as a result of stormwater/urban runoff discharges, the dischargers shall identify proposed programs which will result in the attainment of the water quality objectives, and a time schedule to implement the new programs· ~NT?DEGRADATION ANA?.YSIS The Regional Board has considered whether a complete antidegradation analysis, pursuant to 40 CFR 131.12 and Star, Board Resolution No. 68-16, is required for the stormwater discharges. The pollutant loading rates to the receiving waters will be reduced with the implementation of the requirements in this order. As a result, the quality of the stormwater discharges and receiving waters will be improved, thereby protecting the beneficial uses of waters of the United States. The stormwater discharges are consistent with the federal and state antidegradation requirements ~act Sheet Order ~o. 90-46 NPDES No. CA 0008766 and a complete antidegradation analysis is not necelsary. WORKSHOP The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board held a workshop regarding Order No. 90-46 on June 4, 1990. The purpose of the workshop was tO solicit comments and distribute information. Controversial input from the public was not encountered. PUB?.IC HRAR!NG The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board will consider ~he adoption of tentative Order No. 90-46 at its July 16, 1990 Regional Board meeting which will be held at the Encinitas City Council Chamber, 535 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 100, Encinitas, California at 9:00 a.m. The meeting is open to the public. Further information regarding the conduct and nature of the public hearing and these waste discharge requirements may be obtained by calling Mr. Chris Sandal1 at (619) 265-5114 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. or writing the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board office, located at the address listed below. WRITTEN COMMENTS Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed waste discharge requirements. To ensure an adequate review. period, written comments should be subm/tted by July 6, 1990, either in person or by mail to: Mr. Arthur L. Coe, Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control San Diego Region 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Ste. B San Diego, California 92124-1331 Board California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region- ORDER NO. 90-46 NPDES No. CA 0108766 Waste Discharge Requirements - for Stormwater and Urban Runoff from the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District the County of Riverside and the Incorporated Cities1 of Riverside County Within the San Diego Region The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (hereinafter Regional Board), finds that: On June 8, 1990, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), anticipating cooperation from the incorporated city of Temecula and the County of Riverside (hereinafter collectively referred to as "permittees"), submitted a letter in application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater dischar~es to waters within the Jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Board. This Order names the RCFC&WCD the #principal permittee" and the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula #co-permittees." Section 405 of the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 added Section'402(p) to the Clean Water Act (CWA). Pursuant to Section 402(p)(4) of the CWA, the EPA is required to promulgate regulations for NPDESpermit applications for stormwater discharges associated municipal separate stormwater conveyance systems serving a population of 100,000 or more. Section 402 (p)(4) of the CWA also requires dischargers of stormwater associated with industrial activities and municipal separate stormwater conveyance systems serving a population of 250,000 or more to file stormwater permit applications by February 4, 1990. On December 7, 1988, the EPA published its proposed regulations in the Federal Register to solicit public comments. Final regulations are'tentatively scheduled to be promulgated on July 20, 1990. In the absence of final stormwater regulations, this Order governing municipal stormwater discharges meets both the statutory requirements of Section 402 (p)(3)(B) and all 1 Currently includes only the City of Temecula. Order No. 90-46 -Page 2 of 31- requirements applicable to an NPDES permit issued under this Regional Board's discretionary authoritel Water quality studies in many urban areas have shown that urban runoff typically contains significant ~uantities of pollutants. Water quality may be adversely impacted by stormwater discharges and urban runoff. A comprehen- sive stormwater and urban runoff management and regula- tion program is essential for the protection of water resources. The RCFC&WCD and the co-permittees will develop a comprehensive stormwater/urban runoff management program· This order requires the RCFC&WCD and the incorporated cities to submit documentation on existing runoff pollution control programs and specifies additional requirements towards achieving the water quality objectives for surface waters in the San Diego Region. The intent of this permit is to. improve water quality of receiving waters under the jurisdiction of the Regional Board. The discharges consist of surface runoff generated from various land uses and activities in all the hydrologic drainage areas which discharge into receiving waters within the area of jurisdiction of the Regional Board. The quality of ~hese discharges varies considerably and is affected by land use, basin hydrology and geology, season, the frequency and duration of storm events, the presence of illicit connections and discharges, and waste management and disposal practices. The parameters and pollutants of potential concern and significance in these discharges may include, but are not limited to, pH, fecal coliform, fetal streptococcus, enterococcus, volatile organic carbon (VOC), surfactants (MBAS}, oil and grease, Petroleum hydrocarbons, total suspende~ and settleable solids, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), lead, copper, chromium, cadmium, silver, nickel, zinc, cyanides, phenols, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, nitrate, phosphate, etc.), and biocides. Since stormwater and urban runoff contains "waste", as defined in California Water Code (CWC) Section 13050, stormwater and urban runoff discharges constitute discharges of waste. Consequently such discharges are subject to CWC Section 13260 et seq., as well as Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended· The RCFC&WCD has jurisdiction over a large portion of the flood control facilities and has agreed to be the major responsible party in implementing the provisions of this Order. This Order names the RCFC&WCD the "principal permittee" and the 'County of Riverside and City of Temecula as the "co-permittees". Collectively the Order No. 90-46 -Page 2 of 31- requirements applicable to an NPDES per~it issued under this Regional Board*s discretionary authorit~, Water quality studies in many urban areas have shown that urban runoff typically contains significant quantities of pollutants. Water quality may be adversely impacted by stormwater discharges and urban runoff. A comprehen- sive stormwater and urban runoff management and regula- tion program is essential for the protection of water resources. The RCFC&WCD and the co-permittees will develop a comprehensive stormwater/urban runoff management program. This order requires the RCFC&WCD and the incorporated cities to submit documentation on existing runoff pollution control programs and specifies additional requirements towards achieving the water quality objectives for surface waters in the San Diego Region. The intent of this permit is to. improve water quality of receiving waters under the jurisdiction oft he Regional Board. ® The discharges consist of surface runoff generated from various land uses and activities in all the hydrologic drainage areas which discharge into receiving waters within the area of jurisdiction of the Regional Board. The quality of ~hese discharges varies considerably and is affected by land use, basin hydrology and geology, season, the frequency and duration of storm events, the presence of illicit connections and discharges, and waste management and disposal practices. The parameters and pollutants of potential concern and significance inthese discharges may include, but are not limited to, pH, fecal coliform, fecal streptococcus, enterococcus, volatile organic carbon (VOC), surfactants (MBAS), 0il and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, total auspended and settleable solids, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), lead, copper, chromium, cadmium, silver, nickel, zinc, cyanides, phenols, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, nitrate, phosphate, etc.), and biocides. Since stormwater and urban runoff contains "waste", as defined in California Water Code (CWC) Section 13050, stormwater and urban runoff discharges constitute discharges of waste. Consequently such discharges are subject to CWC Section 13260 et seq., as well as Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. The RCFC&WCD has jurisdiction over a large portion of the flood control facilities and has agreed to be the major responsible party in implementing the provisions of this Order. This Order names the RCFC&WCD the "principal permittee" and the County of Riverside and City of Temecula as the "co-permittees". Collectively the Order No. 90-46 -Page 3 of 31- principal permittee and co-permittees are referred to as -permittees." -' The RCFC&WCD, as the "principal permittee", will obtain the cooperation of all entities in implemen~ing the provisions of this Order. In general, the RCFC&WCD, the "principal permittee", will be responsible for preparing operating budgets, preparing and monitoring the implementation programs, and coordinating and submitting reports to the Regional Board· The "co-permittees" will develop site-specific compliance responsibilities, perform compliance monitoring and inspections, submit stormwater conveyance system maps and compliance reports to,he RCFC&WCD, and demonstrate and exercise enforcement' authority for achieving compliance with the terms and conditions of this Order. This Order requires the permittees to develop and implement programs to ensure that entities discharging stormwater/urban runoff into stormwater conveyance systems take steps to control/reduce discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. The Regional Board has the discretion and authority to require non- cooperating entities to participate in this area-wide permit or obtain individualwaste dischar~e requirements if it is determined that discharges from such entities cause or contribute to a violation of a water quality standard or are significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States. Approximately one-eighth (1/8) of the entire Riverside County area drains into receiving waters within this Regional Boardes Jurisdiction. A minor portion of these drainage areas is urbanized but experiencing rapid development and growth. Approximately 5/8 of the Riverside County drainage area is within the Jurisdiction of the Colorado River Basin Regional Board and the remaining one-quarter (1/4) of the Riverside County drainage area is within the Jurisdiction of the Santa Aria Regional Water~uality Control Board. The area tinder the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control board is currently regulated by Santa Aria Regional Board Order No. 90-104, NPDES No. 8000192, Waste Dischares Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation D~strict ~nd the County of Riverside and ?ncorDorated Cities within the Santa Ana Region. Areawide Urban Stormwater Runoff. Riverside CountT. The requirements contained in this Order are patterned after Order No. 90-104 to ensure consistent regulation, pollution control practices, and ~onitoring and reporting requirements~hroughout Riverside County. Order No. 90-46 -Page 4 of 31- 10. Sto~water discharges in the Riverside oftion of County ~he San Diego region are tributary to variou~receiving waters. These receiving waters include: ~ ?nl~n~ S,,rf~ce Streams Santa Margarita River Murrieta Creek Temecula Creek Pechanga Creek Cahuilla Creek San Mateo Creek San Juan Creek Tucalota Creek T~kes/Rese~voirs a. Skinner Lake b. Vail Lake T~goons a. Mouth of the Santa Margarita River The Comprehensive Water Oual~t¥ Control Plan Report. San ~iego Basin (9), (Basin Plan) was adopted by this Regional Board on March 17, 1975 and subsequently approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board). Subsequent revisions to the Basin Plan have also been adopted bythe RegionalBoard and approved by the State Board. 12. The Basin Plan identifies the following beneficial uses of inland surface waters in Riverside County and the mouth of the Santa Margarita River: g. h. i. J. k. Municipal and domestic supply; Industrial service supply; Industrial process supply; Agriculture supply; Water contact recreation; Non-contact water recreation; Warm fresh-water habitat; Cold fresh-water habitat; Preservation of rare and endangered species; Wildlife habitat;and Marine habitat. 13. The Basin Plan contains the following prohibitions, applicable to discharges, for inland surface waters: Order No. 90-46 -Page 5 of 31- "Discharge of treated or untreated sewage or industrial wastes to a natural watercourse upstream of surface storage or diversion facilities used for municipal supply is prohibited." "Discharge of treated or untreated sewage or industrial wastewater, exclusive of cooling water or other waters which are chemically unchanged, to a watercourse, is prohibited except in cases where the quality of said discharge complies with the receiving body's water quality objectives." "The dumping or deposition of oil, garbage, trash, or other solid municipal, industrial, or agricultural waste directly into inland waters or watercourses or adjacent to the water courses in any manner which may.permit its being washed into the watercourse is prohibited." "Land grading and similar operations causing soil disturbance which do not contain provisions to minimize soil erosion and limit suspended matter in area runoff are prohibited." 14. The requirements contained in this Order are necessary to implement the objectives of the Basin Plan for receiving waters within the region. 15. Numerical and narrative water quality standards exist for the receiving waters in the region. Due to the enormous variability in stormwater quality and quantity and the complexity of urban runoff, this Order does not contain numerical limitations for any constituents. The impact of stormwater and urbanrunoff discharges on water quality of receiving waters has not been fully determined. Extensive water quality monitoring and analysis of the data are essential to make that determination. This Order requires the permittees to continue to monitor the discharges and to analyze the data. This Order also requires the de%elopment and implementation of best management practices (BMPs). "BMPs" are defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as "schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage." For purposes of this Order, BMPs for the control of pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff may include the use of non-structural (e.g. public education, regulatory powers, urban planning, Order No. 90-46 -Page 6 of 31 etc.) and structural (e.g. detention basins, grass swales, runoff infiltration devices, etc.) con~rols which may be applied to a particular site or throughout a region (e.g., a city or throughout an area served by a stormwater conveyance system). - 16. Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.12 and State Board Resolution No. 68-16, Statement of Po1~c¥ with Respect to M~ntAining High Ouality of Waters ~n California (collectively "antidegradation policies"), the Regional Board shall ensure that any increase in pollutant loading to a receiving water meets the requirements stated in the foregoing policies. At a minimum, permitting actions shall be consistent with the following: a. Existing inetream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect existing beneficial uses shall be maintained and'protected; Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, the quality shall be maintained and protectedunless the State finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and l~ublic participation provisions of the State's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development An the area in which the waters are located; Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, auch as waters of National and State parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected; and In those cases where potential water quality impairment associated with a thermal discharge is involved, the antidegradation policy and implementing method shall be consistent withSection 316 of the Clean Water Act. 17. The Regional Board, An establishing the requirements contained herein, has taken into consideration the requirements of the State and Federal "antidegradation" policies and has determined that: The conditions and requirements established in this order for discharges of stormwater/urban runoff to waters of the United States ensurethatthe existing Order No. 90-46 -Page 7 of 31- be beneficial uses and quality of receiving waters will be protected and improved through the impl~mentation of best management practices for the control of pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff; Discharges of urban runoff to waters of the United States will continue regardless of the issuance of this Order. The issuance of this Order is necessary to ensure achievement and maintenance of the goals and objectives of the water quality control plans adopted by the State and will result in improvement in water quality through implementation of stormwater management programs for the control of pollutants in urban runoff; C® No receiving waters covered under the terms and conditions of this Order have been designated an outstanding national resource water or an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) by the State Water Resources Control Board; and de Thermal discharges potentially impairing water quality are not authorized under the terms and conditions of this Order, thus, Section 316 of the Clean Water Act is not applicable. 18. Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, and amendments thereto, and pursuant to Section 13260, et~., of the California Water Code, this Order shall ~erve as an NPDES permit and waste discharge requirements forth. discharge of stormwater and urban runoff to surface waters of Riverside County in the area under the jurisdiction of the Regional Board. 19. The Regional Board, in establishing the requirements contained herein, considered factors including, but not limited to, the following: ae Beneficial uses to be protected and the water quality objectives reasonably required for that purpose; b. Other waste discharges; c. The need to prevent nuisance; de Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of the waters under consideration; Environmental characteristics of the waters under consideration; Order No. 90-46 -Page 8 of 31- ~ fo Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area; g. Economic considerations; and h. The need for developing housing within the region; 20. The issuance of this permit for the discharge of stormwater runoff and urban runoff is exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 3, Section 21000 et sea.) in accordance with the California Water Code, Section 13389. 21. The Regional Board has considered all water resource related environmental factors associated with the discharge of stormwater and urban runoff. 22. The Regional Board has notified all known interested parties of its intent to issue an NPDES permit for the discharge of stormwater and urban runoff. 23. The Regional Board has, at a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the discharge of stormwater and urban runoff. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the permittees, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder, and the provisions oft he Clean Water Act as amended and regulations and guidelines adopted thereunder, shall comply with the following: I. . I~F. SPONSIBI?.ITIF. S OF PR?NC?PA?. PF. RMITT~.~. The principal permittee shall be responsible to manage the program overall, including: 4. 5. 6. Administer the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act. Conduct water quality and hydrographic monitoring of stormwater conveyance system outfalls as agreed upon by the Executive Officer. Develop uniform criteria for stor~water conveyance system inspections. Conduct inspections of the stormwater conveyance systems within its jurisdiction. Prepare and submit to the RegionalBoard all the reports, plans, and programs as required in this Order. Monitor the implementation of the plans and programs and determine their effectiveness in attaining water quality Order No. 90-46 -Page 9 of 31- 10. 11. 12. objectives. Coordinate all the activities with the Region~l Board. Enact legislation and ordinances as necessary to establish legal authority. Pursue enforcement actions as necessary ~o ensure compliance with stormwater management programs and implementation plans'. Solicit, and respond to, public input2 for proposed monitoring, reconnaissance, management, and implementation plans. Ensure adequate reGponse to emergency situations such as accidental spills, leaks, illicit discharges, etc. Abide by the terms of the Implementation Agreement. II. I~F. SPONSTRTT.IT?F.S OF THF. CO-P~.RMITTF. F.S The co-permittees shall be responsible to manage the program within its jurisdiction, including: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Conduct stormwater conveyance system inspections in accordance with the uniform criteria developed by ~he principal permittee. Conduct and coordinate with the principal permittee any surveys and characterizations needed to identify the pollutant sources and drainage areas. Review and approve management programs, monitoring programs, and implementation plans. Implement management programs, monitoring programs, and implementation plans as required by this Order. Submit stormwater conveyance system maps with periodic revisions as necessary. Prepare and submit &11 reports to the principalpermittee in a timely manner. Enact, and administer, legislation and ordinances as necessary to establish legal authority. Pursue enforcement actions as necessary to ensure compliance with the stormwater management programs and the implementation plans. Ensure adequate response to emergency situations such as accidental spills, leaks, illicit discharges, etc. Abide by the terms of the Implementation Agreement. 2 Solicitation, and response to, public input may be demonstrated by: (1) disseminating the notice of availability of plans for review and comment to the public at large, environmental groups, federal, state and local agencies and other interested parties; and, (2) addressing concerns expressed by the public. Order No. 90-46 -Page 10 of 31- III. GFN~RAT. R~OUIRk~I~.NTS The permittees shall prohibit illicit/illegal discharges from entering into stormwater conveyance systems. Discharges conditionally allowed to enter stormwater conveyance systems are specified in Item V. 4. The permittees shall develop and implement best management practices (BMPs), including management practices, control techniques, and system design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Executive Officer determines appropriate for the control of pollutants, to control/reduce the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable. The BMPs so developed, along with a time schedule for implementation, shall be submitted for the approval and/or modification by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board. In developing the best management practices, the permittees shall consider the water quality objectives of all the receiving water bodies. The permittees shall ensure that BMPs are implemented for entities discharging stormwater and urban runoff to stormwater conveyance systems within their area of Jurisdi~ci'on. IV. COMPIT~%TION AND SUBMITTAT. OF ~.XIST?NG DATA 1. Runoff Quality/Quantity The permittees shall collectively submit all quantitative information, generated since 1980, on stormwater discharges to stormwater conveyance systems. Historical averages and extremes of the collected data shall also be submitted. This information will be used to facilitate the identification of sources of pollutants present in the stormwater discharges and to develop an effective discharge monitoring program for this Order· Information to be submitted shall include the following: Analytical and flow data for stormwater samples collected from the stormwater conveyance system outfalls, and within any tributary waters of the United States~ Precipitation data from the precipitation stations and the duration of the storm events (if available) ~ and Analysis of the data and the naJor pollutants Identified in the stormwater discharges from each drainage area to each receiving water and a Order No. 90-46 -Page 11 of 31- determination whether the identifiedpollutants cane from non-point source or point-sour=m diicharge8. System/Drainage Area Characterization The permittees shall submit information to the Regional Board for identification and characterization of the sources of pollutants in the stormwater discharges. Descriptive information, such as land use in Riverside County, and an overall map of the drainage system showing major feature shall be submitted. The following information shall be provided: An identification of the drainage ~r~as (more %ban 50 acres in size) that discharge stormwater to the stormwater conveyance systems and of those drainage areas that discharge to stormwater conveyance systems with pipe diameters greater ~han 36 inches; The sizes of these drainage areas (acreage) and the sizes (pipe diameters or approximate dimensions of the stormwater conveyance systems) and physical characteristics of the stormwater conveyance systems. These physical characteristics shall include, but not be limited ~o, whether the stormwater conveyance system is lined or unlined and whether it has intermittent or continuous flow; The names, locations, and Standard Industrial Codes (SIC) of specific industrial sources and principal land use activities in each 4rainage area, identified in IV B.2. a., above, discharging to ~he stormwater conveyance systems. An estimation of the runoff coefficients for ~hese drainage areas shall also be provided; de The locations of present stormwater conveyance system outfalls discharging to waters of the United States. The name of each receiving water shall be reported and the location of each outfall shall be indicated on a map; and The locations of major structural controls for stormwater and urban runoff discharges (e.g. retention basins, detention basins, etc). 3. Illegal Connections The permittees shall provide a list of dischargers (permitted and unpermitted) known to exist currently who discharge process or non-process wastewater to the stormwater conveyance systems and any existing Order 'No. 90-46 -Page 12 of 31- information pertaining ~lto illegal dumping of pollutants in stormwater conveyance sys2ems. The permittees shall also provide any existing procedures used for detecting illegal connections to the stormwater conveyance systems, ~he~ationale for the procedures, and the drainage areas (or cities) in which these programs are practiced; and A description of the present and historic use of ordinances or other controls to prohibit and/or limit %he non-stormwater discharges to stormwater conveyance systems. Stormwater Management Program A description of the existing stormwater/urban runoff management programs and structural and non-structural BMPs implemented by the permittees. 5. Stormwater/Urban Runoff Monitoring Program A description of the existing monitoring programs and the rationale for their selection. 6. Pollutant Information The permittees shall provide info:mation regarding the discharge of any pollutant required under 40 CFR 122.21(g) (7)(iii) and (iv). 7. Other Pertinent Existing Information The permittees shall provide to ~he R~ional Board any other existing information %hat is pertinent to %his permit. The permittees shall submit the above information, IV.1. - IV.7., for the receiving waters within the San Diego region no later than March 31, 1992. V. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY The permittees shall submit information from a reconnaissance survey to be conducted at %he stormwater conveyance systems. The purpose of ~:he survey is to identify illegal/illicit non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater conveyance systems, illicit disposal practices, or other practices which impair water quality. The reconnaissance survey field manual and implementation plan for prosecuting violators and eliminating illegal discharges so developed, along with time schedules for implementation, shall be submitted for %he approval of Order No. 90-46 -Page 13 of 31- the Executive Officer of the Regional Board. The information shall include, butsneeded not be limited to, the following: By September 30, 1992, a proposed reco~naissance survey field manual, including a time schedule shall be submitted. By September 30, 1993, and every year thereafter until the completion of the survey, a progress report containing ~he following information shall be submitted: Results of the reconnaissance survey, including an evaluation of the results; ii. Additional information that would lead to isolating and identifying sources of illegal connections to the stormwater conveyance systems. Such information should include, but is not limited to, visual observations (e.g. color, turbidity, odor, etc), major land use activities in the surrounding drainage areas, seasonal change of flow, the surrounding hydrogeologic formation, etc.: '" iii. A listing of any identified or suspected illegal non-stormwater dischargers, including the names, locations, and types of the facilities, and the names of the stormwater conveyance systems and receiving waters to which the illegal/illicit non-stormwater discharges occur; .' A listing of large industrial facilities (with more than 100 employees) where hazardous/toxic substances are stored and/or used., landfills, hazardous waste disposal, treatment, and/or recovery facilities, and any known spills, leaks or other problems in the area; and A discussion on all activities, related to the survey, conducted for the past 12 months. By March 31, 1992, the permittees shall submit a proposed implementation plan, including a tentative time schedule, to prosecute violators and eliminate illegal/illicit discharges to the stormwater conveyance systems. The proposed plan shall also include a de~cription of the legal authorities for prosecuting violators and eliminate or control illicit disposal practices and illegal discharges to the stormwater conveyance systems, and a proposed time schedule for obtaining such legal authorities, if necessary. Order No. 90-46 -Page 14 of 31- VI. e By September 30, 1994, and every year ~hereafter, the permittees shall cubmir a progress repor~evaluatingthe effectiveness of the plan in detecting and eliminating illegal/illicit discharges to ~he stormwater conveyance systems. - The permittees shall effectively eliminate all identified illegal/illicit discharges in the shortest time practicable, and in no case later than July 16, 1995. Those identified after July 16, 1995 shall be eliminated in the shortest time practicable. The following discharges shall not be considered illegal/illicit discharges provided the discharges do not cause or contribute to violations of water ~uality standards and are not significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States: discharges composed entirely of stormwater, discharges covered under an NPDES permit, discharges to stormwater conveyance systems from potable water line flushing, fire fighting, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising groundwaters (not including active dewatering systems), grouzldwater infiltration as defined at 40 CFR 35.2005(20), discharges from potable water sources, passive foundation drains (not including active groundwater dewatering), air conditioning condensation, irrigation.water,-water from crawl space pumps, passive footing drains (not including active groundwater dewatering systems), lawn watering, individual residential vehicle washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, street wash waters related to cleaning and maintenance by permittees, or waters not otherwise containing wastes as defined in California Water Code Section 13050(d). If it is determined that any of the preceding discharges cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or are significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States, the discharges shall be prohibited from entering stormwater conveyance systems. DRAINAGE ~WR% MANAG~R. NT PROGRAM The permittees shall develop and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. The permittees shall submit information pertaining to the proposed management programs for control of the pollutants in the stormwater discharges. The information shall include, but need not be limited to, the following: ae A brief description of the existing BMPs and stormwater management programs; Oz~er ~4o. g0-46 -Page 15 of Proposed modifications to the existing BMPs and storewater/urban runoff management pt..grams to reduce pollutants in stor~water discha~ges from industrial, commercial, and residential properties to the maximum extent practicable. At a minimum, the following should be considered in developing the BMPs: ~truct-rA1 Control s Structural controls such as first flush diversion, detention/retention basins, infiltration trenches/basins, porous pavement, oil/grease separators, grass swales, wire concentrators, etc. Engineering and design modification of the existing structures should also be considered. Non-Structural Controls ii. Programs to educate the public on proper disposal of hazardous/toxic wastes. These may include public workshops, meetings, notifications by mail, collection programs for household hazardous wastes, etc. iii. Management practices such as street sweeping, proper maintenance of streambanks, erosion control structures, etc. iv. Regulatory approaches such as county and local ordinances, permitting of construction sites, etc. Enforcement progra~sestablished by the county and cities, including field inspections and response to emergency incidents. vi. The ongoing program required in Item No. V. above for the detection and elimination of illicit connectionsandcontrolling/eli~inating illegal dumping of pollutants into storm drain systems. An implementation plan for site-specific BMPs which are required to reduce pollutants in,he stormwater discharges from residential, commercial and industrial areas, and construction sites. Requirements for the implementation of BMPs at these sites are described as follows: O~dar No. g0-46 -P&go 16 of 31- t. New Construction Sites All industrial/commercial co~atruction operations that result in a disturbance of one acre or more of total land area (or a smaller parcel of land which is a part of-a larger common development) and residential construction sites that result in a disturbance of five acres or more of total land area (or a smaller parcel of land which is a part of a larger common development) shall be required to develop and implement BMPs to control erosion/siltation and contaminated runoff from the construction site· ii. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Sites To prevent the increase of pollutants in stormwater discharges, all new developments and existing facilities with significant redevelop- ment must develop individual post construction long-term comprehensive stormwater management plans. A description of the legal authorities for implementing the programs, and a proposed time schedule for obtaining such legal authorities, if necessary; and e. A description of staff, equipment, and funds available to implement the programs. The permittees shall submit the BMPs so developed, along with a time schedule for implementation, for the approval by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board no later than March 31, 1993. By March 31, 1994 and every year thereafter, the permittees shall submit a progress report assessing the reduction of pollutants discharged to waters of the United States and evaluating the effectiveness of the BMPs developed for the stormwater and urban runoff discharges· The permittees shall also include recommended BMP modifications, with a time schedule for implementation, needed to achieve compliance with any water quality objectives not attained. VII. STORMWATER/URBAN RUNOFF MONITORING PROGRAM The permittees shall develop and implement (after approval of the plan by the Executive Officer) a stormwater/urban runoff monitoring program. Proposed monitoring programs and time schedules for their implementation shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Officer. Proposed monitoring Order No, 90-46 -~&ge l? of 31- programs, time schedules, and implementation repor~cs shall be submitted to the principal per~ittee in sufficient time to submit a collated report to ~he Regional Board as follows: STORMWATFR MONITORING Submittal of Proposed Stormwater Monitoring Programs and Implementation Time Schedules 03/31/93 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Stormwater Monitoring Programs 03/31/94, * and annually thereafter VIII.RECEIVING WATER MONITORING PROGRAM The permittees shall develop and implement (after approval of the plan by the Executive Officer) a receiving water monitoring program. Proposed monitoring programs and time schedules for their implementation shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Officer· Proposed monitoring programs, time schedules, and implementation reports shall be submitted to the principal permittee in sufficient time to submit a collated report to the Regional Board as follows: IX. R~C~IVING WATER MONITORING Submittal of Proposed Receiving Water Monitoring Programs and Implementation Time Schedules 03/31/93 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Receiving Water Monitoring Programs * and annually thereafter FISCA?. ~NA?.YSIS By July 31, 1991 and every year thereafter, a fiscal analysis of the capital and operation and maintenance expenditures necessary to accomplish the activities of the proposed plans and programs shall be ~erformed. By August 31, 1991 and every year thereafter, a fiscal analysis of the capital and operation and maintenance expenditures shall be submitted for review by EPA and the Regional Board. mATA ANA?.YSIS The results of the chemical analysis and ~uantitative data (such as flow, precipitation, end discharge data) Order No, ~0-46 -Paqe 18 of 31- shall be compiled for each drainaqe area, each storm event, and for different times during ~he eame storm event. The mass loading rates for ~he pollutants of concern shall be calculated and any impact of stormwater and urban runoff discharges on the receiving waters shall be discussed, starting with the most sign/ficantly impacted receiving waters. With the implementation of the receiving water monitoring program, an evaluation shall be performed for the calculated pollutant loading rates from the stormwater and urban runoff monitoring program and the receiving water monitoring program. The evaluation shall be concluded with recommendations and the corrective actions. proposed for any resulting discrepancies. By January 31, 1994 and every year thereafter, the analysis of all the above data shall be submitted. XI. PROGRAM ANAT~SIS No later than January 31, 1994, and annually thereafter, the principal permittee shall conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of the overall stormwater management program. If the water quality objectives of the receiving waters are violated as a result of stormwater/urban runoff dimcharges, the principal permittee shall identify proposed programs which will result in the attainment of the water quality objectives, and a time schedule to implement the new programs. XII. ?MPr.~MENTATION AGREEMENT A signed copy of the Implementation Agreement between the RCFC&WCD, 1:he County of Riverside, and the City of 'Temecula shall be submitted by January 31, 1991. Any revisions to the Implementation Agreement shall be forwarded to the Executive Officer within 30 days of approval by all the permittees. XIII.REPORTING A s-mmary of tasks to be completed and reports submitted is as follows: (continued on the following page) Order No. 90-46 -Page 19 of V.l.a VI.i&2 VII.i&2 VIII.I&2 Implementation Agreement Existing reports and programs Proposed Reconnaissance Survey Field Manual Proposed Implementation Plan for Prosecuting Illegal Dischargers Management Programs (BMPs) and Implementation Plan Stormwater Monitoring Program Plan Receiving Water Monitoring Program Plan. COMPLIANCE ~.PORT DUF. -'01/31/91 03/31/92 09/30/92 03/31/93 03/31/93 03/31/93 03/31/93 V.l.b. V. VI. 3 VII. 3 VIII. 3 IX. X&XI Progress Reports after Plan Implementation Reconnaissance Survey Progress Report Illegal Discharge Elimination Progress Report ....... Management Programs Progress Report Stormwater Monitoring Program Progress Report Receiving Water Monitoring Program Progress Report Fiscal Analysis Data/Program Analysis 09/30 of every yea~ 09/30 of 03/31 of every year5 03/31 of 03/31 of every year7 o8/31 every yJJ 01/31 everyyear~ 3 The first progress report is due by September 30, 1993. The first progress report is due by September 30, 1994. The first progress report: is due by March 31, 1994. The first progress report is due by March 31, 1994. The first progress report is due by March 31, 1994. The first annual fiscal analysis is due by August 31, 1991. The first data/program analysis is due by January 31, 1994. Order ~o. ~0-46 -Page 20 of Be All reports and'information required herein shall be submitted to the Executive Officer of 'c~e Regional Board and the Regional Director of the Environmental Protectl0h Agency, Region IX, at the following addresses: Executive Officer - California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., St.. B San Diego, California 92124-1331 Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Permits and Compliance Branch' 1235 Mission Street (Mail Code W-5) San Francisco, California 94103 XIV. ANA!.YTICAT. HETHODS/B~.CORD KI~.F. PING Ae Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. Once established, monitoring points shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of t. he Executive Officer. Monitoring muat4~e oo~ducted mooording to United States Environmental Protection Agency test procedures approved under Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 136, #Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act' as amended, unless other test procedures have been specified by this Order or the Executive Officer. Ce All analyses shall beperformed.in a laboratorycertified to perform such analyses by the California Department of Health Services or a laboratory approved by the Executive Officer. 'D. Monitoring results must be reported on discharge monitoring report forms or in a format approved by the Executive Officer. If a permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this Order, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR, Part 136, or as specified in this Order, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the permittee's monitoring report. The increased frequency of monitoring shall also be reported. Permittees shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all Order No. 00-46 -Page 21 or 31- reports required by this Order, and records of all data used to complete the application for this Order. Records shall be maintained for a minimua of five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application. This period may be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding this discharg~ or when requested by the Regional Board Executive Officer. G. Records of monitoring information shall include: He 4. 5. 6. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements; The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; The date(s) analyses were performed; The individual(s) who parleyed analyses; The analytical techniques or method used; and The results of such analyses. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the Executive Officer or in this Order. All monitoring instruments and devices used by a permittoe to fulfill the proscribed uonitori~ program shall be properly maintained and calibrated as necessary to ensure their continued accuracy. Permittees shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Standard Reporting Requirement XVI. E. of ..this Order at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Standard Reporting Re~uiruent XVI. E. The monitoring reports shall be signed by an authorized person as required by Standard Reporting Requirement L. Me A composite sample is defined as a combination of at least 8 sample aliquots of at least 100 milliliters each, collected at periodic intervals during the operating hours of a facility over a 24-hour period. For volatile pollutants, aliquots must be combined in the laboratory immediately before analysis. The composite must be flow proportional; either the time interval between each aliquot or the volume of each aliquot must be proportional to either the stream flow at the time of sampling or the total stream flow since the collection of the previous aliquot. Aliquots may be collected manually or automatically. A grab sample is an individual sample of at least 100 milliliters collected at a randomly selected time over a period not exceeding 15 minutes. Order ~4o. 90--46 LPago 22 of 31- PROV?SIONS A. Neither the treatment nor the discharge of pollutants shall create a pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by Section 13050 of the California Wa~er Code. The permittees must comply with all conditions of this Order. Any permit noncompliance consti:utes a violation of the Clean Water Act and the California Water Code and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; the issuance of an individual permit; or for denial of a renewal application. The permittees shall take ell reasonable steps to minimize or correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting from noncompliance with this Order, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. De This Order may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause including, but not limited to, %he following: 1. Violation of any terms or conditions of this Order; Obtaining this Order by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; or e A change in any condition that ~quires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the discharge. The filing of a reguestby a permittee for modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination of this Order or a notification of planned change in or anticipated noncompliance with this Order does not stay any condition of this Order. In addition to any other grounds specified herein, this Order shall be modified or revoked at any time if, on the basis of any new data, the Executive Officer determines that continued discharges may cause unreasonable degradation of the ac~uatic environment. This Order is not transferable to anyperson except after notice to the Executive Officer of this Regional Board. The Regional Board may require a new report of waste discharge to change the name of a Permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under %he California Water Code and %he Clean Water Act. A permittee shall submit notice of any transfer of this O~der No. 90-46 -Page 23 of Order'a responsibility and coverage to a new permittea as described under Standard Reporting Requirement XVI.C. This Order does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privileges. The requirements prescribed herein do not authorize the.commission of any act causing injury to persons or property of another. including property damage caused as a result of the discharge. nor protect the permittee from liability under federal. state. or local laws. nor crea~e a vested right for the permittee to continue the discharge. Permittees shall allow the Regional Board, or an authorized representative or any representative of the United States Environmental Protection Agency upon the' presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to: Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this Order; Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this Order; Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices or operation regulated or required under this Order; and Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring compliance vith this Order or &s o~.herwise authorized by the Clean Water Act or California Water Code, any substances or parameters at any location· Permittees shall, at all times, properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by a permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Order. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls including appropriatequality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or similar systems only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Order. In an enforcement action, it shall not be a defense for a permittee that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain Order No, 90°46 -,:Page 24 of 31- compliance with this Order. Upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility, the permittee shall, to %he extent necessary to maintain compliance;with this Order, control production or all discharges, or both, until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This provision app/ies, for example, when the .primary source of power of the treatment facility fails, is reduced or is lost. Ko The provisions of this Order are severable, and if any provision of this Order, or the application of any provision of this Order to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of %his Order, shall not be affected %hereby. L. Bypass of Treatment Facilities 1. Definitions (a) "Bypass'" means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of the treatment facility. (b) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which cause them %o beco~e-~erable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in t~he absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. 2. mvpass Not Rxceeding Rff~uent T.{mitations A permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operations. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of this section. Notice of Anticipated BYPass and Unanticipated P~)ass (a) Anticipated bypass. If a permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, %hey shall submit prior notice, if possible, at least ten days before the date of the bypass. (b) Unanticipated bypass. A permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as described under Standard Reporting Requirement XVI. E. Order No. 90-46 -Page 25 of 31- 4, Prohi~it~on of %yDASS Bypass is prohibited and the Regional Board may take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass, unless: (1) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; (2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated waste, or maintenance during normalperiods of equipment downtime. This. condition is not satisfied if the permittee could have installed adequate backup equipment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and (b) (3) The permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph (3) of this section. The Executive Officer may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effect, if the Executive Officer determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in paragraph (1) of this section. M. Upset Conditions 1. Definitions "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of a permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 2. Rffect of an Upset An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph (3) of this Order No. 90-46 -'Page 26 of 31-. section are Bet. No deteraination~ade during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, And before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to Judicial review. 3. Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: (a) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset; (b) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; and (c) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Standard Reporting Requirement XVI. E. 4. ~urden ~f-Proof --. In any enforcement proceeding, a permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. XVI. STANDARD PRPORTING REOUIREMI~.NTS Ao A new Report of Waste Discharge shall be filed with the Regional Board not less than 180 days prior to the following: Significant change in disposal method (e.g., change in the method of treatment which would significantly alter the nature of the waste)· Significant change in disposal area (e.g., moving the discharge to a disposal area significantly removed from the original area, potentially causing different water quality or nuisance problems). Be Other circumstances which result in a material change in character, amount, or location of the waste discharge. A permittee shall give advance notice to the Executive Officer of any planned changes in a permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with the requirements of this Order. Older 14o. 90-46 -Paqs 27 of Ge A permittee must notify the Executive Officer, in writing, at least 30 days in advance of anN proposed transfer of this Order's responsibility and coverage to a new permittee. The notice must include a written agreement between the existing and new ~ermittee containing a specific date for the transfer of this Order's responsibility and coverage between the current permittee and the new permittee. This agreement shall include an acknowledgement that the existing permittee is liable for violations up to the transfer date and that the new permittee is liable from the transfer date on. The permittees shall comply with any monitoring and reporting requirements contained in this Order and any additional monitoring requirements specified by the Executive Officer. A permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally to the Executive Officer within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if ~he ~oncompliance has not been ~rrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. The Executive Officer, or an authorized representative may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 hours. A permittee shall notify the Executive Officer as soon as it is known or ~here is reason to believe: That any activity has occurred or which will occur which would result in the discharge of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in this Order, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following Nnotification levelaN: a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/L); Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/L) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/L) for 2.4- dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4, 6- dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter (1 rag/L) for antimony. A permittee shall furnish to the Executive Officer, within a reasonable time, any information which the Executive Officer may request to determine whether cause Order #o. g0-45 ~Page 28 of 31- exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Order or to determine compliance vi~h this Order or o~her requirements established by the Executive Officer. A permittee shall also furnish to the Executive Officer, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Order· . A permittee shall provide adequate notice to the Executive Officer of the following: 1. Any new introduction of pollutants to the discharge. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into the discharge.. For the purpose of this provision, adequate notice shall include information on (a) the quality and quantity of waste introduced into the discharge, · and (2) any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of runoff to be' discharged to surface waters· Where a permittee becomes aware that he failed to submit any relevant facts in a Report of Waste Discharge, or submitted incorrect information in a Report of Waste Discharge, or in any ~e~x)rt to the Regional Board; he shall promptly submit such facts or information. Jo If a need for a discharge bypass is known in advance, the permittee shall submit prior notice and, if at all possible, such notice shall be submitted at least ten days prior to the date of the bypass. KO This Order expires on July 16, 1995. The p~rmittees must Jointly file-a Report of Waste Discharge in accordance with Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations not later than 180 days in advance of such expiration date as application for issuance of new waste discharge requirements. This report of waste discharge shall include as a minimum, the following: 1. Summary of the results of the monitoring program. Summary ofBMPs implemented and evaluations of their effectiveness. Summary of procedures implemented to detect illegal discharges and illicit disposal practices and an evaluation of their effectiveness. Summary of measures implemented to control pollutants in surfacerunoff from construction sites and an evaluation of their effectiveness· OL.~SeF No, 90-46 .-,Page 29 of 32- ~aluation of the ne~d for additional 194Pc, source control, and/or structural control measures. Proposed plan of stormwater/urban runoff quality management activities that will be undertaken during the term of the next permit. - Le All applications, reports, 'or information submitted to the Executive Officer of this Regional Board shall be signed and certified. The Report of Waste Discharge shall be signed as follows: Pot · corporstion - by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice- president. be For s partnership or sole proprietorship - by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively. For s municipalit~, state, federal or other public agency - by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. All other reports required by this Order and other information requested by the Executive Officer shall be signed by a person designated in paragraph (1) of this provision, or by a duly authorized representative of that person. An individual is a duly authorized representative only if: The ·uthorization Is made in writing by a person described in paragraph (1) of ~hts provision; The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or well field, superintendent, or position of equivalent responsibility (a duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position); and The written authorization is submitted to the Executive Officer. Any person signing a document under this Section shall make the following certification: Order No, 90-46 -Page 30 of 31- "I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in -~his document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals i~ediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that ~here are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment." Me Except for data determined to be confidential under Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations Part (40 CFR Part 2), all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this Order shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. As required by the Clean Water Act, Reports of Waste Discharge, this Order, and effluent data shall not be considered confidential. XVII. NOTIFICATIONS A. California Water Code Section 13263(g) states: "No discharge of waste into the waters of the state, whether or not such discharge is made pursuant to waste discharge requirements, shall create a vested right to continue such discharge. All discharges of waste into waters of the state are privileges, not rights." Be The Clean Water Act provides that any ~erson who violates a condition of this Order implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Clean Water Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such violations. Any person who willfully or negligently violates conditions of this Order implementing Section 301, 302, 306, 307 or 308 of the Clean Water Act is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this Order, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, Order No. -Page 31 of Do Ee or by bo~h. Nothing in this Order shall permittee from civil or noncompliance. be construed to ;relieve a criminal penalties for Nothing in this Order shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal ~ction or relieve a permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which a permittee is or may be subject to under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Nothing in this Order ehall be construed to preclude institution of any legal action or relieve a permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Clean Water Act. Go This Order shall become effective ten days after the date of its adoption, provided the Regional Administrator or Director, United States Environmental Protection Agency, has no objection. If the Regional Administrator objects to its issuance, this Order shall not become effective until such objection is withdrawn. I, Arthur L. Coe, Executive Officer, do hereby foregoing is a full, true, and correct adopted by ,the California Regional Board, San Diego Region, on July 16, certify the copy of an Order Water Quality Control ARTHUR L. COE Executive Officer ~. ITEM NO. 15 rIRDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5755 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-SC {MANUFACTURING-SERVICE COMMERCIAL) TO C-P-S {SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ON 6.2 NET ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DIAZ AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROADS, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-020-058 AND 059. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City-Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 5755 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of .1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks. Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] A:CZ5755-A.CC 3 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO: 7 CHANGE OF ZONE NO: ORDINANCE NO: 91- 5755 ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 13, 1991 Change of Zone No. 5755 Steve Jiannino Planning Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT Findings for DeMinimis Impact Fee 2. CONDUCT First Reading of Ordinance No. 91- read by title only adopting the proposed Zone Change contained in Change of Zone No. 5755. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: Bedford Properties HR Engineering, Inc. Change of Zone from M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) to C-1/C-P (General Commercial) on an 8 acre site. Northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads. M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) A:CZ5755-A.CC 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-R/ (Rural Residential) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) R-R (Rural Residential) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: BACKGROUND: C-1/C-P (General Commercial) Vacant At the July 23, 1991 City Council meeting, the City Council approved Change of Zone No. 5755 and directed Staff to prepare an Ordinance for the adoption of the Zone Change. Staff has prepared the Ordinance for City Council action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT Findings for DeMinimis Impact Fee CONDUCT the First Reading of Ordinance No. 91- read by title only adopting the proposed zone change contained in Change of Zone No. 5755. SJ:ks Attachments: Ordinance No. 91- A:CZ5755-A.CC 2 CALZFORNXII DEPARTIiENT OF FZBR ,%MD GiAXB CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location [Name and Address of Project Proponent] (include county): CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5755 N.W. CORNER OF DIAZ & RANCHO CALIF. RD. TEMECULA, CA. 92590 BEDFORD PROPERTIES 27405 YNEZ TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE CO., CA. 92592 Project Description: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL) TO C1/CP (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ON 8 ACRES. Findings of Exemption {attach as neeezsai¥ [required findings]}: A) AN INITIAL STUDY WAS COMPLETED TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (SEE ATTATCHED INITIAL STUDY). B) THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN CONSIDERING THE WHOLE RECORD, FINDS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE THE POTENIAL FOR AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON WILDLIFE RESOURCES~OR THE HABITAT ON WHICH WILDLIFE DEPENDS. Certification: I hereby certify that the public [lead] agency has made the above finding [findings of fact] and that [based upon the initial study and hearing record] the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. (Chief Planning Official) Title: SENIOR PLANNER L~ad Agency CITY OF TEMECULA Date AUGUST 13,1991 FG 7~3.5 (1/91) CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Bedford Properties Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Box 755 Temecula, CA 92390 Date of Environmental Assessment: March 18, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Chanqe of Zone No. 5755 e Location of Proposal: Northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads 7. Proposal: Chanqe of Zone from M-SC Manufacturinq - Service Commercial ) to C1-CP {General Commercial) on Acres. II Environmental Impacts {Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X be Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X A:CZ5755 8 Yes Maybe No Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? be The creation of objectionable odors? Ce Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? be Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Ce Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? de Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ee Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 9 Yes Maybe No .... - CJ' he Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life, Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Ce Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? de Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life, Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 10 ...... Yes Maybe No e e 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ae A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ae Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 11 Yes Maybe No ......... 15. 16. Ce de Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? ee Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? be Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 12 Yes Maybe No 17. 18. be 19. 20. Communications systems? Water? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ae Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. ae Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? bo Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Ce Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? de Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X X X X A:CZ5755 13 Yes Maybe No ..... 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ae 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 or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Ce Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X A:CZ5755 14 ..... III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1 .a-g. 3.a-i. 4.a-d. 5.a-c. 6.a,b. 7. 8. 9.a,b. 10.a,b. 11. 12. 13.a-f. 14.a-f. 15.a,b. 16. a-f. 17.a,b. 18. 19. 20.a-d. No. No project is proposed at this time, therefore no impacts will occur at this time. The proposed change from Manufacturing Service Commercial to General Commercial should not result in any increased impacts. Necessary infrastructure already exist in the area. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. The site is shown on the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) as commercial. The SWAP is currently being used as a General Plan Guideline. The area currently has major infrastructure around the site including sewers, water, and commercial industrial roadways. No. See Item 1 above. No. The commercial only use would eliminate some possible manufacturing uses currently allowed within the existing zone which would reduce the potential impacts. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. Major circulation roadways currently exist around the site. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 10 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. The site is not currently shown as a recreational site and the commercial use will not increase the demand for recreational areas. No. See Item 1 above. A:CZ5755 15 No. No project is proposed at this time. The infrastructure to support a wide range of commercial activities currently exist around the site. Therefore, no significant impacts should occur from this project. A:CZ5755 16 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILl BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A: CZ5755 17 ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: City Council FROM: David F. Dixon CITY OF TEMECUI-A AGENDA REPORT DATE: SUBJECT: August 7, 1991 WCM & Associates Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the consulting contract with WCM & Associates (Bill Mecham) for a six-month period through December 1991. STAFF REPORT: Bill Mecham has been a consultant for the City and has been associated with the establishment of our sphere of influence and the City's annexation program. He was hired by Frank Alshire and has continued those services over the past year. Attached you will find a brief Outline of his work program. You will note that it concentrates primarily on the sphere of influence and annexation. FINANCIAl- IMPACT: Mr. Mecham has identified his compensation which is billed out at $95 per hour. This contract, as outlined, falls within the scope of the budget and the contract will not exceed $21,000. WCM & Associates 2130 Via Aguila San Clemente, CA 92672 (714) 361-3585 (714) 361-3656 FAX TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Dave Dixon City Manager, City of Temecula Bill Mecham Proposal for continuation of consulting services July 24, 1991 Pursuant to your request I submit the following as a work program and compensation schedule for continued services related to the annexation of various properties to the City of Temecula: WORK PROGRAM * Continued liaison with City Council sub committee and city staff on annexation and airport issues Continued liaison and negotiation with property owners who are interested in annexation to the City of Temecula Continued liaison with groups and individuals with interest in French Valley Airport Assist city staff in preparation of all documentation necessary for approval process of pre-annexation agreements, applications to LAFCO, presentations to planning commission and City Council and other related tasks Other duties as assigned by the City Manager and or the City Council This agreement shall have a commencement of July 1, 1991 and terminate on December 31, 1991. COMPENSATION Total compensation for the tasks outlined above shall not exceed $21,000 (twenty one thousand dollars) for the entire period of the agreement nor shall it exceed $4000 (four thousand dollars) in any one month during the term of the agreement. ITEM NO. 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ';~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 13, 1991 Plot Plan 29 and Parcel Map 26232 Scott Wright Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan 29 based on the analysis and findings in the attached staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Parcel Map 26232 based on the analysis and findings in the attached staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPL'ICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Wall Street Properties J. F. Davidson STAFFRPT\Pff29-A 1 PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: To create 17 commercial parcels and a 38.8 acre remainder parcel on a 70 acre site and to construct a multi-tenant commercial center with 214,650 square feet of gross floor area. The easterly side of Winchester Road north and south of Nicolas Road. Specific Plan No. 164, General Commercial Land Uses. North: South: East: West: Santa Gertrudis Creek Specific Plan No. 164, Residential Specific Plan No. 164, Commercial R-R, Rural Residential Not requested. Mostly vacant, some sand and gravel mining along Santa Gertrudis Creek. North: South: East: West: Santa Gertrudis Creek Residential Sand and Gravel Mining Winchester Road Site Area: Building Area: Maximum Building Height: Parking Spaces: Landscaped Area: 28.7 acres 214,650 sq.ft. 2 stories 1,276 38,709 sq.ft. On June 17, 1991, The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and adopted Resolutions recommending approval of Plot Plan 29 and Parcel Map 26232 by a vote of 5-0. No changes were made to the Plot Plan, the Parcel Map or the Conditions of Approval. STAFFRPT~PP'29-A ~. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan 29 based on the analysis and findings in the attached staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and SW:vgw ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Parcel Map 26232 based on the analysis and findings in the attached staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution for Plot Plan No. 29 Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 29 Resolution for Parcel Map No. 26232 Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map No. 26232 Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Staff Report for Plot Plan 29 Planning Commission Staff Report for Parcel Map 26232 $TAFFRPT~PP29-A 3 PP 29 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 29 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL CENTER, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NUMBERS 911-150- 027, 028, 029; 911-160-027, 029; 911-170-017; AND 919-350-053 WHEREAS, Wall Street Properties filed Plot Plan No. 29 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on June 17, 1991 ,at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Plot Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on August 13, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: STAFFRPT~PP29-A I PP 29 A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: $TAFFRPT~PP29-A 2 PP 29 ..... (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 29 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) The City Council, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: STAFFRPT~PP29-A 3 .... PP 29 a) b) c) d) e) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 29 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with state law in that the project is consistent with the existing Specific Plan land use designation for the site. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project is consistent with the existing Specific Plan land use designation for the site. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws in that the proposed uses comply with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with state planning laws in that the Plot Plan complies with the standards of Ordinance 348 and conforms to the Specific Plan land use designation for the site. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use and compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 348 in that landscaping, circulation layout, site access, and parking are in conformance with applicable requirements. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare in that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 4 PP 29 f) The proposal, as designed and conditioned, will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area and will not result in adverse traffic or aesthetic impacts to adjacent properties. g) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Reciprocal parking and access agreements are required. h) The site is not subject to any significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated by the measures incorporated as Conditions of Approval. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. j) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2._~. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 5 PP 29 SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No. 29 for the operation and construction of Multi-Tenant Commercial Center located at the east side of Winchester Road north of Nicolas Road subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4._~. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13 day of August, 1991. RONALD J PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK STAFFRPT~PP29-A 6 PP 29 .... ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: 29 Commercial Center with 214,650 square feet of floor area. 911-150-027, 028, 029 911-1 60-027, 029 911-170-017 919-350-053 Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a multi-tenant commercial center with approximately 196,500 square feet of gross floor area. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 29. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of 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. This approval shall expire on August 13, 1993. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 1 PP 29 The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 29 marked Exhibit 1, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated June 12, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated June 20, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. 10. A minimum of 1,276 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 1,276 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit 1. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. 11. A minimum of 26 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit 1. 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 STAFFRPT~PP29-A 2 PP 29 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health Rancho Water District School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Eastern Municipal Water District Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit 2. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit 2 (Color Elevations). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 3 PP 29 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 39 Class II bicycle rack spaces shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety 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 Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Exhibit 1, a land division shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance. STAFFRPT~PP29-A PP 29 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which shall describe how compliance with any required mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall pay all cost associated with all monitoring activities. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) 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 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). A consistency check will be required for all structures to ensure that they conform to approved typical elevations. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District shall be provided for all drive through lanes. 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 Director of Building and Safety. If any cultural or fossil resources are discovered during grading, the developer shall retain an archaeologist or paleontologist to supervise the recovery, recording, and preservation of the resources. The liquefaction mitigation recommended in the preliminary soils report shall be implemented. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 5 PP 29 Engineering Department PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 35. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; CalTrans; and Parks and Recreation Department. 36. The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 37. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 38. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 39. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 40. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. 41. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. STAFFRP~PP29-A 6 PP 29 42. 4-3. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. Street improvement plans, including parkway trees and street lights, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-of-way. Prior to issuance of any permits, application for a Development Permit shall be submitted per Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula. All requirements of this Ordinance shall be complied with as directed and approved by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way. Highway 79 The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). STAFFRP~PP29-A 7 PP 29 d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. 50. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District. 51. A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. 52. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 53. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damage caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 54. If deemed necessary, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from Riverside County Flood Control District to outlet storm flows directly into the flood control channel. 55. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 56. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. 57. Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel shall be under construction by A.D. 161 across the length of the project site prior to precise grading permit issuance 58. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 59. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 8 PP 29 60. A portion of the site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance 91- 12 of the City of Temecula and the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 61. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 62. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 63. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage, if required, shall be recorded. 64. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 9 65. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 66. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 67. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 68. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). 69. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. 70. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401. 71. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 72. This minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. 73. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. 74. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 75. In the event that construction of Winchester Road (Highway 79) improvements in conjunction with A.D. 161 have not begun, half width plus one 18 foot lane street improvements shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right- of-way per CalTrans letter dated September 16, 1990 (110'/134'), and an acceleration/deceleration lane shall also be provided as directed by CalTrans and the City Engineer. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 1 0 76. Nicolas Road shall be improved with 86 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (110'/86'). 77. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 78. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer for Nicolas Road, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. Plans shall also be designed for Winchester Road (Highway 79) if Assessment District 161 has not begun construction. 79. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Nicolas Road at Winchester Road and Nicolas Road at the approved entry point, and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 80. All signing, striping and traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the approved plans. STAFFRPT~PF'29-A I I RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J, NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF JUNE 20, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46°209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: SCOTT WRIGHT RE: PLOT PLAN #29 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fir~ Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2½x2½), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." PLOT PLAN 29 Page 2 e The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. e Install a supervised waterfow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UBC. 8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. 9. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 11. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 12. The two story office building with the outside drive thru and canopy, will require a minimum 13"6' vertical clearance. 13. 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist LC/tm 70: FROM: County of Riverside D~PARTMENT OFHEALTH DATE: RE: Board of Directors. Ralph H. Daily President Caaba F. Ko Sr Vice Presiden! James A, Darb.~ Douglas V. Kulberg Jeffrey L. Minkler Stephen M. SLIIa Richard D. Steffey Officers: John F. Hennigar Genera] Manager Phillip L Forbes Director of FinanLe. Treasurer Thomas R. McAlieater Director of Operat,~ns & Mmntenance Edward P. Le~pons Perry R. Louch Linde M. Fregoso McCormick, Kidmen & Bahtens Legal Counsel June 11, 1991 Mr. Robert Righetti City of Temecula Engineering Department 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Water Availability Parcel Map 26232 - Plot Plan 29 Roripaugh Village Dear Sir or Madam: 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. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ~ve Brannen.~~~~P- ~. Manager of Development Engineering SB:SD:ajt101 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician PM26232 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 26232 TO SUBDIVIDE A 70 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18 PARCELS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 911-150-027 , 028, 029;911-160-027, 029; 911-170-017, AND 919-450-053. WHEREAS, Wall Street Properties filed Parcel Map No. 26232 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on June 17, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Parcel Map; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Parcel Map on August 13, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Parcel Map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: STAFFRPT~PP29-A I PM 26232 A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: STAFFRP~PP29-A 2 PM26232 (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following' a) There is reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 26232 proposed will be consistent with the ~leneral plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 3 PM 26232 FINDINGS: e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the parcels are of adequate size to accommodate commercial structures in conformance with the Specific Plan and use designation. STAFFRIVI~PP29-A 4 PM 26232 c) d) e) f) g) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project conforms to the Specific Plan designation of the site for commercial land use. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule E, in that the required development standards and improvements are provided on the Parcel Map and the Plot Plan and in their Conditions of Approval. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density in that all lots are adequate to accommodate commercial structures and reciprocal parking and access agreements are required in the Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that mitigations for all potential impacts are incorporated in Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities in that all parcels will have adequate southern exposure. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 5 PM 26232 . h) All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic in that reciprocal parking and access agreements are required in the Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with the halt, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2_~. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3__~. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Parcel Map No. 26232, a 70 acre parcel subdivided into 18 parcels located on the ease side of Winchester Road North and South of Nicolas Road. A. Attachment 4, attached hereto. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 6 .... PM 26232 SECTION 4__.~. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of the Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK STAFFRPT~PP29-A 7 PM26232 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Parcel Map No: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: 26232 To create 16 commercial parcels on a 70 acre site. 911-150-027, 028, 029 911-160-027, 029 911-170-017 919-350-053 Planning Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is August 13, 1993. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. STAFFRP'r~PP29-A 1 ..... PM26232 All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated June 12, 1990, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated June 3, 1991, a copy of which is attached. 10. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the General Commercial zone. 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 Director of Building and Safety. 11. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. 12. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map 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. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. STAFFRPT~PP'29-A 2 PM 26232 13. The following notes shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan." The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the area within the 100-year floodplain. 14. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth herming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. dJ Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. STAFFRP~PP29-A 3 PM 26232 15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 16. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. 17. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. 18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. STAFFRPT~PP29-A PM 26232 19. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 26232, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. 20. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 21. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 22. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the City Attorney prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance, methods of maintaining the landscaped and parking areas, provisions for acceptance of and proper disposal of drainage from adjacent properties, maintenance required drainage facilities, and reciprocal access and parking easements. 23. No lot or unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of STAFFRPT~PP29-A 5 PM 26232 Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 24. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) 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 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). Engineerin9 Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 25. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; STAFFRPT~PP29-A 6 28232 -*-- CalTrans; and Parks and Recreation Department. 26. All road 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 City Engineer. 27. Nicolas Road shall be improved with 86 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (110'/86'). 28. North General Kearny Road shall be improved with 38 feet of half street improvement plus one 18' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 101 (100'/76'). 29. In the event that construction of Winchester Road (Highway 79) improvements in'conjunction with A.D. 161 has not begun, half-width plus one 18-foot lane street improvements shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right- of-way per CalTrans letter dated September 16, 1990 (110'/134'), and an acceleration/deceleration lane shall also be provided as directed by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Bonds may be posted in lieu of construction. 30. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 31. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Highway 79 and so noted on the final map with the exception of public street intersections and driveway accesses as approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans. 32. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 33. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage, if required, shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. $TAFFRP~PP29-A 7 .... * PM 26232 34. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 35. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. 36. A Notice of Intention to form or annex into the Temecula Community Service District, Service Level "C" (Landscape Maintenance), shall be submitted to TCSD. The engineering costs involved in District formation or annexation shall be borne by the developer. 37. Notice of Intention to form or annex into the Temecula Community Service District, Service Level "A" (Medians), shall be submitted to TCSD. The engineering costs involved in District formation or annexation shall be borne by the developer. 38. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. 39. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 8 PM26232 40. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. 41. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. 42. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. 43. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. 44. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 45. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 46. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 47. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). 48. The subdivider shall submit two prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 49. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 50. The subdivider shall submit two copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. STAFFRP~PP29-A 9 ...... . PM 26232 51. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 52. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 53. As deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. 54. The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. 55. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 56. Part of the site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Flood Damage Protection Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. 57. Part of the site is in an area identified on the flood hazards maps as Flood Zone B. All structures shall be protected from this hazard. 58. The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the area within the 100-year floodplain. 59. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 10 PM26232 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 60. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. 61. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. 62. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 63. Prior to any work being performed, an application for Development Permit shall be submitted per Flood Damage Protection Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula. All requirements of this Ordinance shall be complied with as directed and approved by the City Engineer. 64. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to Riverside County Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 65. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Highway 79 66. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. PRI(3R TO BUILDING PERMIT: 67. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. STAFFRPT~PP29-A I 1 PM 26232 68. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 69. Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements shall be under construction by A.D. 161 along project boundary. 70. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 71. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 72. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 73. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. STAFFRPT~PP29-A 12 PM 26232 Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 74. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Winchester Road (Highway 79), Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 75. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersections of Nicolas Road at Winchester Road, and Nicolas Road at North General Kearny Road, and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 76. All signing, striping and traffic signal improvements shall be installed and operational per the approved plans, with the exception that the traffic signal located at Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road shall be constructed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy of the final phase, or when signal warrants are met, whichever occurs first. STAI~RPT~PP'29-A 13 i .JUN I ~ '~! 16:57 Etlb, D cj,..o43 PAGE, 03 C/3.1 ;. r),~vid~nn Asqr, r~at~ Rancho ~l!r..~98~0 _. ~ hereby advise ~u ~!ati~ to the availability of ~anisary se~r for t~ above ~fe~nced proposeU develo~nt as The p~Oerty to be occvpi~ by t~e subJec: pro.sad develo~nt: --- IS ~5~I L~ ~thin t~e ~undary lines of this / ¥ I~rov~nt O(~tric~ No. U-a and ts eligible ~ rece(~ ~an(~ry S~r ~T ~ aE ~ to this Otstrtct's I~ove~nt District No, following ~fch il will bl eligible ~ ~ce!ve sanl~ry sewe~ ~t d~str~ct or oe~r prog~m ~o ~ fo~d and ~lemnted ~o~ for :he general area within wht:h thJ~ propo~ develo~n: 1 '~ateU. toll~ing which i: ~1! ~ eltg(ble tc ~ce(ve sanitary s~r service. The Coveloper con, laces all necessary flnanc~al and other a.-~epgemeqts therefore, as ~ete~Ined )y the District, ,(th the ~str(ct by Oece~o~ !g~2 ; ~at no LIMITING ~O~Z~S exist ~tch ~ ~Y~O t~is ~ o~f ~ ~i EF~Z~LT snd/or ~m~onably satisfied by the 0~strtct, *~¢h co~:(ons my include but ape not *~, acts of God, ~~ ~Y .~I~ or decisions, or legal actions ~nit~ated by otBersL If you have any q~s:ton~ or :~nts ~aa~tng the foregoing, do not ~esltate to ccntact t~i) office. P~nager of N~ Business provtded: PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 1NDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 Temecula City Hall 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA. 92390 ATTN: SCOTT WRIGHT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY . AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF JUNE 20, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 "; ':' ) -,~ ~J'; RE: PARCEL MAP #26232 The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments, all conditiona will be addressed on related plot plan. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By LAURA CABRAL, Fire Safety Specialist ljl PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 14. 15. PARCEL MAP 26232 AND PLOT PLAN 29 (PARCEL MAP 26232 ABOVE) 14.1& Proposal to create 15 commercial parcels and a 39 acre 15.1 remainder parcel on a 70 acre site and a proposal to construct a multi-tenant commercial center with 196,500 square feet of gross floor area. Located on the east side of Winchester Road North and South of Nicolas Road. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CMAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:50 P.M. MICHAEL PERRY, representing Wall Street Properties, 1250 Prospect Street, La Jolla, provided a brief summary of the proposed tenants of the project. TODD GRAHAM, Wall Street Properties, 1250 Prospect Street, La Jolla, answered various questions by the Commission about the project and it's access. COMMISSIONER HOAGL]%NDmoved to close the public hearing at 10:10 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration and Adopt Resolution No. 91- /next) approving Parcel Map No. 26232, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 10:10 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration and Adopt Resolution No. 91- {next) approving Plot Plan No. 29, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None APPE~T. NO. 14, PPA NO. 103 16.1 Proposal to appea~irector's decision to deny a sign application. Located-~44~95~.Motorcar Parkway. PCMI~6/17/91 -13- JUNE 18, 1991 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 29 Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: 1. RECOMMEND adoption of the Negative Declaration; and ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Plot Plan No. 29 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Wall Street Properties J. F. Davidson To construct a multi-tenant commercial center with 214,650 square feet of gross floor area on a 28.? acre site. The easterly side of Winchester Road north and south of Nicolas Road. Specific Plan No. 164. General Commercial Land Uses. North: South: East: West: Santa Gertrudis Creek Specific Plan No. 164, Residential Specific Plan No. 164, Commercial R-R, Rural Residential Not requested. Mostly vacant, some sand and 9ravel mining along Santa Gertrudis Creek. A: PP29 I SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: South: East: West: Santa Gertrudis Creek Residential Sand and Gravel Mining Winchester Road Site Area: Building Area: Maximum Building Height: Parking Spaces: Landscaped Area: 28.7 acres 21q,650 sq.ft. 2 stories 1,276 38,709 sq.ft. Plot Plan No. 29 was submitted to the City on May 8, 1990 concurrently with Parcel Map No. 26232. The Plot Plan was reviewed at the Preliminary Development Review Committee meetin9 of June 14, 1990, and the following information and materials were requested: additional loading zones and refuse enclosures shown on the site plan, color elevations, better architectural treatment of the rear elevations of the larger buildings, bicycle trails and an equestrian trail as shown in Specific Plan No. 16q, additional information regarding drainage, additional information on Assessment District 161 regarding road and drainage improvements, and a traffic study. The case planner met with the applicant's representative on July 8, 1990, and discussed a number of requirements includin9 submittal of a traffic study, approval of the California Department of Transportation for curb cuts on Winchester Road (State Highway 79), and a Tentative Parcel Map showin9 existing and proposed topographical contour lines. The California Department of Transportation letter dated September 6, 1990 stated that the Department opposed direct vehicular access to the site from the State Highway. City Staff met with representatives of the Department of Transportation and the applicant several times in an effort to resolve this issue. The Department of Transportation was initially resistant to the request for direct site access from Winchester Road. Finally, at a meeting on April 2q, 1991. the Department of Transportation agreed in principle to the existence and location of two driveways on Winchester Road, one north of Nicolas Road and one south of Nicolas Road. The third proposed driveway near the northwesterly corner of the site was deleted. The driveways are for right turns in and right turns out only, and the final design of the A:PP29 2 driveways and deceleration lanes shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Transportation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a multi-tenant commercial center consisting of a two story office building with 30,000 square feet of floor area, three restaurants with a total of 14,000 square feet, 4,038 square feet of service station/carwash space, and 166,580 square feet of commercial/retail space. ANALYSIS: Traffic Impacts The applicant submitted a traffic study evaluating the impacts of project generated traffic on the roadways which provide primary access to and from the project. The study area included Winchester Road from Roripaugh Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicolas Road from Winchester Road to General Kearny Road. The following off-site intersections were included in the analysis: Winchester and Nicolas, Winchester and Roripaugh, Winchester and Murrieta Hot Springs, Nicolas and Roripaugh, and Nicolas and General Kearny. The project is expected to generate 10,280 vehicle trips per day, 2% occurring in the AM peak hour and 8% in the PM peak hour. Much of this traffic will be a redistribution of existing traffic rather than new traffic which did not formerly exist. The redistribution of traffic will result in an increase in turning movements at Winchester and Nicolas and at site access driveways. A right turn pocket on Winchester at Nicolas. a left turn pocket on Nicolas at Winchester, and a left turn pocket on Nicolas at the center driveway access to the portion of the site north of Nicolas Road are provided. The projected future levels of service at the analyzed intersections will be the same with or without the project. All intersections operate at Level of Service [LOS) C or better, except for Winchester and Murrieta Hot Springs which operates at LOS E. With or without the project, projected traffic volumes will warrant the implementation of various roadway improvements, including widening Winchester Road to six lanes and signalizing the intersection of Nicolas and Winchester. Traffic movements at the central driveway access to the site on the north side of Nicolas Road will warrant the installation of a traffic signal at that location on Nicolas Road. The roadway improvements will be necessary as a result of traffic generated by other A: PP29 3 projects which are already approved and are not triggered by the proposed commercial development. Most of the needed improvements are already under design as part of Assessment District 161. If the proposed project is constructed prior to implementation of roadway improvements by the Assessment District, the developer shall be responsible for providing half street improvements plus one lane on Winchester Road, full street improvements on Nicolas Road, and signalization of the intersection of Nicolas and Winchester. Access Ingress and/or egress are provided by seven driveways. Two driveways are provided on Winchester Road, one north of Nicolas Road and one south of Nicolas Road. The driveways on Winchester Road are restricted by medians to right turn in and right turn out traffic only. The westerly driveway on the north and south sides of Nicolas Road are also restricted to right in and right out only. The easterly driveway on the south side of Nicolas has unrestricted access. The central driveway on the north side of Nicolas is the major point of site access and will have unrestricted access with two lanes for inbound traffic and two lanes for outbound traffic. The easterly driveway on the north side of Nicolas Road is restricted to right in and right out only and is primarily for delivery trucks. Parkinq The parking requirement for multi-tenant commercial centers is 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Based on a total floor area at 214,650 square feet. The project is required to provide 1,183 spaces; 1,276 spaces are provided, including 26 handicapped spaces. Liquefaction Potential The site is in an area designated as potentially susceptible to liquefaction, The preliminary soils report states that the potential for liquefaction on the site is considered to be low due to the depth to groundwater, the density of soils, and the predominant grain size, Implementation of the recommended mitigations ( removal and recompaction of soils) shall be a Condition of Approval, A:PP29 4 Cradinq and Drainaqe ..... The site will be graded to drain in a westerly direction and the runoff will be conveyed through a drainage facility on the westerly side of the site to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. The accompanying Parcel Map provides a 10 foot drainage easement along the west side of the site. The overall course of site drainage is not being altered. Flood Hazards The site is located in the 100 year flood plain of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Channel improvements in Santa Gertrudis Creek will be implemented by Assessment District 161. The developer is required to comply with City Ordinance 91-12 which may require clearance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency Landscapinq 38,709 square feet of landscaping are provided, including substantial amounts of perimeter landscaping. The landscaping satisfies the requirement to provide 5 to 8 feet of perimeter landscaping and substantial interior planting in the parking area including trees to provide shade for a substantial number of parking spaces. Architecture and Elevations The architectural style is Mediterranean with stucco in earth tones and mission tile roofs. Rhythm and variety are provided by varied roof treatment, cornices, trellises, window treatment, columns, arches, recessed accent tiles, ceramic tile bulkheads, and wood storefronts. There is adequate articulation to prevent a flat, monotonous appearance at the rear of the larger buildings. The decorative hardscape includes planters, tree wells, color and texture contrasts, and interlocking pavers. Biological, Archaeoloclical, and Paleontological Resources The site has already been disturbed by rough grading and there are no significant biological resources present. Payment of Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat habitat Conservation Fees shall be a Condition A: PP29 5 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: of Approval. It is unlikely that there are any cultural or paleontological resources which have not already been disturbed. However, if any cultural or fossil resources are discovered during grading, an archeologist or paleontologist shall be retained by the developer to supervise the recovery, recording, and preservation of the resources. The project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 16q which designates the site for commercial uses. An Initial Study was prepared for Plot Plan No. 29 which determined that the project will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated by measures which have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration. There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 29 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with state law in that the project is consistent with the existing Specific Plan land use designation for the site. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project is consistent with the existing Specific Plan land use designation for the site. e The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws in that the proposed uses comply with Ordinance No. 3~8 and the action complies with state planning laws in that the Plot Plan complies with the standards of Ordinance 3~8 and conforms to the Specific Plan land use designation for the site. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use and compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 3L~8 in that landscaping, A: PP29 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: o e circulation layout, site access, and parking are in conformance with applicable requirements. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare in that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures. The proposal, as designed and conditioned, will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area and will not result in adverse traffic or aesthetic impacts to adjacent properties. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Reciprocal parking and access agreements are required. The site is not subject to any significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated by the measures incorporated as Conditions of Approval. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. 10. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. RECOMMEND adoption of the Negative Declaration; and ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Plot Plan No. 29 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SW: ks A: PP29 7 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution 91- Conditions of Approval Negative Declaration Exhibits A, Vicinity Map B, Plot Plan A: PP29 8 RESOLUTION NO. 91 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 29 TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL CENTER ON A PARCEL CONTAININC 28.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-150-027, 028. 029; 911-160-027, 029; 911-170-017; AND 919-350-053. WHEREAS. Wall Street Properties filed Plot Plan No. 29 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances. which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS. the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on June 17, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS. the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. makes the following findings: That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 130) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: I1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. 12) The planning agency finds. in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: {a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. A: PP29 9 !b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, Ic) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan. as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan. (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan, C, The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan, 12) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No, 29 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: A: PP29 10 The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) The Planning Commission. in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings. to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 29 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with state law in that the project is consistent with the existing Specific Plan land use designation for the site. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project is consistent with the existing Specific Plan land use designation for the site. c) The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws in that the proposed uses comply with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with state planning laws. d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use and compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 348. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare in that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures. A: PP29 11 f) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area and will not result in adverse traffic or aesthetic impacts to adjacent properties. g) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. h) i) The site is not subject to any significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated. The design of the project and the type Of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. j) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 29 to construct a multi-tenant commercial center located at the northeast and southeast corners of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 911-150-027, 028, 029; 911-160-027, 029; 911-170- 017; and 919-350-053 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A. attached hereto. A: PP29 12 SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF 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 17th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: PP29 13 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1991 Case No.: Parcel Map No. 26232 Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: 1. RECOMMEND adoption of the Negative Declaration; and e ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Parcel Map No. 26232 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Wall Street Properties J. F. Davidson To create 15 commercial parcels ranging in size from 0.57 acre to 5.3 acres and a 38.8 acre remainder parcel. The easterly side of Winchester Road north and south of Nicolas Road. Specific Plan 164, General Commercial Land Uses North: South: East: West: Santa Gertrudis Creek Specific Plan 164, Residential Specific Plan 164, Commercial R-R (Rural Residential) Not requested. Mostly vacant, some sand and gravel mining along Santa Gertrudis Creek North: South: East: West: Santa Gertrudis Creek Residential Sand and Gravel Mining Winchester Road A: PM26232 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Size of Site: No. of Parcels: Size of Commercial Parcels: Size of Remainder Parcel: 70 acres 16 0.57 acre to 5.3 acres 38.8 acres Parcel Map No. 26232 was submitted on May 8, 1990 in conjunction with Plot Plan No. 29, a proposed multi-tenant commercial center on a portion of the 70 acre site of Parcel Map No. 26232. Parcel Map No. 26232 was reviewed at the Preliminary Development Review Committee meeting of June 14, 1990, and the following information was requested: easements for the equestrian trail and bicycle paths indicated by Specific Plan No. 164, the limits of the flood plain, a preliminary traffic study, and grading and drainage information. The Parcel Map was inactive for a number of months pending resolution of an issue with the California Department of Transportation regarding the proposed driveways on Winchester Road indicated on Plot Plan No. 29. The proposed land division will create 15 commercial parcels ranging from 0,57 acre to 5.3 acres in size and one 38.8 acre remainder parcel. Lot Size There is no required lot size for commercial parcels. All parcels are adequate to accommodate commercial str uct u res. Access Although all proposed parcels do not abut a dedicated public street, the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) will provide access for all parcels through provisions for reciprocal access and parking easements. Gradinq and Drainaqe The proposed commercial parcels will be graded to drain toward Winchester Road and into a drainage facility which will convey runoff to Santa Gertrudis Creek, An easement will be provided for the drainage facility along the westerly side of the site. A: PM26232 2 Equestrian Easement GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: In accordance with Specific Plan No. 16L~, a 15 foot wide equestrian easement is provided adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Flood Hazards The site is located in the 100 year flood plain of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Channel improvements in Santa Gertrudis Creek will be implemented by Assessment District 161. The developer is required to obtain clearance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency prior to issuance of permits. The proposed commercial land division is consistent with Specific Plan 164 which designates the site for commercial land uses. An Initial Study was prepared for Parcel Map No. 26232 which determined that the project will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated by measures which have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration. The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the parcels are of adequate size to accommodate commercial structures in conformance with the Specific Plan and use designation. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project conforms to the Specific Plan designation of the site for commercial land use. A: PM26232 3 e 10. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule E, in that the required development standards and improvements are provided on the Parcel Map and the Plot Plan and in their Conditions of Approval. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density in that all lots are adequate to accommodate commercial structures and reciprocal parking and access agreements are required in the Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that mitigations for all potential impacts are incorporated in Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities in that all parcels will have adequate southern exposure. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic in that reciprocal parking and access agreements are required in the Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. A: PM26232 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps. exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. RECOMMEND adoption of the Negative Declaration; and e ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Parcel Map No. 26232 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, SW: ks Attachments: 2. 3. q.. Resolution 91- Conditions of Approval Negative Declaration Exhibits: Vicinity Map B, Parcel Map A: PM26232 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PARCEL MAP NO. 26232 TO SUBDIVIDE A 70 ACRE PARCEL INTO 16 PARCELS AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF NICOLAS AND WINCHESTER ROADS ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 911-150-027, 028, 029; 911-160-027, 029; 911-170-017; AND 919-350- 053. WHEREAS, Wall Street Properties filed Parcel Map No. 26232 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on June 17, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan, (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time, A: PM26232 1 b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 26232 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. L~60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. A: PM26232 2 A: PM26232 b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the parcels are of adequate size to accommodate commercial structures in conformance with the Specific Plan and use designation. 3 c) d) e) f) g) h) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project conforms to the Specific Plan designation of the site for commercial land use. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule E, in that the required development standards and improvements are provided on the Parcel Map and the Plot Plan and in their Conditions of Approval. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density in that all lots are adequate to accommodate commercial structures and reciprocal parking and access agreements are required in the Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that mitigations for all potential impacts are incorporated in Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in recjard to future passive energy control opportunities in that all parcels will have adequate southern exposure. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic in that reciprocal parking and access agreements are required in the Conditions of Approval. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. A: PM26232 4 j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, proposed is compatible with the health, safety and community. the Parcel Map welfare of the SECTION 2_~. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project which determined that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment of the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project and a Negative Declaration, therefore. is hereby recommended. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel Map No. 26232 for the subdivision of a 70 acre parcel into 16 parcels located at northeast and southeast corners of Nicolas and Winchester Roads also known as Assesses Parcel Nos. 911-150-027,028,029; 911-160-027,029; 911-170-017; and 919- 350-053 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A: PM26232 5 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 17th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: PM26232 6 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backclround 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: e Date of Environmental Assessment: Agency Requiring Assessment: Name of Proposal, if applicable: Location of Proposal: Wall Street Property Co. 1250 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92038 (619) q5~-886L[ May 17, 1991 CITY OF TEMECULA Plot Plan No. 29 and Parcel Map No. 26232 Northeast and southeast corners of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road II Environmental Impacts Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ae be Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructuresT Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X ee Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X A:PP29 Yes Maybe No Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides. mudslides. ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? be The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? be Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? de Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity? fe Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X A: PP29 2~ Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants lincluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare. or endangered species of plants? Ce Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? de Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals {birds, land animals including rep- tiles. fish and shellfish. benthic organisms or insects)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Ce Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes X X Maybe No X X X X X X X X A: PP29 25 Yes Maybe No e 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources, Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ae A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances {including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ae Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X X A: PP29 26 15. 16. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Ce Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? fw Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? de Parks or other recreational facilities? ee Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes X X X X Maybe No X X X X X X X X X A: PP29 27 Yes Maybe No 17, 18. 19. 20. b, Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health, Will the proposal result in: ao Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard {excluding mental health)? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation, Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. ae Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? de Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X X X X A: PP29 28 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ae 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 or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? [A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project~s impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe No X X X X A: PP29 29 .... III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1 oa, 1 .b. 1 .c,d. 1.fo 1.g. Air No. The project will not create an unstable earth condition or change the geologic substructure. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction and overcovering. This impact is not considered significant. No. Since the site was previously mass graded, there will not be a substantial change in topography. There are no unique physical or geological features on the site. Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after grading. After construction of the project, water run-off is likely to increase due to the addition of impermeable surfaces. Appropriate drainage control devices approved by the Engineering Department will be required. Yes. The northern portion of the proposed project extends into the channel of the Santa Gertrudis Creek. During construction, an increase in deposition and erosion will occur within the intermittent creek. Any alteration to the creek bed is subject to Assessment District 161 improvement plans and the affiliated Army Corps of Engineers permit. Yes. The area is designated as potentially susceptible to liquefaction. The soils report for the site states that the potential for liquefaction on the site is low due to the depth of the water table. The density of the soils, and the predominant grain size. The report recommends removal and recompaction of loose soils to further reduce the potential for liquefaction. Yes. The proposed project will generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site. The increased vehicle trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions and particulates in the area. However, since the ambient air quality in the project vicinity is currently very good due to the local wind patterns, this potential impact is not considered significant. The proposed project will not by itself deteriorate the local area~s air quality or regional air quality, but will add to the cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the area. Some of the project generated traffic may simply represent a redistribution of traffic which would otherwise have a different destination. A: PP29 30 Water oae 3.b. 3oce 3.d. oeo 3.f,g. Plant Life ~.a-d. No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or alter the areas climate, Yes. The northern portion of the project site extends into the Santa Gertrudis Creek bed. The creek bed is being channelized per the requirements of Assessment District 161 and the affiliated Army Crops of Engineers permits. The creek bed improvements will mitigate any potential adverse impacts to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Yes. Addition of impermeable surfaces will alter absorption rates and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Drainage facilities shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. Major drainage patterns will not be altered. These impacts are not considered significant. The site is located in the 100 year flood plain of Santa Gertrudis Creek. The project will not affect the direction or rate of flow of flood waters. All grading and drainage facilities shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer and the Assessment District 161 channel improvement plans for Santa Gertrudis Creek. No. The proposed project will not affect the amount of surface water in the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Major drainage patterns will not be changed. Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity in local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered significant. No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground water. There will be no significant impact on the aquifer due to excavation, or direct addition to or withdrawals from the ground water. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water supply. No. The Riverside County General Plan Flood Hazard Map shows the subject site within a 100 year flood plain. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer and the Assessment District 161 channel improvement plans for Santa Gertrudis Creek. No. The subject site is currently undeveloped but was mass graded. There is very little natural vegetation left on the site. What does exist if primarily native weeds. The proposed use will not impact plant life in the area. New species of plants will be introduced to the site as part of the landscape requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact. The site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes. A: PP29 31 Animal Life .a. No. Since the subject site has previously been graded and considered disturbed, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will change the diversity of animal species or the number of animals in the_area. 5.b,c. Yes. The subject site is located within the area designated by Riverside County as habitat for the endangered Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat. The impact of building within the Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat habitat will be mitigated through paying fees which will be used toward implementing Riverside County~s Habitat Conservation Plan. Noise .8. Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Hours of construction are limited to daytime hours. This temporary impact is not considered significant. Long term noise impacts will increase due to increased traffic volumes. A noise level of 65 CNEL at a distance of 1~5 feet from the center line of Nicolas Road is anticipated at buildout at the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan Area in which the project is located. This could affect residential neighborhoods adjacent to Nicolas Road. No lots will take direct access from Nicolas Road, and perimeter walls will be adequate to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels. 6.b. No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project. Liqht and Glare Yes. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor I LPSV) lights to help avoid interference with the Mr. Palomar telescope known as "skyglow". The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project. In addition, all lights shall be directed on-site and not off-site. These measures will reduce light impacts to a level of insignificance. Land Use No. Specific Plan No. 16tt designates the site for commercial land uses. The project is consistent with the Specific Plan land use designation. Natural Resources 9.a,b. No. The proposed project will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural resource, A: PP29 32 Risk of Upset 10.a. Maybe. The proposed project includes a service station which involves the use of explosive fuel. The potential for upset is addressed by the requirement for fuel storage facilities to comply with the Uniform Fire Code. 10.b. Maybe. If construction requires temporary blocking of any street lanes, the developer shall coordinate with the Police and Fire Departments. Population 11. No. The proposed project will not alter any aspect of the area~s population. The employment opportunities generated by the project will not be significant in terms of inducing substantial population growth. Housinq 12. No. The proposed project will not affect the existing housing stock or create a significant demand for additional housing. Transportation/Circulation 13.a. Yes. The proposed commercial project will generate substantial volumes of additional traffic on the streets in the vicinity, The impacts of the additional traffic on the levels of service of streets in the vicinity will be mitigated by improvements to be implemented by Assessment District 161. 13.b. No. The proposed project is required to provide its own off street parking. The project shall be required to meet the parking requirements of the adopted City code. 13.c,e. No. The proposed project will not affect existing transportation systems, waterborne, rail or air traffic. 13.d. No. The project will not alter existing patterns of circulation. 13.f. No. Street improvements implemented by Assessment District 161 will mitigate the potential for traffic hazards which may result from additional traffic generated by the project. Public Services l~.a,b, e,f. Yes. The proposed commercial project will require public services in the areas of police, fire and maintenance of roads and public facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing need for services over the long term. A: PP29 33 No. The proposed project will not generate enough jobs to significantly impact the area~s population, As a result. there will not be a significant impact to schools or parks, Enerqy 15.a,b. No, The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy, Utilities ' 16,a-f, No. The proposed project require the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the existing systems, Human Health 17 .a,b. No, The proposed project will not create any health hazards or expose people to any undue health hazards, Aesthetics 18. No. The site will be adequately landscaped, and building elevations will not result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive view. Recreation 19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses. Cultural Resources 20.a. Maybe. Since the EIR for Specific Plan 16t~ included an archaeology study, an additional study is not required. However, due to the project~s vicinity to Santa Gertrudis Creek, cultural resources sites may still be unearthed during grading. If a site is discovered during grading, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be called on- site to determine if the site is significant or not. 20'.b-d. No. The proposed project will not affect any historic structure, unique cultural values or sacred uses. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 21 .a. No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or wildlife species since the site has already been disturbed and the project will be subject to mitigation fees for the Stepbents Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. 21 .b,c. No. The project is not expected to result in any secondary impacts on population growth due to increased employment opportunities. Cumulative drainage and traffic impacts are adequately addressed by street and creek channel improvements to be implemented by Assessment District 161. A:PP29 21 .d. No. The project will not involve the use of hazardous materials other than fuel at a service station which must comply with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code, The project will not expose humans to any health hazards, Potential flood and traffic hazards are addressed by improvements to be implemented by Assessment District 161, A: PP29 35 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED, I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A: PP29 36 CITY OF TEMECULA $ I TE'~ II II !1 II /I . ' II .I /. '/ /I .ff I I I VICINITY MAP _) ! I~ICOLAS ROAD ';i I 1 ITEM NO. 18 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 13. 1991 Change of Zone No. 16 PREPARED BY: Steve R ECOMMENDAT ION: 1. Jiannino ADOPT Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 16 including a De Minimis Fee Exemption; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- Zone No. 16; and approving Change of CONDUCT FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 91- read by title only adopting the proposed Change of Zone contained in Change of Zone No. 16. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: Connie Hill Change of Zone from R-R ( Rural Residential) to C- P-S {Scenic Highway Commercial) on 1 acre. 27628 Jefferson Avenue R-R (Rural Residential) North: R- R South: C-P-S East: I - 15 West: C-P-S I Rural Residential) (Scenic Highway Commercial ) ( Freeway ) (Scenic Highway Commercial ) C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) A:CZ16-A 1 EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: BACKGROUND: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Vacant (Corral) North: Veterinary Office South: Vacant East: I - 15 Freeway West: Commercial Center At the July 15, 1991 Planning Commission Hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Change of Zone No. 16 by a 5-0 vote. The Commissioners recommended approval with no major discussion. The Commissioners felt that the proposed C-P-S made sense in this case and that it was not necessary for the applicant to submit a plot plan prior to the consideration of the Zone Change. Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 16 including a De Minimis Fee Exemption; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- Change of Zone No. 16; and approving e CONDUCT FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 91- read by title only adopting the proposed Change of Zone contained in Change of Zone No. 16. SJ :ks Attachments: Resolution No. 91- Ordinance No. 91- Planning Commission Minutes dated July 15, 1991 Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 15, 1991 A:CZ16-A 2 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 16 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 1 ACRE OF LAND FROM R-R IRURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S ISCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) LOCATED AT 27628 JEFFERSON AVENUE ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-130-026. WHEREAS, Connie Hill filed Change of Zone No. 16 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on July 15, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS. at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Change of Zone; WHEREAS. the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Change of Zone on August 13, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Change of Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. the following findings: Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. A:CZ16-A 3 (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, I hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The City Council in approving the proposed Change of Zone, m~'<es the following findings, to wit: The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. Since no project is proposed, no environmental impact will occur, therefore a De Minimis Fee Exemption is appropriate· There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding proposed development, zoning, and SWAP. A:CZ16-A 4 There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with. the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the zoning is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists or is being provided in the area including commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C ( Commercial ). The zone change will be beneficial by providing an area for needed services and employment. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration therefore is hereby granted. SECTION 3. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Change of Zone No. 16 to change the zoning on 1 acre of land from R-R to C-P-S located at 27628 Jefferson Avenue, also known as Assessor's Parcel Number 910-130-026. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR A:CZ16-A 5 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 13th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A:CZ16-A 6 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANCE OF ZONE APPLICATION No, 16 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R IRURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S ISCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) LOCATED AT 27628 JEFFERSON AVENUE. ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, 910-130-026. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 16 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ~ dayof ,1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] A:CZ16-A 7 CiTY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO: 5 CHANGE OF ZONE NO: ORDINANCE NO: 91- 16 ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: A:CZ16-A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISN AND ~ CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location [Name and Address of Project Proponent] (include county): Change of Zone No. 16 27628 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, Riverside County, CA 9259O Connie Hill 27622 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, Riverside County, CA 92590 Project Description: Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on 1 acre. Findings of Exemption (attach as .¢¢a3sa. y [required findings]): a) An Initial Study was completed to evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental impact (see attached Initial Study). b) The City Council when considering the whole record, finds no evidence before the Council that the project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which wildlife depends. · Certification: I hereby certify that the ~u~lic [lead] agency has made the above ~i,.~i,.~ [findings of fact] and that [based upon the initial study and hearing record] the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. (Chief Planning Official) Title: Senior Planner Lead Agency City of Temecula Date August 13, 199~ FG 753.5 (1/91) STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1991 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 16 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: RECOMMEND to the City Council: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration Change of Zone No. 1.6; and e ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 16 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. for APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Connie Hill Change of Zone from R-R {Rural Residential) to C- P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on 1 acre, 27628 Jefferson Avenue R-R (Rural Residential) North: R-R South: C-P-S East: I - 15 West: C-P-S ( Rural Residential ) (Scenic Highway Commercial) ( Freeway ) (Scenic Highway Commercial ) C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) Vacant (Corral) North: South: East: West: Veterinary Office Vacant 1-15 Freeway Commercial Center A:CZ16 1 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: This project was submitted May 15, 1991. At that time the applicant indicated that they did not have a finalized development plan for the property. They did have interest in the property from several restaurant companies, but the companies did not want to process a project until Commercial zoning existed on the property. Staff informed the applicant that zone changes were processed on a case by case basis with the majority of these cases being processed with a concurrent Plot Plan application. In addition, Staff indicated that they would support the request without a development application because of the location, surrounding development, and infrastructure availability. The applicant was also cautioned that the Change of Zone application was a discretionary application and that the Planning Commission or City Council could require a development permit prior to approval of the Zone Change. The application is for a Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on a 1 acre parcel at 27625 Jefferson Avenue. The project proposes a Change of Zone on a 1 acre parcel to make the zoning consistent with the current Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designation. The Southwest Area Plan, which has been adopted as a General Plan guideline by the City, designates this site as Commercial. The Planning Commission has adopted the policy of processing Change of Zone requests on a case-by-case basis, but generally preferring that plot plans be submitted in conjunction with the Zone Change application. Upon review of the area, with the existing improvements and development, Staff recommended to the applicant processing of the case without a development proposal. The proposed zoning, in staff~s opinion, appears to be a logical land use with the development of compatible commercial uses in the vicinity. The major staff concern raised during review of the project relates to the ultimate alignment of the Overland overpass. It appears that the overpass will impact that the a portion of this site and that the ultimate overpass design and construction will impact any development proposal for the site. The effect of the overpass on the zone change request, A:CZ16 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVl RONMENTAL DETERMI NAT ION: FINDINGS: since no development is proposed, can not be precisely determined at this time. The overpass issue is a concern, but the issue can be more appropriately addressed at the plot plan stage. Although the issue may be one the Commission and Council wants addressed prior to changing the zoning on the property, staff is recommending action on the zoning issue without a concurrent development application. The surrounding area is zoned C-P-S and is currently being developed as commercial property. Infrastructure currently exists within the area to support commercial activity on the site, such as: major street and drainage facilities are constructed; and water and sewer improvements exist which will support commercial development. In addition, the site also fronts 1-15 which will provide high visibility for the site and any future development. Jefferson Avenue and the freeway corridor are designated as C (Commercial) with the current zoning being C-P-S on most of the surrounding parcels. This project is consistent with the SWAP designation of C (Commercial). The proposed zoning is also compatible with the current and proposed surrounding development. It is anticipated that the proposed zoning will be consistent with the ultimate City General Plan when it is adopted. An Initial Study has been completed for the project and a Negative Declaration is being recommended for adoption. It has been determined that the proposed Zone Change from R-R to C-P-S will not have any significant impacts on the environment. The proposed Change of Zone will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. e There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surroundingcommercialdevelopment, zoning, and SWAP. A:CZ16 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: e There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists in the area include commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C ( Commercial ). The proposed zoning provides a commercial support area for the employment based developments recently approved and under construction to the west of the site. RECOMMEND to the City Council: 1. ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 16; and ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 16 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. SJ: ks Attachments: Resolution Initial Study Exhibits A:CZ16 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 16 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R TO C-P-S ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27628 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-130-026. WHEREAS, Connie Hill filed Change of Zone No. 16 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on July 15, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE. THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: .A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. { 2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. A:CZ16 5 There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action ~s ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surroundingcommercial development, zoning, and SWAP. c) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. d) The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists in the area include commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. A:CZ16 6 e) The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C I Commercial). The proposed zoning provides a commercial support area for the employment based developments recently approved and under construction to the west of the site. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration therefore is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Zone Change No. 16 to change the zoning on 1 acre of land from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S I Scenic Highway Commercial) on property located at 27628 Jefferson Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-026. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 1991. JOHN HOAGLAND 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 15th day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:CZ16 7 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: e e e Date of Environmental Assessment: Agency Requiring Assessment: Name of Proposal, if applicable: Location of Proposal: 7. Project Description: Environmental Impacts Connie Hill 27627 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, CA 92387 (714) 676-3531 June 18, 1991 CITY OF TEMECULA Chanqe of Zone No. 16 27628 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, California Chanqe of Zone from R-R {Rural Residential) to C-P-S {Scenic Hiqhway Commercial) on 1 acre. ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. Yes 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ae Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? be Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? Maybe No X X X X A:CZ16 8 ee Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? fo Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? C J, Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? be The creation of objectionable odors? Ce Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? be Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ee Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X A:CZ16 9 e fe Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? he Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? de Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X A:CZ16 10 e 10, 11, 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? be Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ae A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances {including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plant Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation, Will the proposal result in: ae Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X A:CZ16 11 15. 16. be Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Ce Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? de Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? fe Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? de Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A:CZ16 12 17. 18. 19. 20. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard {excluding mental health ) ? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Ce Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? de Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X A:CZ16 13 Yes Maybe No 21. 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 or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into. the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X A:CZ16 14 III. Discussion of Evaluation for Initial Environmental Study Item Change of Zone No. 16 1. through 21. No, The current proposal only involves a Change of Zoning classification from R-R to C-P-S, The proposed C-P-S zoning is consistent with the SWAP designation of C {Commercial), The fact that no project is proposed, only a consistent zoning reduces potential impacts, The uses allowed within the C-P-S zone are consistent with uses allowed within the R-R with a Conditional Use Permit, Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated at this time, A:CZ16 15 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMI NAT ION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED, I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, X June 18, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A:CZ16 16 CITY OF TEMECULA 077 ZONE MAP C-P-S ,-R-R CZ 1954 CZ 4070 M -SC CZ 3173 C.P-S I CZ4135 CZ 915 CASE NO. C p.c. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA LI \ SP I ., c^s= NO.¢ 7. ~ SWAP MAP ) Fi.c. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ./ LOCATION MAP C^SE ~0. £Z. /8 p.c. o^T~ ITEM NO. 19 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE= MEETING DATE SUBJECT= CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL JOHN E. CAVANAUGH, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY JULY 31, 1991 AUGUST 13, 1991 GAS DISTRIBUTION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COMPANY RECOMMENDATION= Introduce and approve the first reading of the following ordinance granting an gas distribution franchise to Southern California Gas Company: me "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY A CORPORATION. ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE PIPES AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES UNDER, ALONG. ACROSS OR UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS. WAYS. ALLEYS AND PLACES. AS THE SAME NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST. WITHIN SAID MUNICIPALITY.' DISCUSSION; At the July 23, 1991 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91- declaring the City Council's intention to grant a gas distribution franchise to Southern California Gas Company. 3 jec/AGDl12769 In accordance with state law, a public hearing must be held between twenty (20) and sixty (60) days after adoption of the resolution of intent. At the time of the public hearing, the Council may grant Southern California Gas Company a gas distribution franchise by adoption of the attached ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 91- granting a gas distribution franchise to Southern California Gas Company. FISCAL IMPACT: Increased franchise fees for the City of Temecula. -2- jec/ORNl10244(07/12/91-2) ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE PIPES AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES UNDER, ALONG, ACROSS OR UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS AND PLACES, AS THE SAME NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST, WITHIN SAID MUNICIPALITY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Whenever in this ordinance the words or phrases hereinafter in this section defined are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the following definitions (unless, in the given instance, the context wherein they are used shall clearly import a different meaning: (a) The word "Grantee" shall mean Southern California Gas Company, and its lawful successors or assigns; (b) The word "City" shall mean the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation of the State of California, in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated or reincorporated form; (c) The word "streets" shall mean the public streets, ways, alleys and places.as the same now or may hereafter exist within said City; (d) The word "Engineer" shall mean the Director of Public Works of the City; (e) The word "franchise" shall mean and include any authorization granted hereunder in terms of a franchise, privilege, permit, license or otherwise to lay and use pipes and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing gas for any and all purposes under, along, across or upon the public streets, ways, alleys and places in the City. Any authorization, in whatever terms granted, shall be in lieu of any business license tax or permit based upon gross -1- jec/ORNl10244(07/12/91-2) receipts or number of employees, but no other license, tax or permit; (f) The word "Gas" shall mean natural or manufactured gas, or a mixture of natural and manufactured gas; (g) The phrase "pipes and appurtenances" shall mean pipe, pipeline, cable, main, service, trap, vent, vault, manhole, meter, gauge, regulator, valve, conduit, appliance, attachment, appurtenance and any other property located or to be located in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets of the City, and used or useful in or in the business of transmitting and distributing gas; (h) The phrase "lay and use" shall mean to lay, construct, erect, install, operate, maintain, use, repair, replace, or remove. SECTION 2. Subject to each and all of the terms and conditions contained in this Ordinance, and pursuant to the provisions of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California, known as the Franchise Act of 1937, the right, privilege and franchise be, and the same is hereby granted to Grantee to lay and use pipes and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing gas for any and all purposes, under, along, across or upon the streets of the City. The term of this franchise shall be indeterminate, that is to say, this franchise shall endure in full force and effect until, with the consent of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, the same shall be voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by its possessor, or until the State of California or some municipal or public corporation thereunder duly authorized by law shall purchase by voluntary agreement or condemn and take under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the exercise of this franchise, and situated within the territorial limits of the State, municipal or public corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until this franchise shall be forfeited for noncompliance with its terms by the Grantee. SECTION 3. The Grantee shall pay to the City at the times hereinafter specified, in lawful money of the United States, a sum annually which shall be equivalent to two percent (2%) of the gross annual receipts of Grantee arising from the use, operation or possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no -2- jec/ORNl10244(07/12/91-2) SECTION 7. The franchise granted hereunder shall not become effective until written acceptance thereof shall have been filed by the Grantee with the Clerk of the City. When so filed, such acceptance shall constitute a continuing agreement of the Grantee that if and when the City shall thereafter annex or consolidate with, additional territory, any and all franchise rights and privileges owned by and Grantee therein shall likewise be deemed to be abandoned within the limits of such territory. SECTION 8. The franchise granted hereunder shall not in any way or to any extent impair or affect the right of the City to acquire the property of the Grantee, real or personal, either by purchase or through the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and nothing herein contained in this franchise shall be construed to contract away or to modify or to abridge, either for a term or in perpetuity, the City's right of eminent domain in respect to the Grantee; nor shall this franchise ever be given any value before any court or other public authority in an proceeding of any character in excess of the cost to the Grantee of the necessary publication and any other sum paid by it to the City therefor at the time of the acquisition thereof. SECTION 9. The Grantee of this franchise shall: (a) Construct, install and maintain all pipes and appurtenances in accordance with and in conformity with all of the ordinances, rules and regulations theretofore, or hereafter adopted by the legislative body of the City in the exercise of its police powers and not in conflict with the paramount authority of the State of California, and, as to State highways, subject to the provisions of general laws relating to the location and maintenance of such facilities; (b) Pay to the City, on demand, the cost of all repairs to.public property made necessary by any · operations of the Grantee under this franchise; (c) Indemnify and hold harmless and defend the City and its respective elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all liability for damages proximately resulting from any operations under this franchise; and be liable to the City for all damages proximately resulting from the failure of Grantee well and faithfully to observe and perform each and every provision of this franchise and each and every provision of Division 3, Chapter 2, of the California Public Utilities Code; -4- j ec/ORNl10244 (07/12/91-2) event be less than one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts of the Grantee derived from the sale of gas within the limits of the City under this franchise. SECTION 4. Grantee of this franchise shall file with the Clerk of the City within three (3) months after the expiration of the calendar year, or fractional calendar year, following the date of the grant of this franchise, and within three (3) months after the expiration of each and every calendar year thereafter, a duly verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of the Grantee, its successors or assigns, during the preceding calendar year, or such factional calendar year, from the sale of the~ utility service within the City for which this franchise is granted. It shall be the duty of the Grantee to pay to the City within fifteen (15) days after the time for filing such statement in lawful money of the United States, the specified percentage of its gross receipts for the calendar year, or such fractional calendar year covered by such statement. Any neglect, omission or refusal by said Grantee to file such verified statement, or to pay said percentage, at the times or in the manner hereinbefore provided, shall be grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this franchise and of all rights thereunder. SECTION 5. The City Treasurer, or any qualified person designated by the City, at any reasonable time during regular business hours, may make examination at Grantee's office or offices of its books and records germane to and for the purpose of verifying the dates set forth in the statement required by Section 4. All books and records subject to examination by the City Treasurer, or qualified person designated by the City, shall be made available within the Grantee's office in the County of Los Angeles. SECTION 6. This grant is made in lieu of all other franchises owned by the Grantee, or by any predecessor or successor of the Grantee to any rights under this franchise, for transmitting and distributing gas within the limits of the City, as said limits now or may hereafter exist, and the acceptance of the franchise hereby granted shall operate as an abandonment of all such franchises within the limits of this City, as such limits now or may hereafter exist, in lieu of which this franchise is granted. -3- j ec/ORNll0244 ( 07/12/91-2 ) (d) Remove or relocate, at the request of the City, any facilities installed, used and maintained under this franchise if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any public street, way, alley or place, including the construction of any subway or viaduct by the City. (1) The term "City" as used in this subparagraph shall mean the same as the term "municipality# contained in Section 6297 of the Public Utilities Code. SECTION 10. (a) The Engineer shall have power to give the Grantee such directions for the location of any pipes and appurtenances as may be reasonably necessary to avoid sewers, water pipes, conduits or other structures lawfully in or under the streets; and before the work of constructing any pipes and appurtenances is commenced, the Grantee shall file with said Engineer plans showing the location thereof, which shall be subject to the approval of said Engineer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld; and all such construction shall be subject to the inspection of said Engineer and done to his or her reasonable satisfaction. All street coverings or openings of traps, vaults, and manholes shall at all times be kept flush with the surface of the streets; provided, however, that vents for underground traps, vaults and manholes may extend above the surface of the streets when said vents are located in parkways, between the curb and the property line. (b) Where it is necessary to lay any underground pipes or other facilities through, under or across any portion of a paved or macadamized street, the same, where practicable and economically reasonable, shall be done by a tunnel or bore so as not to disturb the foundation of such paved or macadamized street; and in the event that the same cannot be so done, such work shall be done under a permit to be granted by the Engineer upon application therefor. (c) Any fee imposed upon Grantee for any and all required encroachment permits to lay any underground pipes and appurtenances through, under or across any portion of a paved or macadamized street or to access existing pipes and appurtenances, shall be imposed on a non- discriminatory basis only, to the extent such fees are imposed generally on all non-governmental applicants for such permits within the City, in an amount which does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of issuing the permit and inspecting the work done thereunder. -5- jec/ORNl10244 (07/12/91-2) SECTION 11. If any portion of any street shall be damaged by reason of defects in any of the pipes and appurtenances maintained or constructed under this grant, or by reason of any other cause arising from the operation or existence of any pipes and appurtenances constructed or maintained under this grant, said Grantee shall, at its own cost and expense, within a reasonable period of time, repair any such damage and restore such portion of street, to as good condition as existed before such defect or other cause of damage occurred, such work to be done under the direction of the Engineer, and to his reasonable satisfaction. SECTION 12. Grantee shall file with the legislative body of the City within thirty (30) days after any sale, transfer, assignment or lease of this franchise, or any part thereof, or any of the rights or privileges granted thereby, written evidence of the same, certified thereto by the Grantee or its duly authorized officers. SECTION 13. (a) If the Grantee of this franchise shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any of the provisions or conditions hereof, and shall not, within ten (10) days after written demand for compliance, begin the work of compliance, or after such beginning shall not prosecute the same with due diligence to completion, then the City, by its legislative body, may declare this franchise forfeited. (b) The City may sue in its own name for the forfeiture of this franchise, in the event of noncompliance by the Grantee, its successors or assigns, with any of the conditions thereof. SECTION 14. Except to the extent expressly provided by the terms of this Ordinance, the granting of this franchise shall not be construed as limiting or modifying the power or authority conferred upon the City. SECTION 15. The Grantee of this franchise shall pay to the City a sum of money sufficient to reimburse it for all publication expenses incurred by it in connection with the granting of this franchise; such payment to be made within thirty (30) days after the City shall furnish Grantee with a written statement of such expenses. SECTION 16. After the publication of this ordinance, the Grantee shall file with the City Clerk a written acceptance of the franchise hereby granted, and an agreement to comply with the terms and conditions hereof. -6- j ec/ORN110244 ( 07/12/91-2 ) SECTION 17. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 18. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 19. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted at City Hall. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 1991. day of ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK City Clerk -7- j ec/ORN110244 ( 07/12/91-2 ) 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 foregoing Ordinance No. 91- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~6ott F. Field City Attorney JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK -8- jec/ORNl10244(07/12/91-2) Ordinance No. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING JUNE S. GREEK, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Temecula; That in compliance with City Resolution No. 89-9 on December 1, 1989, ORDINANCE NO. 91- was caused to be posted in three (3) places in the City of Temecula, to wit: Temecula Library Temecula Chamber of Commerce Temecula Post Office JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK -9- ITEM NO. 20 APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY~?/-~ FINANCE OFFICE~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE= MEETING DATE SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY JULY 26, 1991 AUGUST 13, 1991 JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO V. CITY OF TEMECULA, U.S.D.C. NO. CV 90-3501 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the settlement of the above-described law suit, and authorize the Mayor to execute the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. DISCUSSION: Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc., (hereinafter #Jones#) filed a legal action against the City on federal court on July 5, 1990. The action seeks to compel the City to permit Jones to provide cable television services pursuant to a franchise the County of Riverside issued to Jones in November of 1989. The City has denied the validity of the County franchise. Staff has negotiated a settlement with Jones. The proposed settlement with Jones takes the form of an Amended Franchise Agreement between the City and Jones. The terms and conditions of the Amended Franchise Agreement are summarized in the accompanying Report from the Manager of Information Services. -1- sff/AGDl15644 The proposed settlement would be accomplished pursuant to a judgment in the action entered against both parties. The proposed judgment would incorporate by reference the terms of the Amended Franchise Agreement. If the proposed Amended Franchise Agreement is acceptable to the City Council, then the Council should authorize the Mayor to execute the attached Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. Once the Stipulation is executed by both Jones and the City, the parties will jointly request that the court enter judgment incorporating the terms of the Amended Franchise Agreement. ATTACHMENTS= Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Judgment Franchise Agreement FISCAL IMPACT~ Recovery of $25,000 in City legal and consulting expenses Franchise Fee of 5% of gross revenues Governmental programming equipment and facilities -2- CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUB J: Mr. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS OF THE LATEST DRAFT CABLE TV FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH JONES INTERCABLE DATE: June 25, 1991 The following is a short synopsis of the major highlights of the latest 57 page draft Cable TV franchise agreement with Jones Intercable: Section 1.4, Franchise Term: 20 years - Section 1.5, Franchise is not exclusive - Section 1.6, Service Area: Entire City limits and future City limits - Section 3.2, Franchise Fee: 5% of Gross Annual Receipts paid quarterly - Section 3.3, Jones to pay $20K for City legal and consulting costs - Section 3.5, Adequate liability insurance required. - Section 3.6, Jones to provide $250K letter of credit for breach of franchise, failure to pay City monies owed, and reimbursement costs to City to correct violations not corrected by Jones. - Section 3.7, Hold Harmless, Jones will fully indemnify City and provide $60K for legal fees and defense if franchise agreement is challenged - Section 4.1, Construction and Service Schedule: -- Service will be provided within 60 days when a new home is first occupied As stated in City's Cable TV Ordinance, Jones will provide services to 1/3 of the existing homes by 1/3 of the franchise term, i.e., 80 months. This construction must start no later than the 69th month into the franchise term. In other words, Jones is required to provide services to 3,333 existing homes by the 80th month from the effective date of the franchise and begin that installation no later than the 69th from the effective date of the franchise As stated in City's Cable TV Ordinance, Jones will provide services to the remaining 2/3 of the existing homes (6,666) by 1/2 of the franchise term, i.e., 120 months Section 4.3, Liquidated Damages: Jones will pay City 9500 per day for every day past the 69th month from the effective date of the franchise if construction for existing home service does not commence Jones will pay City $150 for each existing home not provided service by the 80th month from the effective date of the franchise up to a maximum of $250K, e.g., 3,333 home requirement of which only 2,333 are provided service would equal a penalty of $150K Jones will pay City $150 for each existing home not provided service by the 120th month from the effective date of the franchise up to a maximum of $250K, e.g., 10,000 home requirement of which only 9,000 are provided service would equal a penalty of $150K Jones is provided a guarantee, in that, service made available to existing homes shall not exceed the number of new homes available for service, e.g., if 1,000 new homes are constructed during the first 80 months of the franchise, Jones shall only be required to provide service to 1,000 existing homes instead on 3,333 If the construction schedule is not met, the Council may order the forfeiture of the bonds for delays exceeding six months and may terminate the franchise for delays exceeding eight months Section 4.7, Rate Regulation, City reserves the right to institute any rate regulation system permitted by Federal and State Law Section 5.1, Channel Capacity, Jones will install a state-of-the-art 550 MHz system capable of 77 channels and a FM band. Initially, 54 channels will be activated. Section 5.3, Emergency Alert Capability, Jones will provide an emergency audio override capability to permit City to interrupt and cablecast an audio message on all channels in the event of a public emergency Section 7, Consumer Protection, and Section 8, Regulation, Jones has agreed to a very comprehensive consumer protection program and franchise regulations detailed in the agreement and the City's ordinance Exhibit C, Education and Government Access, Jones has agreed to provide the City with one governmental TV channel and TVUSD with one educational TV channel Jones will provide $75,000 for City to purchase equipment to operate the governmental channel and the Council has authorized $25,000 to the TVUSD to purchase equipment to operate the educational channel Jones will provide City $6,000 per year to cover the cost of broadcasting Council meetings after Jones serves a minimum of 2,000 subscribers. Jones will provide one free cable connection and basic service to all police, fire, City buildings, schools, library, and any designated Federal, State, County, and utility district buildings within 200 feet of trunk/feeder cables and within six months after Jones has energized trunk and feeder cables After Jones serves 3,000 subscribers, they will interconnect educational and governmental TV channels with Inland Valley so programming can be simultaneously viewed by subscribers Within three months after Jones serves 1,000 subscribers, they will provide system necessary to permit live broadcasting from City Hall and the Council Chambers FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AN AGREEMENT GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, TO OPERATE A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS OF THE FRANCHISE. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. SECTION 2. SECTION 3. SECTION 4. SECTION 5. SECTION 6. SECTION 7. SECTION 8. SECTION 9. GRANT OF FRANCHISE DEFINITIONS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Page CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS ........ 16 SYSTEM DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS .................. 25 SUPPORT FOR EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCESS CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATION BOOKS AND RECORDS SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................. 30 .................. 31 .................. 35 .................. 39 EXHIBIT A. EXHIBIT B. EXHIBIT C. EXHIBIT D. OWNERSHIP TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCESS SUPPORT COMMITMENTS SCHEDULE OF GRANTEE COMMITMENTS -i- FRANCHISE AGREEMENT . THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of August 13, 1991, at Temecula, California, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation of the State of California (#Grantor# or #City#), and Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("Grantee#). WHEREAS, Grantor incorporated as a City on December 1, 1989; and WHEREAS, the land which lies within the jurisdiction of Grantor was within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside prior to December 1989; and WHEREAS, Grantee was granted a franchise in October 1989 by the County of Riverside (#County#) to construct and .operate a cable television system on land within the jurisdiction of the County, including land which subsequently became the City; and WHEREAS, a dispute arose between Grantor and Grantee regarding the validity of the franchise issued by the County; sff/AGRl15524f -1- WHEREAS, Grantor adopted Ordinance 90-12 to regulate cable television consistent with California and Federal law subsequent to its incorporation; and WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee disagree concerning the applicability of Ordinance No. 90-12 to Grantee's request to serve the City; and WHEREAS, Grantee filed suit against Grantor in July 1990 (Jones Intercable of San Dieqo, Inc. v. City of Temecula, CV 90-3501 MRP) seeking an order of the court to permit Grantee to provide cable television within the City; and, WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee entered into a Stipulated Judgement to resolve the lawsuit which incorporates this Franchise Agreement and Ordinance No. 90- 12; NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a cable television franchise in accordance with the provisions of this Franchise Agreement and Ordinance No. 90-12. SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE 1.1 Grant. Grantee, with ownership as indicated in Exhibit A, is hereby granted a franchise to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain a cable television system within the streets and public ways within the City as defined in Section 1.6 herein, subject to the terms and conditions of the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 90-12 and sff/AGRl15524f -2- this Franchise Agreement. Any conflict between this Franchise Agreement and Ordinance No. 90-12 shall be resolved in favor of this Agreement. 1.2 Right of Grantor to Issue Franchise. Grantee acknowledges and accepts the right of Grantor to issue a cable television franchise, as of the date of this Franchise Agreement. 1.3 Effective Date of Franchise. This Franchise Agreement shall be effective upon entry of the'Stipulated Judgement by the court in the case of Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc. v. city of Temecula (CV 90-3501 MRP). 1.4 Duration. The term of the franchise shall be twenty (20) years from the effective date of this Franchise Agreement. Renewal shall be in accordance with then applicable. 1.5 Franchise Not Exclusive. This franchise shall not be construed as any limitation upon the right of Grantor to grant to other persons or corporations rights, privileges or authority similar to or different from the rights, privileges or authority herein set forth, in the same or other streets and public ways or public places or other places Grantee is entitled to occupy by franchise, permit or otherwise, provided, however, that such additional grants shall not operate to materially abridge, revoke or terminate any rights granted to Grantor herein. sff/AGRl15524f -3- 1.6 Franchise Service Area. The franchise service area shall be the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. Grantee shall make service available to all residences, except those in commercial areas, in accordance with the construction and service schedule of Section 4.1 herein. Territory annexed to the City that is already served by a franchise or license issued to Grantee by another public entity may continue to be served by Grantee under said franchise or license for the balance of the term of said franchise or license, subject to the provisions of said franchise or license and the provisions of this Franchise Agreement, provided that the franchise fees shall be those set forth under this Franchise Agreement. Any conflict between the franchise or license issued by the other public entity and this Franchise Agreement shall be resolved in favor of this Franchise Agreement. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in Ordinance No. 90-12 shall be incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION 3. GENERAL REOUIREMENTS 3.1 Governing Requirements. Grantor and Grantee shall comply with the requirements of this Franchise sff/AGRl15524f -4- Agreement, Ordinance No. 90-12, and applicable State and Federal law. In case of conflict between the terms of this Franchise Agreement and Ordinance No. 90-12, this Franchise Agreement shall prevail. 3.2 Franchise Fee. (a) Grantee shall pay to Grantor an annual franchise fee of five percent (5%) of Gross Annual Receipts. (b) Franchise fee payments shall be computed and paid quarterly with respect to each calendar quarter during the term hereof, and shall be due and payable no later than April 30, July 31, October 31 and January 31 of each year with respect to the preceding calendar quarter. (c) Grantor shall have the right to inspect and audit Grantee's records of gross annual receipts for at least the most recent four (4) year period, during normal business hours on reasonable prior written notice. Grantee shall maintain such records in active files for not less than three (3) years. Thereafter, all such records shall be maintained in inactive files for the life of this Franchise. Grantor shall not examine records in inactive files unless a discrepancy is found in the records maintained in the active files. Acceptance of a franchise fee for more than four (4) years after its receipt shall amount to a release and accord and satisfaction as to any claim Granto may have for additional sums payable. sff/AGRl15524f -5- 3.3 Recovery of Franchise Costs. Concurrently, with execution of this Agreement, Grantee, shall pay Grantor Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), which amount represents Grantor's reasonable consulting, administrative and legal costs incurred during the franchise and settlement process Said amount is in addition to franchise application fees previously paid. Any such costs shall not be charged against any franchise fee due to Grantor during the term of the franchise. 3.4 Payment to Grantor. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall such acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim Grantor may have for or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Franchise Agreement. All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by Grantor. 3.5 Liability Insurance and Indemnification. Concurrent with execution of this Franchise Agreement, .Grantee shall furnish proof that satisfactory liability insurance policies are in force, in the minimum amounts of: Workers' Compensation -- As required by the State of California. sff/AGRl15524f -6- ComDrehensive General Liability -- One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit. (Including property damage and general liability.) Comprehensive Automobile Liability -- One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. The liability insurance policies shall be maintained throughout the duration of this franchise, with a certificate of coverage filed with Grantor. The insurance carriers shall be authorized to do business in California, and subject to Grantor approval. The minimum amounts set forth herein for insurance shall not be construed to limit the liability of Grantee to Grantor under the franchise issued hereunder to the amounts of such insurance. 3.6 Security Fund. Concurrent with execution of this Franchise Agreement, Grantee shall provide a security fund in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for Grantor's benefit. This amount shall be maintained, subject to the provisions of Section 4.3 herein, until Grantee has made service available to all existing residences in the City, in accordance with the requirements sff/AGR115524f -7- of Section 4.1 herein, when the amount of the letter of credit shall be reduced to Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), and shall be maintained at this amount throughout the remaining term of the franchise. (a) If the security fund is assessed in accordance with the provisions of this Franchise Agreement, Grantee agrees not to withhold these funds from Grantor or refuse to restore the security fund in any way, and not to attempt through litigation to prevent or inhibit Grantor from taking said funds. Nevertheless, Grantee: (1) Is not waiving any right to challenge the process, findings or validity of Grantor's assessment or taking of funds, and (2) Is not admitting any wrongdoing or breach, nor that Grantor's assessment was lawful. (b) Subject to provisions of subsection (d) below, and, in each case, after due notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure in accordance with Section 1.35 of Ordinance No. 90-12 and Section 8.2 of this Franchise Agreement, the security fund may be assessed by Grantor for purposes including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Failure of Grantee to pay Grantor sums due under the terms of the franchise. (2) Reimbursement of costs borne by Grantor to correct franchise violations not corrected by Grantee. --8-- sff/AGRl15524f (3) Monetary remedies or damages assessed against Grantee due to default or violation of franchise requirements. (c) The procedure for any withdrawal from the security fund shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.2 herein and Section 1.33 and 1.35 of Ordinance No. 90-12. Within thirty (30) days after notice to Grantee that any amount has been withdrawn by Grantor from the security fund pursuant to Subsection (b) of this Section, Grantee shall restore, or cause to be restored, such security fund to the full amount required by this Franchise Agreement. (d) If Grantee fails, within thirty (30) days after receipt from Grantor of written notice, to pay to Grantor any franchise fee or taxes due and unpaid; or, fails to pay to Grantor within such thirty (30) days, any damages, costs or expenses which Grantor has paid or incurred by reason of any act or default of Grantee in connection with this franchise; or within thirty ~(30) days after receipt of written notice of such failure and a reasonable opportunity to cure, fails to comply with any material provision of this franchise, and which failure Grantor reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security fund, Grantor may thereafter withdraw the amount thereof from the security fund, in accordance with the procedures of Section sff/AGRl15524f -9- 8.2 herein and Sections 1.33 and 1.35 of Ordinance No. 90- 12. (e) The security fund deposited pursuant to this Section shall become the property of Grantor in the event that the franchise is revoked for cause by reason of the default of Grantee. Grantee, however, shall be entitled to the return of such security fund, or portion thereof, as remains on deposit no later than ninety (90) days after the expiration of the term of the franchise, provided that there is then no outstanding default on the part of Grantee. (f) The rights reserved to Grantor with respect to the security fund are in addition to all other rights of Grantor whether reserved by this Franchise Agreement or authorized by law, and no action, proceeding or exercise of a right with respect to such security fund shall constitute an election of remedies or a waiver of any other right Grantor may have. (g) Form of Surety. The Grantee shall establish the security fund in the form of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) concurrently with the effective date of this franchise ordinance. The Letter of Credit shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (h) Surety Agreement. As an alternative to establishing a Letter of Credit as the form of the security sff/AGR115524f -10- fund, the Grantee may contract with a surety, acceptable to the City, to guarantee the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) to the City. The Surety Agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and shall be submitted concurrently with the effective date of this franchise ordinance. The form of the Surety Agreement shall contain, at a minimum: (1) That the surety is licensed in California and maintains a Best's Financial Size Category of IX. (2) That the surety holds a Certificate of Authority from the United States Department of the Treasury as an acceptable reinsuring company pursuant to Department Circular 570 as published in the Federal Register. (3) The surety shall have a Best's insurance rating of not less than A. (4) The principal amount of the obligation shall be Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00). sff/AGRl15524f -11- (5) The obligation by the surety to pay the principal amount to the City is unconditional pursuant to civil Code Section 2806. (6) The liability of the surety for the payment of the principal amount accrues immediately upon the default of the Grantee, and without demand or notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 2807. (7) The surety shall waive any defense based on or arising out of any defense of the Grantee other than payment in full of the principal amount, including without limitation a defense based on or arising out of the disability of the Grantee, the unenforceability of the principalobligation, or any part thereof, or any change, renewal or acceleration of the terms of the principal obligation. Further, said surety shall waive any right to require the City to proceed against the Grantee or pursue any other remedy in the City's power. Further, said surety shall have no right of subrogation and shall sff/AGRl15524f -12- waive all presentments, demands for performance, notices of protest, notices of dishonor and notices of the acceptance of the Surety Agreement. (8) The surety shall also undertake to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred by the City in enforcing the Surety Agreement. (9) Grantee shall require said surety to submit to the City documentation evidencing the above requirements and any documentation required of the Grantee by the surety for the purpose of ascertaining Grantee's financial condition. 3.7 Hold Harmless. (a) Grantee shall, at the sole cost and expense of Grantee, upon demand by Grantor, defend Grantor, its officers, boards, commissions or employees, in any and all suits, actions, or other legal proceedings, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, legislative, or otherwise arising either out of Grantee's acts or omissions and/or those things that the Grantor does or fails to do with respect to a third party at the written request of the sff/AGR115524f -13- Grantee. Grantee shall provide legal services to represent Grantor's interest in litigation referred to above. Where Grantee is required to provide legal services to Grantor. under this Section, and chooses to utilize joint counsel, the parties shall make a good faith effort to cooperate and agree upon litigation strategy and implementation thereof. In the event that Grantor determines upon reasonable grounds that Grantee's litigation strategy and implementation decisions are unreasonable, or not in Grantor's best interest, or that separate counsel is necessary for the representation of Grantor, Grantor may obtain separate legal counsel chosen by Grantor. Grantor shall submit to Grantee on a regular basis statements for attorneys' fees incurred during the prior period. Grantee shall pay to Grantor all reasonable attorneys' fees so claimed within sixty (60) days of receipt of said statement. (b) Grantee shall cause to be paid and satisfied any judgment, decree, or order rendered, made, or issued against Grantee, Grantor, its officers, boards, commissions, or employees, and hold Grantor harmless therefrom, arising either out of Grantees, acts or omission and/or those things that the Grantor does or fails to do with respect to a third party at the written request of the Grantee in connection with the construction, operation, maintenance, or other activities in relation to Grantee's cable television system sff/AGRl15524f -14- including, but not limited to, damages arising out of copyright infringement, defamation, personal and property liability, and antitrust~liability, whether or not said damages are compensatory or punitive, provided, however, Grantee shall not be required pursuant to this Section to hold Grantor harmless for actions relating programming decisions outside of Grantee's control. Such indemnity shall exist and continue without reference to the amount of any bond, undertaking or other assurance; provided, however, Grantor may not enter into any compromise or settlement which imposes any obligation on Grantee without Grantee's consent which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and Grantee shall not make or enter into any compromise or settlement of any claim, demand, causes of action, suit, or other proceedings which settlement involves anything other than the payment of money by Grantee without contribution by Grantor, without first obtaining the written consent of the Grantor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section does not apply to any damages or claims relating to the issuance by Grantor of this Franchise Agreement, except to the extent of the fund to be provided by Grantee pursuant to Subsection 3.7(c) below. (c) Grantee further agrees to provide City, in the event of any action challenging the validity of this Franchise Agreement, a fund for the payment of legal fees, sff/AGRl15524f -15- costs or damages resulting therefrom. The total obligation of Grantee to Grantor shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000). Notwithstanding Grantor's access to the fund created by Grantee pursuant to this Section, Grantor may tender its defense in any lawsuit arising from this Franchise Agreement to Grantee. Grantee may elect to provide a defense to Grantor pursuant to the terms and conditions of Section 3.7(b). SECTION 4. CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICE REOUIREMENTS 4.1 Construction and Service Schedule. (a) For all dwelling units in Grantee's service area not built or for which building permits have not been issued as of the effective date of this Franchise Agreement, Grantee shall make cable service available within sixty (60) days after each dwelling unit is first occupied, and (b) For existing dwelling units in Grantee's service area as of the effective date of this Franchise Agreement, (those dwelling units not defined by Subsection 4.1(a) above), Grantee shall comply with the schedule provided in Ordinance No. 90-12, namely, that Grantee shall make service available to one-third (1/3) of the existing dwelling units no later than eighty (80) months from the effective date of this Franchise Agreement, and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) of these dwelling units shall sff/AGRl15524f -16- have Grantee's service made available no later than one hundred twenty (120) months from the effective date of this Franchise Agreement. (c) Grantee shall commence construction of its cable television system for the existing dwelling units, as required by Subsection (b) above, by sixty-ninth (69th) month from the effective date of this Franchise Agreement. Commencement of construction shall require the actual placement of cable infrastructure necessary to provide cable service. (d) For the purposes of this Franchise Agreement, Grantor and Grantee agree that there are approximately Ten Thousand (10,000) dwelling units within the meaning of Subsection (b) above. (e) For dwelling units in areas annexed to City after the effective date of this Franchise Agreement, Grantee shall make cable television service available to all such dwelling units with a density of at least forty (40) dwelling units per mile contiguous to Grantee's existing cable plant. Grantee shall make service available at a rate at least equal to Grantee's average construction rate for Subsection (a) and (b) above. (f) No extension to the times set forth in this Section 4.1 may be granted on the grounds of Force Majeure, unless the event constituting Force Majeure arose sff/AGRl15524f -17- after the 69th month of the Franchise. Grantee may not claim Force Majeure, unless it provides written notice to Grantor of the events constituting Force Majeure within thirty (30) days of the event. 4.2 Delay in Construction. Grantee shall make a good faith and diligent effort to obtain all necessary permits and clearances required to commence construction. For any schedule delay in constructing the system that may occur, the burden of proof shall be on Grantee to demonstrate that such delay was beyond its reasonable control. Grantee shall provide Grantor with written notice of such delay. 4.3 Liquidated Damaqes. (a) Grantor and Grantee agree that as of the time of the grant of this Franchise, it is impractical, if not impossible to reasonably ascertain the extent of damages which will be incurred by the City as a result of a material 'breach by Grantee of its construction obligations under this Franchise. (b) Accordingly, the City Council may, in its discretion, assess liquidated damages for the following: (A) If Grantee fails to commence construction of its cable system for the existing residences, as required by Section 4.1(c) above, by the sixty-ninth (69th) month from the effective date of this sff/AGR115524f -18- Franchise Agreement, then Grantee shall pay Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per day, as provided in Section 8.2, to Grantor. Such penalty shall continue until Grantee commences construction of the cable system. (B) If Grantee has not made service available to one-third (1/3) of the existing dwelling units by the end of eighty (80) months from the effective date of this Franchise Agreement, as provided in Section 4.1(b) above, then Grantee shall pay Grantor One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) multiplied by the number which is the difference between the existing dwelling units to which service has been made available, subtracted from the one- third (1/3) requirement; provided, however, the total penalty which may be collected by Grantor shall not in any event exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000). (C) If Grantee has not provided service to all of the existing dwelling units in the City by the end of one hundred twenty (120) months from the effective date of this Franchise Agreement, as provided in Section 4.1(b) above, then Grantee shall pay Grantor One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) multiplied by the number which is the difference between the existing dwelling units to which service has been made available, subtracted from the total of the existing dwelling units as defined in section 4.1(b); provided, however, the total penalty which may be collected sff/AGRl15524f -19- by Grantor shall not in any event exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000). (D) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsections 4.1(e), 4.2(b) and 4.2(c), Grantee's obligation to make cable television service available to existing dwelling units shall not exceed the number of new dwelling units defined by Subsection 4.1(a). By way of example, if 1,000 new dwelling units are constructed during the first eighty (80) month period of this Franchise Agreement, Grantee shall only be required to make cable television service available to 1,00 existing dwelling units, instead of one-third (1/3). (E) Prior to assessing any liquidated damages against the Grantee for violation of Section 4.1 of this Agreement, the City shall have provided the Grantee with notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.33 of Ordinance No. 90-12. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or of Ordinance No. 90-12, Grantee is entitled to no other notice and cure provision prior to assessment of liquidated damages, whether provided for at Section 8.2 of this Agreement, Section 1.35 of Ordinance No. 90-12 or otherwise. (F) In addition, for delays in meeting the requirement of Section 4.1, the Council may order the forfeiture of the bonds for delays exceeding six months, and sff/AGRl15524f -20- the termination of the Franchise for delays exceeding eight months. Any such action shall only be taken pursuant to the notice and cure provisions of Section 1.35 of Ordinance No. 90-12. (c) Grantor and Grantee acknowledge and agree that the above-described liquidated damage provisions represent a reasonable sum in light of all of the circumstances. The Grantee shall pay any liquidated damages assessed by the City Council within five (5) days after they are assessed. If they are not paid within the five-day period, the City may withdraw them from the security fund. 4.4 Right of InsDection of Construction. Grantor shall have the right to inspect all construction or installation work performed subject to the provisions of this Franchise Agreement and to make such tests as it shall deem necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the franchise and other pertinent provisions of law. 4.5 Street Occupancy. (a) Grantee shall comply with all City ordinances and regulations generally applicable to other utilities regarding construction and encroachment, in on or under the public right of way. (b) All transmission lines, equipment and structure shall be so installed and located as to cause minimum interference with the rights and reasonable sff/AGRl15524f -21- convenience of property owners and shall be kept and maintained in a safe, adequate and substantial condition, and in good order and repair. Grantee shall, at all times, employ ordinary care and shall install and maintain in use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents which are likely to cause damage, injuries, or nuisances to the public. Suitable barricades, flags, lights, flares or other devices shall be used at such times and places as are reasonably required for the safety of all members of the public. Any fixtures placed in any public way by Grantee shall be placed in such a manner as not to interfere with the usual travel on such public way. (c) Grantee shall, at its own expense, restore to Grantor's standards and specifications generally applicable to other utilities, any damage or disturbance cause to the public way as a result of its operations or construction on its behalf. (d) Whenever, in case of fire or other disaster, it becomes necessary in the judgment of Grantor to remove any of Grantee's facilities, no charge shall be made by Grantee against Grantor for restoration and repair, provided that Grantor's employees or contractors acted in a reasonable manner with respect to the removal of Grantee's facilities consistent with the nature of the disaster. sff/AGRl15524f -22- (e) Upon receipt of thirty (30) days written notice, Grantee at its expense shall protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove any property of Grantee when, in the opinion of Grantor the same is required by reason of traffic conditions, public safety, street vacation, freeway or street grade separation or realignment, installation of sewers, drains, waterpipes, power line, signal line, transportation facilities, tracks, or any other types of structure or improvements by governmental agencies whether acting in a governmental or a proprietary capacity, or any other structure or public improvement, including but not limited to movement of buildings, redevelopment, or any general program under which Grantor shall undertake to cause any such properties to be located beneath the surface of the ground. Nothing hereunder shall be deemed an action in eminent domain or taking of the property of Grantee and Grantee shall be entitled to no surcharge by reason of anything hereunder. Where such action by a governmental agency results from or is attributable to private development or improvement'(whether commercial, industrial, residential or otherwise), Grantee shall protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove any of its property required by such action at the cost and expense of the private person undertaking such development or improvement. sff/AGRl15524f -23- (f) Grantee shall make no paving cuts or curb cuts unless written permission has been given by Grantor. In cases of emergency, verbal permission shall be satisfactory. (g) Grantor reserves the right to require conduit for underground cabling. 4.6 Construction and Technical Standards. (a) Grantor Codes and Permits. Grantee shall comply with all applicable Grantor construction codes and encroachment permit procedures. Grantor shall be entitled to charge normal and nondiscriminatory permit and inspection fees which shall not form part of the franchise fees due under this Franchise Agreement. (b) Compliance with Safety Codes. All construction practices shall be in accordance with all applicable sections of Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Acts and any amendments thereto as well as all State and local codes where applicable. (c) Compliance with Electrical Codes. All installation of electronic equipment shall be of a permanent nature, durable and installed in accordance with the provisions of the National ElectricalCode as amended and applicable to cable television system construction, and all applicable State and local codes. sff/AGRl15524f -24- (d) Compliance with Aviation Requirements. Antenna supporting structures (towers) shall be painted, lighted, erected and maintained in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration and all other applicable State or local codes and regulations. (e) Construction Standards and Require- ments. All of Grantee's plant and equipment in the City, including but not limited to, the antenna site, headend and distribution system, towers, house connections, structures, poles, wires, cables, coaxial cables, fixtures and appurtenances shall be installed, located, erected, constructed, reconstructed, replaced, removed, repaired, maintained and operated in accordance with good engineering practices, performed by experienced maintenance and construction personnel so as not to endanger or unreasonably interfere with the rights of any property owner, nor to unreasonably hinder or obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. SECTION 5. SYSTEM DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE REOUIREMENTS 5.1 Channel Capacity. The cable system constructed by Grantee shall have the following nominal channel capacity: sff/AGRl15524f -25- TV (6 MHz) Signal Direction Siqnal Frequency Ran~e Channel Capacity Outbound Inbound 54-550 MHz 5-30 MHz 77 + FM band 4 Video + Data (*At least fifty-four (54) channels shall be activated initially.) (**Activated in accordance with Section 5.2.) 5.2 Capacity for Interactive Services. The cable system shall provide the capacity for interactive services. Inbound (upstream) channels shall be activated, and Grantee shall provide interactive service to residential subscribers when technically and commercially feasible. Notwithstanding the above, when interactive capacity has been activated for at least thirty-three percent (33%) of reasonably comparable systems situated in Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties, Grantee shall activate such a service within six (6) months after receiving Grantor's written request. 5.3 Emergency Alert CapabilitY. (a) No later than thirty (30) days after initial offering of cable service, Grantee shall provide an emergency audio override capability to permit Grantor to interrupt and cablecast an audio message on all channels of sff/AGRl15524f -26- the cable system simultaneously in the event of disaster or public emergency. (b) Grantor shall use its best efforts to contact Grantee management prior to accessing the emergency alert system, and Grantor agrees to exercise the utmost care and diligence with respect to: (1) Those individuals authorized to access the emergency alert system. Under normal circumstances, the number of authorized individuals shall not exceed three (3). (2) The circumstances in which the emergency alert system is actually used. (c) Grantor shall indemnify, defend and hold Grantee, its affiliates and their respective officers, directors, employees and shareholders harmless from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, claims, actions, causes of action, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) arising from or in any manner related to the use of the cable system by Grantor, its employees or agents, including without limitation use of the emergency alert system by or on behalf of Grantor. 5.4 Standby Power. Upon initial offering of cable service: (a) Grantee shall provide standby'power generating capacity at the cable system control center and sff/AGRl15524f -27- at all hubs and/or receive sites, and (b) Grantee shall maintain standby power system supplies throughout the distribution network capable of supplying, on average, two (2) hours of emergency power. 5.5 Parental Control Lock. Upon initial offering of cable service, Grantee shall provide subscribers, upon request, with a parental control locking device or digital code that permits inhibiting the video portions of premium channels. 5.6 Technical Standards. (a) Design Standards. The system shall be capable of carrying seventy-seven (77) megahertz (MHz) Class I Television Channels, the full FM broadcast band, and four (4) inbound channels. The system shall be designed to comply with the technical standards set forth in Exhibit B. (b) ApDlicable Technical Standards. (1) The cable system shall be designed and constructed utilizing equipment which, at a minimum, complies with the characteristics set forth under "Design Standards" in Section 5.6(a) above such that the cable system, upon activation and serving 1,000 subscribers, meets the characteristics set forth under "Design Standards" in Section 5.6(a) above. (2) Following certification by Grantee sff/AGRl15524f -28- (subject to review and verification by Grantor) that the system complies with the the Design Standards set forth in Exhibit B, Grantee shall comply with any technical standards or guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) applicable to Grantee's cable system in force, as of the effective date of this Franchise. The failure of Grantee to comply with said Design Standards shall in no manner be deemed a breach or violation of its Franchise, but Grantor may use these Design Standards as one (1) measure of Grantee's quality of service. However should the FCC allow local regulation of the technical performance characteristics of cable systems, the characteristics set forth under "Design Standards# of Section 5.6(a) shall become the technical standards for all purposes of the Franchise Agreement enforceable against Grantee in accordance with the terms of the Franchise Agreement. (3) Notwithstanding Section 5.6(b) (2), upon the third, sixth, ninth, twelfth, fifteenth, and eighteenth anniversaries of the effective date of this Franchise. Grantee shall certify to Grantor that the upgraded system complies with said "Design Standards" set forth in Exhibit B. Following certification by Grantee (subject to review and verification by Grantee) that the system complies with the foregoing, and during the interim period between said anniversaries, Section 5.6(b)(2) shall apply. ~29- sff/AGRl15524f (c) Special Tests. At any time after commencement of operations in the franchise service area, Grantor may require Grantee to perform reasonable additional tests, full or partial repeat tests, different test procedures, or tests involving a specific subscriber's terminal. Requests for such additional tests will be based upon complaints received or other evidence indicating a material unresolved controversy or significant noncompliance, and such tests shall be limited to the particular matter in controversy. Grantor shall endeavor to so arrange its requests for such special tests so as to minimize hardship or inconvenience to Grantee or to the subscriber. (d) Cost of Tests. The cost of all tests required by Subsections (c) and (d) above, and retesting as necessary, shall be borne entirely by Grantee. SECTION 6. SUPPORT FOR EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCESS 6.1 Grantee Support. Grantee shall provide, at a minimum, the following support for educational and government (EG) cable usage: (a) Equipment, system interconnection and channel capacity for EG access, as designated in Exhibit C of this Franchise Agreement. sff/AGRl15524f -30- (b) An advertising and promotional campaign to familiarize residents of the service area with the cable system's EG access facilities and the availability of those facilities, which campaign shall be conducted at least once each year and the scope of which will be determined by Grantee. (c) Repair and maintenance for the equipment provided in accordance with Exhibit C, Paragraph 5. (d) Grantee may utilize all EG channel capacity when not being utilized for EG access, but shall relinquish requested channel(s) within three (3) months after receiving a request from Grantor, certifying to a public need. (e) Free installation, free basic service, and provision of live cablecasting capability to the public building locations specified in Exhibit C. 6.2 Compliance with Federal Law. In accepting this franchise, Grantee agrees that the commitments indicated in Section 6.1 above are voluntarily entered into and will not be offset against any franchise fees due Grantor during the term of the franchise. SECTION 7. CONSUMER PROTECTION 7.1 Consumer Service. Grantee shall comply with all standards and procedures of this Section and Ordinance sff/AGRl15524f -31- No. 90-12. Grantee shall open a local office upon passing 1,000 homes within the City. Grantee's employees, agents and contractors who have contact with the public shall wear identification badges. Grantee shall comply with California Civil Code Section 1722 concerning the scheduling of appointments. 7.2 Remedies for Violations. Grantor may, as a part of a subscriber complaint decision issued under the provisions of this Franchise Agreement, Ordinance no. 90-12 and any applicable regulatory ordinance(s), impose damages on Grantee as specified in this Franchise Agreement. 7.3 Notices. (a) ODeratinq Policies. As subscribers are connected or reconnected to the cable system, and at least once annually thereafter, Grantee shall provide each subscriber with written information concerning the procedures for making inquiries or complaints, including the name, address and local and/or toll-free telephone number of the Grantee, and the designated Grantee office, employees or agents to whom such inquiries or complaints are to be addressed, and also furnish information concerning the Grantor office responsible for administration of the franchise with the name and telephone number of the office. The notice shall also indicate Grantee's business hours and a local and/or toll-free telephone number for responding to inquiries after normal business hours. -32- sff/AGRl15524f Grantee shall provide to all subscribers and Grantor written notice no less than thirty (30) days prior to any material change in these policies. (b) Rates and Services. Grantee shall provide all subscribers and Grantor with at least thirty (30) days written notice prior to the implementation of any change in service, rates or programming services. (c) Copies to Grantor. Copies of all notices provided to subscriber shall be filed concurrently with Grantor. 7.4 Ouality of Service. The overall quality of cable service provided by Grantee to subscribers may be subject to evaluation by Grantor, not more often than once annually. In addition, Grantor may evaluate the quality of service at any time, based upon a substantial number of subscriber complaints received by Grantee and Grantor, and the nature of Grantee's response to those complaints. Grantor's evaluation that service quality is not in compliance with the requirements of this Franchise Agreement may lead to direction to Grantee to cure the areas of noncompliance. Failure of Grantee to commence corrective action within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice shall be deemed to be a breach of the franchise and subject to the remedies and procedures prescribed in Section 8.2, Grantor after following the remedies and procedures set sff/AGRl15524f -33- out in Section 8.2 below, may utilize the security fund of Section 3.6 to remedy any such franchise breach. 7.5 Grantee Rules and Requlations. Grantee shall have the authority to promulgate such rules, regulations, terms, procedures, decisions and conditions governing the conduct of its business as shall be reasonably necessary to enable Grantee to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under this Franchise Agreement, and to endeavor to provide uninterrupted service to each and all of its customers; provided, however, that such rules, regulations, terms and conditions shall not be in conflict with the provisions hereof or applicable local, State and Federal laws, rules and regulations. 7.6 Riqhts of Individuals. (a) Grantee's policy with regard to personally identifiable information shall be consistent with Federal law. (b) Fairness of Accessibility. Grantee shall operate its entire system in a manner consistent with principles of fairness and equal accessibility of its publicly designated facilities, equipment, channels, studios and other services, where they exist to all citizens, businesses, public agencies and other entities having a legitimate use for such facilities and services, and no one shall be arbitrarily excluded from their use. sff/AGRl15524f -34- SECTION 8. REGULATION 8.1 Franchise Regulations. The franchise granted under this Franchise Agreement shall be subject to regulation by Grantor in accordance with the provisions of any applicable Federal and State law, rules, regulations or decisions, any applicable local regulatory ordinance and this Franchise Agreement. 8.2 Remedies for Franchise Violations. (a) Grantor reserves the right to impose the following remedies in a manner consistent with Section 1.35 of Ordinance No. 90-12, in the event Grantee violates any provision of the franchise. (1) Assess penalties, not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per day, or per incident or series of related instances, for Grantee's individual or repeated violation of the franchise or failure to take corrective action within the time provided, with respect to a material violation of any provision of the franchise. Any penalties assessed shall be levied against and collected in accordance with the procedures of this Section from the security fund provided for in Section 3.6 of this Franchise Agreement. (2) Require Grantee to provide rate rebates or payment credits to subscribers or classes of subscribers, for violations which interrupt or materially degrade the quality of service provided. (b) Grantor shall, in each case, allow -35- sff/AGRl15524f Grantee a cure period of at least thirty (30) days. In the event the stated violation is not reasonably curable within thirty (30) days, penalties shall not be assessed pursuant to this Franchise Agreement if Grantee provides, within the said cure period, a plan, satisfactory to Grantor, to remedy the violation and continues to demonstrate good faith in seeking to correct said violation. (c) In determining which remedy or remedies for Grantee's violation are appropriate, Grantor shall take into consideration the nature of the violation, the person or persons bearing the impact of the violation, the nature of the remedy required in order to prevent further such violations and such other matters as Grantor may deem appropriate. (d) Prior to any withdrawal, Grantor shall give Grantee at least five (5) days written notice, indicating the intention of Grantor to draw upon the security fund, the amount to be drawn, and the reason .therefor. Upon such withdrawal, Grantor shall notify Grantee of the amount and date thereof. 8.3 System and Service Review. To address technological, economic, and regulatory changes in the state of the art of cable communications, to facilitate renewal procedures, and to promote flexibility in the cable system, the following system and services review procedures are sff/AGRl15524f -36- hereby established: (a) At Grantor's sole option, Grantor may hold a public hearing on or about the third (3rd) anniversary date of the Franchise Agreement at which Grantee shall be present and shall participate, to review the cable communications system and services. Subsequent system and services review hearings may be scheduled by Grantor each three (3) years thereafter. (b) Within sixty (60) days after receipt of written request from Grantor, Grantee shall submit a report to Grantor indicating the following: (1) All cable system services reported in cable industry trade journals that are being commonly provided on an operational basis, excluding tests and demonstrations, to communities in the United States with comparable populations, that are not provided to residents of the City. (2) Any specific plans for provision of such new services by Grantee, or a justification indicating why Grantee believes that such services are not feasible for the franchise area. (c) Topics for discussion and review at the system and services review hearing shall include but shall not be limited to, services provided, economic and technical feasibility of providing new services and technologies, sff/AGRl15524f -37- system performance, subscriber complaints, user complaints, rights of privacy, amendments to the franchise, undergrounding processes, developments in the law, and regulatory constraints. (d) Either Grantor or Grantee may select additional topics for discussion at any review hearing. (e) Not later than sixty (60) days after the conclusion of each system and service review hearing, Grantor shall issue a report, including specifically a listing of any cable services not then being provided to Grantor that are considered technically and economically feasible, and related to the perceived subscriber needs and interests. Grantor may request, but shall not require, Grantee to provide such services. SECTION 9. BOOKS AND RECORDS Grantor, upon reasonable notice, shall have the right to inspect at any time during normal business hours, all books, records, maps, plans, service complaint logs, performance test results and other like materials of the Grantee which relate to the operation of the franchise and are maintained at the local office serving the City, provided they reasonably relate to the scope of Grantor's rights under this Franchise Agreement and provided further that the Grantor shall maintain the confidentiality of any sff/AGRl15524f -38- trade secrets or other proprietary information in the possession of the Grantee and provided further, that records shall be exempt from inspection pursuant to this Section to the extent required by applicable law regarding subscriber privacy and to the extent such records are protected by law against discovery in civil litigation. If any of such books or records are not kept in the local office, or upon reasonable request made available to Grantor, and if Grantor shall determine that any examination of such records is necessary or appropriate to the performance of any of Grantor's duties, then all travel and maintenance expense necessarily incurred in making such examination shall be paid by Grantee. SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10.1 Compliance with State and Federal Laws. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Franchise Agreement to the contrary, Grantor and Grantee shall at all times comply with all laws and regulations of the State and Federal government or any administrative agency thereof having jurisdiction over the franchise, provided, however, if any such State or Federal law or regulation shall require Grantee to perform any service, or shall permit Grantee to perform any service, or shall prohibit Grantee from performing any service, in conflict with the terms of this sff/AGRl15524f -39- Franchise Agreement or any law or regulation of Grantor, then as soon as possible following knowledge thereof, Grantee shall notify Grantor of the conflict believed to exist between such regulation or law and the laws or regulations of Grantor or the terms of this Franchise Agreement. 10.2 Notices. Grantee shall maintain throughout the term of the franchise, a conveniently located address for service of notices by mail. 10.3 CaDtions. The captions to sections throughout this Franchise Agreement are intended solely to facilitate reading and reference. Such captions shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Franchise Agreement. 10.4 No Recourse Aqainst Grantor. It is acknowledged by the parties that Grantor would not have entered into this Franchise Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under this Franchise Agreement, or the application thereof. In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available, including but not limited to specific performance, for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that Grantor, its officials, boards, commissions, agents and employees, shall not be liable in damages or claim any damages: (a) For any breach of this Franchise -40- sff/AGRl15524f Agreement or for any cause of action which arises out of this Franchise Agreement; or (b) For thie taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided under or pursuant to this Franchise Agreement; or (c) Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Franchise Agreement excepting from the above any intentional tort of the Grantor. 10.5 Nonenforcement by Grantor. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligation to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise Agreement by reason of any failure of Grantor to enforce prompt compliance. 10.6 Waiver of Requirements. Grantor, at its sole option, may waive any requirement of this Franchise Agreement. 10.7 Possessory Interests. The provisions of this Franchise Agreement may give rise to the creation of a possessory interest in City of Temecula owned tax exempt land or improvements. If such a possessory interest is created by this Franchise Agreement, it may be subject to property taxation pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 107 et seq., and as a result, Grantee sff/AGRl15524f -41- may be subject to the payment of any property taxes levied on such interest. This notice is given pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107.6. 10.8 Attorneys Fees. Should either party be required to file an action for equitable or injunctive relief to enforce any provision of this Franchise Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in such action, including reasonable attorneys fees. 10.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties,and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings, or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings, or covenants including, but not limited to, the disputed franchise granted by the County in October, 1989, shall be adnissible in any proceeding of any king or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. sff/AGRl15524f -42- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Franchise Agreement the date and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA A Municipal Corporation Mayor Date: (SEAL) JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO, INC. By: Title: Date: By: Title: Date: sff/AGRl15524f -43- EXHIBIT A OWNERSHIP Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc., a Colorado corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jones Intercable, Inc., a Colorado corporation. Notwithstanding the above, in the event Grantee desires to pledge, encumber, or grant any security interest in this Agreement, Grantee shall first notify and obtain City consent in writing of such proposed transaction. City shall grant its consent to such transaction, subject, however, to the following conditions: (a) Any consent so granted shall not be deemed a consent to such pledgee, encumbrancer, or secured party exercising any rights or prerogatives of Grantee under this Agreement, nor to its exercise of any rights or prerogatives of a holder of an ownership interest in Franchise. (b) Any consent so granted shall not be deemed a consent to any subsequent transfer or assignment as referred to in Ordinance No. 90-12. Any such subsequent transfer or assignment shall be deemed an assignment of this Agreement within the meaning of Ordinance No. 90-12. (c) The pledgee, encumbrancer, or secured party shall have executed and delivered to City an instrument in A-1 writing agreeing to be bound by the provisions of the Franchise Agreement. A-2 EXHIBIT B TECHNICAL STANDARDS EXHIBIT B Carrier to RMS Noise Carrier to Low Frequency (Hum) Carrier to Second Order Carrier to Cross-Modulation Carrier to Composite Beat 47 db 2% -60 db -50 db -52 db B-1 EXHIBIT C EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT ACCESS SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 1. Initial Dedicated Access Channels. After Grantee's system has passed a minimum of One Thousand (1,000) dwelling units, Grantee shall make available two (2) access channels on its cable system, one (1) each for purposes of local educational and governmental (EG) programming. These channels shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) The channels shall be a part of Grantee's basic cable service, or any tier of basic service. The channel assignment for the channels shall be determined by Grantee. (b) The EG access users shall have the sole responsibility for the operation and management of the access channels, including without limitation all personnel required in connection with the operation of the channels, all facilities, equipment and material necessary for the operation of the channels (except as otherwise provided in this Exhibit C and this Franchise Agreement), the scheduling and carriage of programming on the channels and the establishment and administration of all rules, regulations and procedures pertaining to the use and scheduling of the programming presented over the channels. (c) Grantee shall maintain its transmission cable(s) over which the EG access programming is delivered to Grantee's distribution site and the distribution system C-1 over which the access channels are carried on its cable system, provided that Grantee shall not be responsible for the quality of the signal originated by the EG access users and transmitted to the cable system's distribution site. If such signals are not of reasonably acceptable technical quality, Grantee may discontinue their carriage upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to Grantor, or, in the event of completely unacceptable technical quality, upon twenty-four (24) hours notice, until such time as a signal of quality acceptable to Grantee is delivered to Grantee's distribution point. (d) The access channels shall be used for substantially for educational or governmental programming and no more than five percent (5%) of the time programmed shall be utilized for advertising or other commercial purposes. (e) Grantor shall in no manner lease, transfer or divest itself of control of the use of the access channels for any purpose to any other person, provided that Grantor may: (1) Share management and control of the channel with Grantee, if Grantee so agrees, or (2) Transfer management and control of such channel to a nonprofit access management entity in which case such access management entity shall be subject to the provisions of this Subsection (e). 2. Limitation of Liability Grantee shall have no liability of any nature arising from the use of any channel or channels on its cable system for educational or governmental programming, including without limitation liability with respect to libel, slander, defamation, invasion of privacy, infringement of copyright, musical performing rights or any other right to any person, corporation, partnership venture or other entity, or with respect to the content of such programming. 3. Provision of EG Access Equipment and Facilities (a) No later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Franchise Agreement, Grantee shall pay to CM Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) for the acquisition and installation of governmental access equipment and facilities, and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) donated for educational access equipment. Grantee has agreed to make this Twenty-Five Thousand Dollar ($25,000) capital grant available as a voluntary contribution to the enhancement of educational uses of the cable system, and Grantor has selected the Temecula Valley Unified School District to administer the use of these funds and oversee the education channel4 Grantor and/or any c-3 educational access users shall be responsible for operating costs to utilize the equipment and facilities. Grantor and Grantee may agree upon the acquisition and installation of the requested equipment by Grantee in lieu of direct provision of funds. (b) After Grantee's system serves a minimum of Two Thousand (2,000) subscribers, Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for the cost of cablecasting Council meetings, not to exceed Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000) per year, adjusted annually in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. If Grantee pays more than fifty percent (50%) of the total cost, Grantee shall receive exclusive sponsorship credit for the cablecasts. 4. Connection and Service to Public Buildings Grantee shall provide one (1) free cable connection and free basic service to all police, fire and other designated City buildings, to all schools and libraries, and .to any designated Federal, State, County and utility district buildings within Grantee's service area, no later than six (6) months after Grantee has energized trunk and feeder cables in the area(s) in which the public facilities are located, and within thirty (30) days of Grantee receipt of a request for connection by an authorized representative of an eligible public facility. C-4 The location within each of the above buildings to which the cable system drop is connected shall be approved in advance by a representative of the user agencies. The obligation of Grantee to provide basic service to such public facilities shall be subject to the following: (a) Grantee shall be required to make only one (1) standard installation at one (1) point reasonably convenient to use at the building in question and Grantee shall not be required to wire the entire building or to provide more than one (1) outlet at no cost. (b) Eligible buildings must be located within two hundred (200) feet of Grantee's existing trunk and/or feeder system. (c) Any new or relocated public building shall be connected Within sixty (60) days of Grantee's receipt of a request from Grantor. 5. Interconnection (a) No earlier than three (3) months after Grantee's system serves Three Thousand (3,000) basic subscribers, upon Grantor's request, Grantee shall interconnect EG access channels of its system with other Grantees serving all or portions of the City, so that EG access programming may be viewed simultaneously throughout the entire City. The cost of such interconnection shall be C-5 shared by the participating Grantees. Grantor may establish an equitable cost-sharing formula, if the Grantees are unable to agree upon a cost-sharing formula through negotia- tions, and Grantee shall have no obligation to interconnect unless and until such an equitable cost-sharing formula, involving all City Grantees, is established. (b) Grantee(s) may request a delay or waiver with respect to interconnection, if it can be demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of Grantor that such interconnection would impose a substantial financial burden upon Grantee(s) and/or the respective cable subscribers. 6. Live Cablecastinq Capability No earlier than three (3) months after Grantee's system serves One Thousand (1,000) subscribers, upon Grantor's request, Grantee shall provide the necessary upstream communications links and modulation equipment to permit live cablecasting programming to originate from one location from each of the following facilities: City Hall Council Chambers C-6 EXHIBIT D SCHEDULE OF GRANTEE COMMITMENTS EXHIBIT D This schedule indicates the time frame and deadline for the Grantee payments and commitments required under this Franchise Agreement. SECTION COMMITMENT DEADLINE 3.2 Franchise Fee Payable quarterly no later than April 30, July 31, October 31, January 31 of each year. 3.3 Reimbursement of Franchise Cost Within sixty (60) days of receipt of written itemization. 3.5 Insurance Coverage Upon the effective date of the Franchise Agreement. 3.6 Security Fund Upon the effective date of the Franchise Agreement. 4.1 System Construction In accordance with Section 4.1 5.3 Emergency Alert No later than thirty (30) days after initial offering of cable service. 5.4 Standby Power Upon initial offering of cable service. 5.5 Parental Control Lock Upon initial offering of cable service. 5.6 (b) Test and Compli- ance Procedures Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the Franchise Agreement. Exhibit C Cablecasting Channels, Facilities and Equipment In accordance with Exhibit C. D-1 sff /JUG165897 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO, INC., vs. CITY OF TEMECULA, Plaintiff, Defendant. DOCKET NO.: CV 90-3501 MRP STIPULATED JUDGMENT Plaintiff Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc., and Defendant City of Temecula having duly executed a "Stipulation for Entry of Judgment# (the #Stipulation#); and the parties having made a joint application for entry of judgment in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, which application came on regularly for hearing before this Court at 10:00 a.m. on September 16, 1991, before the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer, United States District Court Judge, presiding, and each party being represented by the legal counsel of its choice; and the Court having considered the Stipulation, the arguments offered by -1- sff/JUG165897 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 those present at the hearing, the pleadings and other papers on file; the Court finds: FINDINGS 1. Jones' principal business is the development, ownership and operation of community, antenna and cable television systems. 2. The City is a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 3. On or about October 31, 1989, Jones was granted a franchise from the County of Riverside, California ("County") to provide cable and related services throughout the County (#County Franchise"). A portion of the area covered by the County Franchise incorporated as the City of Temecula on December 1, 1989. 4. The parties have stipulated to the amendment and restatement of the County Franchise in the form of the Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement (#Amended Franchise") attached hereto as Exhibit #A# and incorporated herein by this reference. 5. There is sufficient physical capacity within the City's existing and proposed public utilities to accommodate both Jones' cable system and the cable system of the incumbent cable operator, Inland Valley Cable Vision. 6. Cable operators are generally entitled to some First Amendment protection. The City may impose such reasonable time, place and manner restrictions as are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. (Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1984, affirmed, 106 S.Ct. 2034 (1986).) The terms and --2-- sff/JUG165897 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 conditions of the Amended Franchise satisfy such restrictions. 7. Ordinance No. 90-12, adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula, as it pertains to the terms and conditions of the Amended Franchise, is adequate, sufficient, legal and valid in all respects. 8. The Amended Franchise attached hereto as Exhibit "A# is adequate, sufficient, legal and valid in all respects. 9. The Stipulation between the parties is fair, reasonable and adequate. 10. The County Franchise was granted prior to the effective date of AB 2892, which amended California Government Code § 53066.3, regarding the grant of additional cable television franchises in areas already served by one franchise. Thus, the Amended Franchise, as an amendment and restatement of the County Franchise, is exempt from the provisions of AB 2892. above, DISPOSITION Based upon the Stipulation and the findings set forth IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered as follows: 1. Within fourteen (14) days after the date of entry of this Judgment, the City and Jones shall execute, and shall thereafter conform to, comply with and be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the Amended Franchise attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The County Franchise, except to the extent modified by the Amended Franchise, shall have no further force or effect within the City, now or in the future, and said County Franchise --3-- sff/JUG165897 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 shall not be used to supplement, interpret or otherwise explain or modify the terms of the Amended Franchise; 2. All parties to this action are hereby permanently enjoined from instituting any action or proceeding raising any issue as to which this Judgment is binding and conclusive, and this Judgment is forever binding and conclusive upon all persons as to all matters which were or could have been adjudicated in this action; and 3. Each party shall bear its own costs. DATED: HONORABLE MARIANA R. PFAELZER Judge, United States District Court -4- 1 2 3 JEROLD H. GOLDBERG, State Bar No. 57120 McDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG 600 #B# Street, suite 1100 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 239-3444 FRATES, BIENSTOCK & SHEEHE 5 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3160 6 Miami, Florida 33131-2367 7 8 9 i0 Attorneys for Plaintiff JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO, INC. SCOTT F. FIELD, City Attorney, CITY OF TEMECULA; and BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN SCOTT F. FIELD M. LOIS BOBAK 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 545-5559 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF TEMECULA /5 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO, INC., rs. CITY OF TEMECULA, Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE NO. CV 90-3501 HRP STIPULATION FO~ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 25 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff, JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO, INC., ("Jones") and Defendant CITY OF 27 TEMECULA ("City") as follows: 28 1. Recitals: -1- 1 2 3 A. This action was filed by Jones against City on July' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jones contends in....th~ litigation.thDt the cable television franchise granted to it by the County of Riverside, California (#County#), in or about November, 1989 (#County Franchise#), became binding upon the City by operation of law upon the incorporation of the City on December 1, 1990. C. On January 1, 1991, and after issuance of the County Franchise, AB 2892 became effective, amending Government Code Section 53066.3 regarding the grant of additional cable television franchises in an area already served by one franchise. D. The City in this litigation has disputed that the County Franchise was or is binding upon it. E. The parties now wish to compromise the dispute and to provide for the issuance by this Court of a final judgment pursuant to which the city and Jones will abide by the terms of the County Franchise, as amended and restated to provide for terms that are appropriate to the practical considerations applicable within the City. 2.Stipulation A. On the basis of the foregoing, the parties stipulate and agree that judgment in this action may be entered in the form of that certain proposed Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit #1# and incorporated herein by this reference ('Judgment"), including that certain Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement ('Amended Franchise') which is attached to such Judgment as Exhibit #A#. --2-- 5, 1990, seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief and damages. 1 2 3 B. Except as otherwise expressly provided in the proposed Judgment, including Exhibit #A# thereto, Jones will take nothing by way of its complaint and neither party shall recover ... 4 ...a~y_d~m~g~.S,.~attorney's. fees, costs or other relief 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. The parties hereby waive any right (i) to request .any~findings, including,.without limitation, a Memorandum of Decision herein, and (ii) to appeal from this judgment, or any part thereof. D. The parties hereto agree and acknowledge that the City Council of City has, in the time and manner prescribed by State and Federal law, adopted Ordinance No. 90-12, entitled #An Ordinance of the City of Temecula Governing Cable Television Franchise Hereinafter Granted By The City of Temecula#, a true and correct copy of which Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit #2# and incorporated herein by this reference. E. The parties hereto agree and acknowledge that in order to settle the dispute as to whether the County Franchise is binding on the City, such County Franchise shall be binding only to the extent and subject to the terms and conditions of the Amended Franchise which is attached to the Judgment ~s Exhibit #A#. The parties further agree and acknowledge that except as provided in the Amended Franchise, the County Franchise shall have no force or effect within the City, now or in the future. Nor shall the terms of the County Franchise be used to supplement, interpret, or otherwise explain or modify the terms of the Amended Franchise. The parties further agree that because the County Franchise was issued prior to the effective date of AB 2892, the Amended Franchise shall not be subject to AB 2892. --3-- 1 2 $ Fe The parties agree and stipulate that the filing of this Stipulation with the Court shall constitute a request by all signatory parties hereto that the Court, upon noticed motion, · ,4 ........ enter.j.u~gm~n~..GonfQr~.,ing. in form and content. to the Judgment. 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G. The parties hereby agree for the benefit of one to the other, as a covenant and contractual obligation separate from the Judgment, that upon entry of the Judgment, each shall conform to, comply with, and be bound by, the terms and conditions of the Amended Franchise. H. The city shall not discriminate against Jones or any other person as a result of participation or involvement in this lawsuit or as a result of any position taken by any such person with respect to this lawsuit. I. This Stipulation shall only take effect after its execution by each and every party hereto and upon its approval and acceptance by the Court. J. This Stipulation is entered into for the sole purpose of settling the above-entitled litigation. By execution of this Stipulation, neither party admits any wrongdoing or the validity of either the factual or legal contentions ~aised by the other party. In the event the Court determines not to enter Judgment in this action based upon this Stipulation, the Stipulation shall be terminated, shall be of no further force or effect, and shall not be admissible for any purpose in this or any other action. K. The parties to this Stipulation intend the Judgment to constitute a complete adjudication of all issues which were or /// --4-- 1 2 could have been raised in this action and a bar to all future actions with respect thereto. L. Based on the foregoing, the parties [nall file a joint application for entry of the Judg~._ent based UPOn t.h.%s.' Stipulation, in accordance with and in the form of the proposed .Judgment, including the Amended Franchise which is attached to such Judgment as Exhibit "A". 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: DATE D: /// /// /// /// /// /// /// JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO, INC., a Colorado Corporation By: Its: By: Its: CITY OF TEMECULA, A Municipal Corporation By: It~: -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~DATED: ..... ~ 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: DATED: McDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG -By: JEROLD H. GOLDBERG, ESQ. SAN DIEGO, INC. BURKE, WILLIAMS &"SORENSEN ........... By: SCOTT F. FIELD, ESQ. Attorneys for CITY OF TEMECULA -6- 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER Good cause appearing therefor, the above stipulation is accepted and ordered filed. HONORABLE MARIANA R. PFAELZER Judge, United States District Court -7- ITEM NO. 21 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer August 13, 1991 Business License Registration Program APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~.~, ~/.___..' ~./ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM." 2. Approve Resolution No. 91- , entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A FEE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS CERTIFICATES." DISCUSSION: The following issues have been addressed in revising the Business License Ordinance, or will be addressed in the administration of the Business License Program. Home occupancy type businesses have been added to the businesses listed in the general classification category, Section 2.01 of the Ordinance. Multiple businesses within the same location will require a separate Business License Certificate as addressed in Section 1.04 of the Ordinance. Branch offices will also require a separate Business License Certificate as addressed in Section 1.04 of the Ordinance, however, there will be only one registration charge for the business, as stated in Section 2.00, Item 3. Staff will develop a separate business operation permit ordinance to bring to Council for consideration which will address concerns regarding businesses that require regulation and potentially impact the health, welfare and safety of the community such as taxi services, business solicitations and home occupancies. The Business License renewal date will be changed from July I to February 1 to facilitate solid waste reporting requirements. The adoption of Fire Inspection and Building and Safety fees as part of the Business License Resolution has been removed. The State Board of Equalization district reporting number has been added as required information in Section 1.07 of the Ordinance. Additional definitions have been added to the miscellaneous category, Section 2.07 of the Ordinance. Carry-out food type businesses are categorized under Section 2.01, item//80 in the general classification categories (i.e. eating places, catering services, restaurants, lunch counters, and snack bars). 10. In conjunction with the administration of the ordinance, in instances where a home occupancy may be in violation of the CC&R's of a Home Owners Association, the City will notify the Homeowners Association of the issuance of a home occupancy business certificate so that the Home Owners Association can review the property use in relation to their CC&R's. FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated Administrative Fees are $38,000. Software has been developed in house. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Establishing Business Registration Program Resolution 91- to establish Administrative Fees for Business Registration Program RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A FEE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS CERTIFICATES and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to establish a business registration fee; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to establish service charges which do not exceed the cost of providing the service; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that $35.00 is a service charge that does not exceed the cost of providing this service. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. If any charge set forth in this resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other charge or application thereof, and to this end of the charges of this resolution are declared to be severable. SECTION 2. The City of Temecula hereby adopts as its fee $35. SECTION 3. This resolution shall go into effect concurrently with the effective date of Ordinance No. 91- SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 13th day of August, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL1] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4\resos197 -2- ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapters: 1. Business Certificates and Uniform Licensing Procedures 2. Business Certificate-Fees Chapter 1 BUSINESS CERTIFICATES AND UNIFORM REGISTRATION PROCEDURES. Sections: 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1 10 111 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 Purpose Definitions Certificate-Required Certificate-Required for branch offices and businesses doing business in same location Businesses or organizations exempt Exemption to fees Certificate-Application-Contents Certificate-Issuance Certificate-Term Certificate-Nontransferable or Nonrefundable Certificate-Duplicate Certificate-Denial Certificate-Appeal of Denial Investigation and inspection procedure Unlawful operation or nuisance Certificate does not permit business otherwise Other agency review Constitutional apportionment Posting and keeping certificates Enforcement authority Right to revoke Grounds for denial or revocation Penalties for failure to apply for certificate or not having current certificate Effect of regulation on existing businesses Violation-Penalty 3lOrds 21 -1- SECTION 1. Chapters 1 and 2 relating to the Business Registration Program are hereby adopted to read as follows: 1.01 Purpose. A. The ordinance codified in this document is enacted for the purpose of providing a registry of businesses in the incorporated area. B. This ordinance is also intended to protect the interests of legitimate businesses in the City from unfair competition with businesses operating in violation of federal, state and local laws. C. This ordinance is not intended to impose any form of taxation on the business community nor to collect in fees more money than is necessary to recover the administrative costs of processing an application for the issuance or renewal of a business certificate. 1.02 Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Business" means professions, trades and occupations and all and every kind of calling whether or not carried on for a profit. B. "Civic groups, service clubs and social organizations" means a group, club or organization that is not engaged in any profession, trade, calling or occupation but is organized to provide civic, service or social activities in the City. C. "Occasional" means less than once each quarter of a year. D. "Person" means all domestic and foreign corporations, associations, syndicates, joint stock corporations, parmership of every kind, clubs, business trust or common law trusts, societies, and individuals transacting and carrying on any business in the City. E. "Profession" means the practice of doctors, dentists, attorneys, accountants, real estate agents, beauticians, barbers or any other occupation or calling requiring a specialized knowledge and a certificate to practice. F. "Peddler" shall include any person, whether principal or agent, whether a resident of the City or not, who goes from house to house or to only one house, or upon any street, sidewalk, alley, or in any park or public place in the City, conveying goods, wares, merchandise, magazines, periodicals or other publications, regularly published newspapers excepted, or any coupon certificate, ticket or card which is redeemable in goods, wares, merchandise, or services, or offering the same for sale, or making sales and delivering articles to purchasers. It shall not include vendors of milk, bakery products, produce, groceries, ice cream or ice and water who distribute their products to regular customers on established routes. G. "Sale" means the transfer, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of title to 3lOrds 21 -2- property for consideration; the serving, supplying, or furnishing for consideration of any property; and a transaction whereby the possession of property is transferred and the seller retains rifle as security for the payment of the price shall likewise be deemed a sale. The foregoing definition shall not be deemed to exclude any transaction which is, or which in effect, results in a sale within the contemplation of law. H. "Solicitor" shall include any person, whether principal or agent, whether a resident of the City or not, who goes from house to house or only one house, or upon any street, sidewalk, alley, or in any park or public place in the City, soliciting or taking orders for sales of goods, wares, merchandise, magazines, periodicals or other publications, regularly published newspapers excepted, or personal property of any nature whatsoever, or any coupon, certificate, ticket or card which is redeemable in goods, wares, merchandise, or services, for future delivery, or for service to be performed in the future, whether or not such individual has, carries, or exposes for sale, a sample of the subject of such order, or whether he is collecting advance payments on such orders, or who solicits, takes, or attempts to take public opinion polls, consumer surveys, or by such contracts attempts to secure similar information. Such definition shall include any person who uses any building, motor vehicle or other place within the City for the primary purpose of exhibiting samples and taking orders for future delivery, or one who, as an invitee of a purchaser or prospective purchaser, or otherwise, solicits a sale, or exhibits any sample, or gives a demonstration, or makes a delivery within this City after a purchaser or prospective purchaser has been solicited or contacted by telephone, correspondence, .or other method of communication from within the City. Such definition shall also include the term CANVASSER. I. "Transient Merchant" shall include any person, whether a resident of the City or not, who engages in a temporary business of selling and delivering goods, wares, and merchandise, within said City, and who, in furtherance of such purpose, leases, uses, or occupies any building, motor vehicle; public room in a hotel or shop or other place within this City for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares, and merchandise, either privately or at public auction, provided that such definition shall not be construed to include any person, firm, or corporation who, while occupying such temporary location, does not sell from stock, but exhibits samples for the purpose of securing orders for future delivery only. The person, firm or corporation so engaged shall not be relieved from complying with the provisions of this Ordinance merely by reason of associating temporarily with any local dealer, merchant, or auctioneer, or by conducting such transient business in connection with, as a part of, or in the name of any local dealer, merchant or auctioneer. 1.03 Certificates--Required. It is unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling or occupation within the City unless such person first procures a certificate from the City to do so, and complies with any and all applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 1.04 Certificates--Required for branch offices and businesses doing business in same location. A separate certificate must be obtained for each branch establishment or location of the 3lOrds 21 -3- business transacted and carried on and for each separate business carried on at the same location. Each certificate shall authorize the holder to transact and carry on only the business certified at a given location. Any changes in the type or character of the business will require the certificate holder to submit an application for a new certificate. 1.05 Businesses or organizations exempt. A. This ordinance shall not require that churches, civic groups, service clubs or social organizations, including churches that do not operate at a fixed location, casual workers such as baby sitters, tutors, piano teachers or the like be required to obtain a certificate. Nothing in this document shall be deemed or construed to apply to any person transacting and carrying on any business exempt, by virtue of the Constitution or applicable Statutes of the United States or of the State, from the payment of fees to municipal corporation. Nor will a certificate be required of any such business. 1.06 Exemption to fees. A. Charitable Organizations. Charitable organizations meeting any of the conditions listed below shall be exempt from the payment of the certificate fee but are still required to obtain a business registration certificate. The payment of the certificate fee will not be required: 1. To conduct, manage or carry on any business, occupation or activity from any institution or organization which is conducted, managed or carried on wholly for the benefit of charitable purposes or from which profit is not derived, either directly or indirectly, by any individual, firm or occupation; or 2. For the occasional conducting of any entertainment, concert, exhibition or lecture on scientific, historical, literary, religious or moral subjects within the City, whenever the receipts of any such event are to be appropriated to any church or school or to any religious or benevolent purpose by a tax exempt nonprofit organization; or 3. For the conducting of any occasional entertainment, dance, concert, exhibition or lecture by any religious, charitable, fraternal, education, federal, state, county or municipal organization or association, whenever the receipts of any such entertainment, dance, concert, exhibition or lecture are to be appropriated for the purpose in which the organization or association, was formed, and from which a profit is not derived, either directly or indirectly by an individual, firm or corporation. However, nothing in this Section shall be deemed to exempt any person association, or organization, institution, firm or corporation from complying with the provisions of this regulation or any ordinance of the City requiring that a certificate, certificate or permit be obtained to conduct, manage or carry on any profession, trade, calling or occupation. B. Claim for Exemption. Any person claiming a exemption pursuant to this Section shall file a verified statement, from The Franchise Tax Board stating the facts upon which the exemption is claimed. 3lOrd- 21 -4- C. Certificate. The City shall, upon a proper showing contained in the verified statement, issue a certificate to such person claiming a fee exemption without requiring the payment of a fee. 1.07 Certificate--Application--Contents. A. Every person, association, organization, institution, firm or corporation required to have a ordinance under the provisions of this document shall make application to the City on a form provided by the City. Completed applications and fees shall be mailed to the Business License Services Office and the minimal information required on the application form shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1. The 2. The 3. The 4. The 5. The name of the person to whom the certificate is to be issued; name of the business; specific type of business to be conducted; mailing address of the business; place where the business is to be transacted and carried on; 6. The name, telephone number and address of the person to notify in the event of an emergency; 7. Whether hazardous materials or chemicals will be stored at the business location to the extent permitted within the Hazardous Materials Ordinance; and 8. The State Board of Equalization Resale Certificate number if a resale certificate is required by the State Board of Equalization and reporting district number. 9. Complete the recycling and solid waste diversion forms attached to the business registration application as described in Section 1.14A2. 10. Evidence that any and all state, federal or county permits or certificates required to conduct the applicable business or profession has been lawfully acquired no application shall be deemed final until adequate evidence of such permits or certificate has been shown. Applicants shall provide certificate numbers as evidence. B. Subject to the Public Records Act requirements, the information requested by Subdivisions 6, 8 and 9 of Subsection A of this Section shall be considered confidential and will not be made available to the public. 1.08 Certificate--Issuance. A. A certificate will not be issued until an application for a certificate has been completed and filed with the City, all certificate fees are paid, and all City officers or departments required to investigate the application have approved such issuance. However, the City shall make every attempt practicable to complete any review or investigation within ten working days of receipt of the application. If a certificate is not issued within ten 3/Ords 21 -5- working days of the receipt of the application, the applicant shall be informed to the reason or reasons why the certificate has not yet been issued or will not be issued. B. The issuance of a certificate shall not be deemed as evidence that a person, association, organization, institution, firm or corporation operating a business in the City is in fact in compliance with all ordinance rules or regulations of the City or that the person has applied for or have been issued all permits. or certificates which otherwise may be required. 1.09 Certificate--Term, A. Certificates for New Businesses. Certificates for new businesses, whether new to the City or resulting from a change of ownership, location or type of business, shall be issued for a maximum term of twelve months or until a renewal of the certificate is required in accordance with Section B of this Section. B. Renewal of Existing Certificate. All certificates which are renewed shall be valid for a twelve month term unless otherwise revoked. Certificates shall be required to be renewed. When the certificate is scheduled for renewal less than sixty days after its date of issuance, the renewal fee shall be waived and any further review or investigation may be waived, if there has been no major change in the operation of the business and the application has been completed and filed with the City on a timely basis. Certificate renewal date will be February l st. 1. !0 Certificate--Nontransferable or nonrefundable. No certificate issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be transferable or refundable. 1.11 Certificate--Duplicate. A duplicate certificate may be issued by the City to replace any certificate previously issued under this regulation which has been lost or destroyed, upon the certificate holder filing an affidavit attesting to such fact, and at the time of filing such affidavit, paying a duplicate certificate fee equal to the fee established for a certificate renewal. 1.12 Certificate--Denial. Any person denied a certificate shall be fully advised, in writing, of the grounds for such denial. 1.13 Certificate--Appeal of Denial. A. Any person aggrieved by the decision of an administrative officer or agency with respect to the issuance or refusal to issue a certificate, may appeal that decision to the City Manager within thirty calendar days from the date of denial or the date of certificate issuance. The appeal must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk. Following the filing of an appeal, the City Manager or designee must notify the appellant of a time and place for a hearing to review the appeal. Following the hearing the City Manager must notify the appellant of the decision in writing. B. If the person is not satisfied with the decision of the City Manager, the person may 3lOrds 21 -6- appeal to the City Council within thirty calendar days after receipt of the notice of the City Manager's decision by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall establish a time and place for hearing the appeal within thirty calendar days of the filing of the appeal and provide the appellant with sufficient notice by serving the appellant personally or by sending the notice by registered mail addressed to the appellant at the appellant's last known address. The determination of the City Council shall be final. 1.14 Investi~,ation and inspection procedure. All applications for a certificate shall be reviewed or investigated and certified in accordance with the following guidelines: A. Applications for New Certificates. Each application for a new certificate shall be investigated for certification as noted below. The City shall make every attempt practicable to complete all required investigations within ten working days of the receipt of an application. 1. The Department of Planning Services shall review and certify that: a. The business and its location comply with the zoning ordinance of the City; b. The business and its location is a lawful use under the laws of the State and c. All buildings of the business have been issued certificates of occupancy. 2. Every business that is a first time or renewal applicant for a Business Certificate will be required to complete appropriate waste management forms. The information from these forms will assist the City to address waste diversion issues in order to comply with AB 939 reporting requirements and to encourage the implementation of systems designed to divert waste from our landfills. a. Except for the City of Temecula permitted waste management haulers, every business which engages in the business of accepting raw recyclable materials, or buying and processing for further use or sale any raw recycled product, shall keep adequate records to define the jurisdiction or origin, material type, and weight of every recycled product it receives. An aggregate report of the prior calendar year (January through December) activity shall be submitted with the new or renewal business application as Exhibit A to the application. The City's Program Manager for Waste Management will, upon receipt and determination of adequacy, notify Business License Services that the applicant has complied with this requirement and is cleared to be issued a Business Certificate. If accurate records are unavailable, the first report may be estimated. Beginning the year following the issuance of the applicant's first Business Certificate, the business shall submit aggregate reports on a biannual basis (i.e. periods ending in June and December) with the December report including the information for the entire calendar year and submitted with the annual 3lOrds 21 -7- Business Certificate renewal application. The June report may be submitted directly to the Program Manager for Waste Management. b. Every business operating in the City shall keep adequate records of all waste materials that were separated and removed for recycling defining the type, weight, and disposal point of each such product. Products disposed of using a permitted hauler do not need to be reported. An aggregate report of the prior calendar year (January through December) activity, which also includes a survey of source reduction methods, shall be submitted with every new or renewal business application, attached to application as Exhibit B. The City's Program Manager for Waste Management will, upon receipt and determination of adequacy, notify Business License Services that the application has complied with this requirement and is cleared to be issued a Business Certificate. If accurate records are unavailable, the first report may be estimated. B. Applications for Renewal of an Existing Certificate. Each application for renewal of a certificate shall be processed as follows: Business Licensing Services of the City shall receive the application and review it to determine if any changes exist which may require the review of any other department, agency or official. If a review is deemed necessary, the application shall be forwarded to the appropriate department, agency and/or officials for further review. 1.15 Unlawful operation or nuisance. The granting of a certificate under this Ordinance shall not be deemed in any sense whatsoever a permit or certificate to conduct the business referred to therein, in any unlawful manner, or in any manner so as to constitute the same a nuisance. 1.16 Certificate does not permit business otherwise prohibited. Persons required to pay a certificate fee for transacting and carrying on any business under this Chapter shall not be relieved from the payment of any fees for the privilege of carrying on any similar or related activity required under any other ordinance of the City and shall remain subject to the regulatory provisions of other ordinances and laws. 1.17 Other agency review. The Business Certificate Officer may refer to any governmental agency any statement and all other information submitted by persons subject to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with the conduct of a business regulated or supervised or otherwise the concern of any such agency, including agencies concerned with health regulations, zoning conformance, fire safety, police considerations, or any other safeguard of the public interest. Failure to comply with conditions required by other agency review shall result in revocation of the certificate once granted. 1.18 Constitutional apportionment. A. None of the fees authorized by this ordinance shall be so applied as to occasion an undue burden upon interstate commerce. 3lOrds 21 -8- B. In any case where a fee authorized by this ordinance and imposed by City Council resolution is believed by a certificate holder or applicant for a certificate, to place an undue burden upon interstate commerce, the applicant may apply to the City Council for an adjustment of the fee. Such application may be made before, at, or within six months after payment of the prescribed fee. The Decision of the City Council shall be final. 1.19 Posting and keeping. All certificates must be kept and posted in the following mannerl A. Any certificate holder transacting or carrying on business at a fixed place of business in the City shall keep the certificate posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises where such business is carried on or must have the certificate immediately available for inspection upon request. B. Any certificate holder transacting or carrying on business but not operating at a fixed place of business shall keep the certificate immediately available at all times while transacting and carrying on business within the City. In all instances in which a certificate is required under this ordinance for the use of any vehicle, equipment or device, the certificate shall be attached to the vehicle, equipment or device. 1.20 Enforcement authority. The City's police agency and all assigned Code Enforcement Officers have and exercise the power and duty to make arrests for violations of this ordinance. The Enforcement Authority may, enter free of charge, for inspection of certificates, at any time during regular business hours, at any place of business for which a certificate is required, and to demand the exhibition of such certificate for the current term by any person engaged or employed in the transaction of the business. If such person shall then fail to exhibit the required certificate, such person shall then be liable to the penalty provided for in this ordinance. 1.21 Ri~,ht to revoke. A. Every certificate granted under this ordinance is granted and accepted by all parties with the express understanding that the City Council may revoke the certificate if it is in the best interest of the health, welfare or safety of the public to do so and grounds for such revocation exist as noted in Section 1.22. B. Before a certificate may be revoked, the City Council must hold a public hearing, with the notice of the time and place of the public hearing and the reason or reasons for the hearing, given to the certificate holder. 1.22 Grounds for denial or revocation. A certificate required by this ordinance may be denied or revoked pursuant to this regulation only upon one or more of the following grounds: A. Proper application as prescribed in this ordinance has not been made or information submitted has been falsified; or 3lOrds 21 -9- law. B. The prescribed fee for such certificate has not been paid; or C. Delinquent certificate fees have not been paid; or D. The conduct of the business is contrary to local, state or federal 1.23 Penalties for failure to apply for certificate or not having current certificate. Any person who fails to apply for and receive a certificate prior to the start of business, or has not applied for the renewal of an existing certificate prior to expiration of the certificate shall pay the applicable fee, plus a penalty fee not to exceed twice the normal registration fee. 1.24 Effect of Ordinance on existing businesses. Each business that was operating from a permanent location, on the date of the ordinance will be required to obtain a certificate within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance. 1.25 Violation--Penalty. If a person fails to file for a certificate as provided in this ordinance within thirty calendar days after being informed to do so, or fails to pay the applicable fee, or violates any of the other provisions of this ordinance, or knowingly or intentionally misrepresents any material facts to any officer or employee of the City in procuring the certificate provided in this ordinance, or continues to operate a business after the business registration certificate has been revoked, the person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or by confinement in jail not to exceed six months or by both such fine and confinement. Chapter 2 BUSINESS Certificate - FEES Sections: 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 General classification categories Skilled and professional categories Contractors categories Brokers categories Rentals categories Vending machines categories Miscellaneous categories Certificate--Fee. At the time of application for a business certificate, the City shall require the applicant to pay a fee for the processing of said certificate. No portion of this fee shall include the cost of any inspections, investigations or other functions required prior to the original enactment of the Ordinance. All monies collected under this ordinance will be 3lOrds 21 -10- deposited in the general fund of the City. No greater or less amount of money shall be charged or received for any certificate than is provided by in this ordinance, and no certificate shall be sold or issued for any period of time other than what is provided in this ordinance. Rebates will not be given for any unused portion of the certificated term. 1. New Certificate Application Fee. A person applying for a certificate for a new business, whether the business is new. to the City, or an existing business which has changed location, ownership, or type of business, shall be required to pay a fee which is intended to recover the cost of processing the application. 2. Renewal of Certificate. A person who is applying for the renewal of an existing certificate, and the business has not changed in ownership, location or type of business, shall be required to pay a fee which is intended to recover the cost of processing the application. 3. Fee Exemption. There will be a fee exemption for branch offices operating from a Primary Business located within the City. However, branch offices operating from a primary business which is located outside of the City will be required to pay the Certificate fee for the first branch office, all others will be exempted. 2.01 General classification categories. The general classification includes any category, not specifically described by another classification, and includes, by way of example, the following: certificate fee 1. Bootblack or shoe shining parlor or stand; 2. Cigars and tobacco stands or shops; 3. Messenger or fax service; 4. Popcorn and nut store or shop; 5. Awning and tent store; 6. Bath and bathhouse; 7. Books and stationery store; 8. Carpentry shop, where woodworking or repairing is done; 9. Delicatessen; 10. Electrical fixtures and supplies; where contracting also is done, a separate for such contracting shall also be paid; 11. Employment agency or bureau; 12. Escrow business; 13. Florist shop or store; 14. Gift, art or curio shop or store; 15. Harness, saddlery or tack shop; 16. Hat shop or store; 17. Hat blocking and cleaning; 18. Hemstitching and pleating; 3lOrds 21 -11- 19. Jewelry store or shop, including jewelry, watch or clock repair; 20. Luggage shop, including trunks and other equipment; 21. Millinery store 22. Nursery or gardening, selling nursery stock or conducting a gardening business; where contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Paint and oil dealer; Planing or molding mill; Seed store; Stable; Tailor shop; Upholstery; Warehouse, including moving and storage; Cobbler; Advertising, posting, affixing, stenciling or painting advertising bills or signs upon any post, fence, billboard, advertising signboard, building or other structure, as well as operating or maintaining any billboard, signboard, advertising structure, or sign device; distributing posters; circulares, handbills, brochures or other printed advertising matter; solicitation of advertising for any publication, poster, circular, handbill, brochures or other printed matter; the advertisement of a business certificated under any other classification shall not require an additional certificate fee if such advertising pertains to the particular business certificated; 32. Air conditioning and refrigeration sales and service; when contracting also is done, a separate certificate for such contracting shall also be paid; 33. Aircraft sales, maintenance, repair, storage or rental; aircraft accessories; flying instructions or carrying passengers for hire in aircraft; 34. Blacksmith shop or forge and horse shoeing; 35. Blueprint or map making; 36. Candy store, where candy is manufactured and/or sold; 37. Clothing and furnishings; 38. Dry goods store; 39. Heating sales and service; where contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 40. Household appliances and furnishings; 41. Ice cream or ice milk dealer or manufacturer; 42. Job printing office or plant; 43. Machine shop for manufacture of machines, machinery or parts; 44. Neon signs; manufacturing, selling, dealing or servicing of neon or other tubular electrical signs; when contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 45. Plumbing fixtures and supplies; when contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 46. Radio and/or television store, where radios or televisions or parts are sold or serviced; 3lOrds 21 -12- 47. Sheet metal works; when construction also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 48. Shoe store; 49. Sporting goods shop; 50. Collection agency or credit bureau; 51. Creamery; 52. Drugstore; 53. Newspaper, magazines, and other publications; 54. Office supplies and equipment; selling or servicing office supplies, machines or equipment; 55. Dance hall (public); a place where dancing is conducted, whether for profit or not for profit and to which the public is admitted, either with or without charge or at which the public is allowed to participate in the dancing, either with or without charge. In addition to a business certificate, every public dance hall or ballroom shall be required to have a special permit issued by the City Manager; 56. Dancing school; 57. Golf driving range or archery range; 58. Riding academy or school; 59. Skating rink; 60. Swimming poll; 61. Theaters or show, including motion pictures or vaudeville theater at an established place of business wholly within a permanent building constructed for theatrical purposes; 62. Art gallery; 63. Astrologer, including every person who carries on, practices or professes to practice the business or art of astrology, palmistry, phrenology, life reading, fortune- telling, cartomaney, handwriting analysis, chirography, clalrvoyance, clairaudience, crystal gazing, hypnotism, mediumship, prophecy, augury, divination, magic, necromancy, numerology, or similar business, trade or calling, and who shall not be prohibited from doing or conducting any of these practices, professions, businesses or callings by any statute of this State, ordinance of this City or by any other law, and who demands or receives a fee or compensation for the exercise or exhibition thereof, except that the provisions of this regulation shall not apply to those persons providing bona fide and incidental entertainment and amusement for the guests and patrons of and on the premises of any business duly certificated by the City for which no separate or additional charge or consideration shall be paid by the guests or patrons or received or accepted by the person who performs or practices astrology. Additionally, a special permit from the City Manager must be obtained; 64. Auction; for the business of selling lands, tenements, hereditament, goods, wares, merchandise or real or personal property of any kind or description at auction or public outcry, except no certificate shall be required for the selling at public sale of goods or property belonging to the United States or to the State or federal court, or by the legally appointed administrator, executor or guardian of an estate. Additionally, a special permit shall be obtained from the City Manager; 65. Automobile and other motorized equipment sales and rentals, including 3/Ords 21 -13- automobile accessories, motorcycles, motorscooters, garages or service stations for automobiles and related vehicles,; parking lots or storage yards for automobiles and other vehicles; and taxis. The owner and operator of any taxi shall first file an application with the City's law enforcement agency, together with fingerprints and photographs, and the City's law enforcement agency shall make an investigation of said applicant and operator, and shall file a certificate with the Business Certificate Officer if said investigation shows that the record of the applicant and operator will not prejudice the public, peace, safety, morals or welfare; automobile top or upholstefing shop; automobile wash rack or automobile wash place; and automobile wrecking yard; 66. Bakery or baked goods shop; 67. Bankrupt, assigned or damaged goods; for selling or offering for sale bankrupt, assigned or damaged stock of goods, wares or merchandise of whatever nature or kind. Additionally, a special permit must be obtained from the City Manager; 68. Barbershop; 69. Beauty shop, with or without sale of toilet articles or cosmetics. 70. Beer tavern; 71. Bicycle or motor-driven cycles, or accessories; 72. Bottled water delivery; 73. Brickyard, where brick is manufactured or from which brick is sold; 74. Building supplies; 75. Building cleaners, for cleaning rooms or furnishings; 76. Carpet and rug cleaners, for cleaning carpets or rugs or related materials or surfaces; 77. recreational sport 78. dairy products; 79. 80. bars; both; managing the products, and materials; Private clubs, such as tennis clubs, golf clubs, country clubs, where or other facilities are provided for members and others; Dairy, including wholesale and retail production and sale of milk and Department store; Eating places, catering services, restaurants, lunch counters; and snack 81. Dime stores, or other retail stores operating under similar format; 82. Furniture stores selling or dealing in new or secondhand furniture or 83. Gasoline delivery tanks, including the business of carrying on or business of buying, selling or dealing in petroleum products at wholesale; 84. Grocery stores and markets where meat, fish, poultry, egg and butter household goods and related products are sold; 85. Hardware store; 86. Manufacturing of retail or wholesale products; 87. Ice; manufacturing, distributing or vending ice; 88. Investments and loan business; 89. Laundry, and other businesses for cleaning or pressing clothing and other 90. Liquor store; 3lOrds 21 -14- 91. Locksmith, including conducting, carrying on or engaging in key or lock repair business or shop; providing that there first shall be procured from the City's law enforcement agency and filed with the Business Certificate Officer a certificate that the applicant has been investigated and it has been determined that the issuance of such prejudice the public; peace, safety, morals or welfare; Lumber business or lumberyard, either wholesale or retail; Music dealer, including the sale or rental of music and musical certificate will not 92. 93. instruments; 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. accessories; 99. Nursery school for the care of children; Packing house; Transient Merchant; Peddler; Camera shop, photography business; film processing and photography Prefabricated buildings, including the sale of such buildings; where contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 100. Rock, sand and gravel; sales or delivery, including acceptance of orders for the sale of rock, sand or gravel which is removed from the premises by the purchaser; 101. Secondhand dealer involved in the sale or trade of secondhand goods, wares or merchandise; 102. Solicitor; 103. Telegraph company for intrastate business; 104. Towel distributor, including distribution of towels, linens or napkins to businesses, houses or offices, either by local or out-of-town operators; 105. Commercial traveler; 106. Record, tape and phonograph stores, including businesses engaged in the selling, renting or otherwise dealing in recorded music, music machines or musical equipment; 107. Woodyards, including businesses selling and/or delivering firewood. 108. Home occupancy. 2.02 Skilled and professional categories. A. The skilled and professional classification includes professional businesses and establishments offering skilled services, and includes, by way of example, the following: 1. Accountants; 2. Attorneys at law; 3. Engineers or surveyors; 4. Laboratories, chemical or other type; 5. Veterinarians; 6. Architects or designers, engaged in the business of preparing plans and specifications for buildings, structures or other projects; plans and specifications for buildings, structures or other projects; 7. Doctors, dentists, chiropractors, and other health care providers; and 8. Undertakers and mortuaries. 3lOrds 21 -15- 2.03 Contractors categories. The contractors classification includes general engineering contractors; general building contractors; boiler, hot water heating, steam fitting; cabinet and mill work; cement and concrete; electrical (general); electric signs; elevator installation; excavating, grading, trenching, paving and surfacing fire protection engineering; flooring (wood); glazing; house and building moving; insulation; landscaping, lathing; masonry, ornamental metals; painting and decorating; plastering; plumbing; refrigeration; roofing; sewer, sewage disposal, drains and cement pipe laying; sheet metal; steel (reinforcing); steel (structural); structural pest control; tiel (ceramic or mosaic); warm air heating; ventilating; air conditioning; welding; well drilling; classified specialists; and other businesses such as refuse collection, ambulance services and cable television companies. 2.04 Brokers categories. The brokers classification includes person engaged in the occupation of broker and/or engaged in or carrying on the business of lending or selling on commission, or making loans for others on commissions, collecting rents as agents for other than those carrying on the business of banking, and includes, by way of example, the following: A. Stock or bond broker; B. Real estate broker or agent; C. Insurance broker (but not an insurance agent). 2.05 Rentals categories. The rentals classification includes any person engaged in the business of operating a hotel, motel, apartment complex, rooming house, mobilehome park, trailer park, or campgrounds or any other similar type of lease or rental living facility with a total of three or more units or spaces. 2.06 Vending machines categories. The vending machines classification includes the business of renting, leasing or operating coin-operated vending machines, and includes, by way of example, the following: A. Cigarette or tobacco machines; B. Food or beverage machines; C. Postage stamp machines; D. Game machines. E. Recycling machines. 2.07 Miscellaneous categories. The miscellaneous classification includes such businesses operating exclusively with a vehicle for advertising, delivering or selling goods, wares, merchandise or services, and such other designated businesses, and includes, by way of example, the following: A. Dances; B. Carnival, circus or rodeo; C. Swap meets; D. Arcades; E. Games; F. Merry-go-rounds; 3lOrds 21 -16- G. Shooting galleries; H. Medicine shows; I. Pawnshops; J. Wrecking yards or junkyards; K. Bowling alleys; L. Billiards halls or poolhalls. M. Secretarial N. Bookkeepers 0. Entertainers P. Transportation Q. House Cleaning R. Breeders S. Pet Care SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary to be published and a certified copy of the full text to be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the meeting at which the City Council adopts this ordinance. Within 15 days after adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance with the names of the City Council members voting for and against, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the Ordinance in the office of the City Clerk with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this day of August, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3lOrds 21 -17- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) $S CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-XX was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 13th day of August, 1991 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the -- day of August, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 3lOrds 21 -18- ITEM NO. 22 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~/'~/~-~ FINANCE OFFICER-------'- CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerl~ August 13, 1991 Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a voting delegate and an alternate to represent the City of Temecula at the Annual League of California Cities Conference Business Session. BACKGROUND: The League of California Cities holds its annual conference each year in October. This year's meeting will take place October 13-16, 1991 in San Francisco. The League has requested that to expedite the conduct of business at the Business Session on Tuesday, October 15, each City Council designate a voting representative and alternate who will be entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. ATTACHMENT: Letter from League of California Cities Executive Director dated July 11, 1991. League of California Cities 1400 K STREET · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 · (916) 444-5790 Caldorn/a Ctttes Work Together Sacramento, CA July 11, 1991 The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Don Benninghoven, Executive Director Re: Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference Dear City Official: This year's League Annual Conference is scheduled for October 13-16 in San Francisco. One very important aspect of the Annual Conference is the General Business Session at which time the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual Conference resolutions guide cities and the League in our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government in California. All cities should be represented at the Business Session on Tuesday, October 15, at 1:30 p.m. at the Hilton Hotel. To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy-making meeting, each City Council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the Business Session. The League Constitution provides that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. A voting card will be given to the city official designated by the City Council on the enclosed "voting delegate form." ff the Mayor or a member of the City Council is in attendance at the Conference, it is expected that one of these officials will be designated as the voting delegate. However, if the City Council will not have a registered delegate at the Conference but will be represented by other city officials, one of these officials should be designated the voting delegate or alternate. Please forward the enclosed ''voting delegate form" to the Sacramento office of the Leag,.¢ at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday. September 20. 1991), so that proper records may be established for the Conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the League Registration Area in the Hilton Hotel. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Session, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. An outline of the voting procedures that will be followed at this conference is printed on the revers& side of this memo. It is suggested that .the Mayor and all Council Members from a given city try to sit together at the Business Session so that, if amendments are considered, there may be an opportunity to exchange points of view and arrive at a consensus before the city's vote is cast. Your cooperation in returning the attached "voting delegate fcrm" as soon as poosiblc · · appreciated. League of California Cities Annual Conference Votine Procedures e e o Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. To cast the city's vote a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city should designate a voting delegate and an alternate and return the Voting Delegate Form to the League for use by the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate or alternate may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegates' desk in the conference registration area. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and the alternate is permitted. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Session, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. Qualification of an initiative resolution is judged in part by the validity of signatures. Only the signatures of city officials, who, according to the records of the Credentials Committee, are authorized to use the city's voting card and who have left a sample of their signature on the Credentials Committee register will be approved. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city official to vote at the Business Session. VOTING DELEGATE: CITY: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1991 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE FORM VOTING ALTERNATE: (NAME) (Tn LE) (NAME) (TITLe) ATFEST: Please Rerum To: League of California Cities 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Not Later Than Friday. September 20. 1991 lo (NAME) (TITLE I/:;,~ ub~j! \acrea'9'otdel.s~, ' ITEM NO. 23 ~. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER f'~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 13, 1991 Paradise Chevrolet Sales Lot Gary Thornhill RECEIVE AND FILE At the City Council meeting of July 23rd, the Council, upon the request of Councilman Munoz, directed Staff to look into the sales lot at Paradise Chevrolet and report back to the Council on August 13th. Attached for the consideration of Council is a chronology of events as it relates to the site. As indicated in the chronology, Paradise Chevrolet applied for, and received, Planning Commission approval for a new Chevrolet dealership on February 4, 1991. Following approval by the Commission, the applicant requested permission to sell vehicles from the site prior to construction of the facility, in order to realize sales revenues. The applicant was advised to apply for administrative Plot Plan approval by the Planning Director. Staff analyzed the request, and granted approval, with conditions on, July 9, 1991. One of the conditions of approval limited the temporary sales operation to 12 months. STAFFRPT-PARADISE 1 GT:vgw Soon thereafter, the applicant initiated the use at the site; complaints were received regarding the operation, and Staff followed up by inspecting the site for compliance with the approved conditions. Discrepancies were noted and corrective actions taken to bring the use into compliance with approval permits. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to in order to expedite compliance and to complete the building permit process so that construction on the permanent facility can commence. The Council should also note that the building plans for the permanent facility have been approved by the City Building and Safety Department. In addition, the use of the temporary lot was approved by Bedford Properties relative to conformance with their commercial development design guidelines, based on the fact that the permanent facility has all approvals and will soon be under construction, (see attached letter from Bedford Properties). STAFFRPT-PARADISE 2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Mark Rhoades, Assistant Planner August 5, 1991 Chronology of Events - Paradise Chevrolet Plot Plan No. 122 8/9/90 10/8/90 10/11/90 12/20/90 2/4/91 4/15/91 5/9/91 6/7/91 7/9/91 7/10/91 7/12/91 7/13/91 PLANNIN G\PP 12 2-B Application for Plot plan No. 122 submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. Project complete, initial study begins. Preliminary Development Review Committee Final DRC Approved by Planning Commission Revised permit submitted for Planning Director approval pursuant to Section 18.43 of Ordinance 348. No environmental action required. Revised permit application for the temporary sales of new cars while permanent facility is under construction. Final DRC (No Pre-DRC required). Grading permit for PP 122 issued. Temporary sales approved under PP 122 (revised). Department acceptance of gravel drive and parking. Engineering Trailer opened, sales started, no building permit for trailer. City Receives complaint regarding "used car lot"; complaint investigated by Code Enforcement. Applicant informed that "Used Cars" sign needed applicable City permits. Gary Thornhill August 5, 1991 Page 2 7/14/91 7/15/91 7/15/91 7/19/91 7/26/91 7/29/91 7/29/91 8/2/91 8/5/91 Applicant picked up sign application. Property manager informed that the vehicles parked outside of the fence were in the Ynez Road right-of-way, Public Works inspector asked property manager to move vehicles. Building and Safety site visit, notice of violation issued for discrepancies. Property owner is working with Staff to correct violations. Property manager informed that vehicles against outside of fence did not conform with the approved plot plan and needed to be moved. Re-inspection at applicant's request. Temporary power was released by Building and Safety but held from Edison until the remainder of the violations are resolved. Meeting held with City Staff, applicant, and applicant's representatives regarding public opposition, site violations and permit constraints. Staff informed by applicant that construction of site would only take a total of six months from permit issuance to occupancy. Building plan check approved by Building and Safety. Building permit issuance pending clearance for consistency check, Fire Department approval, and EMWD clearance. On-site grading is nearly complete. Applicant is proceeding in a timely manner. MR:ks PLANNING\PP122-B 1989 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive .Temecula, California 92390 Ronald J. Parks Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor Pro Tern Karel E Undemans Councilmember Peg Moore Councdrnember J. Sal Mur~oz Councilmember David F Dixon City Manager 1714) 694-1989 FAX ~7141694-1999 July 9, 1991 Mr. Bob Gregory 1177 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93003 SUBJECT: Plot Plan No. 122 (Revised) Dear Mr. Gregory: This revised permit application referenced above has been approved by the City of Temecula Planning Department. The revised plot plan meets the requirements set forth in the City of Temecula's Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.43 regarding revised permit applications. The approved use is for a temporary office and sales trailer. Said use shall conform with the plan marked "Exhibit A", on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. All temporary uses shall be removed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any buildin9s under Plot Plan No. 122, and/or a period of one (1) year. Per the City of Temecula Engineering Department, the following conditions shall apply: Developer shall maintain all drive and parking areas, provide dust control, drainage and erosion control as well as provide any corrective measures deemed necessary by the City of Temecula Engineering Department due to negligence or failure to comply with these conditions. e All control measures and necessary miti9ation shall be at developer's expense. 3. No parking shall be permitted on Ynez Road. PLANNINC\PP122-A\ks Mr. Bob Gregory July 9, 1991 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this notification, please contact the Planning Department at (714) 694-6400. Sincerely, / ~ssist~nt Planner Senior Project Manager Gary Thornhill Planning Director MR/GT:ks PLANNING\PP122-^\ks CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 9, 1991 9:00 A.M. RESULTS Location' Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attendees: Richard Ayala~ Planning Department Mark Rhoades, Planning Department Charly Ray, Planning Department Scott Wright, Planning Department Robert Righetti, Engineering Department Mike Gray, Fire Department Gary King, Community Services District Lettie Boggs, School District Case No. Plot Plan No. 122 (Revised) Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: APN No.: Case Planner: Paradise Chevrolet Markham & Associates Request to add a temporary Sales Trailer Ynez Road, South of Solana Way 921-080-014, 017, 018 Mark Rhoades Planning Department All signage shall require approval by separate permit. The primary use of the property shall be restricted to the sale of new automobiles. No other uses shall be allowed by this permit. Temporary fencing shall be placed at a point which will separate areas open to the public from areas under construction. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. 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 A: 122Rev-PP\lb i 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 of 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 clearly and conspicuously states 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 telephoning." .. 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. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 122 (Revised). The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defence, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All required Fire Department aisle widths shall be maintained free and clear. Placement of shrubs shall be required at unit perimeter. Temporary structure shall conform with Ord. 348. A: 12 2 Rev-PP\lb STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 4, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 122 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades Recommendation: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 122; and e ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 122; based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Robert C. Gregory Weston-Whitfield Architects Construction of a new automobile sales and service facility on it,5 acres. West side of Ynez Road, 500 feet south of Solana Way. C-P {General Commercial) North: South: East: West: C-P I General Commercial) C-P (General Commercial) C-P ( General Commercial) Freeway (I-15) Not requested. Vacant, Graded North: South: East: West: Vacant, Graded Existing Car Dealership Vacant Freeway STAFFRPT\PP122 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APN: Site Area: Building Area: Main Structure Service Facility Total Parking Required: Parking Provided: 921-080-014 4.55 gross acres 12,200 sq.ft. 9,500 sq.ft. 21,700 sq.ft. 163 spaces 163 spaces The proposed project site is Parcel Number One { 1 ) of Parcel Map No. 23496. Parcel Map No, 23496 was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on April 4, 1989. The current project proposal was submitted to this department on August 9, 1990. The project was taken before the Preliminary Development Review Committee on October 11, 1990. Corrections were requested and subsequently made by the applicant. The project proposal received a Final Development Review Committee hearing on December 20, 1990. Final corrections were submitted and the proposal was noticed for public hearing. Plot Plan No. 122 is an application to construct a 21,700 square foot automobile sales and service facility located on approximately 4.55 acres southerly of Solana Way on the west side of Ynez Road. The proposed project site is surrounded by an existing automobile dealership {Acura) to the north, Interstate 1S to the west, and vacant land to the south and east. Ynez Road will be improved to full half width right- of-way. The proposed project will take access from Ynez Road. The proposed site provides adequate aisle width for circulation. Parking is provided in accordance with Section 18.12 of Ordinance 348. Separate parking is identified on the site plan for customer, employee, and service areas. Architecture The proposed structure is contemporary in design. The building exhibits grey cement tile, mainly in the two porte cochere areas where the roof is hipped. The building front consists of a mixture of smoked glass and square columns which support a large arcade covering for new vehicle display area. STAFFRPT\PP122 2 ANALYSIS: A grey split-face block wainscoting encircles. the base of the building perimeter, The building store front will be white. The balance of the building area will consist of light grey stucco with dark grey trim, The service bay structure is similar in design and material content to the show room building. The rear (west) wall of the service bays will be visible from the 1-15 freeway. This elevation is treated with grey stucco and grey split-face block, Ample landscaping at this elevation will also soften the proposed building's visibility from the freeway. Landscapinq The proposed landscaping incorporates a substantial number of 15 gallon and 2~ inch box trees, A total of 21 Holly Oak Trees are proposed, Staff recommends that because of the slow nature of growth that the Holly Oak (quercus Ilex) exhibits, that all proposed specimens be minimum 2~ inch box. Landscaping is included at islands within the parking area. A front landscape setback with a minimum width of ;25 feet is proposed adjacent to Ynez Road. The landscape planter will include three 13) foot high betming and 15 gallon street trees planted 25 feet on center. Staff recommends that the proposed street tree be designated as "Liquidambar Styfacifllia'~. A rear landscape setback is provided because of the need to observe a ~0 foot wide EMWD easement, The proposed rear setback ranges from It5 to 70 feet in width and includes clumps of Eucalyptus trees, The rear setback separates the proposed rear [west) side of the service building from the freeway. The proposed Eucalyptus trees will provide visual relief in addition to the proposed architecture, Land Use Compatibility The proposed project is an automotive dealership and service facility, The proposed site is located in an area which is currently experiencing or has experienced development which is similar in nature and intensity to that which is proposed, In fact, several other dealerships already exist or are proposed in the immediate vicinity. STAFFRPT\PP122 3 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Zoninq Compliance The proposed project complies with Ordinance No. 348. The project meets or exceeds landscape, parking, setback and all other development standards of the C-P (General Commercial) zone. The proposed use is permitted in the C-P zone. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject area as "C" (Commercial). The current site zoning is General Commercial, and the proposed project is a permitted commercial use. Adequate infrastructure exists in the vicinity to support the proposed intensity of development. Plot Plan No. 122, as proposed, is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Initial Study was completed by Staff which identified the projects location within an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone. This designation raises concerns relative to the possibility of subsidence .(ground settling and sinking), and liquefaction as a result of potential seismic activity. The Wildomar Fault runs through the Alquist-Priolo Zone. However, the underlyin9 parcel map (23496) was required to provide a Ceotechnical Report which addressed the concerns inherent in the special studies zone. The project is required and conditioned to comply with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Report for Parcel Map No. 23~96. The project will be reviewed by the County Geologist to ensure compliance with the geotechnical recommendations. This impact has been mitigated to a level of non-significance. Grading will not be a significant impact on this site because substantial rough grading has occurred as a result of the parcel map. Staff has determined that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment. However, there will not be a significant impact in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study have been added to the STAFFRPT\PP122 4 FINDINGS: Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be adopted. There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 122 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. e There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to. or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws, Reference local Ordinances No, 348. 460; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 [Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use, Adequate' site circulation, parking, and landscaping are provided; as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the proposed structure, Reference Exhibits D and F. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare· Reference the proposal's Initial Environmental Assessment. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property. because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's general vicinity, STAFFRPT\PP122 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: e The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project site's primary frontage is on Ynez Road, a dedicated City right-of-way currently undergoing necessary improvements prior to its acceptance within the City Maintained Road System. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project, Reference the attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 122. The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. Reference the approved parcel map design ~Exhibit E) vis- a-vis the project site plan in question IExhibit D). 10. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 122; and ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 122; based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. MR: ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits STAFFRPT\PP122 6 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 122 TO CONSTRUCT A 12,200 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMOTIVE SALES FACILITY; AND A 9,500 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE BAY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 4.5 ACRES LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF SOLANA WAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-080-014. WHEREAS, Robert C. Gregory filed Plot Plan No. 122 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted' a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on February 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: J l) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. J 2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: {a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PP122 7 lb) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. [c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter ~'SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 122 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. {1) Pursuant to Section 18.30{c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: STAFFRPT\PP122 8 a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances, b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property, (2) The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 122 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. b) There is 'not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City~s future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City~s General Plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3~8, ~60; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 {Planning and Zoning Law). d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration. circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Adequate site circulation. parking, and landscaping are provided; as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the proposed structure, Reference Exhibits D and F. STAFFRPT\PP122 9 The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Reference the proposal's Initial Environmental Assessment. f) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal~s general vicinity. g) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project siteSs primary frontage is on Ynez Road, a dedicated City right-of-way currently undergoing necessary improvements prior to its acceptance within the City Maintained Road System. h) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project. Reference the attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No, 122, The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. Reference the approved parcel map design I Exhibit E) vis- a-vis the project site plan in question IExhibit D). j) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. STAFFRPT\PP122 10 SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, recommended. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 122 to construct a 12,200 square foot automotive sales building; and a 9,500 square foot service bay facility located southerly of Solana Way, on the west side of Ynez Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-080-014 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment II, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF 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 4th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP122 11 ATTACHMENT !1 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 122 Project Description: Plot Plan Application for Chevrolet Dealership on 4.55 Acres Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-080-018. 017. and 01 ~ Planninq Department 1. The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for an automobile dealership. e The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 122. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. e This approval shall be used within two (2) years of 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. This approval shall expire on The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 122 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. STAFFRPT\PP122 12 e e 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated October 9, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Fire prote~ction shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 5~6 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated December 19, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the CaiTrans transmittal dated December 17, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated October 8, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water District transmittal dated December 20, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 3~8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten {10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty {30) inches. A minimum of 163 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 163 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. 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: STAFFRPT\PP122 . 13 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. "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. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and Jot permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department CalTrans Fire Department Environmental Health School District Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the PlanningJ'q/q~-~j, ~orior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B l Color Elevations) and Exhibit C I Materials Board }. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with decorative masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. STAFFRPT\PP122 1~ 25. 26. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety 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 Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 27. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 28. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 29. 30. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars 151,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars I$1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)12) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar 1525.00) 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 15075. If within such forty-eight ~48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall provide a letter of clearance from the Riverside County Geologist. 31. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits the applicant shall comply with the Geotechnical Report completed for Parcel Map No. 23t~96 dated August 24, 1989. 32. This project is located within a subsidence report zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety, a California licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structuraily integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnicai conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. STAFFRPT\PP122 15 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one- half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 3~. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and CalTrans. 35. The developer shall submit four (tt) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 36. The developer shall submit four (~) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 37. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 38. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\PP122 16 39. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way. State Highway 15 Sufficient right-of-way along Ynez Road shall be confirmed to exist or conveyed for public use to provide for a public street for public use to provide for a 67 foot half width right-of-way. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: q8. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard q4)0 and ~01 Icurb sidewalk). Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. q61 and as approved by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\PP122 17 Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 51. Prior to occupancy, the developer shall provide evidence that the Mello-Roos District will construct the improvements on Ynez Road, in accordance with County Standard No. 100, Section A {110~/13~'). In the event that the Mello-Roos District will not construct the improvements, the developer shall be required to construct the improvements. 52. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. if an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. 53. Top of slope shall be located at property line, or a retaining wall shall be required in the event that the developer cannot obtain permission to locate the slope on adjacent property. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road and shall be included for the limits of the street improvement plans. It shall be noted that upon construction of the raised median, no left turning movements will be permitted for ingress or egress to the proposed driveway. 55. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 56. The developer shall provide evidence that the Mello-Roos District will construct the improvements on Ynez Road, including all signing and striping, in accordance with the approved signing and striping plan. If in the event that the Mello-Roos District will not construct these improvements, the developer shall be required to do so. STAFFRPT\PP122 18 AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS STAFFRPT\PP122 19 TO: FROM: RE: County of' erside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA DATE: N[~ Mark Rhoades ENV IRONMENTAL HEALTH SF'EC I ALI ST I V ,~PLOT PLAN NO. 10-09-90 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 122 has no ob.jectlons. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prlor to buildinc Dian submittal, the following items will be requested: SM:dr CO: "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerino agencies. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted. includina fixture schedule. a finish schedule, and a plumbina schedule in order to ensure commliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. If there are to be any hazardous materials, a q.!~.[~D~9__~..~kk~X from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (3on Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the pro.jeer has been cleared for: a. Underground storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance w~th AB 2155). d. Waste reduction management. Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 9Z201 (619) 342-8886 RIVF. I[$11)F. COUNTY FIRE I)F.i)AI[TMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FIRE CtIIEF PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (7t4) 275-4777 DATE: December 19, 19~0 TO: City of Temecula ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mark Rhodes RE: Plot Plan I22 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the follow- ing fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedure established in Ordinance 54&. 2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (&">c4"~2 l/2"x2 l/2"), will be located not less than 25 feet or ~ore than 163 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 4. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the pet-mir process to reflect changes in desigrl, construc- tion type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. 4. Applicant/Developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company witll the following certification: RE: PP 122 Page 2 "I certify that the design of the water system is in accord~ ante with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 5. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install a supervised water flow monitoring fire alarm sys tem. Plans must be submitted ko the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as required.by the Uniform Building Code. 7. A statement khak the building will be aukomakimally fire sprinkled muse appear ofl the title page of the building plans. 8. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Seckion 505. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Cltapker 55 of the Uniform Building Code. Low-level E~it Signs, where exit signs are required by Seekion 5514 (a). lO. Certain designated areas ~ill be required ko be maintained as fire lanes. 11. InsEall portable fire e>:linguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-lOBC. ConEact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equil~ment. 12. App'licank/Developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. Including proposed storage of waste oil. Gate access musk be equipped wikh emergency power back-up. ~ate pi~s mttsk be raked ~ith shear pin force, not to exceed 50 foot pounds. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/de veloper shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the City of Temecula for plan check fees. 15. Prior to the issuance of h~llding permiLs~ th~ developer shall deposit with the ~lk¥ of Temecula, a c~emk or money order equaling the sum of $.25 menEs per s~uare foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check revie~ fee. RE: PP 122 Page Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions r~garding the meaning of conditions shall ferred to the Planning Division staff. be re- RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist LC:rmac RECEIVED OCT STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8. P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 TDD (714) 383-4609 October 11, 1990 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Goat,or Development Review 08-Riv-15-6.3 Your Reference: PP 122 Planning Department City Hall City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to Review the located westside of Ynez Road south of Solana Way in the city of Rancho California. We would like the opportunity to review a copy of the conceptual plan(s) regarding this proposal at your earliest convenience. If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro Saoud/ Mr. Nelson Manlolo of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384. TIM CHOWDHURY A~ District Development% Review Engineer ~ \0\~\ CALTRANS DEVELOPblENT REVIEW FORM (Your Reference) Date o.p j C .. f,,,I . v- 15- ,5,-7- /Plan checker (Co Rte PM) WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE: Con~, ~ction/~lition within present or proposed State right of ~y should be investigated for potential b~rdo~s ~te (asbestos, pet_rochemiral% etc.) and mitigated as per requirements of regulatory agencies. b/"When plans are sutmitted, please conform to the requital, ants of the attached '%landout". This ~dll expedite the resi~ process and time required for Plan Check. V// Although the traffic and drainage generated by this propo~! do not appear to have a significant effect en the state ~_'on~ay system, consideration must be given to the cunulative effect of continued develorent in this ares. Any rm:~'ures nec_~._~ry to mitigate the cu-mdative im~ct of traffic and drainage sb~l] be provided prior to or with des~_logment of the area that necessitates them. It apg~mrs that dm traffic and drainage generated by this proposal could have a significant effect on the state hi~m~y system of the ares. Any m~m~ures necessary to miti~te the traffic and drainage ~T~CtS S~I 1 be included wifn the developsent. Ibis portion of state highway is included in the Cml~ fornia ;"aster Plan of State Hi~m~ys Eligible' for ~fir~m] -Scenic l{igh~ay Designation, and in the future your agency may wish to l~ave tJ%{s route offic~.l ~ y designated as a s?~te scenic high~y. ~ portion of state hig~:.- has been officially designated as a state scenic ,kig~y, and develogrent in uhis corridor should be ca~tible with the scenic hi-~a.s' concept. It im recognizai dmt tJ~_re is considerable public concern a0out noise levels adjacent to hesvily traveled high~aEm. land des~!o~ent, in order to be compatible ~ith this cormam, may require s-~i~l noise attenuation, measures. ~evelopment of property shsuld include any nece~ noise attenuation. WE REQUESY ~IAT TF~ IT~'iS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECt: ~;ormal righ: of way degication to provide__ half-width on the state highway. .~or,,,al stree-_ improver.-:nts to provide__ half-width on the state highway. Curb and gu:~r, 5rate Standard along the sta"= ~,ig~',ay Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs. __ radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway. A standard ~%eelchair ramp must be provided in the returns. A positive vehicular bmrrier along the property frontage shall be provided to limit physical access to the state highway. _~¥ehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway. ~//Vehicular access to the state highway shall be-provided by existing public road connections. Vehicular'access to the state highway shall be provided by driveways. standard Vebio,lnr acc. es~ r~nll not be provid&d within of the intarmection a~ Vehio,l~r aceram r~ the state hi,may ~mll be provided by a road-type connection. Vehicular accm~ connections roball be paved at least within the ~ate ,hi~y right of ~y. "Mcess points to ~ state hi:_%.ay ~mll be developed in a runner that ~d.Ll provide $i-~t distance for ~ ~oh along ri~e state ~. landmcaping along r~-~ state h?d~,.~y shall be low and forgiving in nature. A left-~urn lmne, including a".':' nece~mary widenins, sbal 1 be provided on tam state hi~y at Cormidaration s1~11 be given ~o tim provision, or future provision, of sigr~li?mtion and lighting of the intersection of a,-~ rJ-~ state highly. A tr~offic study tndicating on- and off-site flow patterns and volun~, probable 9,~acts, and proposed Adequate off-~tze_=t ~rking, ~-.ich doem not require backing onto the state. hio~ay, r~mll be provid~d. Parl,~ng lot shal/ ~e developel in a :.~mer that wLll no% cause ~.ny vehio,l~r ~rov(~it~lt CCfC'licts, inc_l,~3 parking sr~11 entr-=zc~ and exit, within of the en~w_~ from the state hig~y. '~dicap parking -=-.: ~ =. not be :eveloped in the busy drivm~y antrance area. v/Care snail be t~q :i~q devei:oing this property to preserve =_nd perpetua:e tim existing drairage pattern of the -~-~te hi~y..=articular cormideraticm mhould be given to cu~,lmtive incr~ storm runoff to ir~ure -=-t a id-~r,~7 drainage probl~n i$ not created. ~.~ny necemm~ry noise attanuat!:r, mhal! be provided as part of t~ne developer of ~ property. P!~_se refer to :-:~u:ea adc.'-'onal cozrc~nts. WE REQUEST: A copy of any omx~tions of a=-p. roval or revised approval. A copy of any doma~:%ts proxi~_ng additional state hio~y right of ~my upon recordation of ram DURING THE APPROYAL PROCESS: traffic or en~J_'-~x~ntal study. of ~%~ l~-._rcel c~ Tract bhp. of ~%m ~ for. any improvm-mtz within the state higl~.ay' right of ~ay. of ~ C=~ding -:rid Drainage Plarm for tlzi$ property widen a=~l~ble. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM .... ' Orange Tree L.ne · Rldlande, CA 92374 · (7141 798-8570 422-1610 October 8, 1990 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY DR. ALLAN O. GRIESEMER Oirector Mark Rhoades, Planner . Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 re: LI.p.'.L..~..T_.P...iA~..' .122i ROBERT C. GREGORY The project is located on the very fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Excavation associated with development will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources. The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. This program should include: (1) monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of recovered specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3) curation of specimens into an established repository; and (4) a report of f'mdings with complete specimen inventory. Sincerely, Dr. Allan D. Griesemer Museums Director ADG:RER/jr December 20, 1990 Board of Directors: JetTrey L. Minider Ralph Daily $r~ Vice President Jmes A. Dorby Cash& F. Ko Doug Kul~rg St2ph~n M, Sills ~ch~d D. St2ff~y John F. Hennigo~ General Manager Phillip L. ForRe Thomas !~ MeAliestar Edwa~ P. ~mons Pe~' ~ ~uck ~dt K F~g~o McComic~ Ki~ & Behrens ~g~ C~mel City of Temecula City Hall 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Water Availability Parcel Map 23496, Lot 1 Plot Plan 122 APN 921-800-014, 017, 018 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWDo ff you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P. E. Engineering Manager F186/jkth636f cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Robert C. Greqory Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1177 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93003 1805) 642-0111 e Date of Environmental Assessment: October 8, 1990 Agency Requir ing Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Plot Plan No. 122 6. Location of Proposal: West side of Ynez Road, 500 feet south of Solana Way Environmental Impacts Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ae Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? Ce Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X ee Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\PP122 20 Yes Maybe No -. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands. or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? be The creation of objectionable odors? Ce Alteration of air movement, moisture. or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? be Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? de Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ee Discharge into surface waters. or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP122 21 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? he Substantial 'reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- in9 or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants {including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? de Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals {birds, land animals including rep- tiles. fish and shellfish. benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique. rare or endangered species of animals? Ce Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe X X No. X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP122 22 Yes Maybe No ~ 0 e 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? be Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? bo Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resourceT Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances {including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plant Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an at.aT Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ao Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP122 23 Yes Maybe No 15. 16. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? de Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? fo Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? de Parks or other recreational facilities? eo Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? be Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP122 24 Yes Maybe N~ 17. 18. 19. 20. Communications systems? Water? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? do Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP122 25 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ae 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 or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? {A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? I A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) de Does the project. have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X STAFFRPT\PP122 26 III Earth Air 2. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Ce de No. Although the proposed project will result in cut and fill slopes there will not be changes in the base geologic substructures. The slopes shall be manufactured and compacted per the engineer's requirements and as a result, should not result in unstable earth conditions. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering. Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are required. No. The proposed site is currently graded and further development of the proposed project will not require substantial grading and as a result will not alter the existing topography, No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after grading. No. There is no body of water near the project site which could be affected by the proposed project. Maybe. The project site is located within the Alquist-Priolo special studies zone. A Geotechnical Report was prepared for the underlying parcel map. The project is conditioned to comply with the recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Report conducted by Lockwood-Singh S Associates and dated August 24, 1989. b~c. Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions will occur. This impact is not considered significant since the air emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the area's air quality. No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable odors or alter the area's climate. STAFFRPT\PP122 27 Water 3. a,d-e. b-c.g. he 4. a-d. Animal Life 5. a,c. No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is approximately one mile away. No. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the site will off-set the water absorption rate. Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the streets and channels. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of ground waters. No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply or system. Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area. To help mitigate the project's impact, a flood-mitigation charge shall be paid. No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or endangered species should be affected. New species of plants will be introduced to the site as par of the landscape requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact. The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes. No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. The site is currently rough graded and it is highly unlikely that an endangered specie habitates the site. Maybe. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for this project, Habitat Conservation fees shall be paid to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts. STAFFRPT\PP122 28 Noise '--' 6o ae be Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction, Long-term noise impacts will occur due to increased traffic volumes, This impact is not considered to be significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise sensitive, No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project. Liqht and Clare 7. Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid interference with the Mr. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow". The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project. Land Use 8. No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for General Commercial. The surrounding land uses are also General Commercial. Natural Resources 9. a-b. No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural resource. Risk of Upset 10. a. be Maybe. If the automotive tenant uses any hazardous materials in their operation, a list of hazardous substances and disposal plan shall be submitted to the City. No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and Police Department. Population 11. No. The proposed commercial building will generate some jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area's population. STAFFRPT\PP122 29 .e CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 122 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan { K-Rat) Parks and Recreation I Quimby ) Public Facility { Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility {Traffic Signal Mitigation_) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control {ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No, 33 (Planning) N/A ,Condition No. 19 { Engineering) Condition No. ( Engineering N/A Condition No. 8 { Planning) Condition No. 11 { Engineering) STAFFRPT\PP122 34 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ --PROJECT SITE c RD 79 NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP r ! CASE NO. ,['2. ~, i"~...'~_- P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA RAN~,NO C~LIFO~A LOCATION 'MAP CASE .o. ?.~ ~Z,~-. P.C. DATE ?_-~-~! J CITY OF TEMECULA / / CZ .1954 C-I/C-P CZ 5008 C-P-S CZ 4070 M-SC CZ 3173 C-P CZ 915 ~)~) CZ 918 M-M ZONE MAP ) R-2 = CZ 3330~ R-2 CZ 4102 C-P CZ 1706 C-P CZ 2555 CASE NO. t 7..'2- P.C. DATE 'Z.-t.t-~l CITY OF TEMECULA RLI L SWAP MAP ~ CASE .0. ?,~', t~7-- P.C. DATE ~--t~-~l CITY OF TEMECULA CASE P.C. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, X Date For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\PP122 32 E X H I [3 I T S A -- G STAFFRPT\PP122 33 Housinq 12. No. The proposed commercial building will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing. Transportation/Circulation 13. a. Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the project may add an incremental impact to the 1-15 Interchanges which are currently operating at capacity during peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee. Yes, The proposed project will require parking to support the use. The project will need 163 parking spaces. The proposed plan illustrates spaces. Ce No. The proposed project's traffic study identified no substantial impacts on existing transportation systems. de Maybe. The proposed project will improve a portion of Ynez Road which connects to Rancho California Road, and Winchester Road. No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic. fe Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Public Services ltd. a,b,e. Yes. The proposed automotive use will require public services in the areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing need for services over the long term. c,d,f. No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these public services. Enerqy 15. a-b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. STAFFRPT\PP122 30 Utilities 16. a-f. No, The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems, Human Health 17 a-b. Maybe. If hazardous substances are stored in the service building, then that may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous materials will be stored at the site, a plan for their use and disposal should be submitted to the City, County Health and County Fire Departments. Aesthetics 18. No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are consistent in architectural materials to the surrounding buildings. Recreation 19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses. Cultural Resources 20. a-d. No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict sacred uses. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance '21. a-c. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural environment, have long term environmental impacts or have considerable cumulative impacts. de Maybe. If the proposed use warehouses hazardous materials, the project may cause a health hazard to human beings and wildlife. If hazardous materials are to be warehoused at the project, a plan for their use and disposal should be developed and approved by the City. The project may also have a substantial impact on the existing transportation system. To mitigate the potential impacts at the 1-15 Interchanges, a traffic mitigation fee should be paid. 5TAFFRPT\PP122 31 ITEM NO. 24 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: August 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Appointments and Committee Structure of Old Town Historic Review RECOMMENDATION: Reappoint a five Committee, to serve as a sub-committee of the Planning Commission and approve the general provisions for operation of this committee. (5) member Old Town Historic Review ATTACHMENT: Old Town Historic Review Committee Operational Guidelines JSG Of the present six (6) member Old Town Historic Review Committee, five members have been actively involved since their appointments by the Council July 3, 1990. The five active members are Donald Cummins, Bob Morris, Dallas Grey, Bill Harker and Tony Tobin. These members have met on an "as needed" basis to consider all developments in Old Town since their appointment. The duties and guidelines for operation of this committee have been prepared and are included with this report as Attachment A. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of July 23, 1991, Council instructed staff to make recommendations on the appointment of the committee and the terms of office and performance guidelines for the committee. Pro. ~g)03 Admin Date 8/13/91 Dept. City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA Policies and Procedures Old Town Temecula Historic Review Committee Operational Guidelines The City Council of the City of Temecula, recognizing the benefit to the community in establishing a committee to review proposed new developments in the Historic Preservation District, hereby establishes the Old Town Temecula Historic Review Committee. This committee will be charged to serve as a sub-committee working directly with the Planning Commission. It will review the design, authenticity of architectural style and appropriateness to the area and consistency to the Specific Plan for all proposed developments within the boundaries of the Temecula Historic District. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Number of Members. This committee shall consist of five (5) members. Oualifications. All members shall, at all times during their incumbencies, be bona fide residents and registered voters of the City. No member of any committee shall be a City employee, nor shall any person be a member of more than one commission or committee at any one time. No person shall be eligible for appointment for more than two full consecutive terms (six (6) years). Members: Appointment and Removal. Members of this committee shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Temecula, subject to the approval of a four-fifths (4/5ths) majority of the City Council. A majority of the Council may remove an appointee for good cause. The chairperson and Recording Secretary of this Committee shall be selected by a majority of the membership of the Committee. T~rm, The term of each committee member shall be three (3) years with staggered terms. Initially, all five members may be selected at one time. In order to achieve staggered terms, one member shall be appointed to a term of three (3) years; two for terms of two (2) years; and two for terms of one (1) year. Said terms to be determined by drawing of lots. At the completion of any term, a commission member may be reappointed pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Policy and Procedure. Policies and Procedures Administrative Pro. g003 8/13/91 Page 2 o o Vacancies. Vacancies on this Committee will be filled pursuant to the procedures established in Administrative Policy No. g002, approved by the City Council June 12, 1991. Meetings/Ouorums. The meetings of this Committee with be on an "as needed" basis and at the specific request of the Director of Planning. A quorum of three members shall be required for the transaction of any business. The Committee Chairperson or his/her designee shall attend and report the Committee recommendations to the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Absence from meetings. Should any member be absent from any three (3) consecutive meetings of the Committee without excuse acceptable to the City Council, that member shall vacate his/her seat on the Committee. The vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as any other vacancy. Compensation. no compensation. Unless otherwise required by law, committee members shall receive ITEM NO. 25 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER A'.,,~J-- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager August 13, 1991 Procedure for Extension of the Historic Preservation District PREPARED BY: City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: Consider the alternatives presented in the Planning Director's memorandum of August 7, 1991 and direct staff to: Prepare an Ordinance to provide for the establishment of an Historic Preservation District, or Prepare an Old Town Specific Plan which would include the existing Historic District and expanded surrounding areas to establish land uses and development standards. (City Manager's Recommendation) BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of July 23, 1991, staff was instructed to place a schedule for the expansion of the Historical area on the next regular meeting agenda. The Planning Director's attached memorandum outlines the two suggested alternatives. If the Council chooses the first alternative, the Ordinance would require a public hearing to allow the filing of protests by the property owners within the proposed boundaries. Staff would then need additional time to determine the assessed valuation of the properties protesting the district formation. If less protests did not exceed 50% of the total assessed valuation within the proposed boundaries, the Ordinance could be introduced and would take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. JSG MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David F. Dixon, City Manager Gary Thornhill, Planning Director/¢~"~ August 7, 1991 Expansion of the Temecula Historic District On October 11, 1979, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 578. Ordinance No. 578 sets the parameter for establishing Historic Preservation Districts. On October 8, 1980, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors established the Temecula Historic Preservation District. The establishment of an Historic District includes a property owners protest clause (g) of Section 3 of Ordinance 578, see attached. If the owners of real property with an assessed value of more than 50% of the assessed value of real property within the proposed boundary protest that the establishment proceedings are terminated. At the October 8, 1980 meeting, the owners of property assessed more than 50% of the value for alternative 3 (see attachment) protested the establishment of the District. Therefore, alternative 2 was adopted to establish the boundaries even though alternative 3 contained the recommended boundaries of the staff (see attached). Modifying the boundaries of the District requires the same process as the establishment of the District. Therefore, if ownership or attitudes haven't changed, you could expect a protest to the expansion of the boundaries which might kill any further boundary changes for up to one year, per Ordinance No. 578. An alternative could be to adopt an Old Town Specific Plan which would include the Histodc District and expanded surrounding areas to establish land uses and development standards within the Old Downtown area of Temecula without expanding the boundaries of the Historic District. This could be done much like the Sunnymead Blvd. Specific Plan in Moreno Valley. The plan could be co-sponsored by the City and property owners like the Sunnymead Blvd. Specific Plan, or the redevelopment agency could fund the project. PLANNING\HISTORIC David F. Dixon August 7, 1991 Page 2 The Specific Plan alternative may alleviate some of the protests while still providing for the establishment of special criteria for development within the Old Downtown area. The Specific Plan could also establish special setback requirements, parking ratios - public parking areas, outdoor street fair uses, special transit modes, combined use opportunities with residential or office uses above commercial uses, etc. The Specific Plan could encourage owner support instead of protest just because of the stigma of being labeled an Historic District. If the City decides to expand the boundaries of the District via the traditional method, I would suggest that we prepare 3 or more alternative boundaries as the County did in 1980 to avoid a yeads delay if one of the boundaries is heavily protested. If you have any questions, please call me. GT:ks PLANNING\HISTORIC BOARD TRANSUITTAL TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 9. 1980 and County Counsel SUBJECT: Establishment of the Temecula Historic Preservation District BACI(GP, OUND: In considering the establishment of the Temecula Historic Preservation [~strict, the Planning Commission examined three different boundary proposals, shown on Attachment Numbers 1, 2 and 3. All parties involved agreed that the largest area, Attachment No. 1, was not appropriate due to the large residential section contained in the boundaries. Following the public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors tqe establishment of the Te~,.r, cula Historic Preservation District with boundaries as sho^ on Attachment No. 3 On September 9, 1980 the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to discuss the establishment of the Temecula Historic Preservation District. Substantial support and opposition to the proposed boundaries reco~nended by the Planning Commission were expressed at the hearing. Following the discussion, the Board closed the public hearing and continued the matter to October 14 to allow staff time to determine whether or not property owners of more than 50% of the assessed valuation within the boundaries were opposed to the establishment of the district. This is in accordance with County Ordinance No. 578. Property owners were given until midnight October 6 to express their opposition in writing. The total assessed valuation within Attachment No. 3's boundary is S1,945,351. Letters of opposition to this boundary equalled a total of S1,132,134 assessed valuation, or 58.2%. In accordance with Ordinance No. 578, if more than one half of the total assessed valuation is opposed to the proposed boundary, the Board of Supervisors is precluded from action on that proposal. Therefore, this boundary proposal is no longer an alternative for consideration. (Cont. on next ~aoe} The Planning Commission and Planning Department staff recomme:~d the establishment of the Temecula Historic Preservation District with boundaries as shown on Attachment No. 2. Lee Pearl, Associate Planner ,.../~~ PREPARED BY · · PATRICI~ N~,~ETH, A.I.C.R, ~i~ECTOR CC: CLERK OF THE 9OAfiD (G CDPIES)-- COUNTY COUNSEL ~/ PLANNIN6 D.E. FT. ( :Z COllIES) Gerald J. G?rlings, Assis~"nt County Couns Board of Supervisors October 9, 1980 Page 2 BACKGROUND (Continued) However, only $90,278 assessed valuation, or 6.7% of the property owners within the boundaries shown on Attachment No. 2 expressed opposition to the establishment of the Historic District. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 578, the Board of Supervisors can act to establish the Historic District utilizing boundaries shown on Attachment No. 2. This proposal was discussed with the Planning Commission on October 8. Commissioner Steffey voiced support for the smaller boundary, saying it was a logical recognition of the existing historical area. Commissioner Lillibridge agreed. The Planning Commission then moved to recommend that the Board establish the District for the area shown on Attachment No. 2. PIi: s r Attachment 1 Proposed Historic District- TEMECULA scale LEGEND PROPOSED BOUNDRIES - TEMECULA HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT EXCLUDED AREA Attachment 2 Proposed Historic District- TEMECULA N Ilo scale LEGEND PROPOSED BOUNDRIES - TEMECULA HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT EXCLUDED AREA Attachment 3 Proposed Historic District- TEMECULA scale LEGEND PROPOSAL 2 3 6 7 8 9 10~ '1.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 ~0 ~4 ~5 ~6 ~7 .$ H. ANGELL COUNTY COUN,~EL LAW ~BRARY BLDG. RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNIA Board of Supervisors. County of Riverside ORDINA~CE NO. 578 .~ ORDINANCE OF ~ COUNT~ OF RTVER~TDR PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HT~'i~:3~C P~R~RRVATT~R ~T~TCq~ The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, State of California, do ordain as follows: Section 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT. It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the recognition, protection, preservation, enhancement, perpetuation and use of sites and structures within the County of Riverside having historic significance is necessary and required in the interest'of the health, safety, prosperity and general welfare of the public. The purpose of this ordinance is to: (a) Effect and accomplish the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements which represent or reflect significant elements of the county's history. (b) Safeguard the county's historic heritage, as embodied and reflected in specifically defined Historic Preservation Districts. (c) Stabilize and improve property value. (d) Pro~ec-k ~nd e~hance the county's attraction to residents, tourists and visitors, and zerve as a supi~rt and stimulus to businass and industry. (e) Strengthen the economy of the county° --1-- (f) Promote the use of Historic Preservation Districts for the education, pleasure, prosperity and welfare of the people of the county. 4 Section 2. DEFINITIONS. In this ordinance, unless the 5 context otherwise requires, the following words shall have the following meanings: (a) APPLICANT means any person who applies for a 8 9 10 11 Certificate of Historic Appropriateness affectin9 property subject to this ordinance. (b) ALTERATION means: (1) any act or process which changes or modifies one or more of the exterior architectural 14 ( 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 2? ( 28 JAMES H. ANGELL COUNTY COUNSEL LAW LIBRARY BLDG. RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA features of an existing structure within. the boundaries of a Historic Preservation District including, but not limited to,. exterior chan9es to, or modification of structure, architectural details, or visual characteristics such as paint color and surface texture; (2) the placement or removal of any exterior objects such as signs, plaques,'light fixtures, street furniture, walls, fences, steps, plantings and landscape accessories affecting the exterior'visual qualities of the property, or (3) any new construction that requires a permit or entitlement of use from the County of Riverside... (c) BOARD means the 8card of Supervisors of Riverside County. (d) CERTIFICATE OF HISTORIC APPROPRIATENESS means --2-- $ ? 9 lO 14 :1.6 1.9 20 ~5 ~6 JA~ ~. ANGELL C~N~ ~w UB~Y RIVERSIDE ~UFORNIA certificate issued by the Planning Department or, on appeal, by the Area Planning Council having jurisdiction, which approves plans for the construction or alteration of an improvement or a modification of use of a specific site o= natu=al feature within the bounda=ies of a Historic P=ese=vation District. (e) ELEVATIONS means the flat scale orthographic p=ojected drawings of all exte=io='vertical su=faces of a building. (f) EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE means the a~chitectural design, general a~angement and components of all of the outs= surfaces of an improvement, including, but not limited to~ the kind, color and texture of the building mate=ial and the type and style of all windows, doors,' lights, signs and othe=. fixtu=es appu=tenant to such imp=ovement. (g) FACADE means the f=ont, side, tea= or supe=- st=ucture of a building, or any part of a building which is subject to'view from a public right of way. (h) HISTORICAL COMMISSION means the Riverside County Historical Commission. (i) HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT means any a~ea designated by. the Board of Supe=visors as a historic area that is subjec% to the p=ovisions of this o~dinance. (j) IMPROVEMENT means any building, structure, place pa~king facility, fence, gate, wall or othe~ object constituting a physical betterment of =eal p=operty, or --3-- 4 5 6 ? DISTRICTS. 8 9 ~-0 ].5 ].5 '16 3.9 20 21 26 JAMES H. ANGELL COUNTY COUNSEL LAW LIBRARY RIVERSIDE, CAtJFORNIA any part of such betterment. (k) PERSON means any person, firm, corporation or association. (1) ~ANNING COMMISSION means the Riverside County Planning Commission. Section 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION (a) Any person may file a request that the Historic~ Commission study and make recommendations regarding the designation of certain areas of the County having special historical significance as Historic Preservation Districts. All such requests shall be filed with the Parks Director and shall be accompanied by copies of Riverside County Assessor's maps clearly delineating the boundaries of the area to be considered as a Historic Preservation District along with a statement of justification describing the historical significance of the area. (b) The Parks Director shall study the matter and, upon completion of the review, place the request on the regular agenda of. the Historical Commission for its recommendation[ (c) Upon completion of its review, the Historical Commission shall make a recommendation on the proposal and forward it to the Planning Director. The Historical Commission shall recommend that an area be designated as a Hiatoric Preservation District only if it determines that there is a factual basis to make one or more of the findings listed in sub-section (f) of this section. --4-- (d) Upon receipt of a recommendation from the Historical Commission, the Planning Director sha~l review the matter and ehall cause the proposal to be environ- mentally assessed, including the preparation of an environmental impact report, if required, and upon completion thereof shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. (e) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on. the proposed Historic Preservation District an¢ shall make a recommendation to the 8card of Supervisors as to whether the proposed district is in conformity with the purposes and criteria of the Historic Preservation Element of the Riverside County General Plan and otherwise meets the criteria set forth in this ordinance for the establishment of a district, including its recommendation regarding the findings required in sub-section (f) of this section. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing before the Planning Commissior, including a general description of the area and explanation of the matter to be considered shall be given at least lO calendar days before the hearing by publication once in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in. the county and by posting a notice in conspicuous places located within the boundaries of the proposed Historic Preservation District not less. than 10 days prior to the hearing. (f) Upon receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Oerk of the 8J~rd shall place --5-- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 17 18 i9 20 JAMES H. ANGELL COuNT~ COUNSEL LAW UBRARY BLDG. RIVE~10~ ~FORNIA the matter upon the cegular agenda of the Board ef Supervisors for a determination by the Board as to whether it desires to hold a public hearing on the matter. If the Board determines to hold 3 public hearing, not less than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing, the Clerk of the Board shall mail to every property owner within the boundaries of the proposed Historic Preservation District, at the addresses shown on the last equalized assessment roll, a notice of hearing and shall file an affidavit in the proposed district file verifying that the mailing has been completed. All such notices shall include the time and place o~ the hearing, a description of the area to be included in the proposed district, an explanation of the purpose of the district, a brief description of the type of restrictions that will be applied to all property the district, and a statement that oral and written protests. to. the proposed formation will be considered at the hearing. After closing the public hearing, the Board shall make its decision regarding the formation of the proposed district within a reasonable time thereafter; provided, howe~er, a district shall be established only if the Board makes one or more of the following findings regarding the area being considered: (1) The area exemplifies or reflects significant aspects of the cultural, political,. economic or social history of tne nation, state or county, or (2) The area is identified with historic personages or with important events in national, state --6-- or local history, or (~) The area embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant architectural period which is inherently valuable for the study of a~chitecture unique to. the history of the county, state, or nation. (g) Notwithstanding the above, if the Board finds during the public hearings that protests have been made by the'owners of real property within the proposed Historic Preservation District, the assessed'value ef which, as shown by the last equalized assessment roll, constitutes more than one-half of the total assessed value of the real property within the proposed district, the proceedings shall be immediately terminated and the Board shall. not, for one year thereafter, commence any proceed- ings relating to the formation of a Historic Preservation District involving any portion of the real property owned by any person filing a protest. (h) All requests to terminate, or modify the boundaries of an established Historic Preservation District shall be made in writing directly to the Board of Supervisors', stating the reasons therefor. The Board may accept or reject a request without any hearing thereon; provided, however, if a request is accepted, the matter shall then be referred to the Parks Director for processing in the same manner as for the formation of a district. Whenever a request for modification or termination of an established district is accepted by the Board and is ultimately set for hearing before the Board, --7-- 4 6 ? 9 10 11 12 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 ~ 28 JAMES H. ANGELL COUNTY COUNSEL LAW LIBRARY 8LD(3. RIVERSIDE. CALIFOIRNIA pursuant to sub-section (f) of this section,.every property owner within the established district shall ~eceive notice of the hearing on the matter. Section ~. LOCAL REVIEW BOARD (a) Each Historic Preservation District. that is established shall have a local Review Board composed of 5 members, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, who shall serve without pay. One member shall be knowledgeable in architectural and construction techniques and all members shall exhibit an interest in and knowledge of the history and architecture of the Historic Preservation District. Members shall be appointed for. terms Of 2 years, except that 2 members initially appointed to the Review 8card shall be appointed for one-year terms so that the number of terms expiring in any year shall not differ by more than one from. the number of.terms. expiring in any other year... (b) The local Review Board shall hold regular public meetings and. establish such rules as may be appropriate or necessary for the orderly conduct of its business. At it~ first meeting,'the appointed members shall elect officers who shall serve for terms of.one year. Three members sha~l constitute a quorum, and decisions of the Review 8card shall be determined by majority'vote of those members at any meeting. (c) The local Review 8card shall have the following powers and duties in addition to those otherwise provided in this ordinance: --8-- 4 ? 8 9 10 11 12 14 L .... 151 16 17 18 191 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 27 JA H. ANGELL COuN~ COUNSEL ~W LJB~RY BLDG. RIVERSIO~ ~LIFORNIA (l> Provide for pre-applica%ion conferences with individuals interested in cons%°ructing property within the Historic Presetvatican Oistrict. The purpose of these conferences shall be %o familiarize the applicant with the~historic significance and rslated construction theme of the district. (2) Recommend implementation guidelines and standards to be used by the local Review Board in the review of applications, which shall be submitted to the Planning Director for a determination of consistency with the Historic Preservation Element of the Riverside County General Plan. The approved guidelines shall be used by the local Review Board and the Planning Department as the basis of approving or denying applications far a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness. The guidelines shall contain drawings and photographs or reproductions thereof, including a standardized survey of historic sites and structures which will serve as general guides of acceptable construction within the district. (3) Explore means fo~ the protection, retention, and use of any'significant structures, natural features, sites and areas in the district including, but net limited to, appropriate legislation and financing by independent funding organizations, or other private, loca~ state, or federal assistance. (a) Serve as an advisory resource to all agencies of the county in matters pertaining to the district, and to encourage. efforts by, and cooperation with, individuaL, --9-- 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 14 ( 16 18 19 ~0 JAMES H. ANGELL ~N~ ~UNSEL ~W LIB~RY RIVERSIDE ~MFQRNIA private organizations and other governmentai agencies concerned with preservation of the district's architec- tural. environmental, and cultural heritage. (5) Render advice and guidance, upon request of the property owner or occupant regarding construction, restoration, alteration, decoration, landscaping, or maintenance of any structure, natural feature, site, or area within the district. (6) To. encourage public understanding and appreciation of the unique architectural, environmentai, and cultural heritage of the community through educationaI and interpretative programs. Section 5. BUILDING PERMITS~ PROHIBITION (a) Within the boundaries of an adopted Historic Preservation District, no building or structure shall constructed or altered and no building permit, except for permits for demolition of a building, shall be issued by the Director of Building and Safety unless a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness is first issued by the Planning Director or granted on appeal by an Area Planning Council. (b) Within. the boundaries of an adopted Historic Preservation District, no person shall alter, or cause '- to be altered~ construct, or cause to be constructed, any building or structure, except in strict compliance with the plans approved in conjunction with the issuance of a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed sc to exempt any person fromcomplying ~ith any other provision of law. Section 6. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF HISTORIC 4 APPROPRIATENESS. 5 An application for a Certificate of Historic Appropriate- 6 ness, authorizing the construction or alteration of a building or structure within a Historic Preservation District, shall be made in 11 14 15 19 ~0 Z4 JAI~=S H. ANGELL COUNTY COUNSEL {.AW LIBRARY aLDG. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA accordance with the following procedure: (a) Any owner, or person authocized by the owner, of a parcel of property, improved or unimproved, may request the issuance of a Certificate of Historic Appcopriateness by filing with the Planning Director an application for a certificate on the form furnished by the Planning Department. No application shall be accepted by the Planning Director for processing unless accompanied by a filing fee of $100, such data and other information as is required by the Planning Director, including any required environmental documentation, and drawings signed by any architect responsible for the construction or alteration of the building or structure. The drawings must be in sufficient detail to meaningfully show, insofar as they relateto. exterior appearances, the p=oposed architectu=al design, including elevations, proposed materials, textures, and colors, including samples of materials or colors and the plot plan or sits layout, including all improvements affecting appearances, such as walls, walks, terraces, plantings, accesso=y buildings, signs, lights, and othe~ elements. -11- Upon receipt of a completed appiication, the 4 Planning Director shall transmit a copy of the ap, plicati~ to the locaI Review Boa:d, the Histos-icaI Cc.;.mission ant I any other department or agency deemed necessary by the 5 Director, each of which shall have 30 days to submit 6 written comments to the Planning Director. (c) The Planning Director shall approve or deny an application for a certificate within 30 days after the expiration of time for written comments and shall give 10 121 notice of the decision, by mail, to the applicant, together with any required conditions of approvai. The Pianning Director shali aiso maii a copy thereof to the Historical Commission, the local Review Board and all 14 15~ 16 17 18 19 2O 24 25 27 JAMES H. ANGELL COUNTY COUNSEL LAW LISRARY BLDG. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA persons and organizations. that have filed an annual written request to be notified of any such decisions within a specified Historic Preservation District and who have paid an annual fee to cover the costs involved. (d) No application for a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness shall be approved unless the Planning Director, or on appeal, the Area Planning Council having jurisdiction, finds that the proposed construction or alteration is consistent'with and conform3 to the objectives and design criteria set forth in the Historic Preservation Element of the Riverside County General Plan and the guidelines and standards of the local Review Board that relate to the specific Historic Preservation District in which the proposed construction is located. -i2- JA,.,.~.3 H, ANGELL COUNTY COUNSEL ~.AW LIBRARY BLDG. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Section 7. .APPEALS. The applicant, or any interested person may appeal to the $ Area Planning Council h~ving jurisdiction over the portion of the 4 county where the project is located, any final decision of the 5 Planning Director to grant or deny an application for a Certificate 6 of Historic Appropriateness. All appeals must be filed within 15 ? days after the Planning Director has issued a decision, must be in 8 writing on the forms provided by the Planning Department and must be 9 accompanied by a filing fee of $60. Upon receipt of a completed lO appeal, the Area Planning Council Secretary shall set the matter for ll hearing before the Area Planning Council not less than 10 days nor 12 more than }5 days thereafter and shall give written notice of the 15 hearing to the appellant, the applicants, the local Review Board 14 and all persons and organizations who have filed an annual written ~5 request to be notified of any appeals within a specified Historic ~6 Preservation District and who have paid the fee to cover the costs ~? involved. The Area Planning Council shall render its decision ~8 within }5 days following the close of the hearing on the appeal. Section 8. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sentense, clause or phrase o? this ordinance is re; any reason held to be invalid 22 or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not a??ect the'validity o= constitutionality of the remaining 24 portions o?. this ordinance, it being expressly declared that this 251ordinance and. each section~ sub-section, paragraph, sentence, clauc~ 26'land phrase thereo? would have been adopted, irrespective o? the fac~ 27 that one or more other section, sub-section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 9. LEGAL PROCEDURE; PENALTY FOR VIOLATION. (a) Any building or structure constructed or altered contrary to the provisions of t:,is ordinance shall be, . J 4 the same is hereby declared to be, unlawful and a public 5 nuisance and the District Attorney shall immediately 6 commence action or actions, proceeding or proceedings for the abatement, removal and. enjoinment thereof, in the 8 manner provided by law; and shall take such other steps, and shall apply to such court or courts as may have 12' 14 3.7 19 ~0 ~5 ~7 ~8 JAMES H. ANGELL COUNTY COUNSEL ~W LIBRARY BLDG. RIVERSlOE, CALIFORNIA jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate or remove such building, structure or. use and restrain and enjoin any person from setting up, erecting or maintaining such building or structure, or using any property contrary to the provisions of this ordinance. (b) All remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. The conviction and punish- ment of any person hereunder shall not relieve such persot from the responsibility of correcting prohibited conditions or removing prohibited buildings, structures or improvements, nor prevent the enforced correction or removal thereof. (c) Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance or of arty permit or exception granted hereunder shall be deemed guilty cf a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500.00 or by imprison ment in the County jail not. to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Section 10. 2 This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date ~ of its adoption. 6 8 ATTEST: BOA~J~OF SUPERVISORS OF 'I'HE COUNTY 9 DONALD D. SULLIVAN, Clerk 10 11 Deputy 14 t'_. 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 26 gOg: rmh 2? 10/" 1/79 28 JA; t. ANGELL c~ ,YCOUNSEL I-AW LIBRARY SL~)G. RIVERSIDE. CAUFORNIA -15- ~--. ITEM NO. 26 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 13, 1991 Moratorium on the Construction of Apartments Gary Thornhill, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: Staff recommends that the Council select one of the following three alternative actions: Determine that no further action is required and direct staff to discontinue study of the issue; or Table the item for a specific time and ask staff to agendize this item for further direction at a later date; or Discuss the item and refer back to staff for further study of options, issues and legal impact, and report back at a specific date. This matter was placed on the agenda for the reconsideration at the request of Council. The issue has been researched by the City Attorney relative to the legal issues. beaudir/P~O/ap~mora 1 ITEM NO. 27 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: CITY OF TEMECULA &GENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works August 13, 1991 Construction Status of Traffic Signal at intersection of Ynez Road with Motor Car Parkway and the Main Entrance to Advanced Cardiovascular Systems. Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Receive and File. On July 31, 1991, the Public Works Department verified with the Steiny Company, the contractor constructing the signal, and their material supplier that the signal standards, signal heads, and the controller and cabinet will be delivered on or before August 12, 1991. The signal hardware will be delivered to the site and the controller and cabinet will be delivered to the County Signal Shop for testing in accordance with the standard construction specifications. The contractor is presently installing pull boxes, conduit, and standard bases. The signal was designed in accordance with the ultimate roadway improvements that CFD 88-12 would be installing in an effort to minimize relocation costs. However, due to the reluctance of the property owner on the southeast corner to grant an easement for the construction, the plans were modified and changes made in the field to place the signal standards and associated appurtenances within the existing right-of-way. This did not cause a significant delay and it appears the signal will be energized by mid- September. PWO 1 \TD S~M EM~081391 .ACS TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT -AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Certificate of Appreciation The Temecula Community Services District on behalf of the citizens of the City of Temecula, commends the outstanding contribution of TEMECULA VALLEY LITTLE LEAGUE For providing an organized youth sports program, which encourages sportsmanship, team work, discipline and character building in our future community leader. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 13th day of August, 1991 J. Sal Mufioz, President June S. Greek, City Clerk Certificate of Appreciation The Temecula Community Services District on behalf of the citizens of the City of Temecula, commends the outstanding contribution of RANCHO CALIFORNIA LITTLE LEAGUE For providing an organized youth sports program, which encourages sportsmanship, team work, discipline and character building in our future community leader. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 13th day of August, 1991 J. Sal Mufioz, President June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD JULY 16, 1991 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:01 PM. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, City Clerk. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Bishop Gene Dickamore of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. FLAG SALUTE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Director Moore. PUBLIC COMMENTS David Servetter, 31365 Paseo Goleta, addressed the Board regarding refuse collection during the month of September. He stated he received a letter from Inland Disposal stating service would be discontinued on August 30, 1991. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Services, stated a full-page ad will appear in several newspapers as well as letters are being mailed to all residents of the City explaining that service will be available through Temecula Environmental starting September 1, 1991. John Dedovesch, 39450 Longridge, addressed the Board questioning the need for three 60 gallon containers for refuse collection, stating they are much too large for average usage. Jean Masak asked what provision will be made for those who have more refuse than the allotted three cans. Joe Hreha answered that an additional container can be obtained from the hauler at an additional cost of $4 a month, which will be billed directly to the resident. 4/Minutes/071691 -1- 07/23/91 CSD Minutes July 16, 1991 .... Alice Lacasse, 29803 Marhill Circle, asked that rules be established to govern how long garbage cans can remain on City streets. Vince Hammang, 39424 Canyon Rim Circle, asked the status of the appeal he submitted to the City. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, stated that all property owners who have submitted an appeal will receive a written response from staff within the next two weeks. DISTRICT BUSINESS 1. Phase I - Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, introduced the staff report. Director Parks asked if the lighting issue, in regards to surrounding property owners, has been addressed. Mr. Nelson reported that the additional light pole should have no effect on these property owners. Allan McDonald, 43466 Manzano Drive, asked that the Board approve the additional light pole, stating this would enable the City to attract such events as the "Commissioners Cup". He explained that this would increase tourism in this area and be beneficial to the community. It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to approve a change order to Phase I of the Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project to add one (1) additional light pole on the upper Rancho Vista field at Sports Park. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Creation of a TCSD Zone and Proposed Rate and Charge for FY 1991-1992 (Service Level "C" Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, introduced the staff report. 4/Minutes/071691 - 2- 07/23/91 ---- CSD Minutes July 16, 1991 Director Lindemans asked if auditing of the slope maintenance service will occur this year, to make sure the rates are equitable and to allow for adjustments the following year. Tom Langley, 27505 Ynez Road, speaking on behalf of the CRC, spoke in support of the assessments for the TCSD as a whole. Judi Baccus, 41571 Zinfandel Avenue, representing the Girl Scouts, spoke in support of the proposed assessments and the CRC. Jack Liefer, 29801 Camino Del Sol, spoke in support of the proposed' assessments. Stewart Morris, 29734 Calle Pantano, spoke in support of the proposed assessments and stated he and his family appreciate efforts being made for recreation in this area. He spoke in support of the CRC stating that volunteerism has been a very important factor in this community. David Servetter, 31365 Paseo Goleta, asked if only those homeowners directly adjacent to maintained slopes are being charged. Mr. Nelson answered that the entire tract shares in the costs. Jim Meyler, 29930 Santiago Road, spoke in support of the proposed assessments, stating that what is being done with Parks and Recreation is exciting and appreciated. Chris Martinelli, 30255 Corte Cantaria, addressed the Board stating that she lives in Meadowview Estates, which has been accepted as a part of Meadowview Homeowners Association. She explained that only residents in Meadowview Estates are being assessed for slope maintenance and stated this should be spread to all residents of Meadowview. Director Birdsall stated this slope was not an original part of Meadowview and suggested having these slopes deeded back to Meadowview Homeowner's Association for maintenance as a possible solution. Linda Petersen, 29995 Los Nogales, asked that in the future the Board make a greater effort to inform the community further in advance to the hearings to allow opinions to be heard. Nancy St. Clair, 42042 Sweet Shade Lane, said at a previous meeting David Michael spoke on behalf of the Villages Community Homeowners Association, 4/Minute8/071691 -3- 07/23/91 CSD Minutes July 16, 1991 stating that the Association wanted the return of the Margarita slopes for maintenance. She informed the Board that no vote of the homeowners association has been taken and many people oppose this action. She presented the Board with a petition containing 141 signatures expressing the desire to have the Margarita slopes remain under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula and requesting that the Long Valley Wash area also be turned over to the City. John Dedovesch, 39450 Longridge Drive, spoke in favor of having slope maintenance audited to make sure the charges are equitable, stating he feels a readjustment should be made in the future. Jack Leathers, 42623 Romona St., asked if the Alta Vista Community Association would be charged slope maintenance fees. Mr. Nelson reported that this area is not a part of the City's slope maintenance program and would not be assessed. Alan McDonald, 43466 Manzano Drive, spoke in support of the TCSD Board stating that great accomplishments have been made to benefit the Community. It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Moore to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 91-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TO APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTAIN ZONE AND RATE AND CHARGE FOR FY 1991-1992 FOR THE SERVICE LEVEL The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None 4/Minutes/071691 -4- 07/23/91 -" CSD Minutes July 16. 1991 President Mu~oz listed the following suggestions for future discussion on the agenda: Avoid the use of property liens for foreclosure proceedings because of unpaid assessments. Study an option for citizens to deal directly with the trash hauler instead of an assessment being placed on property taxes. 3. Hold the line on any further increases. If increases are necessary, hold a special election to determine the will of the people. Director Lindemarts suggested placing this on the agenda in the fifth month of the new year, stating by that time an accounting of current programs could be made. He stated he disagreed with a special election, because the $35,000 cost for such an election would not be justified by a small increase. Director Parks stated he would like staff input on these issues before they are discussed and agreed this should be placed on a future agenda. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS None given. 4/Minutes/071691 -5- 07/23/91 CSD Minutes July 16, 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:25 PM to a meeting on July 23, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. J. Sal Mu~oz, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, TCSD Secretary 4/Minutes/071691 -6- 07/23/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD JULY 23, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:02 PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: PM. Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, City Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Calendar Items 1 and 2. o Director Lindemans to approve Consent The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Minutes 1.1 1.2 5 DIRECTORS: 0 DIRECTORS: 0 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, MuRoz None None Approve the minutes of the meeting of June 25, 1991 as mailed. Approve the minutes of the meeting of July 2, 1991 as mailed. Change Order for Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Proiect - Phase II 2.1 Approve change order to Phase II of the Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project to replace wiring on the North and South fields in Sports Park. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT None given. 4/Minutes/072391 -1- 07/31/91 July 23, 1991 CSD Minutes CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:06 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: June S. Greek, TCSD Secretary J. Sal Mu~oz, President 4/Minutes/072391 -2- 07/31/91 ITEM NO. 2 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: DAVID F. DIXON DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR THE SPORTS PARK RESTROOM/ SNACK BAR PROJECT PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Award construction contract to Mahr Construction for the Sports Park Restroom/ Snack Bar Project. FISCAL IMPACT: $85,201.00 is the lowest, qualified bid. As of June 30, 1991, $135,000.00 was unencumbered for account//029-190-106-44-5804. The amount was recorded as Fund Balance designated for Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project at June 30, 1991. Staff recommends that $85,201.00 be appropriated for FY 1991-92 from Fund Balance for this project. DISCUSSION: The Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project consists of constructing a block wall restroom/snack bar facility to provide a permanent sanitary environment to service the thousands of recreation participants at Sports Park. Bids documents were prepared in accordance with the City's Public Works Bid Procedures. The lowest qualified bid was submitted by Mahr Construction at $85,201.000. The Bid Bond and Contractor's License were verified by TCSD staff, and therefore, the low bid is in compliance with the City's requirements. Enclosed are copies of the bid opening log sheet, site plan, and construction contract for your review. BID OPENING DATE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BIDDER: CITY OF TEM:ECULA ]~m o}'mXmrG LOS sm~ET "'- 6.! r~ahr- 7. FiVe. CC: lo. 0ct~ K~n City Clerk's Staff (3) Initiating Department (1) City Manager (I) BID AMOUNT BID BOND ~[ I/~/-'/l {,,.{7. z)/") Dated: 2\forma\bidaLl~0 I0 MARGARITA F~. sff/TMbidpacl(022891-6) PROJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA CONTRACT FOR "SPORTS PARK RESTROOM & CONCESSION BLDG." THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the day of , 19 , by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporationS--hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and , hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 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 , Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications"). 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 Plans and Specifications of this Contract. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over and be used in lieu of such conflicting portions. CONTRACT CA-1 : ~rf/TMbidpacl(022891-6) e Where the Plans or Specifications describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: Project: "SPORTS PARK RESTROOM & CONCESSION BLDG." All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. CITY agrees to pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept in full payment for the work above agreed to be done, the.sum of: Dollars ($ ) the total amount of the base bid including Alternates Nos. , which sum is to be paid according to the following schedule and subject to additions, and deductions, if any, as hereinafter provided. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed calendar days, commencing with delivery of Notice to Begin Work by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. CHANGE ORDERS· All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby CONTRACT CA-2 sff/TMbidpacl{022891-6) authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in a cumulative amount not to exceed $10,000, and in an individual amount not to exceed $5,000. PAYMENTS. On or about the 30th day of the month next following the commencement of the work, there shall be paid to the CONTRACTOR a sum equal to 90 percent of the value of the work completed since the commencement of the work. Thereafter, on or about the 30th day of each successive month as the work progresses, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid such sum as will bring the payments each month up to 90 percent of the previous payments, provided that the CONTRACTOR submits his request for payment prior to the last day of each preceding month. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made 60 days after CITY acceptance of the work and the CONTRACTOR filing a one year warranty with the CITY on a warranty form provided by the CITY. 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. 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 RETENTION RETENTION AMOUNT PERIOD PERCENTAGE $25,000 - $75~000 $75,000 - $500,000 Over $500,000 180 days 3% 180 days 2% One Year 1% Failure by the CONTRACTOR to take corrective action within 24 hours after personal or telephonic notice by the City on items affecting use of facility, safety, or deficiencies will result in the CITY taking whatever corrective action it deems necessary. All costs resulting from such action by the CITY will be deducted from the retention. The amount of retention provided for herein shall not be deemed a limitation upon the responsibility CONTRACT CA-3 ~ff/TMbidpacl(022891-6) 10. of the CONTRACTOR to carry out the terms of the Contract Documents. 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 Hundred Dollars ($100.00) 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. Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Contract, on or before making final request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out of this contract; the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims against CITY under or arising out of this Contract except those previously made in writing and request for payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release and indemnify agreement with each claim for payment. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification,.or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of much 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, a d 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 CONTRACT CA-4 ~ff/TMbidpacl(022891-6) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. LIABILITY INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies: "I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workman's Compensation or undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract." TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Contract. Time is of the essence in this 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. CONTRACTOR'S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. No plea of ignorance of conditions that exist or that may hereafter exist or of conditions of difficulties that may be encountered in the execution of the work under this Contract, as a result of failure to make the necessary independent examinations and investigations, and no plea of reliance on initial investigations or reports prepared by CITY for purposes of letting this Contract out to bid will be accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the CONTRACTOR to fulfill in every detail all requirements of this Contract. Nor will such reasons be accepted as a basis for any claims whatsoever for extra compensation or for an extension of time. 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. CONTRACT CA-5 sff/TMbidpacl(022891-6) 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 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 puerperal of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in his/her 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 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. CITY MANAGER. Whenever the phrase "City Manager" is used in this Agreement or in any document incorporated within this Agreement by reference, it shall mean and refer to the City Manager of the City of Temecula, or such person as the City Manager shall designate in writing. SUBSTITUTED SECURITY. In accordance with Section 22300 of the Public Contracts Code, CONTRACTOR may substitute securities for any monies withheld by the CITY to ensure performance under the Contract. At the request and expense of the CONTRACTOR, securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the CITY or with a State or Federally chartered bank or an escrow agent who shall pay such monies to the CONTRACTOR upon notification by CITY of CONTRACTOR's satisfactory completion of the Contract. The type of securities deposited and the method of release shall be approved by the City Attorney's office. RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS. Any dispute or claim arising out of this Contract shall be arbitrated pursuant to Section 10240 of the California Public Contracts Code. 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-6 sff/TMbidpacl(022891-6) 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 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. UTILITY LOCATION. CITY acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility facilities pursuant to California Government Code Section 4215. REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS. CONTRACTOR agrees to contact the appropriate regional notification center in accordance with Government Code Section 4215. TRENCH PROTECTION. CONTRACTOR shall submit its detailed plan for worker protection during the excavation of trenches required by the scope of the work in accordance with Labor Code Section 6705. TRENCHING AND EXCAVATION. Contractor shall, without disturbing the condition, notify City in writing as soon as Contractor, or any of Contractor's subcontractors, agents, or employees have knowledge and reporting is possible, of the discovery of any of the following conditions: ¢1) The presence of any material that the Contractor believes is hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code; (2) (3) Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated in the specifications; or Unknown physical ~onditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially for those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Contract. Pending a determination by the City of appropriate action to be taken, Contractor shall provide security measures (e.g., fences) adequate to prevent the hazardous waste or physical conditions from causing bodily injury to any person. CONTRACT CA-7 ~ff/TMbidpacl(022891-6) 27. 28. 29. 30. City shall promptly investigate the reported conditions. If City, through, and in the exercise of its sole discretion, determines that the conditions do materially differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and will cause a decrease or increase in the Contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, then City shall issue a change order. De In the eveDt of a dispute between City and Contractor as to whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in the Contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date, and shall proceed with all work to be performed under the contract. Contractor shall retain any and all rights which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the parties. 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. This Contract and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by the law of the State of California. 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: CONTRACT CA-8 sff/TMbidpacl(022891-6) City Manager City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR: By: Name: Title: DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Ron Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Oreck City Clerk 'APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney CONTRACT CA-9 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM 1 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD JULY 16, 1991 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:36 PM. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks, Moore ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill Perry, 28645 Front Street, addressed the Agency requesting an explanation be given to the public regarding eminent domain and friendly condemnation. He also stated that anyone desiring to be a part of the RDA Committee should have the opportunity to participate whether they live in the project area or not. He also suggested hiring a paid employee to work exclusively with Redevelopment. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Discussion of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Executive Director David Dixon introduced the staff report, reporting that as of July 1, 1991, the City of Temeculaisa functioning Redevelopment Agency. He reported Redevelopment is a State Program which has established criteria. He explained taxes will not increase due to Redevelopment, but rather tax increment is the funding mechanism for the agency. Mr. Dixon explained that many needs for the City and specifically "Old Town" can be addressed by use of these funds. He reported that staff is preparing a capital improvement list for Agency Members to consider and prioritize and advised this list should come before the Agency in August. Member Parks asked that eminent domain and friendly condemnation be clarified. Mr. Dixon reported that eminent domain cannot be used by the RDA. He stated that friendly condemnation for the purchase of land, can have tax advantages. Member Birdsall asked when the Old Town Advisory Committee will be elected. Executive Director Dixon stated a special election will be held before the first of the year to elect four members of the committee, and the Redevelopment Agency Members will appoint three members. 4\RDAMlN\071691 - !- 07/30/91 ---' Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 16. 1991 Member Birdsall asked if Old Town residents are the only qualified voters for the special election. Mr. Dixon responded that residents and business owners or operators are eligible. Member Moore stated that the Agency may create conflicts of interest among the members. Executive Director Dixon responded that the Agency would adopt a conflict of interest policy. Chairperson Moore called at brief recess at 9:14 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 9:15 PM. Member Lindemans suggested creating a Master Plan of Old Town. Executive Director Dixon reported that a work program will be before the Agency within the next 30 days. Member Mufioz suggested using the report presented by Cal Poly student Christina Davidson on Old Town as reference material. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Dixon reported that several mini-workshops are planned as it relates to RDA, in which the public will be invited. GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS None given. 4\RDAMIN\071691 -2- 07/30/91 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 16. 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Lindemans to adjourn at 9:20 PM to a meeting on July 23, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Peg Moore, Chairperson June S. Greek, Agency Secretary 4\RDAMIN\071691 -3- 07/30/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD JULY 23, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:23 PM. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill Harker, 31130 South General Kearny Road, addressed the Agency suggesting that all undeveloped properties be acquired by the RDA and put in a land pool until usage is determined. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve staff recommendations as follows: 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of June 25, 1991 as mailed. 1.2 Approve the minutes of the meeting of July 2, 1991 as mailed. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore None None Costco OPAlSales Tax Reimbursement City Attorney Field introduced the staff report. Member Lindemans asked if the Agency can bind future City Council's regarding sales tax. City Attorney Field answered this contract is between Costco and the RDA. He stated another agreement exists between the RDA and the City for transfer of sales tax funds, which only commits one year at a time. 4\RDAM/N\072391 -1- 07/31/91 .... Ternecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 23. 1991 Member Parks asked if the Costco site is within the boundaries of the RDA. City Attorney Field stated Costco is in the survey area. For this reason, he recommends a validation action be filed which should take from 60-90 days. It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Birdsall to approve staff recommendation as follows: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 2.1 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 91-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 91-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A SALES TAX AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA DATED AS OF JULY 23, 1991 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None given. GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS None given. 4\RDAMIN\072391 -2- 07/31/91 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 23. 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Birdsall to adjourn at 8:37 PM to a meeting on August 13, 1991 at 8:00 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Peg Moore, Chairperson June S. Greek, Agency Secretary 4\RDAMIN\072391 -3- 07/31/91