Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062894 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER - 30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD JUNE 28, 1994 - 7:00 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:30:.PM, 'Closed .SesSionof.the. City .Council .pursuant to: 1. 'Government Code '§54957..6, Conference:with. Labor Negotiator, ·Agency negotiators: Harwood Edvalson and .Gent Yates - Employee organization: Teamsters Local 91.1, representing ·General and ProfesSional/Confidential employee groups; ..... 'i" ..... .. "": ' 2. Government COde §'54956.9(a) - ConferenCe with. legalC0Unsel .- Tort'Claims: · Miller 'vS'CityOf Temecula~ :" .:....: :....::...::" ":'....:.: ':::;'::.: :.: :" 3. Government Code §54956.9(a)- Conferencewith:legal CounSel -.existing · · .litlgation,.Dawes vs the'TemeCula RedeVdopment'Agen~/; et :al..and, · · 41 ..Government Code"§54959:.9(b)-:Conference.with'legal.:CoUnsel ·regarding .potential.litigation(two matters), .: .:....:...: ...:.:.:.. .' .'.":'.:: ..'.....:..: ':.. :' .' . At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 94-18 Resolution: No. 94-62 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Roberrs presiding Invocation; Pastor Tim Riter, Rancho Christian Church Flag Salute: Councilmember Mu~oz ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberts PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of I~eative Kids Poster Contest Winners Proclamation - Arts Appreciation Week PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 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 on an item ngt 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. R:~eertde%062694 1 When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of June 14, 1994. 3 Resolution Aoorovina List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 5 6 7 US Treasury Resolution for Old Town Entertainment Center Preliminary Studies RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS SB 2557 AQreement (BookinQ Fees) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the settlement agreement with Riverside County concerning SB 2557 booking fees; 5.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 5.3 Transfer $84,324to Account No. 001-170-999-5273from Account No. 001-170~ 999-5288. Resolution EstablishinQ Gann Aooroorietion Limit for FY 1994-95 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 1994-95 Contract Amendment No. I to Moraoa Road Street Widenine - PW 92-10. EnQineerino Services Contract with NBS Lowry, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve Contract Amendment No. I to provide additional engineering services for Moraga Road Street Widening by NBS Lowry, Inc. for the outlet structure redesign in the amount of $7,000.00. 8 "NO Parkine" Zone to Facilitate Emeroencv Vehicle Access on Villa Alturas. Loma Portola Drive. Santo Suzanne Place, Mira Loma Drive and La Primavera Street Adjacent to ExistinQ Medians RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING" ZONES ON VILLA ALTURAS, LOMA PORTOLA DRIVE, SANTA SUZANNE PLACE, MIRA LOMA AND LA PRIMAVERA STREET AS SHOWN ON EXHIBITS "B" THROUGH "1" 9 Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-2 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept the substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and riders to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water and Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-2, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 10 Substitute Subdivision Imorovement Aareement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-4 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Riders to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water and Sewer improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-4, and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 11 Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aareement and Public Imorovement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-F RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Riders to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water and Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentorion Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-F, and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 12 Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-1 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Authorize a sixty-five (65) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water and Sewer Improvement Bond Amounts, Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915- 1, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. 13 Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-F RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize a seventy-five (75) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water and Sewer Improvement Bond amounts; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-F and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. 14 Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aqreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-1 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize a fifty (50) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water and Sewer Improvement bond amounts, accept the Substitute Subdivision improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-1, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 15 Ordinance No. 94-16 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.10 'SPECIAL LICENSES--BARS, NIGHT CLUBS, DANCE HALLS, POOLROOMS, ETC.,' TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 16 Ordinance No. 94-17 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.20 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD WEIGHT LIMITS ON DESIGNATED STREETS 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 Aooeal of Plannine Apolication Nos. 93-0157 and 94-0002 (Temecule Valley Unified School District Maintenance, Ooeretion and Transportation Facility and Associated Environmental Imoact Report (Continued from the meeting of June 14, 1994) An appeal, filed by Councilmember Mu~oz, of the decision of the Temecula Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit for property located North of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road. RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0002), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND WEST OF THE EXTENSION OF RORIPAUGH ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'$ PARCEL NO. 911- 180-024 17.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: 18 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0157, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Plannine AoDlication No. PA 93-0191. Skateboard Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.36 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING, OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS 19 AoDeal of the PlanninQ Commission Denial of Plannino APPlication No. PA94-0019, PlOt Plan for the Black Anaus Restaurant RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for PA94-0019; 19.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019-APPEAL, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,200 SQUARE FOOT RESTUARANT ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-270-047 20 Master Conditional Use Permit RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS COUNCIL BUSINESS 21 Plannino AoDlication No. 94-0035 - ADoeel of Plannine Commission Aooroval of a Thirty (30) Foot HiQh Freeway Oriented SiQn for the Ynez Car Care Center RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 - APPEAL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO APPROVE A THIRTY (30| FOOT HIGH, ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FEET IN AREA FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGN LOCATED AT THE REAR PORTION OF THE YNEZ CAR CARE CENTER AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 921-720-008 22 ADoroval of Election Resolutions RECOMMENDATIONS: 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 22.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES 23 24 25 26 Re-adootion of Curfew Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.12 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS Karl S. Hennine ProPertY - 28613 Puiol Street, Temecula, California RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Set a date, time and place of July 26, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., at 30875 Rancho Vista Road, for the purpose of conducting a Public Hearing to confirm the cost of nuisance abatement for property located at 28613 Pujol Street, and to cause that cost to be recorded against the property as a special assessment. Revised Solid Waste Rates for FY 1994-95 RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Receive and file the revised solid waste rates for single family, multi-family, and commercial refuse and recycling services in the City of Temecula. Consideration of Proposed Advisory Ballot Measures for the November 1994 Election (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mu~oz) DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: July 12, 1994, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT' MEETING - '(To bee held at. 8:00).. CALL TO ORDER: President Jeffrey E. Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mur~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone PUBLIC COMMENT: 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. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 MinUte~; RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of June 14, 1994. 2 TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contracts - FY 1994-95 RECOMMENDATION: 2~1 Approve purchase order of 9184,851 to California Landscape Company to provide median and park maintenance services for FY 1994-95; 2.2 Approve purchase order of $305,664to Excel Landscape to provide slope and park maintenance services for FY 1994-95. Muni Financial Services Contract RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve contract with Muni Financial Services to provide assessment administration services related to the TCSD Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 1994-95. 4 Release of Bond for Kent Hinteroardt Memorial Park RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Authorize the release of Labor and Materials Bond for the construction of Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting July 12, 1994, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT 'AGENCY.MEETING CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mufioz, Roberrs, Stone, Parks PUBLIC COMMENT: 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. AGENCY BUSINESS 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of June 14, 1994. 2 Review and Aooroval of the Fiscal Year 1994-95 Budaet RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 FOR THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR°S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting: July 12, 1 ~j94, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. PROCLAMATIONS/ PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION V~S, the purpose of the Temecula Arts Council is to stimulate the growth of visual and performing arts wiffiin the community; and WlfF. REAS, the Arts Council is further dedicated to the promotion and facilitation of education relative to ~e arts; and WltEREAS, a further goal is to assist individual artists and art organiTations and to create a network for coordination and sharing of resources; and WHEREAS, the Temecula Arts Council desires to encourage construction of facilities to house and enhance performing arts; Wltl;IREAS, the Arts Council will sponsor the Fourth Annual Arts Festival this year beginning June 25, 1994, featuring art displays including a children's Art-in-the-Park exhibit, Arts and Crafts shows, singers, dancers and instrumental performances, culminating wiffi a talent showcase on Sunday, July 3, 1994, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ron Roberts, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim the week of June 261h, 1994, to be "Arts Appreciation Week" IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 281h day of June, 1994. Ron Roberrs, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD JUNE 14, 1994 A regular meeting of the Temecule City Council was called to order at 5:36 PM at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Street, Temacula, California. Mayor Ron Roberrs presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Robarts ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall Also present were City Manager Ronald Bradley, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Muf~oz to adjourn to Executive Session at 5:37 PMpursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Agency negotiators: Harwood Edvalson and Grant Yates - Employee organization: Teamsters Local 911, representing General and Professional/Confidential employee groups, Government Code § 54959.9(b)regarding potential litigation, and §54956.9 Tort Claims: Miller, Charles & Sharon vs. the City of Temecula. The motion was unanimously carried. Mayor Roberts reconvened the City Council meeting in regular session at 7:12 PM. City Manager Bradley reported that negotiations regarding all closed session matters were ongoing and will be continued to the next City Council Closed Session. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Gary Nelson, Calvary Chapel of Temecula. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Roberts gave a tribute to "Flag Day" and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Robarts presented Dave Stovall, President of the CRC Building Foundation a proclamation read at the "Taste of the Valley" on June 10, 1994 for "CRC Foundation Day." Mr. Stovall thanked the City for their efforts. Minutee%6~14\94 -1- 06/21/94 Cit~ Council Minutes June 14, 1993 Mayor Roberrs introduced Motor Officer Mike Pino who presented the Bicycle Safety Essay Contest Winners with awards. Winners of the contest are as follows: 6th Grade Girls I st- Vickie Portillo, Margarita Middle School 2nd - Christina Serna, Temecula Middle School 3rd - Holly Hudson, Margarita Middle School 6th Grade Boys I st - Jonathan Jacobsen, Margarita Middle School 2nd - Peter Mostert, Margarita Middle School 3rd - Adam Forrest, Temecula Middle School 7th Grade Girls I st -Bryna Bunderson, Temecula Middle School 2nd - Nicole Fox, Lindfield School 3rd - Suzana Malek, Temecula Middle School 7th Grade Boys I st- Devin Kelly, Lindfield School 2nd - Jerod EIder, Temecula Middle School 3rd - Ryan Kane, Linfield School Mayor Roberts presented Mark Katan, Target Stores, with a certificate of appreciation for his donation of bicycles for the first place contest winners in the Bicycle Safety Essay Contest. Mayor Roberts announced that Public Hearing Item No. 22 would be continued to the meeting of June 28, 1994, since only two members of the Council would be able to vote on this issue. He further stated Public Hearing No. 28 would be continued to the meeting of July 12, 1994, honoring the request for continuance from the applicant. PUBLIC COMMENTS Frank Spencer, 28690 Front Street, President of the Old Town Main Street Foundation, read a letter requesting the immediate implement ofthe Main Street Program. He thanked members of the Council and staff for their efforts toward this program. Bonnie Reed, 42050 Main Street, presented a letter to the City Clerk containing the signatures of 56 business owners in Old Town who support the immediate implementation of the Main Street Program. Minutes%6%14%94 -2- 06/21/94 City Council Minutes June 14. 1993 Karel Lindemans, 42740 Las Violetas, asked that the Council research the financial aspects of Assessment Districts 159 and 161. He also asked that the City pursue funds collected by the State under Proposition 111. Lastly, he asked that certain City streets be re-paved. Nick Vultaggio, 39813 Creative Drive, stated he received a public hearing notice from the County regarding AD 161, scheduled on July 19th and 26th at 10:00 AM. He asked the Council's assistance in requesting that the County of Riverside hold public hearings regarding Assessment District 161 in Temecula and at a time when residents are able to attend. Mayor Pro Tern Stone asked that staff assist in this effort. City Manager Bradley stated it is his experience that County Agencies do try to accommodate the residents and said staff will draft a letter requesting the County hold AD 161 Public Hearings in Temecula, not Riverside. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Pro Tem Stone asked that the Council send letters to local representatives to support State Assembly Bill 3797, which gives cities the legal right to control the curfew issue and asked the status of the City's curfew ordinance. City Clerk June Greek reported that curfew section was inadvertently removed from the Municipal Code when it was being codified and staff will bring this section back for adoption. Mayor Pro Tem stone stated he is concerned about unlicensed vendors in the City and asked that this be addressed possibly by allocating more hours toward code enforcement on an "on- call" basis. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he at'tended a conference of the National Civic League and shared ideas presented by cities who have receivied the "All American City" award. Councilmember Parks stated that a meeting of WRCOG will be held on June 23rd from 12:00 Noon to 5:00 PM, with the business meeting being held at 1:30 PM. CONSENTCALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Stone requested the removal of Item No. 6 from the Consent Calendar, and announced he would abstain on Item 2.1, since he did not attend that meeting, and Item No. 16 due to the close proximity of his home to the project. Councilmember Parks stated he would abstain on Items 10 and 11 due to the close proximity of his home. Mayor Roberts commented on Item 17, praising the Department of Public Works for bringing this contract in under engineering estimates. Minutes\6~l 4\94 -3- 0612 1/94 City Council Minutes June 14, 1993 It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-5 end 7-20, with Mayor Pro Tam abstaining on Items 2.1 and 16, and Councilmember Parks abstaining on Items 10 and 11. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberrs NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall 1. 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 Approve the minutes of May 10, 1994; Mayor Pro Tam Stone abstained. 2.2 Approve the minutes of May 23° 1994; 2.3 Approve the minutes of May 24, 1994. Resolution ADorovinQ List of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A City Treasurer's Reoort 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of April 30, 1994. Records Destruction Reouest 5.1 . Approve scheduled destruction of certain records as provided under the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. Minufee%6~l 4%94 -,4- 06121/94 City Council Minutes 7. 10. June 14, 1993 ADorooriation of Funds Within the Insurance Internal Service Fund 7.1 Approve appropriation of funds as follows: Property Insurance $ 5,000 Claims Examiner $ 6,500 Claims $69,000 Other Outside Services $ 2,300 Contract Chanoe Order Nos. 12 throueh 14 for the Liefar Road BridQe and Street ImProvements, Project No. PW93-02 8.1 8.2 Approve the final Contract Change Orders Nos. 12 through No. 14 for Liefar Road Bridge and Street Improvements Project, PW 93-02, pertaining to labor and equipment for various items of work, in the amount of $16,655.40. Approve an advance from the Development Impact Fund of $2,450.96to the Capital Projects Fund. Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public Improvement bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-F 9.1 Accept the Substitute Subdivision improvement Agreement and riders for Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22916-F, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Final Parcel MaD No. 25538 - Southeastern Terminus of Estero Street 10.1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approve Final Parcel Map No. 25538, subject to the Conditions of Approval. 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufloz, Stone, Robarts 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks Minutes\6\14%94 -5- 06/21/94 Ciw Cot(nell Minutes 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. June 14,1993 Final Parcel MaD NO. 24633 - Northeast Corner of Estero Street and Ormsbv Road Approve Final Parcel Map No. 24633, subject to the Conditions of Approval. 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Stone, Roberrs 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks 11.1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Imorovement Aoreement and New Public Imerovement Bonds in Tract No. 22915-2 12.1 Authorize a sixty-five (65) percent reduction in Faithful Performance, Street, Water and Sewer improvement bond amounts, accept the substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and new Public Improvement Bonds in Tract No. 22915-2 and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-2 13.1 Accept Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Riders to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water and Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-2, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Imorovement Aareement and New Public Imerovement Bonds in Tract No. 22915-3 14.1 Authorize a fifty-three (53) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water and Sewer Improvement Bond Amounts, accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bonds in Tract NO. 22915-3and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement end Replacement Public Imorovement Bonds in Tract No. 22916-3 15.1 Accept Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Replacement of Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street and Water Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond in Tract No. 22916-3and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Minutes~6~l 4~94 -6- 06/21/94 CiWCouncilMinutes 16. 17. 18. June 14. 1993 Award Bid to Remove Three Desiltina Ponds Alona with Debris and Sediment in the Santiaao Channel from Valleio Avenue to John Wamer Road 16.1 Award a bid for removal of sediment of three (3) desilting ponds in Santiago Channel to Moody Excavating, the lowest responsible bidder, for the sum of $18,534.34. AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks, Roberrs NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone Comoletion and Acceotance of the Puiol Street and First Street Widenina. oroiect NO, PW92-09 17.1 Accept the Pujol St. and First St. Widening Project No. PW92-09, as complete and direct the City Clerk to: File the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Installation of Traffic Sional and Vehicle Pre- emotion Eouioment, Project No, PW 94-05 18.1 Approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the public Works Department to solicit public construction bids for providing and installing Traffic Signal pre-emption equipment at the intersections of Rancho California Road and Front Street, Rancho California Road and Diaz Road, Margarita Road and Rancho Vista Road, Margarita Road and Moraga Road, and the providing and installing of Vehicle Pre-Emption equipment on nine (9) Fire Department vehicles. project NO. PW94-05. 19. Contract for Professional Services with C.M. "Max" Gilliss 19.1 Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Professional Services Agreement with C.M. "Max" Gilliss to act as a liaison between the City and Government Agencies and special interest groups for an amount not to exceed 98,400. Minutes%6%14%94 -7- 06121/94 City Council Minutes June 14, 1993 20. Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Construction of a TemDorarv Traffic Sional at Winchester and Nicolas RoBds. Proiect No. PW93-11 20.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Public Works Department to solicit public construction bids for the construction of a temporary traffic signal on Winchester and Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93- 11. Capital Improvement Project - Rancho California Sports Park Desiltation Lake Improvement Project Mayor Pro Tam Stone asked if the City will be able to find the balance of the funding to complete this project. Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson stated that this study is required by the State to move forward and with use of the $100,000 grant from URGE and the CIP, the first phase of improvements should be able to be completed. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve staff recommendation as follows: 6.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 for $12,000 to the design contract with J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for preparation of a biological study and analysis. 6.2 Appropriate $12,000 to Capital Projects Account No. 210-190-138-5802and approve an operating transfer from Development Impact Fund of $12,000, establishing the Rancho California Desiltation Lake Improvement Project. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberts 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall REC:ESS Mayor Robarts called a recess at 8:09 PM. Mayor Roberts reconvened the City Council Meeting in joint session with the Redevelopment Agency at 9:23 PM. Minutes%6%14~94 -8- O6121/94 City Council Minutes June 14. 1993 26. International Rectifier Owner Particioation Aoreement It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve staff recommendation prior to RDA action as follows: 26.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND B~EENTHE CITY OF TEMECULA AND INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. RECESS Mayor Roberts recessed the City Council meeting at 9:25. The meeting was reconvened at 9:32 PM. PUBLIC HEARINGS 21. Chanoe of Zone No. 5570-Johnson + Johnson - a reouest for the Redesionation of Three Parcels from R-A-5 (Residential Aoricultural. 5 acre minimum parcel size) to R-3 (General Residential) and C-0 (Commercial Office) Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. Mayor Robarts opened the public hearing at 9:36 PM. Karel Lindemans, 42740 Las Violetas, speaking on behalf of the Rancho Community Home Owners Association, spoke in favor of staff recommendation for denial. Lena Seeman, 42700 Las Violetas Ct., spoke in favor of staff recommendation for denial. Mayor Robarts closed the public hearing at 9:43 PM. Minutee~6~l 4~94 -9- 06/21 j94 Citv CouncilMinutes June 14, 1993 22. It was moved by Councilmember Mufloz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone to approve staff recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Stone asked that the motion be amended to remove the language "without prejudice" in the resolution. Councilmember Mur~oz amended his motion, Mayor Pro Tem amended his second to approve staff recommendation with the amendment to remove the language "without prejudice" in the resolution and the title as follows: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5570 - A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONE ON THREE PARCELS FROM R-A-S (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 5 ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE) TO C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) ON PARCELS NO. I AND 3 AND FROM R-A-5 TO R-3 (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL) ON PARCEL NO. 2 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF RANCHO VISTA AND YNEZ ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 944- 290-015, 944-290-016, AND 944-290-017 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberrs NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall Aooeal of Plannine ADolication Nos, 93-0157 and 94-0002 (Temecula Valley Unified School District Maintenance, Operation and Transoortation Facility and Associated Environmental Impact Report Mayor Roberts opened the public hearing at 9:45 PM. Mayor Roberrs continued the public hearing to the meeting of June 28, 1994. 23. Lease Aareement with the Temecula Valtev Historical Museum Foundation Mayor Roberrs opened the public hearing at 9:47 PM. Mayor Roberrs continued the public hearing to the meeting of July 12, 1994. Minutee\6~l 4~94 -1 O- 06121 City Council Minutes June 14. 1993 COUNCIL BUSINESS 24. Entertainment Licensing Ordinance City Attorney Peter Thorson presented the staff report and recommended the addition of Section 9.10.090 providing that the Chief of Police may approve the license re-issue annually. It was moved by Councilmember Muf~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to approve staff recommendation with the addition of Section 9.10.090 which provides language approved by the City Attorney permitting the Chief of Police to approve the license re-issue annually. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberrs NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall' 25. Extension of Time for Variance No, 10 - a Fifty-Five (55) Foot Hicih Freeway Oriented Sian for Creekside Texaco Director of Planning Thornhill reported the applicant has requested this matter be continued. Councilmember Mu~oz asked the reasoning behind this request. Director of Planning Thornhill explained that a memo sent to the applicant supports the applicant's request and the applicant feels he has not had adequate notice of the meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Parks to continue the item. The motion died for a lack of a second. Lou Kashmere, 24115 Front Street, stated there is a conflict between the agreement he signed, a letter sent by staff and the understanding he had from the Council meeting when the Variance was granted. He asked, since no complaints have been received regarding his sign, that the variance be extended. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to extend the meeting until 10:45 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. Councilmember Mu~ioz voiced his objection to granting a further variance, stating that Mr. Kashmere signed an agreement to voluntarily lower his currant sign by 10 feet at the end of a two year period. Minutes~6~14~94 -11- 06121/94 CiW Council Minutes June 14, 1993 Mayor Pro Tam Stone said he does not want to set a precedence for future projects by extending the variance. Councilmember Parks stated the purpose for a variance is to consider individual cases and stated he does not have · problem with this sign. Mayor Roberrs said that because this property's elevation is at a lower level than surrounding properties, the sign is barely visable from the freeway and stated he feels the variance should be extended. Mayor Roberts called a recess at 10:26 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 10:27 PM. 27. Councilmember Parks moved the Temporary Variance be continued for 30 days. The motion died for a lack of a second. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to enforce the terms of the agreement and to require the applicant to bring the sign into compliance with the height requirements. Mayor Pro Tam Stone asked the motion be amended to allow Mr. Kashmere a six month period of time to show if any substantial loss of business occurs and the Council would re-evaulats the sign at that time. Councilmember Mu~oz did not agree to the amendment. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz, Stone NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Robarts ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall City Attorney Thorson advised the Council that the agreement provisions would be enforced by virtue of the time extension having expired and the fact that action to extend the variance did not carry. Financing and Construction Aareement Reaardina the Widenino of Maroarita Road Between Rancho California Road and La Serene Way Director of Public Works Tim Serlet presented the staff report. Councilmember Mu~oz stepped down from the podlure due to · conflict of interest. Minutee%6~l 4\94 -12- 06121/94 City Council Minutes June 14. 1993 28. 29. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to approve staff recommendation as follows: 27.1 27.2 27.3 Approve the agreement with Margarita Village Retirement Community, Inc. providing for the financing and construction of the East side of Margarita between Rancho California Road and Le Serene Way to ultimate width, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; Appropriate $168,517 in the Margarita Road Reimbursement District Fund Account No. 220-165-610-5804; Approve a $168,517 advance from the Development Impact Fund to the Margarita Road Reimbursement District Fund. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Stone, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz City ManaQer's Contract Mayor Roberrs presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve the City Manager's employment contract and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. Ordinance RestrictinQ Trucks Over Six Thousand (6,000) Pounds on Rainbow Canyon Road from Pale Road to the Southern City Limit Director of Public Works Tim Serlet presented the staff report. Minutes%6%14%94 -13- 06121/94 City Council Minutes June 14, 1993 It was moved by Councilmember Muf~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve staff recommendation as follows: 29.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.20 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD WEIGHT LIMITS ON DESIGNATED STREETS The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. CITY MANAGER REPORTS None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to adjourn at 10:40 PM to a meeting on June 28, 1994, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. ATTEST: Ron Roberrs, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk Minutel~6~l 4~94 -14- O6/21/94 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXIIIRIT 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 mount of $555,672.77. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 281h day of June, 1994. ATI~,ST: Ron Roberrs, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] Re~oa 15 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 28th day of June, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILlVIEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None June S. Greek, City Clerk Resos 25 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 06109194 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 06/16/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 06/18/94 TOTAL PAYROL~ TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 06/28/94 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: $110,790,16 TOTAL BY FUND: 15ss,672.77 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGr 06/09/94 13:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REG%STER FOR ALL PER%OUS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 19] TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 250 CAPITAL PROJECTS - TCSD 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP ]00 INSURANCE FUND ]10 VEHICLES FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 COPY CENTER FUND 340 FACILITIES TOTAL AMOUNT 12,201.57 3,598.7'5 9,572.88 122.33 12.52 1,028.61 548.35 256.63 297.82 954.33 720.99 1,480.75 604.61 35,814.85 VOUCW 06/0 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 15324 15324 15326 15327 15334 15334 15334 15335 15336 15337 15337 15337 15338 153~ 1533, 15339 15340 15340 15341 15341 15341 15342 15342 15343 15344 15344 15345 15346 15347 15347 15348 15348 15~ 13:44 CHECK DATE 06/03/94 06/03/94 06/08/94 06/08/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIORS VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 001480 PRESLEY COMPANIES, THE 001480 PRESLEY COMPANIES, THE 000120 BICKNELL TRAVEL CENTER 000418 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CLERK 001391 ADOLPH KIEFER & ASSOCIA 001391 ADOLPH KIEFER & ASSOCIA 001391 ADOLPH KIEFER & AGGOCIA 000105 AEI SECURITY, INC. ITEM DESCRIPTION REIMB WATER USEAGE/PARK REIMB WATER USEAGE/PARK AIRFARE/RUSE & NUNOZ FILING FEE/BURN ON PARK AOUATIC SUPPLIES FREIGHT TAX ALARM MONITOR/NG TCBD REFUND/ALLEN 000110 000110 000110 000102 000102 000101 000101 000370 000370 000131 000131 000131 000138 000138 000980 001193 0011~3 001275 001481 000165 000165 000643 000~3 000170 ALLEN, JANET AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE A001; FULL CUT POSTAGE AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE FREIGHT AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 193-180-999-5240 190-180-999-5240 190-180-999-5258 190-180-999-5301 190-183-999-5310 190-18~-999-5310 190-183-999-5310 340-199-999-5250 190-183-4982 330-199-999-5230 330-199-999-5230 330-199-999-5230 AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C TEMPORARY FENCE RENTAL 190-180-999-5238 AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C FENCE REPAIR 100-164-999-5402 APPLE ONE SBL LIASON W/E 05/21/94 280-199-999-5250 APPLE ONE SBL LIASON W/E 05/28/94 280-199-999-5250 BIRDSALL# PATRICIA 4/12-4/17 LEAGUE 190-180-999-5258 BIRDSALL, PATRICIA 4/12-4/17 LEAGUE 001-100-999-5258 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. MITTLENAN J/DOL 8/19/94 300-199-999-5205 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. CARL WARREN & CO,, INC. CITICORP NORTH AMERICA CITICORP NORTH AMERICA COAST IRRIGATION SUPPLY CONP USA, INC. COMP USA, ]NC. CUMPUSERV, INC. ELECTR[ CIT] FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FORTNER HARDWARE FORTNER HARDWARE FRANKLIN GUEST COMPANY SO CAL GAS/DOL 2/10/93 300-199-999-5205 TESSIER/2OTH CEN/DOL 6/300-199-999-5205 PHORE SYSTEM LEASE PHONE SYSTEM LEASE IRRIGATION PARTS NETWORK INTERFACE CARD NETWORK INTERFACE CARD MAY USAGE 320-2800 320-199-999-5391 190-180-999-5212 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5228 INTERNET CONNECT SOFTWA 320-199-999-5221 OVERNIGHT NAIL OVERNIGHT NAIL MISC, SUPPLIES MlSC TOOLS FOR PW DEPT 001-140-999-5230 190-180-999-5230 190-180-9q9-5212 100-164-999-5242 REFILL/LINED WHITE PAGE 001-161-999-5220 ITEM AMOUNT 854.91 501.58 150.00 78.00 150.00 9.08 .01 105.00 35.00 104.00 5,74 8.06 550.00 325.00 103,20 103.20 139.67 139.04 460.65 161.88 319.38 1,166.69 260.88 87.47 485.73 477.23- 38.15 220.50 19.00 9.50 28.49 6.02 55.33 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 1,356.49 150.00 78.00 159.09 105.00 35.00 117.80 875. O0 ZOO.40 278.71 941.91 1,427.57 87.47 8.50 38.15 220.50 28.50 34.51 55,33 VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TENECULA PAE' ~ 06/09/94 13:~J~. VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUHBER DATE NUMBER 15350 06/09/94 15351 06/09/94 15351 06/09/94 15351 06/09/94 15352 06/09/94 VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NAME DESCR;PTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 000993 FREEDOM COFFEE, INC. 00116/+ GABRIEL, RICHARD 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD 00116/+ GABRIEL, RICHARD NISC. COFFEE SUPPLIES LEASE AGREENENT WITH/CI LEASE AGREEMENT WITH/CI LEASE AGREEMENT WITH/CI 000481 GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONN SPORTS PARK SLOPE REPAI 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 00017'7 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 00017'7 15353 06/09/94 00017'/ 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 00017'/ 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 000177 15353 06/09/94 00017'/ 15353 06/09/94 00017/ 15354 06/09/94 15354 06/09/94 340-199-999-5250 310-16~-999-5234 310-180-999-5234 310-162-999-5234 210-166-648-5804 GLENNiES OFFICE PRODUCT DFX*8000 EPSON OEM R]BB 320-199-999-5221 GLENN[ES OFFICE PRODUCT ALQ-300 ALPS OEN RIBBON 320-199-999-5221 GLENNlEG OFFICE PRODUCT TAX 320-199-999-5221 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 4 COLOR FABRIC RIBBON 320-199-999-5221 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 4 COLOR FABR]C RIBBON 320-199-999-5221 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GUEST BOOK 001-110-999-5220 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-140-999-5220 GLENNiES OFFICE PRORUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220 GLENNIES OFFICE PRORUCT STORAGE CAB/NET (HON-SC 190~180-999-5220 GLENNlEG OFFICE PRORUCT TAX GLENNlEG OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES GLENNIES OFFICE PRQOUCT MIGC. OFFICE SUPPLIES GLENHIES OFFICE PRGOUCT RETURN RIBBON# FABRIC GLENNlEG OFFICE PRORUCT RETURNED PLAGUE GLENNlEG OFFICE PRORUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 001292 GRAPHIC EMBROIDERY OF T STAFF UNIFORM SHIRTS 001292 GRAPHIC EMBROIDERY OF T TAX 15355 06/09/94 001355 GTE CALIFORNIA I(~y CNGS 15356 06/09/94 15356 06/09/94 15356 06/09/94 190-180-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 320-199-999-5221 190-180-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 000184 GTE CALIFORNIA ]NCORPOR 909-695-3539 000184 GTE CALIFORNIA INCORPOR 909-699-2309 000184 GTE CALIFORNIA [NCORPOR 909-699-0128 190-180-999-5243 190-180-999-5243 320-199-999-5208 15357 06/09/94 0001~ HANKS HARDWARE 15357 06/09/94 000186 HANKS HARDWARE 15357 06/09/94 000186 HANKS HARDWARE 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5301 SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT 190-180-999-5212 MISC. NARDWARE SUPPLIES 340-199-999-5242 15358 06/09/94 HEROLD, PAUL N, BL DENIED/HEROLD, PAUL 001-199-4056 15359 06/09/94 15359 06/09/94 15359 06/09/94 001343 HOWE WELDING & FABRICAT FABRICAT[ON OF 3 42I' X 001343 HONE WELDING & FABRICAT FIELD INSTALLATION OF 001343 HO~E WELDING & FABRICAT TAX 15360 06/09/94 000193 [CHA 15361 06/09/94 15361 06/09/94 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-521Z [CMA STRATEGIC BUDGETIN 001-140-999-5228 001429 INACUM INFORR~TION SYST NETHORK ENGINEER SUPMR 320-199-~-5250 001429 INACOR INFORMATION SYBT NETW(~K ENGINEER SUPPOR 320-199-999-5250 141.83 350.00 245.00 105.00 204.00 299.40 77,70 29.23 55.81 27.91 24,01 153.15 130,02 46.58 268.40 20.80 44.18 14.01 83.72- 33.29- 77.48- 510.00 39,53 350,00 20.01 17.29 290.33 169.68 203.51 20.44 35.00 438.00 148.00 33.94 15.45 500.00 246.17 141.83 700,00 204.00 549.53 350.00 327.63 393.63 35.00 619.94 15.45 746.17 15362 06/09/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL NISC. POUL SLIPPLIES 190-180-~-5212 268.84 15362 06/09/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL NISC. POUL SUPPLIES 190-180-~-5212 2]7.05 505.~, VOUCF CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 06/0 13:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK RUMBER 15363 15363 15364 15364 15364 15365 15366 15367 15368 15369 15370 15371 15: 15373 15374 15375 15375 15375 15375 15375 15375 15375 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15376 15' CHECK DATE 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 )6/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 06/09/94 ~6/09/94 VENDOR NUMBER 000204 000204 000206 000206 000206 000209 000210 VENDOR ZTEM ACCCUNT ITEM NAME DESCRIPT/OR NUMBER AMOUNT J.R. FREEMAN CO, INC. J.R. FREEMAN CO, INC. KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, L & M FERTILIZER, INC. LEAGUE OF CALIF.CITIES MAIETTA~ RAYMOND 001030 MINI-GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, IBM UHEELURITER 1500 TAX 001-171-999-5602 001-171-999-5602 B&S COPIES 001-162-999-5220 TCSD COPIES 190-180-999-5220 MISC. SUPPLIES & SERVIC 330-199-999-5220 MISC HARDHARE 100-164-999-5402 ART XIIIB APPROP LIMIT 001-140-999-5228 CANCELLED RN REFUND/MAI 190-18]-4990 APERTURE CARD/~31,N IMAG 001-120-999-5250 000437 MORELAND &ASSOC]ATES TOT REVIEW 000587 MUNOZ, MARIO N. 001447 NETWARE USERS INTERNATI 0002:39 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC 001206 PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLO 000248 PETROLANE 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 000253 POSTMASTER 001-140-999-52~8 JANITORIAL SERVICES 190-181-999-5250 NETWARE USER CONFERENCE 320-199-999-5258 TEMPORARY SERVICES/OLST 001-162-999-5118 GNATCATCHER SURVEY 210-199-128-5802 PROPANE 190-180-999-5263 CASH REIMBURSEMENT CASH REIMBURSEMENT CASH REIMBURSEMENT CASH REIMBURSEMENT CASH REIMBURSEMENT CASH REIMBURSEMENT CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5310 190-180-999-5301 001-140-999-5220 001-161-9q9-5260 001-163-999-5260 320-199-999-5220 320-199-999-5226 OVERNZGHT MAIL OVERNIGHT MAIL OVERNIGHT NAIL OVERNIGHT MAiL OVERNIGHT MAIL EXPRESS MAIL EXPRESS MAIL EXPRESS MAIL EXPRESS MAIL CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT 001-120-999-52~0 001-16~-999-52~0 001-161-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 190-180-999-52~0 001-161-999-52~0 O01-1ZO-999-5Z30 001-140-999-52]0 001-150-999-5Z30 001-150-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 330-199-999-5230 001-110-999-57,30 001-120-999-5~0 001-163-999-5230 525.00 40.69 26.88 24.7'5 42.88 69.89 22.50 15.00 549.36 700.99 200.00 390.00 468.00 103.84 98.07 2~.71 38.09 22.66 15.41 34.76 40.00 19.90 19.90 61.75 13.95 13.95 79.70 47.80 9.95 11,50 19.90- 29,85 o 9.95- 9.95- 19.90- 9.95- CHECK AMOUNT 565.69 94.49 69.89 22.50 15.00 549.36 700.99 200.00 390.00 468.00 3/,4.35 103.84 272.70 178.90 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGr 06/09/94 13:~ VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR /TEH ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUHBER MANE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 15377 06/09/94 001416 QUICK CRETE PROOUCTS, I ASH URN NODEL tQR-SF132 15377 06/09/94 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS# I SILICA SAND 15377 06/09/94 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS, I TAX 190-180-~99-52/.2 190-180-999-5242 190-180-999-52/.2 492.00 40.00 41,23 573.23 15378 06/09/94 RAMOS, PETE DEPOSIT REFUND/RANOS 190-18~-4988 125.00 125.00 15379 06/09/94 000262 RANCHQ CALIFORNIA MATER 0~/13-05/12/94 190-180-999-52/*0 9.61 9.61 15380 06/09/94 001046 REXON, FREEDMAN, KLEPET MAY SERVICES 001-130-999-5247 152.00 152.00 15381 06/09/94 000266 RIGHT~AY 5/27-6/2~ 100-164-999-5238 15382 06/09/94 000353 RIVERSlOE COUNTy AUOITO PARKING CITATION/MAY 94 001-2260 15382 06/09/94 000353 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AOUITO PARKING CITATION/MAY 94 001-2265 57.39 90.00 50.00 57.39 140.00 15383 06/09/94 000268 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITA MAY 94 K-RAT 001-2300 15384 06/09/94 000270 RJM OESIGN GROUp, INC. RJM DESIGN GROUP 250-190-129-5802 5,047.50 256.6~ 3,047.50 256.63 15385 06/09/94 SIMPAUCO, RENATO DEPOSIT REFUND/SIMPAUCQ 190'185-4990 15386 06/09/94 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL 100-164-999-5263 15386 06/09/94 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL 001-110-999-5263 15386 06/09/94 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL 001-162-999-5263 15386 06/09/94 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL 190-180-999-5263 92.50 456.68 56.41 56.53 114.74 92.50 684.36 15387 06/09/94 SMITH, MERRITA SECURITY REFUND/SM/TH M 190-183-4990 94.00 94.00 15388 06/09/94 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF. ORS CO. 4/15-5/16 15389 06/09/94 000291 SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T BLAZER 190-180-999-5240 310-110-999-5214 1,489.22 20.99 1,489.22 20.99 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 001-2~70 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 100-2370 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 190-2370 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 191-2370 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 192-2370 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 193-2370 15590 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPEMSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 280-2~70 15590 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 300-2370 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 320-2370 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 330-2370 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 340-2370 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 001-1182 15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. pYNT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 001-1182 15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 LETTERING/FIRE DEPT 001-171-999-5242 15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 MARIA HILTOR 001-120-999-5220 15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 GI4YN FLORES 001-120-999-5220 15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 FREIGHT 001-120-999-5220 15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 FRE/GHT 001-171-999-5242 4,426.09 2,660.77 2,151.90 122.33 12.52 173.70 91.42 12.42 30,10 13.58 337.3/, 55.79 1/,5.69 15.75 6.93 6.30 1.30 1.50 10,233.65 VOUC' 06A 13:44 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUI4BER 15391 06/09/94 000303 15391 06/09/94 000303 15392 06/09/94 000320 15392 06/09/94 000320 15392 06/09/94 000320 15392 06/09/94 000320 15392 06/09/94 000320 15393 06/09/94 000326 15393 06/09/94 000326 15394 06/09/94 001209 15395 06/09/94 001474 15396 06/09/94 001342 15397 06/09/94 000621 15?'" 06/09/94 000820 1~ 06/09/94 000820 13399 06/09/94 000345 15400 06/09/94 CITY OF TEMECULA VQtJCNER/CHECX REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VENDOR ITEM NAME DESCRIPTION SYSTEM 2/90 TAX SYSTEN 2/90 TAX TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS REQUEST FORM TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS GLW-5OH; BINDING CASES TONNE CENTER STATIONERS TAX TiE CENTER STATIONERS GLW-5OH; BINDING CASES TONNE CENTER STATIONERS TAX UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE VAULT, THE VORTEX DATA SYSTEM WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY UNIFORM RENTAL MISC. UNIFORM NAINT. STORAGE HATERIAL NETI~:)RK TRAINING COURSE SUPPLIES HESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNC REGISTRATION FEE WINCHAK, KRIS WINCHAK, KRIS XEROX CORPORATION BILLI ZACXEY, ANNETTE MAY 94 ~/ORKERS CORP PLAN CHECK SERVICES LEASE/JUNE TCSD REFUND/ZACKEY ACCOUNT NONBER 001-171-999-5242 001-120-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 100-164-999-5243 190-180-999-5243 001-120-999-5250 320-199-999-5258 190-180-999-5212 001-110-999-5258 001-1182 001-163-999-5249 330-199-999-5239 190-18~-4982 I TEN AMOUNT 1.22 1.03 .83 74.76 5.79 49.84 3.86 23, O0 18.85 20.00 395. O0 146.54 30.00 55.79- 975. O0 1,316.44 35.00 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT ~4.2S 135.08 41.85 20. O0 395.00 146.54 30. O0 919.21 1,316.~, 35.00 TOTAL CHECKS 35,814.85 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGr 06/16/94 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVZCE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 250 CAPITAL PROJECTS - TCSD 280 REDEVELOPRENT AGENCY - C[P 300 INSURANCE FUND VEHICLES FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS COPY CENTER FUND FACILITIES TCSD OEBT SERVICE TOTAL AMOUNT 34,058.65 9,594.31 25,095.86 1,461.87 181.31 2,142.32 164.57 1,107.58 1,292.94 15,503.65 85.91 3,986.40 245.62 768.02 1,882.05 97,571.06 VOUCr CITY OF TENECULA PAGE 1 06/1, 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERZOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER iTEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 15325 06/08/94 000253 POSTMASTER SULK MAiL 190-180-999-5230 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SOl 001-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 100-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 191-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 192-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 193-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 300-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SOi 330-2070 340211 06/16/94 0004/~ FIRSTAX (EDO) 000444 SDI ~0-2070 340211 06/16/94 O00z~ FIRSTAX (EDO) 000444 STATE 001-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EOD) 000~ STATE 100-2070 340211 06/16/94 000~,4 FIRSTAX (EO0) 000~ STATE 190-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EOD) O00z~ STATE 191-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDO) 000444 STATE 192-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 00044~ STATE 193-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000/~ STATE 280-2070 3402" 06/16/94 000/~ FIRSTAX (EO0) 00044/, STATE 300-2070 340 36/16/94 000/~ FIRSTAX (EDD) 000/~4 STATE 320-2070 ]40211 06/16/94 000444/, FIRSTAX (EOD) 00(Y+44 STATE 330-2070 340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 370013 06/16/94 00028,] FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 100-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) 0002Rx FEDERAL 191-2070 370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000255 FEDERAL 192-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ FEDERAL 193-2070 370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX CIRS) 00028~ FEOERAL 280-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL ]/.0-2070 370013 06/16/94 00028] FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 370013 06/16/94 0002Rx FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] NEDICARE 100-2070 370013 06/16/94 00028] FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] MEDICARE 190-2070 370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 191-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 NEDICARE 193-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] MEDICARE 280-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) 00028] MEDICARE 300-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDiCARE 320-2070 370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] MEDICARE ]40-2070 06/16/96 000921 AETNA CASUALTY AND SURE INSURANCE 154CL~ 300-199-999-5204 2,094.72 878.21 263.03 315.87 8.14 11.90 28.06 14.21 9.16 26.66 10.34 23.31 2,450.73 70937 540.59 20.88 1.26 48.53 29.51 25.96 66.42 16.12 6.68 9,162.84 2,943.61 2,861.70 57.30 44.11 214.16 131.44 ~7o87 290.53 90.31 76.07 2,345.17 635.31 787.16 18.16 26.54 62.60 31.68 20.42 59.46 23.06 52.00 4,721.20 2,094.72 5,505.14 20,011.50 4,721.20 15~ 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COIqMUNICATIONS, I MONTHLY RENTAL 190-180-999-5238 121.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAG~ 06/16/94 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REG/STER FOR ALL PERZOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUHBER DATE NUMBER NAME /TEN DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS 15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COI4MUNICATZONS 15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS 15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS 15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS 15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY RENTAL MONTHLY RENTAL MONTHLY RENTAL MONTHLY REHTAL MONTHLY RENTAL MONTHLY RENTAL 001-162-999-5238 320-199-999-5238 100-164-999-5238 001-170-999-5242 001-140-999-5250 001-100-999~5250 33,00 11.00 62.34 18.33 7.33 11.00 264. O0 15411 06/16/94 000101 APPLE ONE 15411 06/16/94 000101 APPLE ONE APPLE ONE TEMP HELP 001-120-999-5118 SML LIASON W/E 05/0?/94 280-199-999-5250 288.96 103.20 392.16 15412 06/16/94 000745 AT & T - CELLULAR 619-987-182B NJ 001-140-999-5208 15412 06/16/94 000745 AT & T - CELLULAR 909-204-1200 320-199-999-5208 30.42 .42 30.8~ 15413 06/16/94 001168 BANK OF AMERICA ADMIN FEE 390-199-999-5227 1,882.05 1,882.05 15414 06/16/94 BOLT, LOIS 88CLAIM#118/BOLT 300-199-999-5207 65.00 65.00 15415 06/16/94 001439 BRYAN'S DOG TRAINING BALANCE CONTRACT CLASS 190-183-999-5330 156.00 156.00 15416 06/16/94 001450 CAD ZONE, INC., THE 15416 06/16/94 001450 CAD ZONE, INC., THE 15416 06/16/94 001450 CAD ZONE, INC., THE 15416 06/16/94 001450 CAD ZONE, INC., THE FIRE ZONE SOFTWARE (WIT 001-171-999-5296 SOFTWARE UPGRADES 001-171-999-5296 FIRE ZONE SOFTWARE (WIT 001-171-999-5296 FREIGHT 001-171-999-5296 399.00 200.00 ' 249.00 8.00 856,uu 15417 06/16/94 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, ENDORSEMENT 300-199-999-5201 476.44 476.44 15418 06/16/94 000398 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL INVESTNENT HANDBOOK 001-140-999-5228 26.93 26.93 15419 06/16/94 000950 CALIFORNIAN - DISPLAY JOB ANNOUNCEMENT 001-150-999-5254 47.52 47.52 15420 06/16/94 000689 CAMPBELL'S LIGHTING SIG REPLACE LAMPS 190-180-999-5212 277.74 277.74 15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. 15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. 15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. 15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. 15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. 15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. LOSS 1/05/93/ROCKY NOUN 300-199-999-5205 LOSS 9/22/93/CUCClA 300-199-999-5205 LOSS 11/16/93 SCE 300-199-999-5205 LOSS 5/25/93 GTE 300'199'999-5205 LOSS 1/16/93 MILLER 300'199'999-5205 LOSS 10/lO/g3/OURRY 300-199-999-5205 262.00 125.88 163.88 266.13 22.50 142.00 98Z.39 15422 06/16/94 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER TEMP "NO PARKING SIGN" 190-180-999-5301 15422 06/16/94 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER SIGN ORDER 100-164-999-5244 122.57 131.7~ 254.36 15423 06/16/94 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC 15423 06/16/94 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC 15423 06/16/94 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC REPLACE 2 RADIONICS SERVICE CHARGE FIRE ALARM MOMITONING 250-190-129-5804 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 512.00 29.00 24.00 565.00 15424 06/16/94 000980 COSST IRRIGATION SUPPLY IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5212 8.03 15425 06/16/94 001193 COMP USA, INC. 15425 06/16/94 001193 COMP USA, INC. 15425 06/16/94 001193 COMP USA, INC. 168455 CONEL DRAW 4 1469S3 COREL ART SHO~/ 313155 ~P INFO CENTRAL 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 382.87 22.73 175.50 VOUC' CITY OF TERECULA PAGE 3 06/1 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PER[DOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEN NUMBER DATE NUHBER NAME DESCRIPTION 15425 06/16/94 001193 COIqP USA, INC. FREIGHT 15425 06/16/94 001193 COMP USA, INC. TAX 15426 06/16/94 001488 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL REPLACERENT PARTS ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 190-180-999-5212 15427 06/16/94 000146 COUNTS UNLIN[TEO TRAFFIC CENSUS 100-164-999-5406 15428 06/16/94 001029 DATAQUICK ANNUAL CRG 320-199-999-5228 15428 06/16/94 001029 DATAQUICK MONTHLY CHG 320-199-999-5250 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15429 06/16/94 001125 DIGITAL* TELECOlelUNICATI 15430 06/16/94 ELI LILLY COMPANY ELI LILLY/REFUND 15431 06/16/94 000754 ELLIOTT GROUP, THE LDSP PLAN CHECK 15432 06/16/94 000164 ESG/L CORPORATION 5/01-5/]1 8' X 2 1/2' X 29" TABLE 6' X 2/1/2# X 29" TABLE TAX 15433 06/16/94 000507 EVERYTHING FOR WINDOUS 15453 06/16/94 000507 EVERYTHING FOR WINDOUS 15474 06/16/94 000507 EVERYTHING FOR WINDOWS 154~. 06/16/94 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL H PHYSICAL 5473666403910081/RR 547~666403910107/WE 5473666403910107/WE 547'~666403910149 TS 15435 06/16/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK - 15435 06/16/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK - 15455 06/16/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK - 15455 06/16/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK - 15436 06/16/94 000993 FREEDOM COFFEE, INC. NISC COFFEE SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5250 001-2650 193-180-999-5250 001-162-999-5248 001-100-999-5250 001-100-999-5250 001-100-999-5250 001-150-999-5250 001-100-999-5260 001-110-999-5258 001-110-999-5260 001-16~-999-5260 340-199-999-5250 15437 06/16/94 000949 GKN RENTALS SKIPLOADER RENTAL 100-16~-999-5238 15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC, OFFICE SUPPLIES MlSC, OFFICE SUPPLIES CREDIT BINDERS C3023 SHIELDED DISK HAL C4814 AUTO DATA SWITCH C4169 TECH TOOL KIT C72023 NOTEBOOK CARRYIN FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT TAX TAX TAX 5120-5/26 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLONAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOSAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLZE 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLZE 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLZE 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPL[E 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPL[E 15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPL[E 15~ 06/16/94 000]64 GREEK, JUNE S. 001-120-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5220 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5220 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5220 001-120-999-5258 ITEM AMOUNT 8.50 40.68 301.70 800.00 533.36 62.81 300.00 36.00 225.00 627.38 368.00 165.50 37.34 20.00 32.98 190.00 15.39 18.35 106.18 121.00 236.40 2.90 78.52 87.12 72.89- 26.95 249.90 79.95 137.90 10.11 2.92 2.51 25.35 7.32 6.]1 161 .T/ CHECK AMOUNT 630.28 301.70 800.00 596.17 300.00 36.00 225.00 627.38 570.84 20.00 256.72 106.18 121.00 332.05 549.22 161.77 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 06/16/94 14:33 VQUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDO~ VENDOR ITEH NURBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AHOUNT 15441 06/16/94 000184 GTE CALIFORNIA INCORPOR 909-694-6400 320-199-999-5208 571.27 571.27 15442 06/16/94 GUZON, ALVIN GUZON/REFUND 190-183-4982 19.00 19.00 15443 06/16/94 000378 HAFEL[, THOMAS 6/05-6/07 320-199-999-5258 252.30 252.30 15444 06/16/94 000194 ICRA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF COMP 15444 06/16/94 000194 ICRA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF COMP 15444 06/16/94 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF COMP 15444 06/16/94 000194 ICNA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF CONP 15444 06/16/94 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 OEF CUMP 15444 06/16/94 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF CORP 15444 06/16/94 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF COMP 15445 06/16/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL MISC POOL SUPPLIES 001-2080 100-2080 190-2080 191-2080 193-2080 280-2080 300-2080 190-180-999-5212 1,237.28 398.21 475.52 34.08 41.66 5.00 25.37 557.60 2,217.12 557.60 15446 06/16/94 JEFFREY ESTES SETTLEMENT/ESTES/MOOAFF 300-199-999-5207 9,000.00 9,000.00 15447 06/16/94 001349 KANE, BALLHER & BERIO4AN LEGAL SERV. APRIL 15447 06/16/94 001349 KANE, BALLMER & BERIO4AN MAY SERVICES 280-199-999-5246 280-199-999-5246 15448 06/16/94 000386 LANIER VOICE PRODUCTS HEADSET 001-110-999-5242 200.30 560,00 58.38 760.30 5~. 15449 06/16/94 000669 LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES; REGISTRATION/BEAUMONT 001-100-999-5258 54.00 54,00 15450 06/16/94 000214 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING DINNERS FOR COUNCIL 15450 06/16/94 000214 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING BOX LUNCHES 001-100-999-5260 001-150-999-5260 80.00 75.00 155.00 15451 06/16/94 NGA COOP NGA COUP/REFUND 190-183-4982 100.00 100.00 15452 06/16/94 000239 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC WE 5/29 001-162-999-5118 444.60 Z~,.60 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRER 000246 PER REDE 001-2130 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN 000246 PER REOE 100-2130 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 001-Z~90 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 100-2~90 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 190-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRER 000246 PERS RET 191-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 192-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN 000246 PERS RET 193-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIREN 000246 PERS RET 280-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 300-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 320-2190 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETXREN 000246 PERS RET 330'2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN 000246 PERS RET 340-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2~90 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 100-2~90 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEESf RETIREM 0002~6 SURVIVOR 190'2:$90 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 19~-2390 107.35 107.35 9,964.13 2,731.69 2,486.59 80.07 96.57 284.38 155.58 95.92 258.70 104.86 222.10 48,75 12.54 14.88 .42 .93 1.44 VOUC" CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5 06/: 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FO~ ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NANE DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIREN 000246 SURVIVOR 15455 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RET[REM 0002~ SURVIVOR 280-2390 300-2390 320-2~90 330-2390 340-2390 .56 .46 .93 .93 1.86 16,778.99 15454 06/16/94 000248 PETROLANE FUEL B&S 001-162-999-5263 204.49 204.49 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 320-199-999;5220 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 190-180-999-5260 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 280-199-999-5250 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 190-180-999-5250 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-110-999-5260 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-100-999-5260 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-140-999-5261 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 190-181-999-5301 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-163-999-5260 15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-162-999-5440 24.20 9.76 31.01 10.73 20.00 20.00 13.50 35.08 48.99 42.80 256.07 15456 06/16/94 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COIlPAN JOe ANNOUNCEMENTS 001-150-999-5254 326.22 326.22 15 06/16/94 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY 154,, 06/16/94 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY 15457 06/16/94 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY REPAIR BROKEN EQUIP SERVICE FT AND BACK DO0 LOCKSM/TH SERVICES 190-181-999-5250 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 35.00 35.00 9.70 15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10 15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10 15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCRO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10 15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCRO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10 15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10 15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCRO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/14-5/16 15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCRO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/14-5/16 15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/14-5/16 15459 06/16/94 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL 15459 06/16/94 000426 RANCRO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL 15459 06/16/94 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL 15459 06/16/94 000426 RANCHO INOUSTRIAL SUPPL JANITONIAL SUPPLIES TCSO SUPPLIES JANITORAL SUPPLIES JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 190-181-999~5240 100-164-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 190-180-999-5240 ~,0-199-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 3,331.60 86.15 661.17 77.19 14.45 575.32 71.18 143.77 199.07 38.66 9.56 61.35 4,~0.8~ 308.64 15460 06/16/94 000418 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CLERK NOE FEES 001-161-999-5248 ~8.00 78.00 15461 06/16/94 001486 ROBERTS, MIKE REINB/WORKSHOR 001-170-999-5261 50.00 50.00 15462 06/16/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY BUSINESS CARDS/RICH SOL 190-180-999-5220 15462 06/16/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY TAX 190-180-999-5220 15462 06/16/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY 500 BUSINESS CAROS; 280-199-999-5248 15462 06/16/94 000285 SIR SPEEOY TAX 280-199-999-5248 27.70 2.14 27.70 2.15 59.69 15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL/F. EDISON 5/02-6/02 15 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF. BISON 5/04-6/03 15, 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 5/04-6/03 190-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5240 1,405.81 28.71 4,149.29 VOUCHRE2 C[TY OF TEHECULA PAGF ~ 06116194 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUHBER NAME ITEM ACCOUNT ITEH DESCRXPTZON NUMBER AHOUNT 15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL]F. EDISON 5/04-6/03 15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF. EO[SON 5/06-6/07 15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL[F. EOiSON 5/06-6/07 15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL[F. EDISON 4/21-5/20 15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL[F. EDISON 4/25-5/25 15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/25-5/25 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 1546~ 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOIGON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31 1546/, 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31 15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF, EDISON 4/30-5/31 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF, TELEPHO 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4763 PB 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4764 BB 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4765 BB 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4769 JS 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4770/RB 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4204 WE 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4751/TS 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4754 KR NAY 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4756 TH 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF, TELEPHO 909-202-4758 RR 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4760 JN 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPNO 909-202-4762 RP 15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4759/TE 1546~ 06/16/94 000291 SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T OIL CHANGE 15467 06/16/94 001487 TIERRA MECHANICAL, INC. 191-180-9q9-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 190-181-999-5240 190-180-999-5240 190-182-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 909-202-4753 BH NAY 190-180-999-5208 909-202-4755 CITY VAN M 190-180-999-5208 001-100-999-5208 100-164-999-5208 100-164-999-5208 001-100-999-5208 001-110-999-5208 001-110-999-5208 100-164-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-100-999-5208 100-16~-999-5208 001-100-999-5208 001-162-999-5208 310-162-999-5214 EMERGENCY REPAIR 190-180-999-5250 36.60 246.26 54.13 748.38 1,267.99 132.81 30.93 26.71 17.14 16.10 25.86 27.99 28.67 28.79 28.55 30.13 35.20 35.20 24.41 34,93 32,02 102.78 29.89 27.19 26.71 28.24 30.01 28.85 23,49 64.83 65.62 48.73 63.13 48.79 60.72 67.74 47.09 77.46 74.13 36.34 108.35 156.06 127.32 61.04 85.91 400.00 CHECK AMOUNT 8,069.98 719.79 1,107.35 85.91 400 VOUCH~ CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7 06/1( 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 15668 15669 15469 15469 15469 15670 15470 15670 15470 15471 15471 15471 15471 15471 15472 15672 1567~ 156~ 15672 15673 15673 15673 15474 15475 15476 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/96 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 ~6/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/96 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 06/16/94 000319 TONARK SPORTS, INC. 000320 TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS ITEM ACCOUNT DESCR]PTION NUMBER REPAIR BASKETBALL COURT 250-190-129-5804 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 000325 UNITED MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW 000325 UNITED MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW 000325 UNITEO MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UM 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICE 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE NISC. UNIFORM NAINT. 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE FLOOR HATS 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE CRC FLOOR NAT RENTAL 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE FLOOR MAT 001065 USCM/PEBSCO (DEF. CONP. 001065 DEF CONP 001065 USCM/PEBSCO (DEF. CONP. 001065 OEF CONP 001065 USCM/PEBSCO (DEF. CONP. 001065 DEF CONP 001065 USCN/PEBSCO (OEF. CONP. 001065 OEF CONP 001065 USCN/PEBSCO (DEF. CONP. 001065 OEF CONP 001065 USCN/PEBSCO (OEF. CUMP. 001065 DEF CONP 190-180-999-5Z20 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 001-163-999-5220 001-2120 I00-2120 190-2120 280-2120 100-164-999-5243 190-180-999-5243 S40-199-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 001-2080 100-2080 190-2080 300-2080 320-2080 S40-2080 000389 USCM/PEBSCO, COBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2160 000389 USCM/PEBSCO, (ORRA) 000389 PT RETIR 100-2160 000389 USCM/PEBSCO, (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 190-2160 000621 UESTERN RIVERSIDE COONC 000539 gINHER YANADA ASSOCIATE 000348 ZIGLERw GAIL ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING 001-161-999-5260 HAY 1-HAY 31 210-190-120-5802 REFRESHMENTS 190-180-999-5250 ITEM AMOUNT 595.58 124.77 16.87 319.93 21.30 78.90 1.00 17.00 .60 23.00 18.85 30.75 207.47 16.75 2,224.15 197.98 156.32 3.46 312.50 50.00 163.62 96.00 664.38 15.00 164.57 123.75 CHECK AMOUNT 595.58 482.87 97.50 296.82 2,944.41 924.00 15.00 164.57 123.75 TOTAL CHECKS 97#571.06 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGr ~'~ 06/16/94 15:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS FUND T;TLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 190 COHHUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROJ FUND 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORNATION SYSTEHS 330 COPY CENTER FUND TOTAL ANOUNT 169,300.12 15,371.00 15,22~.40 475.00 1,977.40 100,187.98 2,271.76 5o010.00 1,680.0/+ 311,696.70 VOUCk' CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1 06/1~ 15:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 15480 15480 15481 15481 15481 15481 15481 15481 15481 15482 15485 15483 15484 15485 15485 154PJ: 15 154~, 15485 15486 15487 15488 15488 15489 15490 15490 15490 15490 15491 15492 15493 15494 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 )6/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 06/28/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 001344 AMERICJ~N CORTRACTXNG, 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 001210 D.R. SCHMIDT 001380 E.S.I. EMPLOYMENT SYSTE 001380 E.S.I. EMPLOYMENT $YSTE 000161 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC. 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANOSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 000711 GRAPH%CS UNLIMITED LITH 001489 HUGHES INVESTIGATION AG 000202 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATE 000202 J,F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATE 000217 HARCAR/TA OFFICIALS ASS 000231 NBS/LO~RY, INC. 0002~1 NBS/LO~RY, INC. 0002.31 NBS/LOW~Y, INC. 000211 NBS/LOWRY, INC. 001007 NPG CONP. 000247 PESTMASTER 000267 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE D 000678 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HEALTH ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER SPORTS PARK SLOPE REPAI 210-166-648-5804 RETENTION 210-2035 TREE TRIMMING LANDSCAPE K~INTEMANCE ADD LANDSCAPE HAINTENAN NEIGHBORHOe0 PARKS MAIN MEDIANS SERVICE AREA JOHN HAGEE PARK KENT RINTERGARDT PARK 193-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 191-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 DELETION OF 2 DESILT/NG I00-16~-999-5401 HAY SERVICES APRIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 LICENSE/SUPPORT 320-199-999-5250 IRRIGATION REPAIR IRRIGATION REPAIR EMERGENCY IRRIGATION TREE TRIle4ING/EUCALYPTU LDSP HAINTENANCE/PRESLE LDSP PAINT VERANDA ADD 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5415 19]-180-999-5415 19]-180-999-5415 MISC. COPIES FOR GP COV 001-161-999-5222 INDIAN CHILD WELFARE 300-199-999-5207 LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJEC 001-163-999-5250 DESIGN SERVICES NAY 210-190-137-5802 ADULT SOFTBALL 190-18S-999-5380 LAND SURVEYING LAND SURVEYING CIVIL DESIGN & SURVEY CREDIT MEMO 210-166-627-5802 210-166-627-5802 210-166-627-5802 210-166-627-5802 REPAIR POT HOLES 100-164-999-5402 RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED CONTR 100-164-999-5402 THIRD QUARTER 93/94 BIL 001-171-999-5251 ANIMAL CONTROL/APRIL 001-172-999-5255 ITEM AMOUNT 90,422.00. 9,042.20' 1,375.00 3,582.81 175.00 3,762.53 475.00 376.13 3,326.31 7,730.00 4,637.71 3,745.28 1,410.00 431.83 175.83 763.96 150.00 27O. O0 182.40 1,618.41 2,271.76 1,750.00 11,773.68 2,629.00 77.50- 650.00 6,110.00 1,165.00' 1,386.00 2,805.00 146,208.09 5,551.25 CHECK AMOUNT 81,379.80 13,072,78 7,7'30.00 8,382.99 1,410.00 1,974.02 1,618.41 2,271.76 13,523.68 2,629.00 5,517.50 1,386.00 2,805.00 146,208.09 5,551.25 15495 06/28/94 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 60 CASES HIGH QUALITY L 330-199-999-5220 1,079.40 15495 06/28/94 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY RECYCLED COPIER PAPER 330-199-999-5220 479.80 15' 06/28/94 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY TAX 330-199-999-5220 120.84 1,680.0~ VOUCHRE2 06/16/9/, 15:16 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 15496 06/28/94 15497 06/28/94 15498 06/28/94 15499 06/28/94 15500 06/28/94 CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERZOOS VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 000271 ROBERT BEIN, ~IN FROST & 001459 S.G. WELSH CO.# INC. 000434 SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS 000978 TRAUMA INTERVENTION PRO 4TH QTR BILLING 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI PLAN CK MARCH ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER PROFESSIONAL SERV. APRI 210-165-637-5802 REPAIR COBCRETE 100-16~-999-5402 SIERRA SOFTWARE MAINTEN 320-199-999-5211 001-171-999-5274 001-162-999-5248 TOTAL CHECKS ZTEM AMOUNT 1,517.00 3#450.00 3,600.00 1,312.50 pAGr n CHECK AMOUNT 1,517.00 3,450.00 3,600.00 1,312.50 4,476.88 311,496.70 ITEM 4 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer June 28, 1994 U.S. Treasury Resolution for Old Town Entertainment Center Preliminary Studies That the City Council adopot a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS. DISCUSSION: In the event that a portion of the Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center project is funded by bond proceeds, adoption of the attached resolution will allow the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for the $125,000 of preliminary studies already authorized by the City Council. The resolution is necessary for the future bond issue to be tax exempt if these costs are to be repaid from the proceeds of the issue. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTION RESOLVED, By the City Council of the City of Temecula, California (the "City"): WI:rF~REAS, the City proposes to undertake the project referenced below, to issue debt for such project and to use a portion of the proceeds of such debt to reimburse expenditures made for the project prior to the issuance of the debt; WHEREAS, United Syates Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 provides generally that proceeds of m-exempt debt are not deemed to be expcoded when such proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such debt unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a requirement that (with certain exceptions), prior to the payment of any such expenditures, the issuer declare an intention to reimburse such expenditure; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declare its official intent to reimburse the expenditures referenced herein; NOW, T!tEREFORE, it is hereby DECLAI~I~ AND ORDERF-D, as follows: 1. The City intends to issue obligations (the "Obligations") for the purpose of paying the costs of the Old Town Entertainment Center (the "Project") 2. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects (i) to pay certain costs of the Project prior to the date of issuance of the Obligations and (ii) to be use a potion of the proceeds of the Obligations for reimbursement of expenditures for the Project that are paid before the date of issuance of the Obligations. 3. The maximum principal mount of the Obligations is $125,000. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPOT'E1}, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting on the 281h day of June, 1994. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, DO I-IEI~-RY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 94- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: CO~CILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 5 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer June 28, 1994 SB 2557 Agreement (Booking Fees) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1 ) Approve the settlement agreement with Riverside County concerning SB 2557 booking fees, 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and, 3) Transfer $84,324 to account #001-170-999-5273from acct #001-170-999- 5288. DISCUSSION: SB 2557 became effective January 1, 1991 which authorized counties to charge cities for booking prisoners. The City of Temecula has never paid these fees as invoiced by the County pending settlement of negotiations concerning validity and effective date of the fee. As a result, the County of Riverside cancelled the City's contract for law enforcement services as of July 1, 1994. The City of Temecula then joined other Riverside County cities to negotiate a settlement with the County. Attached is the agreement negotiated with the County, which provides that booking fees will be paid for the period September 1993 through January 1994 and on a monthly basis subsequent to January. In return the County will reinstate the police contract. The benefits of the settlement are that we will avoid the expense of litigation and the fees will not have to be paid for the period January 1991 through August 1993. Attachment: Settlement Agreement 2ETTLE!~NTA~RE~ THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") is entered into as of the day of , 1994, by and between the Cities of BANNING, BEAUMONT, BLYTHE, CALIMESA, CANYON LAKE, CATHEDRAL CITY, COACHELLA, DESERT HOT SPRINGS, HEMET, INDIAN WELLS, INDIO, LAKE ELSINORE, MURRIETA, NORCO, PALM SPRINGS, PERRIS, RIVERSIDE, SAN JACINTO, TEMECULA, AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES OF THOSE CITIES (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Cities") and the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (hereinafter referred to as "the county"). RECITALS A. The Cities are cities and redevelopment agencies duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and are located within the jurisdictional and geographic boundaries of the County of Riverside. B. The County is a county duly organized and existing as a political subdivision of the State of California. C. The County provides certain booking and other processing services at County's jail(s) for persons arrested by the Cities. P~2~482~01440~0001~20~3762.2 0~0~)4 '1-- D. The County also provides law enforcement services by contract to those Cities listed on Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated here (the "Contract Cities"). E. Cities which previously have settled with the County on the issues contained in this Agreement are listed in Exhibit "B," attached and incorporated, and are not included in or affected by this Agreement. F. On or about July 1, 1990, Senate Bill 2557 was signed by the Governor of the State of California as a non-urgency measure. Senate Bill 2557 was codified to include California Government Code S 29550 and Revenue & Taxation Code S 97, which became effective January 1, 1991. G. Pursuant to Government Code S 29550, counties were authorized to retroactively charge cities and other entities a criminal justice administrative fee (also known as a "booking fee") for expenses incurred after July 1, 1990, in connection with the booking or other processing of persons arrested byemployees of the cities and other entities. H. Government Code S 29550 requires that the amount of the fee not exceed the actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circular A-87 standards, incurred in booking or otherwise processing those arrested persons. FS2~482XOI4405-(X)OI~20~762.2 0~,~ '2-- I. The County's Board of Supervisors considered a proposal from the Administrative Office that booking fees be charged to Cities 'commencing March 1, 1991, but thereafter determined that such fees instead should be retroactive to July 1, 1990. J. Pursuant to Section 29550 of the Government Code, on or about March 1, 1991, the County adopted its Resolution 90-650, Ordinance No. 702, effective March 21, 1991, permitting the County to charge a criminal justice administrative fee, retroactive to July 1, 1990, in the amount of $110.40. The County sent invoices dated March 19, 1991 to the Cities requesting payment for retroactive fees. The County has continued to bill for such fees; the parties agree billings are current through January 31, 1994. K. Senate Bill 2557 also amended the Revenue & Taxation Code to add subsections (e) and (f) of ~ 97, which provide for the County to charge a property tax administrative fee for collection of city property taxes. County also maintained a separate fee was owing for collection of property tax administrative fees from redevelopment agencies. L. County adopted and allocated such property tax administration fees, including those for redevelopment agencies, pursuant to its Ordinance No. 703 (effective March 21, 1991). County deducted property tax administrative fees from Cities' April, 1991, tax revenues. After receiving invoices for such fees to redevelopment agencies, Government Code S 907. Cities protested payment under M. On or about April 17, 1991, certain of the Cities filed suit against the County in the Superior Court of Riverside County, Case No. 211185 (hereinafter referred to as "the Lawsuit"), challenging the validity of the booking fees and property tax administration fees. N. In May 1991, in Riverside Superior Court the County stipulated it would not withhold any criminal justice administrative fees from certain funds which were due and owing to the Cities by the County where a timely and proper dispute letter was received by the County pursuant to Gov't Code S 907. A number of Cities have withheld fees pursuant to this stipulation. O. On or about May 18, 1991, the Riverside County Superior Court issued a TRO, and on June 17, 1991, a preliminary injunction, requiring the County to hold property tax administrative fees charged to redevelopment agencies in a special account not subject to disbursement pending adjudication of Cities' arguments. On August 1, 1991, the County appealed the preliminary injunction, which appeal remains pending. P. On or about October 17, 1991, the Lawsuit was added to Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584 (hereinafter referred to as "the Coordinated Proceeding") in which 180 cities, redevelopmen~ agencies and other public agencies within the State of California challenged the legality of Government Code § 29550 and the actions taken by their respective counties to implement that section. Q. On or about December, 1991, the court in the coordinated proceeding upheld the withholding of booking fee payments after written protest under Government Code S 907. R. On or about September 1, 1992, the court in the Coordinated Proceeding granted summary adjudication in favor of Contract Cities finding they were not subject to payment of booking fees based upon the specific language of their current law enforcement contracts with the County. S. On or about July 1, 1993, the County gave notice under those contracts that it would cease providing law enforcement services to the Contract Cities on July 1, 1994, if the Contract Cities do not agree to pay booking fees owing from March 1, 1993. The County also has withheld PERS credits pending resolution of this matter. T. While the Coordinated Proceeding has been pending, an appellate court separately, in unrelated proceedings, determined that property tax administrative fees are applicable to redevelopment agencies. In Arcadia RedeveloDment Aoency v. Ikemoto the appellate court determined that retroactive amendments to the administrative fees. The County agrees to drop its appeal of the preliminary injunction and Cities agree that the preliminary injunction will be dissolved on the effective date of this Agreement. Cities which are Plaintiffs in the litigation shall prepare and file a dismissal with prejudice. 2. PaVment of Property Tax Administrative Fees. As a result of County deduction from property taxes owing, Cities have paid property tax administrative fees throughout the litigation and no such fees are owing to County. Property tax administrative fees deducted from redevelopment agency revenues have been held by the County Auditor-Controller pursuant to the preliminary injunction and will be available to the County (along with any interest earned thereon) upon dissolution of the preliminary injunction as set out in paragraph 1, above. 3. Payment of Criminal Justice Administrative Fees. The Cities shall pay criminal justice administrative fees to the County as follows: a. Prior to July 1, 1994 (the "effective date"), certain Contract Cities shall pay any booking fees owing from September 1, 1993 (or from the dates specified in Exhibit A), through January 31, 1994, in the amounts set out for those Cities on Exhibit "A." Prior to July 1, 1994, amounts paid before such dates, or credits owing, also shall be credited to Cities and thereafter shall be available as each indicates for payments otherwise owing to the County. b. Prior to July 1, 1994, certain Non-contract Cities shall pay any booking fees owing from March 1, 1991, through January 31, 1994, in the amounts which have been invoiced and as set out for such Cities on Exhibit "C." County waives, releases and discharges any claim against cities for such amounts owing from July 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991, including any unknown claims, and County specifically waives its rights under Civil Code section 1542 as set out in paragraph 5 hereof. c. Certain Non-contract Cities which paid booking fees between July 1, 1990, and March 1, 1991, shall receive a credit against future payments owing to County (which credit shall be available upon the execution of this Agreement) in the amounts paid during that period as set out on Exhibit "C." d. As of February 1, 1994 or thereafter, subject to receipt of an invoice therefor and Government Code S 907, Cities shall pay booking fees as billed at the rate of $110.40, subject to any future increase or decrease in the amount of the fee based on Senate Bill 2286 or other legislation, repeal or amendment of the statutory authority therefor, or court invalidation or modification of the fee. Cities reserve the right to challenge any specific invoice and any future change or increase in the fee and County reserves the right to challenge any nonpayment subject to the provisions of Government Code S 907 and other applicable laws. e. Nothing herein shall be treated as a waiver of the Cities' ability to contest the County's recalculation of (or failure to recalculate) the booking fee under SB 2286. f. On the effective date of this Agreement, County shall credit to Contract Cities the PERS credit amounts set out in Column ~ on Exhibit "A," which credits shall be applied to future billings from County to Contract Cities for provision of contract law enforcement services g. Upon execution of this Agreement by the Contract Cities, any previous notices sent by the County to the Contract City purporting to terminate the current law enforcement services contract between the County and the Contract City shall be deemed withdrawn and/or rescinded. 4. Interest. No interest is owing on any amounts to be paid by either party under this Agreement. 5. Release. By this Agreement, for the period July 1, 1990 through the effective date hereof, County waives, releases and discharges any claim against Cities for any additional booking fees, property tax administrative fees or related fees or charges or any action, demand or liability, known or unknown, relating to such fees. County further acknowledges that it is aware of Civil Code S 1542, which provides as follows: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR." County waives any rights thereunder, as well as those arising under any statutes or common law principles. 6. Amendments. This is an entire agreement and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, between the parties, and their agents, and cannot be amended unless in writing, with specific reference heretobythe parties authorized to be charged. Failureby any party to enforce any provision shall not constitute a waiver of that party's rights to enforce a subsequent violation of the same or any other provision. 7. Inurement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. 8. Captions and Exhibits. The captions of Sections and Subsections of this Agreement are for reference only and are not to be construed in any way as part of this Agreement. All exhibits are included in the Agreement as if fully set forth herein. F~2'.~g2\OI440~OOOIUO~3762.2 06/0g/94 --10-- 9. Validity. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Severability. If any section, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or unlawful, such a decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. 11. Execution in Counterparts. This executed in counterparts, each of which shall part of the original. Agreement may be be deemed to be a 12. Fees and Expenses. Each party to this Agreement shall bear their own attorneys' fees and expenses resulting from the SB 2557 litigation. Notwithstanding, the parties agree that should legal proceedings be commenced concerning any provision of this Agreement, in addition to any other remedy, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and attorneys fees as determined by the court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: Larry Parrish County Administrative Officer APPROVED: William C. Katzenstein County Counsel By: Principal Deputy County Counsel ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board EXH~IT 1. Cities Which Have Separate Agreements/Settlements Moreno Valley Palm Desert Raneho Mirage CoroBa India~ W~ll~ ITEM 6 APPROVAL R~ CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer June 28, 1994 Resolution Establishing City's Gann Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 PREPARED BY: Genie Roberrs, Chief Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 1994-95. DISCUSSION: In accordance with the Government Code, the City is required to recompute the Gann limit on an annual basis. Using cost of living data provided by the State of California and population data provided by the State Department of Finance and the increase in non-residential assessed valuation provided by HdL, Coren & Cone, the City's Appropriations Limit for FY 1994-95 has been computed to be $14,796,098. This computation considers the effect of Proposition 111. Appropriations subject to the limitation in the FY 1994-95 Budget total $9,069,758 which is $5,726,340 less than the computed limit. Additional appropriations to the budget funded by non-tax sources such as service charges, restricted revenues from other agencies, grants or beginning fund balances would be unaffected by the Appropriations Limit. However, any supplemental appropriations funded through increased tax sources would be subject to the Appropriations Limit and could not exceed the $5,726,340 variance indicated above. Further, any overall actual receipts from tax sources greater than $5,726,340from budget estimates will result in proceeds from taxes in excess of the City's Appropriations Limits, requiring refunds of the excess within the next two fiscal years or voter approval of an increase in the City's Appropriations Limit. FISCAL IMPACT: As indicated in the attached schedule, the City's appropriations subject to limitation as proposed in the FY 1994-95 Budget are $5,726,340 less than the computed limit. Any supplemental appropriations funded through non-tax sources would be unaffected by the Appropriations Limit. However, supplemental appropriations funded by tax revenues in excess of budget projections would be subject to limitation and could not exceed the $5,726,340margin indicated above. Further, any overall increases in tax sources greater than $5,726,340from budget estimates will result in proceeds from taxes in excess of the City's Appropriations Limit, requiring refunds of the excess within the City's Appropriations Limit. In implementing the provisions of SB 1352 as they relate to the Gann Initiative, it is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution establishing the City's Appropriations Limit for FY 1994-95 of 914,796,098. ATTACHMENTS: Schedule "1" - Classification of Revenue Sources and Calculation of Limit Margin Resolution No. 94- Establishing City's Gann Appropriations Limit for FY 1994-95 Exhibit "A" Computation of Gann Appropriations Limit :lassification of Revenue Sources and Calculation of Limit Margin FY 1994-95 Property tax Sales and use tax Property transfer tax Transient occupancy tax Business license fee Franchise fees Licenses & permits Fines & forfeitures Motor vehicle in lieu Gas tax Overhead reimbursement - TCSD Overhead reimbursement - RDA Overhead reimbursement - Capital Projects .,,liscellaneous Investment interest Appropriations subject to limitation before Prop. 111 exclusions Prop. 111 exclusions: Federal mandates (Medicare) Qualified capital outlay Appropriations subject to limitation Gann limit Margin Non-tax Proceeds 740,000 1,693,784 98,815 600,661 162,000 75,000 436,574 179,000 75,180 4,061,014 Schedule I Tax Proceeds $ 1,130,691 5,900,000 150,000 480,000 85,750 1,113,769 167,120 9,027,330 42,428 0 9,069,758 14,796,098 $ 5,726,34O RESOLUTION NO. 94-- A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABI,I,~HING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIM1T FOR FY 1994--9~ WHEREAS, the voters approved the Gann Spending-Limitation Initiative (Proposition 4) on November 6, 1979, adding Article XITt B to the Constitution of the State of California to establish and define annual appropriation limits on state and local governmental entities; WHEREAS, SB 1352 provides for the implementation of Article XIII B by defining various terms used in this article and prescribing procedures to be used in implementing specific provisions of the article, including the establishment by resolution each year by the governing body of each local jurisdiction of its appropriations limits; WHEREAS, the required computations to determine the Appropriations Limit for FY1994-95 have been performed by the Department of Finance and are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, and available for public review; WHEREAS, these computations are provided on the page of Exhibit "A" which is herein incorporated by reference and attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Appropriations Limit for the City of Temecula for FY1994-95 is hereby established at $12,244,171.00. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to 'be fled in the Office of the City Clerk. PASSED AND ADOFrED this 281h day of/une, 1994 ATfbST: Ron Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] r=~ 23 I 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 28th day of June, 1994, by the following vot~ of the Council: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CityClerk EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA COMPUTATION OF GANN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FY 1992-93Appropriations Limit .............................. $10,109,911 FY 1993-94 Population Change* ................................... 8.25% FY 1993-94 Per Capita Personal Income Change* ....................... 2.72% Cumulative Compound ( 1.0825 x 1.0272) ........................... 11.19 % FY 1993-94Appropriations Limit .............................. $11,241,655 FY 1994-95 Population Change* .................................... 8.15% FY 1994-95 Increase in Non-Residential Assessed Valuation* * ............... 21.7% Cumulative Compound (1.0815 x 1.2170) ............................ 31.61 % FY 1994-95 Appropriations Limit ............................... $14,796,098 *Source: * *Source: State of California Department of Finance HdL Coren & Cone ITEM 7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ,/r~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer June 28, 1994 Contract Amendment No. 1 to Moraga Road Street Widening - PW92-10 Engineering Services Contract with NBS Lowry, Inc. PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Contract Amendment No. I to provide additional engineering services for Moraga Road Street Widening by NBS Lowry, Inc. for the outlet structure redesign in the amount of $7,000.00. BACKGROUND: In March 1993, NBS Lowry completed their original design of the widening of Moraga Road between Margarite Road and Rancho California Road, which included an extension of e box culvert and an outlet structure. The rain in January and February of 1993 significantly change the existing site conditions. Since then additional rains has contributed more erosion to the area. These rains have created a 12':1: deep hole just beyond the existing outlet structure, along with forming a second channel bottom. These changes have required the original scope of work for the design of the proposed road widening and outlet structure to be expanded. This will require extra down stream channel surveying to ensure that the proposed grades match the existing field conditions. A striping plan for Moraga Road will also be included in this amendment for a total cost not to exceed $7,000. -1- pw04\egdrpt~94%0628~pw92-10.Ad I 061694 FISCAL IMPACT: Amendment No. I will be paid though Measure A funds. The total cost of this amendment is summarized below: A. Approved Contract B. Proposed Amendment No. 1 Total: $10,000 $7,000 $17,000 Attachment: Amendment No. 1, NBS Lowry, Inc. -2- pwO4\egdq~t%94%0628~pw92-10.Adl 061694 AMENDMENT NO. 1 l'BS/Lowry, Incorporated Moraga Road Street Widening Project PURCHASE ORDER NO. 12888 The Agreement dated June 28, 1994 between the City of Temecula, and NBS/Lowry, Incorporated (herein referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: Professional Services for Moraga Road Street Widening Project, Project No. PW92-10 RE: Professional Services Moraga Road Slreet Widening Project Section 1 Scope of services Perform new field topographic survey of the channel to a point approximately four hundred (400) feet downstream of the centerline of Moraga Road to determine the new channel configuration. This assumes a maximum of 12 hours of field time. Prepare a plot of the topography based upon the field survey to be used as a base sheet for the revised grading and sections. Upon completion of the base sheet, prepare redline and meet with the City to discuss the design and regrading of the channel to accommodate the flows as shown on the existing plans. It is assumed that a tiprap 'drop structure" will be constructed at a slope of 5:1 from the box culverts to the existing channel flowline. Prepare hydraulic calculations to determine the extent of the riprap energy dissipator. Riprap sizes and limits will be based upon the assumption of a single channel with no split flows occurring. Flow volume and velocity will be as shown on the existing plans No new volume or velocity calculations will be performed. Based upon the meetings and above assumptions, prepare a channel grading plan which encompasses an area not larger than Chat depicted by the field survey. Prepare a striping plan for Moraga Road which will indicate the revised slriping in the area of Moraga Road construction. Striping configuration will be based upon layout provided by the City. The above services to design the proposed improvements to be completed by July 26, 1994. Specifically exculded items: 1. Additional geotechnical services required to investigate the changed conditions and recommendations for final footing design. 2. Gootechnicla services required during construction. 3. Hydraulic calcuhtions other than those required to size the tiprap energy dissipation. 4. Preparation and processing of pemu'ts/applieations with the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish & Game, and Regional Water Qulalty Control Board, etc. 5. Negotiations (or additional work requests) with the affieted property owners. 6. Any services not specifically listed in the above Scope of Services. Section 2 Compensation for services shall be Wtal of all services described in this Amendment and shall not exceed seven thousand dolhrs & no cents ($7,000.00). Section 3 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager Peter Thorson, City AtWmey ATFF_ST: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 8 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager ,/~ Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer June 28,1994 SUBJECT: "No Parking" Zone to Facilitate Emergency Vehicle Access on Villa Alturas, Loma Portola Drive, Santa Suzanne Place, Mira Loma Drive and La Primavera Street Adjacent to Existing Medians PREPARED BY: Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer RECOMMENDATION: The Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING 'NO PARKING' ZONES ON VILLA ALTURAS, LOMA PORTOLA DRIVE, SANTA SUZANNE PLACE, MIRA LOMA DRIVE AND LA PRIMAVERA STREET AS SHOWN ON EXHIBITS "B" THROUGH '1" BACKGROUND: During routine inspection by the City's insurance carrier, and the Public Works Maintenance Superintendent, the City's insurance representative recommended extending existing parking restrictions adjacent to entrance medians. The Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department then re-painted existing red curb at an entrance to the Lake Village neighborhood on Via Alturas at Pauba Road. The Maintenance superintendent extended the existing red curb, as recommended to ensure clear access for emergency vehicles. This re-painting was objected to by an adjacent property owner because of the visual impact. This item was then brought to the attention of the Traffic Division for resolution. The Traffic Division reviewed all similar parking restrictions for appropriate emergency vehicle clearance as show on Exhibit The Fire Department was contacted to see if the recommended restrictions would facilitate the use of emergency vehicles. The criteria identified by Battalion Chief Brodowski was that the minimum roadway width (through lane), for emergency vehicle access, should be 18 feet. r:~agdl~t\94~O628~prkemetiency .agn/ajp The City's insurance carrier was also contacted to be sure our efforts, to conform with recommendations from the Fire Department, did not have any negative ramifications. Their loss control consultant stated that it is imperative that these areas be restricted to indicate that no parking is allowed. On May 26, 1994 the Public/Traffic Safety Commission supported staff's recommendation to extend the existing red curb parking restriction as shown on Exhibits "B" through "1". FISCAL IMPACT: The installation of red curb will be performed by the Public Works Maintenance Crew. Attachments: Resolution No. 94- Exhibit "A" - Scope of Investigation Exhibit "B" through "1" Proposed Parking Restriction r:~agd~t~94~O628~opttemergeney.agn/ajp RFSOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLI,qHING "NO PARKING" ZONES ON VHJ~A ALTURAS, LOMA PORTOLA DRIVE, SANTA SUZANNE PLACE, MIRA LOMA DRIVE AND LA PRIMAVERA STREET AS SHOWN ON EIOIIRITS "B" THROUGH "r' The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 10.16.160, of the Temecula Municipal Code, "No Parking" zones is hereby established in the City of Temecula on Villa Alturas, Loma Portola Drive, Santa Suzanne Place, Mira Loma Drive and La Primavera Street as shown on Exhibits "B" through 'T'. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of June, 1994. Ron Roberrs, Mayor ATI"EST: June S. Greek, C~ty Clerk [SEALI r.~gdrpt~94',O628~rkem~rg~y .ag~ijp STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 28th day of June, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0 0 CO~C~MEMB~S: CO~CILMEMBERS: CO~CILMEMBERS: CO~C~MEMB~S: June S. Greek, City Clerk r:~agdtpt\94\O628Xnopdcemer~ezy.agn/ajp 4 SCALE: J'=~' DrivewGy :DrivewGy Drivewc~y < F F ]> :Drlvewey LEGEND: EXISTING RED CURB PROPOSED REI] CURB --- z7,--4,,X~,'x-----~ z7' , x/v' Drlvewo, y Drlvewc~y ]> C ]> Fr] V) PRDPDSED NO PARKING ZDNE "EXHIBIT LDCATIDN 01 DPiveway ~ T Driveway LEGEND: EXISTING RED CURB PRFIPBSED RE]) CURB PRnPnSED NE] PARKING SI? VV' VV' PRDPDSE]~ ND PARKZNG LOCATION Driveway ZONE "EXHIBIT ~2 < F F ~> F C DPivewoy ["-4 Drlvewoy .~CALE I'=~0' LEGEND'. PRDPDSED RED CURI~ PRDPDSED V%/' '1 ND PARKING LDCATIDN ]]riveway Dr'ivewGy ZDNE 'EXHIt~IT fi3 n I> M <[ J [] A/ F] Z J DPivewGy DPivewGy TI VISTA : - SCN.:: .I LEGEN]]: EXISTING RED CURB m PRDPDSED RED CURB , ,, ~,, PRNPBSE> NO PARKING ZONE LOCATION 4~4 "EXHIBIT E" Z <K N D VISTA 2~---17' I' ~ 4-- 17' - ~ 60' Z27' Z - LEGEND: EXISTING RED CURB PROPOSED RED CURB PROPOSED ND PARKING ZONE "EXHIBIT LOCATION ~5 i,I _ -9 RZD. Dr-lvewcxy Dr'ivewQy LEGEND: EXISTING RED CURl] m PRDPF1SED RED CUREl ~ PR[]PBSE3 NB PARKING ZBNE 'EXHI3IT G" LDCATIDN ~6 mmm LEGEND: - 108' _' EXISTING REI3 CURD -- PROPnSED RED CURB - j~jCH~[3 PRDPDSED NR CHATA PL. _ - H - VISTA R~. PA~IN~ ZnNE 'E×HIBIT LDCATIDN ~7 Z / RANCHED VISTA LEGEND: - EXISTING RED CURB - PROPnSED RED CALLE SDNDRA PRBPDSED ND PARKING ZDNE "EXHIBIT I' LBCATIrlN #8 ITEM 9 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager /~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer June 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-2. PREPARED BY:/~Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and riders to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-2,and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On October 24, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Costain Homes, Inc.) 4921 Birch Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by American Home Assurance Company as follows: 1. Bond No. PB 300 11 379 in the amount of $93,000to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. PB 300 11 379 in the amount of $25,000 to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. PB 300 11 379 in the amount of $28,000 to cover sewer improvements. Bond No. PB 300 11 379 in the amount of $73,000to cover material and labor for street, water, and sewer improvements. r:~agdtpt~94~O628\tr22716-2 06141a~ 5. Bond No. PB 300 11 380 in the amount of $10,100 to cover subdivision monumentation. Effective December 31, 1993, Cosrain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, s California General Partnership (comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). A new agreement has been executed by the partnership and riders to the bonds in the full amount submitted for City Council acceptance. The Surety remains the same. The riders reflect the change in principal, and obligee from County to City. The affected street, although not complete,d or accepted, is Corte La Puenta. Attachments: Location Map Riders to Faithful Performance Bonds Substitute Agreement (on £ile) (on file) r:~d~t~94\0628~22716-2 06141~ __ (N~,3*4. Z'SZ*E 530./-6') ,n V712'*Z4'37'E) TR,~%.CT N~ .,'.2:715"! '~J' ~ ~C.5:.:5~- 5.-~ /'l°T T~ /~ ~, TRACT NO. 22716-2 Location Map ITEM 10 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: ~ Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: June 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-4. PREPARED BY: ~/Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and riders to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-4, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On October 24, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Cosrain Homes, Inc.) 4921 Birch Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by American Home Assurance Company as follows: 1. Bond No. PB 300 11 385 in the amount of 9325,000to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. PB 300 11 385 in the amount of 998,000to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. PB 300 11 385 in the amount of 968,000 to cover sewer improvements. 4. Bond No. PB 300 11 385 in the amount of 9245,500to cover material and labor for street, water, and sewer improvements. 5. Bond No. PB 300 11 386 in the amount of 913,800 to cover subdivision monumentation. r:%agdtpt\94\0628Xtr22716-4 0614/ac Effective December 31, 1993, Costain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership (comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). A new agreement has been executed by the partnership and riders to the bonds in the full amount submitted for City Council acceptance. The Surety remains the same. The riders reflect the change in principal, and in obligee from County to City. The affected streets, although not completed or accepted, are Corte Pergamino, Calle Jamill, and Corte Balboa, and a portion of Rancho Vista Road and Camino Marea. Attachments: Location Map Riders to Faithful Performance Bonds Substitute Agreement (on file) (on file) r:~d~pt\94~0628~22716-4 0614/sc TRACT NO. 227164 Location Map ITEM 11 APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Setlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer June 28, 1994 Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-F PREPARED BY: //~Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and riders to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-F, and DIRECT the City Cterk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On October 24, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreementswith: Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Costain Homes, Inc.) 4921 Birch Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by American Home Assurance Company as follows: 2. 3. 4. Bond No. PB 300 11 376 in the amount of $72,500to cover street improvements. Bond No. PB 300 11 376 in the amount of $16,000 to cover water improvements. Bond No. PB 300 11 376 in the amount of 81 9,000 to cover sewer improvements. Bond No. PB 300 11 376 in the amount of $53,750to cover material and labor for street, wBter, and sewer improvements. r:~qdzpt\g4~0628~'~.2716-F 0614/a 5. Bond No. PB 300 11 377 in the amount of $6,400 to cover subdivision monumentation. Effective December 31, 1993, Cosrain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership (comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). A new agreement has been executed by the partnership and riders to the bonds in the full amount submitted for City Council acceptance. The Surety remains the same. The riders reflect the change in principal and obligee from County to City. The affected street, although not completed or accepted is Corte Seda. Attachments: Location Map Riders to Faithful Performance Bonds Substitute Agreement (on file) (on file) r:~a~drpt~94\0628~r22716-F 0614/a ,/ ~\ TRACT NO. 22716-F Location Map ITEM 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Setlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer June 28,1994 Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-1. PREPARED BY:/~Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE a sixty-five (65) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water, and Sewer improvement bond amounts, ACCEPT the substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-1, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On May 8, 1990, the Riverside County Road Commissioner and Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors approved Tract No. 22915-1 on behalf of the City of Temecula. Subdivision Agreements and Surety Bonds were submitted by: Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Costain Homes, Inc.) 4921 Birch Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by American Home Assurance Company as follows: 2. 3. 4. Bond No. PB 300 11 961 in the amount of $2,589,000to cover street improvements. Bond No. PB 300 11 961 in the amount of $128,000to cover water improvements. Bond No. PB 300 11 961 in the amount of $191,000to cover sewer improvements. Bond No. PB 300 11 961 in the amount of $1,454,000to cover material and labor for street, water, and sewer improvements. Bond No. PB 300 11 962 in the amount of $29,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. r:~agd~94~O628~r2291~-I 0614/ac Effective December 31, 1993, Costain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership (comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). The new partnership has executed a new agreement and submitted riders to the bonds in the appropriate amounts. Staff has inspected and verified the percentage of public improvements completed, and has reviewed the status of water and sewer improvement with the several water districts (Eastern Municipal Water District for sewers, Rancho California Water District for water). The Public Works Department therefore recommends reduction of $1,890,200in Faithful Performance Bond amounts. The remaining amount is sufficient to cover both the remaining work and provide the minimum warranty bond level of ten (10%) of the original Faithful Performance bond amounts. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows: Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements. $1,890,200 The subdivider is therefore submitting a Faithful Performance Bond rider in the following reduced amount: Streets, Water, and Sewer Improvements Bond No. PB300 11 961 $1,017,800 The subdivider is also submitting replacement bonds in the full amount for the following items: Labor and Materials Bond No. PB300 11 961 $1,454,000 Subdivision Monumentation Bond No. PB300 11 962 $29,000 There are no reductions or releases permitted in the Monumentation Bond or Labor and Materials Bond until all work is completed or until the lien period following City Council acceptance of the improvements has expired. All releases are authorized by City Council action. The affected streets, although not completed nor accepted, are Corte Valentine, Corte Canel, Corte Del Cerro, Corte Camara, and Corte Montia, and a portion of Meadows Parkway, Rancho Vista Road, Via Vistana, Via Vasquez, and Camino De La Torre. Attachments: Location Map Public Improvement Bond Riders Substitute Agreement (on £ile) r:~agdtpt~94~O628\tr22915-1 0614/ac CAL. F_. TRACT NO. 22915-1 Location Map ITEM 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager /['~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Worlds/City Engineer June 28, 1994 Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-F. ~/~r AIbert Crisp, Permit Engineer PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE a seventy-five (75) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water, and Sewer improvement bond amounts, ACCEPT the substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915- F, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On May 8, 1990, the Riverside County Road Commissioner and Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors approved Tract No. 22915-F on behalf of the City of Temecula. Subdivision Agreements and Surety Bonds were submitted by: Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Cosrain Homes, Inc.) 4921 Birch Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by American Home Assurance Company as follows: 1. Bond No. PB 300 11 958 in the amount of $900,000to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. PB 300 11 958 in the amount of 937,500 to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. PB 300 11 958 in the amount of $72,500to cover sewer improvements. 4. Bond No. PB 300 11 958 in the amount of $505,000to cover material and labor for street, water, and sewer improvements. 5. Bond No. PB 300 11 959 in the amount of $13,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. r:~agdrpt\94~0628~tr2291~-F 0614/~ Effective December 31, 1993, Cosrain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership (comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor Woodrow Real Estate,a California Corporation). The new partnership has executed a new agreement and submitted riders to the bonds in the appropriate amounts Staff has inspected and verified the percentage of public improvements completed, and has reviewed the status of water and sewer improvement with the several water districts (Eastern Municipal Water District for sewers, Rencho California Water District for water). The Public Works Department therefore recommends reduction of $757,500in the Faithful Performance Bond amounts. The remaining amount is sufficient to cover both the remaining work and provide the minimum warranty bond level of ten (10%) of the original Faithful Performance bond amounts. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows: Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements. $757,500 The subdivider is therefore submitting a Faithful Performance Bond Rider in the following reduced amount: Streets, Water, and Sewer Improvements Bond No. PB300 11 958 $252,500 The subdivider is also submitting bond riders in the full amount for the following items: Labor and Materials Bond No. PB300 11 958 $505,000 Subdivision Monumentation Bond No. PB300 11 959 $26,676 There are no releases permitted in the Monumentation Bond or reduction or release in Labor and Materials Bond until all work is completed or until the lien period following City Council acceptance of the improvements has expired. All releases or reductions are authorized by City Council action. The affected streets, although not completed nor accepted, are Corte Mendoze, and a portion of Meadows Parkway, Rancho Vista Road, and Camino Romo. Attachments: Location Map Public Improvement Bond Riders Substitute Agreement (oz~ £ile) r:~agdrpt\94~O628~22915-F 06141g I~}~/o CA~.E VISTA ROAD TRACT NO. 22915-F Location Map ITEM 14 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer June 28, 1994 Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-1. PREPARED BY:/~"yAIbert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE a fifty (50) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water, and Sewer improvement bond amounts, ACCEPT the substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-1, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On September 18, 1990, the City Council approved Tract No. 22916-1, and entered into subdivision agreements with: Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Costain Homes, Inc.) 4921 Birch Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by American Home Assurance Company as follows: 1. Bond No. PB 300 12 675 in the amount of $1,105,500to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. PB 300 12 675 in the amount of $148,000 to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. PB 300 12 675 in the amount of $138,500 to cover sewer improvements. 4. Bond No. PB 300 12 675 in the amount of $696,000to cover material and labor for street, water, and sewer improvements. 5. Bond No. PB 300 13 182 in the amount of $26,676 to cover subdivision monumentation. r:~agdrpt~94~O628\u22916-1 06141ac Effective December 31, 1993, Costain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership (comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). The new partnership has executed a new agreement and submitted riders to the bonds in the appropriate amounts. Staff has inspected and verified the percentage of public improvements completed, and has reviewed the status of water and sewer improvement with the several water districts (Eastern Municipal Water District for sewers, Rancho California Water District for water). The Public Works Department therefore recommends reduction of 6696,000 in the Faithful Performance Bond amounts. The remaining amount is sufficient to cover both the remaining work and provide the minimum warranty bond level of ten (10%) of the original Faithful Performance bond amounts. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows: Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements. $696,000 The subdivider is therefore submitting Faithful Performance Bond Riders in the following reduced amount: Streets, Water, and Sewer Improvements Bond No. PB300 12 675 $696,000 The subdivider is also submitting Bond Riders in the full amount for the following items: Labor and Materials Bond No. PB300 12 675 $696,0O0 Subdivision Monumentation Bond No. PR300 13 182 $26,676 There are no reductions or releases permitted in the Monumentation Bond or Labor and Materials Bond until all work is completed or until the lien period following City Council acceptance of the improvements has expired. All releases are authorized by City Council action. The affected streets, although not completed nor accepted, are Corte Villosa, Via Azalea, Corte Ruiz, and Corte Castro, and a portion of Meadows Parkway, Pauba Road, and Camino Romo. Attachments: Location Map Public Improvement Bond Riders Substitute Agreement (on file) r:~gd~pt\94\O628~tr22916-1 4:,'..3. -~ p/~JDA TRACT NO. 22916-1 Location Map ITEM 15 9['1~6\$~lO\:s O~I 'OI '6 O~,I 'OI '6 OSI 'OI '6 O~I 'OI '6 OIl 'OI '6 130I 'Or '6 060'0I '6 080'0I '6 OLO'OI '6 090'0I '6 0~0'0I '6 0~0'0I '6 0£0'0I '6 OZO'OI '6 OIO'OI '6 '2)~ 'SIAlOO~flOOd 'S"r'IVH HDNVCI 'S!{I'lqD,T,T-ID IIq '~l{ -- SHSI~DI'I ~clS 0I'6 NHJAVHD.. :S~AOiIOj s~ ~ o~ apoD Iedp.mnIAI eIno~ma.L ~tU o~ lyapp~ ~qax~q s! ,"cUa 'stuoosIood 'sII~H ammCI 'sqnl:nq~!N 'ss~ -- s~su~o~.~ l~.o~[S, '0I '6 ~d~q;D '~ uo!laaS st raou~CI qnlD ptre sa~treCI o.qqncI 'slIgH ~,0-06 'oN gou~.p-q3 ,C1!D ,(q ~uorajax ~Cq pmdop~ '99~ 'oN ~oueu~p.~O gaunoD ~p~.sz~A.~I '~OLrem. plO S.II~ Jo ol~p aA.l~0OJa~ Okq II0 'SOOLrBUl-PJO/flun°D Op.lSlOA.~[ p0~qpo0-Uou aql ~o suo.mod .u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u~ oouazoja Kq poldop~ 1,0-06 'oN ooueuTP. sO ~!D'I uo.q~S :SA~OTIOd SV NlVCIHO XS'~lf~H SHOd V'IFIDH~'~ dO .LT.TO 'lVdlD IND. BI V'ICI3~IAIStL ~ Oi J'3rs[ 'Sl~OOIr'lOOd 'S'I'lVlt 33NVa 'SSflq3 &HgtN 'SllVR--S~SN~IDr'I 'lVlDsJdS, '0I'6 ~ 9NKIdV V'Ifl3r~A~,L atO ,/~LID ~ alO qlDNflO3 .LLI3 ~ ~IO ~DNVNI(IliO NV 9I-~6 'ON ¢~;3NVMI(I'¢IO 9.10.160 9.10.170 9.10.180 9.10.190 9.10.200 9.10.210 Revocation. Regulations: Hours of dance haIL bars. and night clubs. Regulations: Disorderly conduct. Prohibited conduct. ApplicabilRy of regulations to existing business. 9.10.010 D~finitions. A. 'Bar' ltm~n~ any establi-~hed place of business upon which alcoholic beverages. are sold f~r consumption on the pmnises. B. 'Dance ~SlI' means any place open to the public where dancing is participated in, either as the main purpose of the establishment, or as incidental to some other purpose, and to which premises the public is admitted, either with or without charge. C. 'Established place of business' means the place where any person, finn, or corporation conducts any retail or other establishment having a permanent address and being regularly open for business from day to day during ordinary business bonn. D. 'Night Club' means any eslablish~ place of b-~;ness where amplified musical ent~iainment is offered. E. 'Poolroom' means any place open to the public where billiards, pool, or hagsrelic is played, except a priva~ house and except the rooms of a bona fide fraternal orgaviT~lion, where the general public is allowed to play therein, whether any compensation or reward is charged for the use of such tables or not. 9.10.020 License r~luire~.. It shall be unlawful for any puson, firm, or corporation to engage in, conduct, manage, or cany on any of the following businesses, practices, professions, or occupations within the aga of the City of Temecula without first having obtained a license therefor in B. C. D. 9.10.030 Multiple businesses. This Chapter shall apply to each and every business, trade, occupation, profession, or practice herein enumerated and conducted in the City of Temecula, whether carried on individually or in conjunction with any other activity. 9.10.040 Chief of police. All licenses issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be issued by the Chief of Police. 9.10. OSO Applications. The Chief of Police shall receive all applications for licenses and shall provide such application forms as are necessary for the convenience of the public and the economic and efficient administration of this Chapter. 9.10.060 Fees. The City Council shall provide, by Resolution thereof, the mount of each fee to be charged for each application or license or both such application and license. 9.10.070 Duration. Each license shall be in effect for one year from the date on which it was issued. 9.10.080 Standards for consideration of license applications. The Chief of Police shall deny the application for a license if he/she makes any of the following findings: A. That the applicant does not fulfill the specific requirements for such license as set forth in this Chapter. That the applicant has made any false or misleading statement in his/her application. C. That the licensed business has been operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner. r:\ORDS~94-16 3 D. That the licensed business has been operated in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, public morals, or public order. 9.10.090 Investigation and issuance. Prior to issuing the license, the Chief of Police shall make such investigation as he/she deems necessary to determine whether the applicant meets the requirements and qualifications for such license, and shall thereafter issue a license to the applicant, conditionally approve a license, or shall notify the applicant in writing that his/her application is denied. The Chief of Police may consult with and ask for a recommendation from any other City officer or department prior to the issuance of any license under this Chapter, and shall, at the request of any City officer or department, supply such officer or department with a copy of any such license or application therefor. 9.10.100 License. The license and each duplicate license shall contain the date of issuance, the date of expiration, a designation of the type of license it is, the location or locations of the licensed activity, the signature of the Chief of Police, and such other matters as are specified in this Chapter and as the issuing officer deems appropriate. 9.10.110 In_spection. Every applicant or licensee shall permit the Chief of Police access to any premises used in the conduct of the licensed business at all reasonable times, and to any records required to be maintained by this Chapter, and the Chief of Police shall make such inspections thereof as he/she deems necessary from time to time. 9.10.120 DiSplay of license. Each licensee shall display his/her license or duplicate license in a prominent location in each licensed place of business; and each licensee shall display his/her license to any peace officer requesting to see it. 9.10.130 Multiple licenses: duplicate licenses. Any person carrying on or conducting more than one of the businesses for which a license is required under this Chapter shall obtain a license for each such business. Any r:\ORDS~94-16 4 person carrying on a licensed activity at more than one place of business shall obtain a duplicate license for cash pla~e of business. 9.10.140 Licenses not transferable. No license issued under the terms of this Chapter shall be transferable, and no such license shall be displayed or used in conjunction with any activity other than the licensed business or by any person other than the licensee or his/her employee, nor at any location other than that indicated on the license and application. 9.10.150 Temporary permits. The Chief of Police may, in his/her discretion, upon the filing of an application for a license pursuant to this Chapter, issue one temporary permit to conduct the business described in the application for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days, if he/she finds that the inability to carry on such business because of the lack of a license would cause hardship to the applicant. 9.10.160 Revocation. When the Chief of Police has issued any license under the terms of this Chapter, the same may be revoked at any time thereafter by the Chief of Police ff he/she finds that: A. The conduct of the licensed business does not or will not comport with the public welfare; B. The business has been conducted in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner, or in an manner substantially different from that described in the application; or, C. The business is being operated in a manner for which the license application could have been denied. 9.10.170 Anw. als. A. Any person my appeal to the City Council the decision of the Chief of Police to deny an application for a license or a temporary permit, or to revoke a license. Said appeal shall be made by verified, written de~hration to the City Council, received by the City Clerk within thirty (30) days of the Chid of Police's action. The City Council shall hold a hearing on such appeal. Notice of the time, date, and place of said hearing shall be mailed to the licensee or applicant at the address given in the license application at least ten (10) days prior to the date of said hearing. For the purpose of said hearing, the City Council may appoint any qualified hearing officer to Palre evidence offered by the applicant and the Chief of Police concerning the denial or revocation and summarize the evidence presented r:XORDS\94-16 5 and report his/her findings and recommendations based on such evidence to the Council, or the Council may itself ta~ such evidence. B. The following rules of evidence shall apply at the heaxing: 1. Oral evidence shall be fnh~n only on oath or affirmation. 2. Each party shall have these fights: To call and examine wimesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross-examine opposing wimesses covered in the dire~t examination, to impeach any witnesses regardless of which party first called lfim/her to testify, and rebut the evidence agajnst him/her. If the appellant does not testify, in his/her own behalf, he/she may be called and examined as if under cross-examination. 3. The heating need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and wimesses. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the son of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actions. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any ~ evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it wonld be admissible over objection in civil actions. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that they are now or hereafter may be recognized in ~ivil actions, and irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. C. The Mayor shall, at the request of the Chief of Police or the appeilant, or theft attorneys, issue subpoenas or subpoenas duces teeurn to compel the attendance of witnesses and evidence at said heating. D. The City Council shall determine, on all the evidence presente~ to it, or on the summary of evidence and findings of fact and recommendations of the person holding the hearing, whether said license or permit should be issued, or whether such revoked license should be reinstated and shah direct the Chief of Police to act accordingly. 9.10.180 Regulations: Hours of danc~ hall. bars and night clubs. It shall be unlawful for any person, assoc'mtion, or corporation to operate, participate in, or assist in operation of dance hall, bar, or night club between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of any day. 9.10.190 Regulations: Disorderly conduct. It shall.be unlawful for any person in charge of or assisting in the conducting of any dance hall, bar, or night club to permit any intoxicated, boisterous, or disorderly person to enter, be or remain in, or to assist in any dance hall, bar, or night club, and it shall be r:~ORD~\94-16 6 unlawful for any person in an intoxicated condition to enter or remain in any danc~ hall, bar, or night club for any reason to conduct himself/herself in a boisterous or disorderly manner in such dance hall, bar, or night club. 9.10.200 Prohibited conduct. Any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and be punished in accordance with Sections 1.20.010 and 1.20.030 A of this Cede. Revocation or suspension of a license issued under this Chapter shall not be a defense against prosecution. 9.10.210 Apl~licability of regulations to exig~ng business. The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable to all persons and businesses described herein whether the herein described a~tivities were established before or after the effective dates of the ordinance enacting this Chapter into law. All such persons and businesses shall have ninety (90) days from said effective date to comply with the provisions of this Chapter. * Section 3. SEVERABH JTY 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 pans of this Ordinance. Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to bc posted as required by law. Section $. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. PASSE!}, APPROVEI} AND ADOPTED this 14 day of June, 1994. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek~ City Clerk [SEAL}] r:\ORDS~94-16 7 STATE OF CALIFO~) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 94-16 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of June, 1994, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 199_, by the following vote, to wit: COUNC~MBERS: NOES: COUNCILMF/VIBERS: ABSENT: C OUNCILIV~MBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk r:\Ol~.D$\94-16 8 ITEM 16 ORDINANCE 94-17 AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, AMI~NDING CHAPTER 10.20 OF ~ TEMF_,CULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD WEIGHT LIMITS ON DESIGNATED STREETS ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES I:!ERERY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The Public/Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Tcmecula has reviewed certain weight restrictions and forwarded their recommendations for changes to the City Council; SECTION 1. Section 10.20.070 of Chapter 10, Article II of the Temecula Municipal Cede, is hereby mended to read as follows: ARTICLE II WEIGHT LIMITS Section: 10.20.070 Designation 10.20.070 Designation. When signs are exected giving notice thereof, the following streets or portions of streets are restricted to vehicles not exceeding a maximum gross weight of 6,000 pounds: A. Callc Medusa, from La Scrcna to Nieolas Road B. Rainbow Canyon Road from pala Road to the southern City limit SECTION 2. Severab~ity. 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 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. ORD~\94-17 I SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shah publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 14th day of June, 1994 Ron Roberrs, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk ORDS\94-17 2 STATE OF C~IJ'FORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 94-17 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of June, 1994, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of June 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 0 COUNCILMF_.~BERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None June S. Greek, City Clerk ORDS\94-17 3 ITEM 17 APPRO~. CITY ATI'ORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning June 28, 1994 Appeal of Planning Application Nos. 93-0157 and 94-0002 (Temecula Valley Unified School District Maintenance, Operation and Transportation Facility and Associated Environmental Impact Report) PREPARED BY: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT {PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0002), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND WEST OF THE EXTENSION OF RORIPAUGH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-180-024. Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0157, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. R:~STAFFRPT~IYTPA93.CC 6/21/94 Idb 1 BACKGROUND On May 2, 1994the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94-0002)for Planning Application No. 93-0157 and approved Planning Application No. 93-0157, a Conditional Use Permit, to allow the construction and operation of a transportation, administration and maintenance facility for the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The facility includes storage of school buses (with no more than 29 buses operational on-site and off-site) and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices. The project is located north of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road. The Planning Commission approved the project with a 3-1 vote. Chairman Ford voted against the project and Commissioner Salyer was absent. Chairman Ford felt the site was not centrally located within the district and would result in increased traffic. He also had a concern that the site is within a dam inundation area. Two nearby homeowners spoke in opposition of the project. The concerns included increased traffic on Margarita Road, which will result in difficult turning movements to and from Rustic Glen; the inappropriateness of the proposed use, which they felt is an industrial use and industrial uses should be located on the west side of the freeway, not adjacent to a residential area; the degradation of the nearby property values; unmitigated air quality and noise impacts; and the school district's under-estimation of the ultimate number of buses which will become necessary as the number of students increase. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by Councilman Mu~oz at the May 10, 1994 City Council meeting as a result of a homeowner's (Michelle Bedard) request. She indicated that the project should not be located in a residential area and should be built either on the west side of the freeway or in the industrial park behind the library. Moreover, she questioned the school district's claims that the proposed facility will be adequate for the ultimate build-out of the district's boundary by presenting the City Council with the number of bused students from the Poway, Vista, and Oceanside School Districts. DISCUSSION This project has been in the planning process since August of 1993. This lengthened review period was necessary to insure that all of the project impacts were addressed by the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In addition, the School District desired to receive the support of the nearby residents in the Winchester Creek and Roripaugh Hills tracts. The school district hand delivered approximately 900 notices to the homeowners within these two tracts inviting them to a community meeting on October 13, 1993. Only 12 people attended that meeting (refer to Attachment 4). In addition, these two tracts were notified of the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, again with approximately 900 notices being mailed by City staff. Only two (2) homeowners were present at the Planning Commission meeting for this project. The school district has indicated that the number of students within the district will increase from approximately 10,000 students to approximately 20,000 students in 10 to 15 years. According to the school district, this facility will be sufficient to handle the increased load. Moreover, as the student population is increased and more schools are built to serve these students, more students will be able to walk to schools because of their closer proximity to homes. This will reduce the need for busing. The environmental impacts of this project including traffic, air quality and noise impacts were analyzed in the EIR. All of these impacts were reduced to insignificant levels with the exception of air quality, hydrology, seismic safety and land use through mitigation measures placed on the project. In terms of air quality, the construction and grading of the project resulted in significant unmitigatable impacts in that the amount of Nitrogen Oxide emitted into the air was greater than the threshold set by the Air Quality Management District. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was prepared. FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Resolution No. 94- - Page 4 Resolution No. 94- - Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes of May 2, 1994 - Page 11 Planning Commission Staff Report of May 2, 1994 - Page 12 School District Letter, Community Meeting - Page 13 Fee Checklist - Page 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATTACM NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0157, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO ALLOW ~ CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND MAINIY2~ANCE FACILITY FOR ~ TEMECULA VALLEY UNWWY~ SCHOOL DISTRICT. W!~.REAS, Councilman Mu~oz filed an appeal of the Planning Commission' s decision to certify the Environment~ Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94-0002) for Planning Application No. 93-0157 and to approve Planning Application No. 93-0157 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WFIEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WIrEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on June 14, 1994, at which time interested persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; and WIIEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal; NOW, TFI'EREFORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. fmdings: Findinv. s. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following to wit: The City Council in denying the Appeal, makes the foliowing additional fmdings, 1. The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as BP (Business Park) which encourages uses such as: light manufacturing, research and development, wholesale business, professional offices, storage and industrial supply. R:\$TAFFRFI~I57PA93.CC 618/94 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 1994. RON ROBFITS MAYOR ATrP_~T: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CAIJFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF 'r/~,MECULA) I FtF. RF. Ry 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 14th day of June, 1994 by the following vote of the Council: COUNCMF/~S NOES: COUNCMERS COUNCMERS JUNE S. GRg]~K CITY CT.RRK ATtrACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONM~,NTAL IMPACT REPORT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0002), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMI~NTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING ~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WINCWESTER ROAD AND WEST OF TFfF~ EXTENSION OF RORIPAUGH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-180-024. Wltl~.REAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94-0002) in accordance with the Riverside County, City of Temecula and State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, said ~ application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said EIR on June 14, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREM, at the conclusion of the City Council hearing, the City Council Certified said ErR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program; NOW, TI:!~.RI~.i~ORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findin~,s. That the City of Temecula City Council in Certifying the proposed Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), makes the foilowing findings, to wit: A. Reference Attachment 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby certifies FEIR (Planning Application No. 94-0002), adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program on 6.64 acres of land located north of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 911-180-024. Section 3. PASS~r}, APPROW. r} AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 1994. ATI'/~;T: RON ROBERTS MAYOR June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I FrF, REBY 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 14th day of June, 1994 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILIV[EMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEVIBERS JUNE S. GR~-RK CITY CL~-RK ATFACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 2, 1994 R:',$TAFFRF~157PA9~.CC 6///94 lab 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: PA93-O157 AND PA94-0002 Salyer MAY 02. 1994 Request to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a transportation, administration and maintenance facility for the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The facility includes storage of school buses and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices. Located north of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road. Associate Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. Dave Callaher, Director of Facilities Development, Temecula Valley Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, provided the Commission With an overview of the project. Michelle Bedard, 39857 Knollridge Drive, Temecula, expressed her concern with the traffic on Winchester Road presently and the impacts the project will have on the already heavily traveled Winchester Road. Ms. Bedard said she uses Rustic Glen to get to her personal residence and a signal is needed at Rustic Glen and Winchester Road to help get the cars out onto Winchester Road safely. Bruce Weckesser, 27441 Bolandra Court, Temecula, said he feels the proposed use is incompatible with the area. Mr. Weckesser said he feels the bus facility is more compatible with an industrial location. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said an E.I.R. was completed on the project and staff feels all the issues have been addressed regarding this site and the proposed project. Douglas Wood, the environmental consultant for the school district, explained the noise and air quality testing. Chairman Ford questioned Condition No. 7, which talks about parking spaces for visitors and requested the condition stipulate "Visitor Only" and be designated on site as such. Chairman Ford also asked for clarification of Condition No. 11. Commissioner Fahey suggested the language in Condition No. 11 be amended to state "...29 buses operating on-site...". It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-08 certifying the Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94-0002) for Planning PCMIN05/O211994 7 05111 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02.1994 Application No. 93-0157; and Adopt Resolution No. 94-07 8pproving Planning Application No. 93-0157, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and amend Condition No. 7 to designate "Visitor' parking spaces and amend Condition No. 11 to clarify '....29 buses shall be operating on-site ..... '. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoegland NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Ford ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Chairman Ford said he opposed the motion based on the number of buses and the PLANN P Director Commission the first meeting in June held at the Bancho California Room. Director Thornhill said the Old Review Board has re-appointed. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCU Chairman Ford advised he received a standards at the Senior Center, which will standards. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ford declared the ourned at The nex~ regular meeti of the City of Temecula 23, 1994, 6:00 P.M t Vail Elementary SChool, 29915 Ca' '. ' to Mr. Bill Harker regarding the light !ed to comply with the Old Town P.M. Commission will be held on May Drive, Temecula, an Steve Ford Secretary PCMIN05/O~1914 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - MAY 2, 1994 R:~STAFFRF~I57PA93.CC 6/7/94 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 2, 1994 Planning Application No. 93-0157 and 94-0002 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- certifying the Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94-0002) for Planning Application No. 93-0157; and ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving Planning Application No. 93-0157, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Temecula Valley Unified School District REPRESENTATIVE: BGRP Architecture and Planning and Douglas Wood and Associates PROPOSAL: A request to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a transportation, administration and maintenance facility for the Temecula Valley Unified School District and certify the Environmental Impact Report for the project. The facility includes storage of school buses (with no more than 29 buses operational) and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices. LOCATION: North of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road EXISTING ZONING: R-R (Rural Residential) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-R (Rural Residential) R-R (Rural Residential) R-R (Rural Residential) R-R (Rural Residential) R:\STAFFRPT~15?PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Building Area: 24,399 Service Bays: 6 Landscape Area: 19,870 Hardscape Area: 235,227 Total: 279,496 square feet square feet square feet square feet(6.6 acres) Visitor Parking Provided: 10 spaces Off Site Employee Parking Provided: 100 spaces Bus Storage: 40 spaces Maintenance Vehicle Storage: 74 spaces BACKGROUND This project was formally submitted to the Planning Department on July 23, 1993. The Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 12, 1993. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) went through four Screen Check reviews before the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearing House on February 22, 1994 for a 45 day public comment period. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Transportation, Administration and Maintenance Facility will contain a total of 24,399 interior square feet for various transportation, administration and maintenance activities. Space will also be provided for 40 school buses and 74 maintenance vehicles as well as a fuel and wash island for District vehicles. The transportation portion of the facility will involve 10,863 square feet of space for six bus repair bays with associated repair and storage areas. Surrounding the transportation portion of the facility are the 40 bus parking stalls. The transportation functions will operate between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with 29 buses generally departing and returning between 7:00 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. R:\$TAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 2 Landscape Plans The planters along the eastern and southern property lines are located outside the property lines. The project has been conditioned to obtain easements for this property and will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping for this area. The main objective of the landscape plan is to provide visual screening of the facility and the wall from the adjacent uses. To screen the facility, Brachychiton Populneus (Bottle Tree) has been proposed on the east, west and south property lines which has moderate growth to 30-50 feet high and 30 foot spread. To screen the wall, Rhaphiolepis Indica (India Hawthorn), a fast growing shrub to five (5) feet high and wide, and Clytostoma Callistegioides (Violet Trumpet Vine), a vigorous climber vine, will be used to screen the wall. ReQuired Parkine The proposed facility will be used almost exclusively by the School District personnel with few visitors to the site; therefore, only ten (10) parking spaces have been provided for visitors. All employees will park their vehicles in the parking facility that will be built for the Chaparral High School where one hundred (100) spaces have been provided (refer to Exhibit H). This parking lot will be completed with the Roripaugh and Nicolas Road extensions prior to occupancy of the project. The School District expects the number of employees at the site to be 96 and this number should grow to 116 by year 2010. Area Compatibility The land uses immediately adjacent to the site are currently vacant. The adjacent properties to the east and south are designated in the General Plan as BP (Business Park). The General Plan states the typical permitted uses for this designation include professional offices, research and development, laboratories, manufacturing, storage , industrial supply, and wholesale businesses. Santa Gertrudis Creek borders the site to the west and the proposed Chaparral High School is to the north. Therefore, the proposed use will be compatible with the uses immediately adjacent to the site. The single-family residences exist further to the northwest across the creek and to the east across Winchester Road. The proposed site is lower than the existing single family development to the east and northwest. With future construction of the high school and the Business Park parcel adjacent to Winchester Road and Margarita Roads, the view to the site will be blocked by these structures. However, to further minimize the view impacts until these structures are constructed, the project proposes a landscape planter with trees to screen the facility from these homes. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The existing zoning for the site is R-R (Rural Residential). This project is permitted in this zone provided that a conditional use permit is granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan land use designation for the site is B-P (Business park). The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan. R:~STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/211194 edl 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial study was completed for the project by planning staff which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts with the development of the project. Consequently, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 94-0002 was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the major impacts. By certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Planning Commission adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Following is a summary of these impacts which have been mitigated to insignificant levels by the mitigation measures unless otherwise specified that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared: SEISMIC SAFETY The proposed project will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar Fault alignment which is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project. Due to the content of on-site soils and the depth of groundwater, secondary seismic hazards such as liquefaction, if any, that may occur will be confined to the relatively thin zones of deep saturated soils. Any minor liquefaction occurring on-site is considered insignificant and is not anticipated to cause damage or collapse of on-site structures. According to project grading plans, the developed project will be at an elevation of 1076 feet above mean sea level, 11 feet below the estimated elevation of water in the event of a breach of Skinner Reservoir Dam. Since the project site lies within the dam inundation area for Skinner Reservoir Dam, it may be subject to seismically induced flooding from dam failure. This is considered to be an unavoidable adverse impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Planning Commission (refer to Attachment 5). SLOPES & EROSION Development of the project will require alteration of the existing natural landform. Complete removal of all alluvial, topsoil, and loose compressible low strength older alluvium, and/or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fills. According to the Project Engineer, the proposed grading plan results in an estimated 30,700 cubic yards of cut and 85,300 cubic yards of fill. This results in a grading imbalance of approximately 56,600 cubic yards. The additional fill, according to the project engineer, is required in order to raise the proposed structures out of the 100 year floodplain. Due to the content of on-site soils and site's proximity to Santa Gertrudis Creek, slope erosion is a concern with regard to surficial stability. In addition, landscaped slopes along the project perimeter will be provided, if necessary. Drainage and erosion control measures shall be established at the time of final grading and maintained throughout the life of the project in order to provide long-term slope stability and performance. R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 5 The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) currently administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations. NPDES permits are issued by the state under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to selected industries, construction activities and municipalities. The proposed project will be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit as well as any permit issued by the City of Temecula. NOISE Short-Term Impacts Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. When construction occurs adjacent to existing residential development, the hours of construction will be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Construction will not be permitted on weekends or federal holidays. School Bus Noise Impacts The primary noise concerns associated with the proposed project will be the school bus operations. Other noise within the facility will be secondary. Potential noise impacts on adjacent residences due to the school buses operating out of the proposed site also were assessed. In order to provide an accurate assessment of noise levels attributed to bus start-up, start-up noise levels were recorded from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on July 29, 1992. According to the measurements, the noise levels attributed to bus operations will be lower than the ambient noise levels at the three measurement sites which were located adjacent to existing single family residences. Noise levels at these locations provide a "worst-case" assessment of noise impacts of the project upon adjacent residential land uses. At these three locations, the bus start-up noise levels will meet the day-time model noise criteria without mitigation measures. Project Traffic Noise Impacts The proposed project will also generate traffic, and as a result may alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the change in roadway noise along the streets was determined. Due to future development which has already been approved there will be an increase in traffic in the surrounding area with or without the proposed project. In community noise assessment changes, noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than I dBA will not be discernible to local residents. The future 1994 noise levels will not increase substantially over existing noise levels (less than 3 dBA for the roadways serving the project). R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.pC 4/28/94 KII 6 AIR QUALITY Short Term Impacts Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Only nitrogen oxide emissions exceed SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance, per the Final Draft 1991 CEQA Air Quality handbook. This is considered to be a short-term but an unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Planning Commission. Long-Term Impacts Local Carbon Monoxide Impacts from School Bus Operations Potential air quality impacts from the proposed bus start ups were assessed through a CO monitoring effort at four sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. CO concentrations were monitored on July 29, 1992 at Sites 1 through 4 from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. for conditions with school bus engines running. The data indicates that there is no significant increase in CO concentration for conditions with the buses running compared to conditions without the school buses running. Therefore, school bus operations at the Transportation/Maintenance Facility will not generate a significant increase in CO concentrations at Measurement Sites. The air quality consultant who performed the CO monitoring on July 29 and 30, 1992 has indicated that diesel odors were not noticeable during the on-site monitoring procedures. Given the distance from the pollutant source to sensitive receptors (adjacent residential land uses and the future high school) and staggered bus start-up times, in contrast to the simultaneous start-ups which occurred during the on-site tests, long term impacts associated with diesel odors resulting from the project are not considered significant. CIRCULATION Project Access The proposed project is planned to take its primary access from Margarita Road opposite the existing entry to Costco until the future Chaparral High School is constructed. At that time, the interim access onto Margarita Road will be closed and the proposed project will take direct permanent access onto Winchester Road opposite Roripaugh Road. According to the Traffic Engineer, the proposed project will not change the level of service on any of the intersections that were analyzed except at the interim access intersection at the Margarita Road/Costco entry. The proposed project changes the level of service at that intersection from C to E during the evening peak hour as a result of school bus, maintenance vehicle and employee traffic. Therefore, a four way Stop Sign will be installed by the project. R:~$TAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 7 Level of Service in Study Year Since traffic generated by the proposed project will not result in a level of service change at any of the intersections which were analyzed, traffic impacts associated with the proposed project are not considered significant. The intersections of Winchester Road/Nicolas Road and Winchester Road/Roripaugh Road are currently operating at Level of Service "F" during the evening peak hour and the existing volumes meet the warrants for signalization. Project impacts on existing traffic levels at the Winchester Road/Nicolas Road and Winchester Road/Roripaugh Road intersections are 3.4 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively. The School District will transfer the existing Maintenance Operations and Transportation facility from its Rancho Vista Road site to the proposed site. Therefore, the level of activity at the new site will be the same as the existing site (which is somewhat less than the ultimate development that was used to estimate ultimate project traffic in the Traffic Analysis) and there will not be a net increase in areawide traffic. HYDROLOGY The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces (parking lots, bus storage areas, roofs, etc.) on-site that will increase the existing storm runoff to Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. The developed on-site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be adequately conveyed by the proposed on-site drainage system. Drainage facilities from the project site ultimately discharge downstream into the Santa Gertrudis Creek and ultimately into Murrieta Creek. This incremental increased flow rate will contribute to cumulative increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in areas with undersized facilities. Since the project site lies within a dam inundation area for the Skinner Reservoir Dam, it may be subject to seismically induced flooding from dam failure. This is considered to be an unavoidable adverse impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Planning Commission. WATER QUALITY Construction of the proposed project will alter the composition of surface runoff by the grading of site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, parking lots, service areas, and roofs, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of most urban uses, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil, rubber residue, detergents, hydrocarbons, and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. All parking and bus storage areas within the proposed project will drain into a clarifier which provides three stage treatment for surface runoff. This clarifier will insure adherence to NPDES requirements. Eastern Municipal Water District will monitor the quality of runoff from these paved surfaces. R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 8 ' RISK OF UPSET The proposed project may involve the storage and use of hazardous materials. As such, the project has the potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances. The use of these hazardous or toxic substances is governed by OSHA standards and the County Health Department criteria. In the event of an accidental upset of toxic materials on the project site, the School District is equipped to handle toxic material spills with equipment being used or stored on-site. In the event of such an episode, storm drains could be temporarily blocked in order to contain the spill and avoid drainage into downstream areas. CULTURAL & SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES No archaeological resources have been found on-site. The surface alluvial deposits found on- site are sediments laid down by streams that flowed across the region within the last 10,000 years. These sediments are considered to be too young geologically to contain any significant fossils. Considering its past history of fossil discovery, the Pauba Formation underlying these surface alluvial deposits is considered to have a Moderate to High paleontological sensitivity. WILD LIFE & VEGETATION Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to accommodate the proposed project will reduce areawide introduced grassland habitat for raptors. However, the area is not considered to be of high significance in this regard. The same holds true for the loss of habitat supporting other grassland species of wildlife. Development of the proposed project will not result in the loss of occupied Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) habitat. LAND USE The proposed land uses are in conformance with the City of Temecula General Plan designation of BP (Business Park} if a Conditional Use Permit is approved in accordance with Ordinance No. 348. The project applicant has submitted an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (PA93-0157). The change in land use resulting from project development will not result in significant impacts to agriculture as agricultural activity on-site has been discontinued. However, project implementation will result in urban development on "Prime" soils which is considered a significant impact of project development. According to the California Department of Conservation, the loss of any "Prime" agricultural land is considered a significant impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the planning Commission. TOXIC SUBSTANCES These functions may involve the storage and use of hazardous material. As such, the project has the potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances. The use of these hazardous or toxic substances is governed by Occupational Safety and Health Administration lOSHAl, Cal OSHA, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and County Health Department criteria. Potentially hazardous substances to be found and utilized in the proposed Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility include fuels, greases and oils, and cleaning solvents, adhesives, paints, automobile parts (brakes, batteries, antifreeze, etc.) R:~STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 9 According to the Temecula Valley Unified School District, employees are given general training in the handling of potentially hazardous materials. In addition, employees whose duties include the handling of any identified hazardous material are given specialized training in the handling of that substance. in the event of a hazardous material spill, the School District would be equipped to handle toxic or hazardous material spills with equipment being used or stored on-site. In the event of such an episode, on-site storm drains can be temporarily blocked in order to contain the spill and avoid drainage into downstream areas. AESTHETICS/LIGHT & GLARE Project development will permanently alter the nature and appearance of the 6.64 acre project site from its current open space use to the land uses proposed. According to the Landscape Concept Plan, the project site will be surrounded on three sides by street trees, accent trees and shrubs which are intended to provide an aesthetic buffer between the fully-developed project site and surrounding areas, including Winchester Road. View Analyses from the North and South, respectively, provide graphic representation of the future appearance of the project site with development of the proposed structures. The site itself does not contain nor will proposed development block any scenic vistas which merit preservation. MitiQation MonitorinQ Prooram The Draft Environmental Impact Report includes the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as a Condition of Approval for the project as a whole with several of the mitigations being separate Conditions of Approval for the project. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The proposed use is appropriate for the site since the Environmental Impact Report has proposed mitigation measures that reduce all the impacts of the project to an insignificant level with the exception of short term air quality impacts associated with the construction of the project, hydrology and seismic safety impacts associated with the location of the site within the Dam Inundation area of Skinner Reservoir Dam, and land use impacts associated with the removal of Prime Agricultural land. The site will complement the proposed high school and is centrally located within the school district boundaries. FINDINGS The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as BP (Business Park). The provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 allow for construction and operation of this project provided that a conditional use permit is granted. R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28194 sdl 10 The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, In addition, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project mitigates all significant impacts of proposed project to an insignificant level with the exception of Hydrology, Seismic Safety, Air Quality and Land Use impacts for which Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared. Mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application (conditional use permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way via an easement which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (Margarita Road). 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. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. PC Resolution 94- - Blue Page 12 PC Resolution 94- - Blue Page 15 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 19 Exhibits - Blue Page 33 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. Site Plan D. Landscape Plan E. Elevations F. Elevations G. Floor Plans H. Over All Site Plan Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - Blue Page 34 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 35 Public Comments- Blue Page 36 Response to Public Comments - Blue Page 37 R:~STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT fPLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0002), ADOFrING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND WEST OF ~ EXTENSION OF RORII'AUGH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-180024. WttEREAS, Doughs Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94.0002) in accordance with the Riverside County and State CEQA Guidelines; W!tF~REAS, said I:~R application was processed in the time and manner proscribed by State and local law; WH~REAS, the Planning Commission considered said EIR on May 2, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; Wt~RF_AS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission Certified said h'TR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program; NOW, TFI~.REPORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMIgSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission in recommending Certification of the proposed FEIR, makes the following findings, to wit: A. Attachment 5 of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby certifies FEIR (Phnning Application No. 94-0002), adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on 6.64 acres of hind located noah of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-180-024. Section 3. PASS!~J~, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 2nd day of May, 1994. R:\$TAFFRP'T~157PA93.pC 412BI94 edl 13 STHVEN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I I:IF~RI~,Ry CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular me~ting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONFA~: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI-IILL SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPT%157PA93.PC 4129194 sdl 1~· ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.pC 4/28/94 sdl 15 ATIYACI-D~NT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A REQUEST TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0157, A CONDITIONAL USE PF_ABlff TO AIJOW ~ CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE FACHATY FOR ~ TEMECULA VALLEY UNWIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. ~ FACILITY INCLUDES STORAGE OF SCHOOL BUSES (WITH NO MORE THAN 29 OPERATIONAL AT ANY GIVEN TIME) AND MAINTENANCE VI~HCLES, FUEL AND WASH ISLANDS, BUS REPAIR BAYS, REPAIR SHOPS FOR MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES LOCATED NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND WEST OF ~ EXTENSION OF ROR1PAUGH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCI~J. NO. 911-180-024 WItF~REAS, The Temecula VaLley Unified School District fried Planning Application No. 93-0157 (PA 93-0157) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WItEREAS, PA 93-0157 and was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered PA 93-0157 on May 2, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opponuhity to teslify either in support or in opposition; W!tF, REAS, at the public hearing, upon heating and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to PA 93-0157; NOW, TFI!~itl~.I~ORE, TFFF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findines. That the Temecuh Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,pC 4/28/94 sdl 16 1. The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as BP (Business Park). The provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 allow for construction and operation of this project provided that a conditional use permit is granted. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Govermnental Code Section 65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project mitigates all significant impacts of proposed project to an insignificant level with the exception of Hydrology, Seismic Safety, Air Quality and Land Use impacts for which Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared. Mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application (conditional use permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated fight-of-way via an easement which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (lVlargafita Road). 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. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and heroin incorporated by reference. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project by Planning staff which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts with the development of the project. Consequently, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 94-0002 was prepared by the applieant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the fmal ~ that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of Seismic Safety, Climate and Air Quality, Hydrology and Land Use for which Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been included within the final I~R. Therefore, the City of Temecula Certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (PA 94-0002) which includes the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl I 7 Considerations, the Staff Report and any associated attachments, and fmds that it has ,been completed in compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA). Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecuia Planning Commission hereby approves PA 93-0157 to allow the construction and operation of a transportation, administration and maintenance facility for the Temecuia Valley Unified School District. The facility includes storage of school buses (with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus rapair bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices located at North of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-180-024, subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment No. 2. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 1994. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ltEREIIy 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 2nd day of May, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNttll SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPT%157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT%157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 19 A I I ACHMENT NO. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA93-0157, (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: Maintenance, Operations and Transportation facilities for the Temecula Valley Unified School District which includes storage of school buses (with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices Assessor's Parcel No.: 911-180-024 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollar ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15094. 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). General Requirements The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA93- 0157 is for the Maintenance, Operations and Transportation facility for the Temecula Valley Unified School District which includes storage of school buses (with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices. 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 attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 20 8. 9. 10. 11. agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Planning Application No. PA93-0157. 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 one (1) year of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the one ( 1 ) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with the Exhibits approved with Planning Application No. PA93-0157, or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit(s) marked I, or as amended by these conditions. (color elevations and material board). Materials Colors Exterior: Concrete Tilt Up Stucco Roof: Metal Windows: Aluminum Doors: Metal Glass: Glass Natural (Type A) and Suntan (Type B), Light Gray (CM 8592) Jade Green (AEP Span) Green/Blue (CM 8684) Taupe (CM 8453) Light Reflective Silver (VA 1-13) Ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be prowded. Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR PA94- 0002, Attachment No. 6). If the number of school buses is increased at a future time to more than twenty nine (29), the School District shall receive Planning Director approval to access the additional traffic, air quality and noise impacts associated with the additional buses. R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93.PC 4/2il/94 ,dl 21 Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. 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. 13. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown consistent with the approved conceptual plans. 15. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage or a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. 17. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 18. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 19. The temporary access road slopes shall be hydroseeded and irrigated. The Hydroseed mix shall be approved by the Planning Director. 20. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 21. The applicant shall obtain easements for the landscape planters located outside the property along the eastern and southern property lines. The applicant shall be responsible to maintain these planters until the parcel(s) immediately to the R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 22 22. east and south of the site are developed. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 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. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved construction plans, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. The parking lot adjacent to Roripaugh Road for Chaparral High School shall be installed. A performance bond shall be secured to ensure the removal of the temporary access road after the completion of the Winchester Road widening project. The amount of this bond shall be determined by the Planning Director. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. R:%STAFFRPT%157PA93.pC 4/28194 edl 23 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 28. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 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. 29. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 30. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 31. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. 32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 33. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. 34. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 35. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. 36. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 37. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 adl 24 further review and revision. General Requirements 38. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 39. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 40. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 41. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. 42. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits: 43. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 44. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State of California Water Resources Control Board San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 25 45. A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. 46. A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 47. An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. 48. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 49. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review. 50. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. 51. A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their 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 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 53. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 54. A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by the Department of Public Works. b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of R:\STAFFI~l~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the precise grading plan. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The extension of Roripaugh Road, west of Winchester Road, shall be a private road. Roripaugh Road shall be designed, and approved by the Department of Public Works, with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 110, An offset cul-de-sac shall be designed, and approved by the Department of Public Works, at the terminus of Roripaugh Road in accordance with City Standard 600(A). Along the portion where no curb and gutter are proposed, temporary A.C. berm shall be installed at the exterior curve to accommodate positive drainage. The Temporary Access Road shall be designed, and approved by the Department of Public Works, with 36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement. R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 ~¢1l 27 62. Six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the Temporary Access Road and Roripaugh Road in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401, 63. 64. Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. Private roads MUST be designed, reviewed, and approved by the Department of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be limited to: Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200 feet minimum). Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required in accordance with City standard 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works (all centerline radii shall be identified on the site plan). 90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a minimum safe distance from intersections. Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to project. If so, configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. e. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°). All driveways providing access to two or more buildings shall be designed as a cul-de-sac or a loop road. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Private Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 28 65. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour during construction. Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits: 66. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 67. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works. 68. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: a. Driveways shall conform to the City Standard No. 207A. Concrete sidewalks and handicap ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400, 401, and 402. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 69. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for Roripaugh Road, Margarita Road, and the Temporary Access Road and shall be included in the improvement plans. 70. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. R:\$TAFFRPT%157PA93.PC 4/28/94 Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways) d. Sewer and domestic water systems e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans f. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines g. Erosion control and slope protection Prior to Issuance of Building Permit: 71. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Fire Department Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 72. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 73. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works 74. All building pads 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. 75. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 76. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. 77. The Developer shall notify the City's Cable T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to Cable T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/29/94 edl 30 Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy: 78. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District General Telephone Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 79. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public/private streets, signing, and striping as directed by the Department of Public Works. 80. The extension of Roripaugh Road, west of Winchester Road, shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 110. 81. An offset cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of Roripaugh Road in accordance with City Standard 600(A). 82. The Temporary Access Road shall be constructed. 83. Six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the Temporary Access Road and Roripaugh Road in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. 84. 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. 85. Dedicate a 36 foot wide easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all private streets and drives. 86. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT%35?PA93.pC 4/28/94 .dl ::31 87. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 88. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 4, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 89. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated August 3, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 90. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Transportation transmittal dated August 12, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 91. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water district transmittal dated August 16, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 92. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated March 22, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4128/94 gall 32 KENNEIH L. FDWARD~S GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Ladies and Gentlemen: RECEIVED A :R O 5 lSSz Ans'd ............ comme~ts/recomrrtend~iorts for such c~ses ere nc~naily liffgted to P, errm of ~ lme~est to ~e Di~,dct tnd',4~'~J District Ma,~e~ Dr~na~s Ram facilities, other regional flood corrd'd and drainage facilities which cuuid be conaidered a logical ~ Or extension of 8 master plan system, and District Area Drainage Ran fees (development rnitigmion fees). In addition, information of at generai nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following chedmd comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard. public health and safety or any other such issue: F'~This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Ran facilities nor are other facilities of regional imerest proposed. FIT his project involves District Master PIon facilities. The District will ~ ownership of such facilities on writton request of the City. Fadlitias must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District su-y.~ptance. Ran check, inspedion and administrative fees will be required. "'}This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other fadlitias that could be cunaldered regional in natu, and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The District would oonsider accepting ownership of such fadlities on writton request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan chedx and inspection will be required for District ~__,'Jc~ptance. Ran Check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. "}This projed is located within the limits of frm District's .~'ea Drainage Ran for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid to the Rood Control District or City prior to ~nai approval of the project, or in the of a parcel map or subdivision prior to recordation of the final map. Fees to be paid sinould be at the rate in effect at the time of recordation, or if deferred, st the tim of issuance of the actual permit. GFNERAI INFORMATION This projed may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Stme Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, reoordstion, or other final approval, should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. ff this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require lhe applicant to provide ail studies, calculations, plans and other informmion required to meet FEMA requirements, and should ftalhor require that The applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, reconJatton er other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Depaxlrnent of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or writtan correspondence from these agehales indicating the I~ect is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 404 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regionai Wstar Quality Contrd Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. _,~0~E, DUSTY WII IIAM$ .st.: '~ I ,~ ,.t ~ C'rlrEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 * (909) 657-3183 TO: ATTN: RE: Temecula Planning Soled Naaseh PA93-0157 Department August 3, 199: With respect to the conditions of approval for the above refer- enced plot plan, the Fire Dedartment recommends the following fire protection measures be 0rovided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire 0rotection standarOs: 1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire · ~=].ow for tlne remodel or construction of all com~rlerciai buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. 2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 GF'M 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. 3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hy- drants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2 1/2"x2 i/2"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than ~65 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. 4. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrants. 5. The required fire flew may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, con- struction type, area separation or built-in fire protection r~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 275-4777 * FAX (909) 369-7451 FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION PLANNING SECTION 71 INDIO OFFICE 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, lndio, CA 92201 (619) 863-8886 · FAX (619) 863-7072 ~ivstem 01ans to the Fire Department for review. Plans snail czenmerm t~ the fire hydraFit types, location and spacing, anO ti~E 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 Orescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all build- ings. The post indicator valve and fire department conneE- t:ion shall be located to the front, within 50 feet Gf 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 tl~e title page of the Ouilding plans. E;. A0plicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Demartment for approval prior to installation. 9. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sorlnklered must apprear on ~he title page of the building plans. i0. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uni- ...... Building Code, Section 503. i'-. F"rior to final impsection of any building, the appii- .cant shall prepare an~ submit to the Fire Depart,pent for appro~;ai, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 12. install portable fire e;.~tinguishers with a minimum ~'.-'~ ..... ~ 2Ai'BC. Conicact a certified extincluisher company , ,:, .....,~.~ o~ · for proper placement of equipment. .13. Applicanb/de~'eloper shall be responsible for obtaining underground or aboveground permits from both the Ceunty i4, F'rior to the issuance of building permits, the appli- cant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in 'the amount of S558.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. Please reference Plan Check Number with remittance. ~5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the develoo- er shall demosit, with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of $.25 per square foo~ as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted semarately 'from the plan check fees. _~.. Final concitrons will me addressed when ~u~iding are reviewed ~n ~he building and Safety Office. Mil ~uestions regarding ~he meaning of conditions shall ferred to the Planning and Engineering Staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner by,2~~ Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist Fire Captain Specialist plans De re- STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DFPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNAP33INO, CA 92402 TDD (909) 383-4609 August 12, 1993 Development Review 08-Riv-79-R3.45~ Your Reference: PA 93-0157 RECEIVED AUG ! 8 1993 Ans'd ............ Mr. Saied Naaseh Planning Department City of Temecula City Hall 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Mr. Naaseh: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Planning Application 93-0157 located northerly of Highway 79 (Winchester Road}, between Margarita Road and Roripaugh Road in Temecula. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under additional comments. 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. Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only. Final approval of street improvement, grading and drainage will be determined during the Encroachment Permit process. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Ahmad Salah of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-5908. Very truly yours, G.A. LUNT Branch Chief Development Review C__RT.T!cUL'qS DIrf~T.,OPN~I'fi' iiEV'r~f .!ORX ~QUR REFERENCE PlAN CHEC3~R WE B.BQTT~BT 'I~/T THE ZTT, XB ~C~D BE~W BE APPRO~ FOR ~18 ~E~: N~L RIGHT OF ~Y D~I~TI~ T0 ~EDE __ ~RB AND ~TER~ STATE $TAB~ X87 PROVIDE TO APPLICANT ( Co RTE PM) INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF HALF--UIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHVAY. HALF'VIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHVAY . · TYPE ~2-8 ALONG THE STATE HIGHkRAY. PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGHkAY ST THE PROPER PLACEPENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS, __ 35 FT RADIUS CURB RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS VITH THE STATE H1GHVAY, STATE STANDARD NBP A88 ~ C]IkSF..-Z/~, VHEELCHAIR RANPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CURB RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGHkAY DESIGN NANUSLp SECTION 105.4 (2). A POSITIVE VEHZCULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LIMIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE STATE HIG~AdAY. VEHZCULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVEL(~PED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHkAY. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGINAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS, VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHVAT SHALL BE PitOVIDED BY STANDARD DttV~qdAYS. VENII~Lj~_k'r~e~J.L IxYr BE PROVIOED~ITHIN OF THE III11glSECTIONAT VEHICULAR irrf%S TO THE STATE HTGHVAY SHALL BE PIIOVIDED IY A lOAD--TYPE CONIICTION, VENICLR,AJI AI::C~BE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST VITHIN THE STATE HIGHVAT RIGHT OF __ J~CES$ POINTS TO THE STATE NIGHMAY SHALL BE DEVEL~'~.~ IN A MANNER THAT gILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FOB MPH ALONG THE STATE HIGIR~Y, ~,ANDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHVAT SHALL PROVIDE FOR ,SAFE SIGHT DISTARCEt CONPLY b/ITH FIXED OBJECT SET BACK AND RE TO STATE STAEDAEDS, __ A LEFT--TURN LABEl INCLUDING SHOULDERS AND ANY NECESSARY IJIDENINGt SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HIGHMAY. _ o,,-s,, ,LCU PA,,E,, ,,OL,S. ,',__,,LE ,,--,CTB, __ PARXING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHII3JI,.AR II)VEPENT CONFLICTS# INCLUDING PARKING /2L~ ENTRANCE Ak~ EXIT# WITHIN OF THE ENTRANCE FRCl4 THE STATE HIGIIMAT, SHALL BE TAX~N b'HEN DEllLOPING THIS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE EXISTING DEXIHASE PATTERN OF THE STATE HIGIfi,IAT. PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SEOULD BE GIVEN TO CUNULATIVE INCREASED STClUI RtJNOFF TO ]NSUItE THAT A HIGHMAT DRAINACE PROBLEX IS NOT CEEATED, PI,EASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADOITIONAL C~NTB. PZ~O VZDE TO PLEASE BE )nVIBED THAT TIllS 12 A CONC]FT~AL PaVIEW ONLY. FZI~L APPROVAL WILL BE Dw-TERMI]~ED DELVING TH~ E~eCliOl%Clgne~T PERMIT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE APPLICABLE TO LOCAL AGENCY PT.BJiNERB/ENGINBER2 CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WITHIN PIlESENT ON I~ED STATE RIGHT OF MAY SHIAJLD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS HASTE ( I ,E oASBESTON# pETROCHEHICALS# ETC, ) AWD IIITIGATED AS PER IIEOUIEEHENT$ OF IIERULATONY AGENCIES, WHEN PLANS ARE RUBHITTED# PLEASE CONFONN TO THE REOUIRENENTS OF THE ATTACHED nHANDOUTfi. THIS UILL EXPEDITE ' THE REVZBd PROCESS AND TIHE RERUIRED FOR PLAN CNErv, PROVIDE TO APPLICANT. · J. THOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO MOT APPEAR TO NAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHHAY $YSTEN# CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE CIJ4ULATIVE EFFECT OF COlITINI~D DEVELOPfiERY IN THIS AREA. ANY NEASURES NECESSARY TO NITIGATE THE CLIIJLATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO ON WITH DEVELOIq4ENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEN, CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION# ON FUTURE PROVISION# OF SIONILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE IkII~SE~"FICN OF A~, ~ STA!! HI~,MY ~ 1~a~,,S ~ IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD NAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY $YSTEH OF THE AREA, ANY MEASURES TO NITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/ON DRAINAGE IHPACTS SHALL BE ]NCLUOED WITH THE DEVELOPHINT, THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHVAT IS INCLUDED IN TH/CALIFORNIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE X"XIGh'~AYS ELIGIBLE FOR OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHVAY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY MAY WISH TO NAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHVAT, THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGINAY HAS HEM OFFICIALLY DESIGIIATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHMAY# AND DEVELO IN THIS CORRIDOR SHOULD BE CDNPATIBLE WITH THE BEEIIIC NIGl&iV CQIII~t. PT, IT 1s HECOGIIIZED THAT THERE IS CONS1DEIUaLE POILIC 8 ANGJT MOIHE LLnd~I-S NDJAI:BIT TO REAVILT TRAVELLED HIGINAYS, ~ DEVELOIqIERTr IN OLDER TO BE COlFATIILE UITI THIS ~; MAY REOUIRE II~CIAL MOIHE A~TION HE_~_es_.m_ES, DEV![LC3RI1T OF THIS ~TY ENOUf. D I~ lily IIIIIIAIY MOIHE ATT!IIATION,, PLEASE 8SllD T!~ XTW(B uaasCFeD BELOW CALTRA.NS DISTRICT 8 DEVSLOI~%SlIT HEYlET BRANCH P.O. BOx 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402 A COPY OF ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED A COPY OF ANY DOCtl4ENTS PROVIDING RDDITIO tAL STATE HIGHMAY RIGHT OF MAY UPON RECl)RDATION OF THE NAP, ANY PROPOSALS TO FURTHEE DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY° A COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRONRENTAL STI.I)Y, CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL ON TRACT RAP. CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY IMPROVEI4ENTS WITHIR ON RDJAC:ENT TO THE STATE NIGNk%Y RIGHT OF k~ CNEC3( PRINT OF THE GRADING ARO DRAINAGE PLANE FCIt THIS PI~PESTY bINEN AVAILABLE. Eastern Municipal Water District j Andrew Schlange Redwine and Sherrill AUgust 16, 1993 RECEIVED Saied Naaseh, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Temecula Valley Unified School Facility (PA 93-0157) District AUG 18 lg 3 Ans'd ............ Operations Dear Mr. Naaseh:: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed 5.4 acre transportation/maintenance/operations facility, located adjacent to the Santa Gertrudis Creek channel, approximately 500 ft north of Margarita Rd. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit information describing the subject project to the District's Customer Service Department, (909) 925-7676, extension 409, as follows: 1. Written request for a "plan of service". Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 * Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jadnto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, llemet, CA Saied Naaseh PA 93-0157 August 16, 1993 Page 2 Minimum $400.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required for extensive development projects or projects located in "difficult to serve" geographic areas). Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of the subject project. Especially helpful materials include grading plans and phasing plans. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as follows: 15-inch diameter sewer aligned along Winchester Rd. between Margarita and Nicolas Rds. Recently constructed collector sewer aligned along Margarita Rd., west of Winchester Rd. and crossing the Santa Gertrudis Creek. (Note, this sewer has not been placed in-service as of this date.) Other Issues The representative of the subject project must contact the District's Customer Service Department to arrange for a plan check and field inspection of onsite plumbing. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468. Very truly yours, D~v.id G. C.rosley DGC/cz AB 93-869 (wp-ntwk-PA930157.clz) P.a o March 22, 1994 Mr. Saied Naaseh City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: Water Availability Maintenance, Operations, Transportation (MOT) Facility Temecula Valley Unified School District Dear Mr. Naaseh: 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 Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager SB:SD:mglS/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPTVISTPA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 33 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002 "~HIBIT: A r .C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRP'T~157pA83,pC 4126/94 sdl CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002 EXHIBIT: B P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 ZONING MAP R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 sdl CITY OF TEMECULA · CASE NO.: PA93-0~ 5? AND PA94-0002 '~HIBIT: C r.C. DATE: ~AY 2, ~ 994 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRP"~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 edl CITY OF TEMECULA l CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002 EXHIBIT: D P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 CITY OF TEMECULA I ! CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002 X:HIBIT: E r'.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFP. PT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 sdl CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002 EXHIBIT: F P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFRPTV STPA93.PC 4/26194 edl CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002 '.HIBIT: G FLOOR PLAN s-,.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 f~dl CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002 EXHIBIT: H P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 OVERALL SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 f~dl ATTACHMENT NO. 5 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS R:\STAFFRPT%1S7PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 34 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CI.F.~RINGHOUSE NUMBER 93092023) FOR ~ TEMECULA V.ALI.Ey UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAINTENANCE, OPERATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION FACH.ITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0002) The City of Temecula (the "City") hereby certifies the Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility, F~nal Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 93092023, which consists of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Progrsm, these Findings of Fact, the Staff Report and any associated attachments (collectively referred to as the "Finnl EIR'), and fin& that it has been completed in compliance with the Cnllfornia Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Cede Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and that the City of Temecula has received, reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, all hearings, and submissions of testimony from officials and Departments of the City, the Applicant, the pubhc and other municipalities and agencies. Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all information in the record, the City of Temecula hereby makes these Findings of Fact pursuant to, and in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public Resource Cede as follows: BACKGROUND The Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility (the "proposed project") involves of a total of 24,399 interior square feet for various transportation, administrative and maintenance activities. Storage space will also be provided for 40 school buses and 75 maintenance vehicles as well as a fuel and wash island for District vehicles. The transportation portion of the facility will involve 10,863 square feet of space for six bus repair bays with associated repair and storage areas. Surrounding the transportation pertion of the facility are the 40 bus storage stalls. Although storage will be provided for 40 buses, the Temecula Valley Unified School District anticipates that a maximum of 29 buses will be operational at any one time. During the morning hours, a maximum of 29 buses out of the 40-bus fleet will be in operation. After noon, a maximum of 10 buses will be in operation. Buses will warm up and depart the site at staggered times within these periods. The administration pertion of the facility will involve 5,939 interior square feet of office space for District administrative functions and will generally operate between the hours of 7:00 s~m. and 5:00 p.m. The msintenance portion of the proposed facility consists of 6,035 square feet of repair shops performing plumbing, heating/air conditioning repair, carpentry, electrical, locksmith, irrigation and landscape maintenance functions. This portion of the facility will be operational between the hours of 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. An additional 1,562 square feet of common area containing compressors, lubrication and welding equipment will also be provided. A fuel and wash island wffi be included on- site to serve District vehicles. Dispensing fs~ilitiee for compressed and natural gas of use in motor vehicles is being considered for the fuel island. In addition to the 40 bus storage stalls noted above, the proposed transportation, sdmlnistration and maintenance facility will also contain 75 parking spaces for maintenance vehicles, 10 visitor parking stalls adjacent to the sdmiuistration portion of the proposed facility and a separate, outdoor storage area for lawn mowers and other landscape equipment. The proposed project is anticipated to involve a total of approximately 96 employees at the initiation of operations in 1994 which will increase to 116 employees by the year 2010. In addition to certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, the City of Temecula must approve a Conditional Use Permit (planning Application 93-0157) for the proposed project. The City of Temecula circulated copies of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project in September, 1993 to all Responsible Agencies and interested groups and individuals stating that a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) wffi be prepared. Various agencies and individuals provided written comments within the State-mandated 30 day public review period for the NOP. These written comments discussed the scope and content of information to be contained within the Draft EIR. Copies of these comments on the NOP are contained within Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility was initially submitted to the City of Temecula on September 27, 1993. During the months of September, 1993 through February, 1994 and subsequent to the public review of the Notice of Preparation, the City of Temecula internally reviewed "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR. Upon completion of this review, copies of the Draft EIR were forwarded to all Responsible Agencies and interested groups and individuals. As was also the case for the Notice of Preparation, the Draft EIR was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to and review by various involved State agencies. The State-mandated 45-day public review of the Draft EIR began on February 22, 1994 and ended on Apr~ 8, 1994. A Responses to Comments package has been prepared which presents written responses to comments received as a result of the public review of the Draft EIR. This Responses to Comments package is included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT An Initial Study for the Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility was prepared by the City of Temecula on August 27, 1993, which identified potential environmental impacts attributable to the proposed project. These potential impacts include: Seismic Safety; Slopes and Erosion; Noise; Climate and Air Quality; Circulation; Hydrology; Water Quality; Risk of Upset; Cultural and Scientffic Resources; Wildlife/Vegetation; Land Use; Toxic Substances; AestheticsfLight and Glare; Natural and Energy Resources; Public Facilities and Services (water and sewer, fwe protection, police protection, utilities and solid waste); Growth-Inducing Impacts and Cumulative Impacts. In addition, the Initial Study identffied the necessity to analyze Project Alternatives and provide a Mitigation Monitoring Program. As a result of the Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project may have a signfficant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required. The Final EIR analyzed both project and cumulative effects of the potential environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study. The Final EIR developed and identified a variety of mitigation measures to minimize, reduce, avoid or compensate for the potential adverse effects of the proposed project. The Final EIR also discussed a number ofpetential alternatives to the proposed project, inducting the: 1) the No Project Alternative; 2) the Commercial Land Use Alternative; 3) the Business Park Land Use Alternative; and 4) Alternate Project Sites. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between the dates of February 22, 1994 and April 8, 1994 in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines. This 45-day public review period (per Section 15087 (c) of State CEQA Guidelines) resulted in the receipt of comments from a variety of governmental agencies and other responsible paxties. Responses to the comments received regarding the proposed project and the Draft EIR were prepared, and then reviewed and revised by City staff. This Responses to Comments package is included in the Final EIR. Public hearings will be held on the project proposal and its associated environmental impacts by the City of Temecula prior to the certification of the Final EIR. The City of Temecula makes the following findings in adopting a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report. Section 1 of these Findings contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 2 discusses those potential environmental effects of the proposed project which are not significant or which have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 3 discusses the signfficant unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed project which cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 4 discusses the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project. Section 5 discusses the alternatives to the proposed project discussed in the Final EIR. Section 6 discusses the Mitigation Monitoring SECTION 1 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Final EIR identified and discussed significant effects which will occur as a result of the proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can be mitigated to levels of insignfficance except for project-related unavoidable signil~cant impacts in the areas of Seismic Safety, Climate and Air Quality, Hydrology and Land Use as identified in Section 3 of these Findings. Having reduced the effects of the proposed project by adopting Conditions of Approval and monitored mitigation measures and having balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the proposed project's potential unavoidable adverse impacts, the City of Temecula hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts, and that the unavoidable adverse impacts are nonetheless "acceptable" based on the following Overriding Considerations: 1. The proposed project will assist and enhance the operations of the Temecula Valley Unified School District through the construction of a combined Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility. As such, transportation, administrative and maintenance functions will be integrated into one site. 2. This centrally-located feeility will most efficiently serve the transportation, administrative and maintenance needs of the School District and its students. 3. The proposed project will be required to construct all required on- and off-site infrastructure improvements in a coordinated fashion which is consistent with surrounding land uses. 4. On-site fueling facilities will be designed to provide for the opportunity in the future for the dispensing of alternate fuels (compressed natural gas) for District and other government vehicles in the future. Availability of these alternate fuels will reduce the reliance upon petroleum fuels and the associated air pollution impacts. 5. During the life of the project, it is anticipated that an additional 20 employment opportunities will be generate& These jobs are in addition to the existing number of employees who wffi be working on-site at the initiation of project operations. SECTION 2 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE All Final EIR mitigation measures (as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Appendix A to these Findings) have been incorporated by reference into the Conditions of Approval for the proposed Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility. The City of Temecula has determined that these mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval will result in a substantial mitigation of the following effects and that these effects are not considered significant or they have been mitigated to a level of insignfficance. The mitigation measures referred to below are contained within the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings. Seismic Safety Potential Impact: The site wffi be impacted by seismic activity along the Wfidomar fault which is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project. It is estimated that a 7.5 earthquake along the Elsinore fault zone could create a madmum peak ground acceleration on-site of 0.70g. Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section A. Seismic Safety of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impacts. Slopes and Erosion Potential Imnact: Development of the site will require alteration of the existing land- form and minimal cut and fill operations. The proposed grading plan results in an estimated 30,700 cubic yards of cut and 85,300 cubic yards of fffi. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1,2 and 4 within Section B. Slopes and Erosion of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impact. Potential Impact: Slope erosion on-site is a significant concern regarding surficial stability. All cut and fffi slopes will be planted with erosion resistant vegetation and other protective devices. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the F~nAI EIR to an insignfficant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 3 within Section B. Slopes and Erosion of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Noise Potential Impact: Construction noise represents a short-term impact on nmbient noise levels. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identffied in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section C. Noise of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impacts. Potential Imnact: Bus operations and associated noise levels, based upon an actual start up/departure session, was measured at several off-site locations. At these locations, bus noise levels complied with the Model Noise Ordinance in that 55 dBA was not exceeded. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignfficant level. Facts: No additional mitigation measures required. Potential Ironact: Traffic noise impacts associated with the proposed project are less than 0.2 dBA or less. Noise increases less than 1.0 dBA will not be discernable to local residents. (Noise increases greater than 3.0 dBA are considered significant.) Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: No additional mitigation measures required. Climate and Air Quality Potential Imnact: An estimated 0.06 tons of particulate emissions per day will be released as a result of dust generated by construction equipment and win& during the grading phase and site preparation of the project. Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 19 within Section D. Climate and Air Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Potential Imnact: The project will generate long-term impacts which include mobile emissions resulting from the estimated 10,000 daily vehicle miles traveled as well as stationary emissions resulting from the consumption of electricity and natural gas. The long-term pellutant generation associated with the proposed project is not considered "significant" by the SCAQMD. Findinn: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 20 through 23 within Section D. Climate and Air Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impact. Circulation Potential Ironact: The proposed project wffi generate an estimated 1,000 trips per day. Of this total, 100 trips are morning peak hour trips and 110 trips are evening peak hour trips. The proposed project is planned to take its primary access from Margarita Road. This interim access wffi be dosed once the future Chaparral High School is operational. The addition of project traffic does not alter the Level of Service at any of the impacted intersections. The intersections of Winchester Road/Nicolas Road and Winchester Road/Roripaugh Road are currently operating at Level of Service "F~' during the evening peak hour and existing volumes meet the warrants for signalization. The level of traffic activity at the project site will be the same as that at the existing site on Rancho Vista Road and therefore no net increase in areawide traffic wffi occur. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within Section E. Circulation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Hvdroloav Potential Imnact: The development and construction phase of the project will potentially create short-term impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading. Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignfficant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section F. Hydrology of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts: Potential Imnact: The development phase of the project will create impermeable surfaces (parking lots, bus storsge areas, roofs, etc.) thereby increasing on-site runoff. Increased site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be accommodated by the proposed drainage system. The increased flow rates from the project will incrementally contribute to cumulatively increased flow rates downstream primarily to Murrieta Creek and the potential for flooding in downstream areas containing undersized f~i]ities. On-site flood hazards associated with the a~acent Santa Gertrudis Creek have been eliminated with recent channel improvements. Findinas: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignfficant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section F. Hydrology of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Water Quality Potential Imnact: Project development will alter the composition of surface runoff by grading site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor Amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the incrementally increased degradation of water quality downstream Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignfficant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within Section G. Water Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts: Risk of Uoset Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project will include provision of maintenance facilities, repair shops, and a fuel and wash island, all of which are part of the maintenance portion of the proposed project. In addition, the transportation portion of the proposed project wffi include sLx bus repair areas. These functions may involve the storage and use of hazardous materials. As such, the project has the potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identLFxed in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section H., Risk of Upset of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Cultural and Scientific Resources Potential Imnact: Possible adverse impact to the Pauba Formation which is of "Moderate" to "High" palecntological sensitivity, may occur as a result of project development. No archaeological sites have been observed with project boundaries, however, potential impacts to unlrnown cultural resources may occur. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within Section I. Cultural and Sclent'ffic Resources the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impact. Wildllfe and Ve2etation Potential Imnact: Construction activities wffi remove introduced grassland habitat through cut and fill and other grading operations thereby resulting in the direct loss of this habitat and less mobile wildlife forms. Impacts resulting from vegetation loss affects the wildlife associated with that vegetation by either destroying it or displacing it to adjacent habitat. Additional impacts to wild|ire results from increasing harassment from cats, dogs, children, light and glare, background noise and excessive construction related noises. Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland community to development will reduce areawide foraging habitat for raptors. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section J. W~dlife and Vegetation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Toxic Substances Potential Imnact: There is no evidence that on-site soils pose any hazard to future use of the subject property. Development of the proposed project wffi include the provision of maintenance facilities, repair shops and a fuel and wash island, all of which are part of the maintenance portion of the proposed facility. In addition, the transportation portion of the proposed facility wffi include six bus repair areas. These functions may involve the storage and use of toxic substances. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section L. Toxic Substances of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Aesthetics/Li2~t and Glare Potential Imnact: Project development will permanently alter the nature and appearance of the project site from its current open space use to the land uses proposed. The currently degraded nature of the project site reduces these aesthetic impacts to a level of insignificance. The project site is well set back from Winchester Road (approximately 430 feet to the east) well outside the required 50 foot Scenic Highway setback. The site itself does not contain nor WIll proposed development block any scenic vistas which merit preservation. The project site lies within the 30 miJe Special Lighting Area of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section M. Aesthetics/Light and Glare of the Mitigation Monitoring Progrnm will mitigate the identified impacts. Natural and Energv Resources Potential Imnact: On-site natural gas demand is estimated to be 48,798 cubic feet per month. On-site electricity consumption is estimated to be 214,711 kilowatt hours per year. The proposed project wffi result in the consumption of 667 gallons of gasoline per day of which 384 gallons is estimated to be diesel fuel. Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section N. Energy and Natural Resources of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Water and Sewer Service Potential Imvact: Project development will increase the demand on water and sewer service in the area. The total average day demand for the project is estimated at 233,911 gallons. The project will require on-site water lines connecting to exist'rag facilities in Winchester Read in order to provide water service to the site. The project is anticipated to generate an average daily demand of 19,926 gallons per day of wastewater. Sewer lines will be extended from existing lines in Winchester Read to serve the site. EMWD wffi require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on- site so that when the regional system, which is currently in the planning process, is complete, the project can utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation purposes. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 4 within Section O. 1, Water and Sewer of the Mitigation Monitoring Progrnm will mitigate the identLfied impacts. Fire Protection Potential ImPact: Project development will increase the demand upon existing fire protection services. These impacts are due to the increase in emergency or public service calls generated by project development Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section 0.2, Fire Protection of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impacts. Police Protection Potential ImDact: The addition of maintenance, operations and transportation facilities wffi result in minimum additional demand for additional police protection services generally related to occasional burglary or vandalism calls. Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section O.8, Police Protection of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identffied impacts. Utilities Potential Imnact: Project development will place additional demand on existing electrical supplies. The project is estimated to utilize 214,711 kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity per year. The demand for natural gas will also increase with project development. The project is estimated to consnine 48,798 cubic feet of natural gas per month. The proposed project will place additional demand upon phone service. The proposed project falls within the existing service capabilities of the involved utility agencies. Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the Final EIR to an insignfficant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section 0.4, Utilities of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impacts. Solid Waste Potential Impact: Project development will increase the amount of solid waste generated on-site, which in turn wffi increase the demand upon waste haulers serving the area. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 244 pounds of solid waste per day. Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the Final EIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section 0.5, Solid Waste of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. : SECTION 3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The City has determined that certain environmental effects cannot be feasibly or objectively mitigated to a level of insignificance although the Final EIR centalas mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the proposed project will provide a substantial mitigation of these effects. Consequently, in accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (See Section i of this Findings package) to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable adverse environmental effects because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project. The mitigation measures referred to below are contained within the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings. Seismic Safetw Potential Imnact: Since the project site hes within the dam inundation area for Skinner Reservoir DAm, it may be subject to seismically-induced flooding from dam failure. Findings: The impact identified in the Final EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance in spite of the mitigation measure related to adherence to the "Report on Flood Warning and Evacuation for the Proposed Chaparral High School Site in the Event of Breach of the West Dam of Domeuigoni Reservoir" (see Responses to Comments package within Final Environmental Impact Report). However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the adverse environmental effect. Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section i of this Findings package). Climate and Air Qunllty Potential Imnact: Nitrogen oxides emissions during project construction will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Findin2s: The impact identified in the Final EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the adverse environmenWJ effect. Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1 of this Findings package) and that Mitigation Measures 9 through 19 within Section D. Air Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the identified impacts. I-Ivdr~lot,,v Potential Impact: Since the project site lies within the dam inundation area for Skinner Reservoir, it may be subject to seismicaliy-induced flooding from dam failure. Findings: The impact identified in the Final EIR vAnnot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the adverse environmental effect. Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1 of this Findings package). No additional mitigations are proposed for this signfficant impact. Land Use Potential Impact: Project development will result in the transition in land use from open space to the proposed project, as well as resulting in the permanent loss of future agriculture productivity on "Prime Agricultural Land." Findings: The impact identified in the FinAl EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section i of this Findings package). No additional mitigation measures are proposed for this significant impact. SECTION 4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Section 15126(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires considerations of the ways that the proposed project could be considered growth-inducing. As the proposed project is located in an area undergoing rapid urbanl zation and is generally surrounded by future urban uses, signfficant growth-inducing impacts are difficult to foresee. Several land development proposals have been prepared for vacant adjacent properties, therefore, the proposed project is not considered growth-inducing to these surrounding areas. These surrounding project proposals include the Winchester Hills, Temecula Regional Center and Csmpos Verdes Specific Plans. The proposed project can be considered growth-accommodating, as it will provide improved services from the Temecula Valley Unified School District from a centrally-located functionally- combined facility. With the exception of minor utilities extensions, the necessary infrastructure is in place to serve the project. SECTION 5 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the proposed project described in the Final EIR were considered. The alternatives discussed in the Final EIR constitute a reasonable range of potential options necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The Final EIR identffied the "No Project" alternative as the environmentally superior alternative; however, the City did not select any of the proposed project alternatives but approved the proposed project with the mitigation measures from the F~nsl EIR which wffi provide a substantial mitigation of the potential environmental effects. Consequently, in accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (See Section I of this Findings package) to substantiate the City's decision to reject the environmentally preferred alternatives because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project. Alternative I - The "No Project" Alternative Descrintion of Alternative: The Final EIR describes the "No Project" Alternative as a continuation of existing undeveloped conditions supporting passive open space uses. Comnarisen of Effects: The "No Project" Alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. These impacts include: grading impacts and associated impacts upon landform, geology, hydrology, etc.; traffic impacts and associated air quality and noise impacts; biological impacts related to disruption of w~dllfe; and impacts related to provision of public services and utilities. This Alternative also retains existing passive open space uses on-site, at least for the short-term. Finding: The "No Project" alternative is not feasible as this aiternative fails to meet project the objectives identified in the Final EIR or to provide any of the benefits set forth herein. Facts: The above Finding is made in that it has been determined that this alternative would negate the benefits associated with the primary project objective of assisting and enhancing the maintenance, operations, and transportation functions of the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Due to the site's location within a developing urban areas, the project site's City General Plan designation for urban uses and the availability of public utilities serving the area, long-term undeveloped or future agricultural use of the project site is not considered likely nor logical. Alternative 2 - Commercial Land Use Description of Alternative: The Commercial Land Use Alternative considers development of the site for commercial land uses pursuant to the City of Temecula, General Plan (B-P, Business Park) and Zoning (R-R, Rural Residential) designations for the project site. Future development within the Commercial Land Use Alternative is assumed to involve approximately 100,000 square feet of interior space for commercial use. Comparison of Effects: This Alternative would have seismic safety and slopes and erosion impacts which are sjmi|ar to those associated with the project proposal. Impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated to be greater with this Alternative as compared to the proposed project due to the increased number of customers associated with commercial land uses. This Alternative would generate 5,314 daily vehicle trips, a 431% increase as compared to vehicular traffic levels associated with the project proposal. Similar increased in noise and air quality impacts are also anticipated with this Alternative. This Alternative would result in the loss of passive open space uses and would preclude the future use of the site for agricultural purposes. Similar wildlife/vegetation and cultural and scientffic resource impacts are anticipated to occur with this Alternative as compared to the project proposal. Increased fire and police protection demands as well as ut'fiities and solid waste demands are anticipated with this Alternative as compared to the proposed project. Water and sewer demands of this Alternative are similar to those associated with the proposed project. Findings: After compsring the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and the Commercial Land Use Alternative, the City did not select this Alternative. However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project, as described in Sections 2 and 3 of this Findings package, will substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Facts: The Commercial Land Use Alternative was rejected in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative results in increased impacts in the areas of hydrology, traffic, noise, air quality and certain public facilities and utilities and is, therefore, not considered to be "environmentally superior" to the current development proposal. Also, this Alternative would eliminate public benefits associated with the project, including the assisting and enhancing the operations of the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Alternative 3 - Bus'mess Park Land Use Alternative Description of Alternative: The Business Park Land Use Alternative involves development of business park uses on the project site. It is assumed that the site would be developed with approximately 145,000 square feet of interior space for business park land uses. Comnarison of Effects: Impacts of this Alternative associated with seismic safety, slopes and erosion, hydrology and water quality, open space and conservation, wildlife/vegetation, and cultural and scientffic resources, would be similar to those associated with the proposed project. This Alternative would generate 18,850 daily vehicle trips, a 1,755% increase as compared to vehicular traffic levels associated with the project proposal. Sirelimit increases in noise and air quality impacts are also anticipated with this Alternative. This Alternative would also increase the impacts associated with pohce and fire protection, energy consumption and sohd waste generation. Water and sewer demands of this Alternative are similar to those associated with the proposed project. Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and the Business Park Land Use Alternative, the City did not select this Alternative. However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project, as described in Sections 2 and 3 of this Findings pa~.kage, wffi substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Facts: The Business Park Land Use Alternative was rejected in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative results in significantly increased impacts in the area of traffic, noise and air quality. This Alternative is not, therefore, considered "environmentally superior". This Alternative also negates the public benefits associated with the project including assisting and enhancing the operations of the Temecula Valley Unified School District. This Alternative could also result in land use conflicts with surrounding commercial and residential land uses. Alternative 4 - Alternative Sites Description of Alternative: The Temecula Valley Unified School District considered in detail several alternative site locations in the process of selecting the currently- proposed project location. These alternative project site locations include: 1) a parcel at Margarita Road and Pauba Road; 2) the Rancho California Water District Building on Diaz Road; and 3) a parcol at Rancho Vista Road across the street from the existing School District Offices. Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and various Alternative Sites, the City did not select any of these Alternatives. Project development at Margarita Road and Pauba Road would result in increased impacts in the areas of surrounding land use compatibility, project grading, air quality, aesthetics, and relocation of off-site utilities. This site is also less than the ideal size for the proposed project facilities. Project development at the Rancho California Water District Building on Diaz Road would result in longer routes and potential delays for District busses due to this site's location on the west side of Interstate 15. This alternate site is also subject to flooding from Murrieta Creek and is also smaller than the ideal size for the proposed project facilities. Project development at Rancho Vista Road across from the existing School District offices would remove parking from the Temecula High School stadium, create potential surrounding land use incompatibilities, and result in potential aesthetic impacts and would result in the placement of transportation and maintenance/operations functions of the School District in different locations. Facts: These Alternative sites were rejected in favor of the proposed project location because project development at these Alternate sites would result in increased environmental impacts as summarized above. SECTION 6 FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Pubhc Resources Code requires that when a public agency is making the Findings required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1), cedified as Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the public agency shah adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the proposed project which it has adopted or made a Condition of Approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City of Temecula hereby finds and accepts that the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached as Appendix A to this Findings package, meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and monitoring of project conditions intended to mitigate potential environmental impacts. SECTION 7 SECTION 15091 AND 15092 FINDINGS Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, the City of Temecula has made one or more of the following findings with respect to the significant effects of the proposed project: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid many of the significant environmental effects thereef as identffied in the Final EIR. Some changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make feasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identffied in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, and as conditioned by the foregoing findings: All significant effects on the environment due to the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible (see Sections 2 and 3 of this Findings package). Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the overriding concerns set forth in the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section 1 of this Findings package). APPENDIX A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SEE ATTACHMF-NT NO. (~ ATTACHMENT NO. 6 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 35 °i Z Z z 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4128/94 edl 36 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO: C1TY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. P, EEEIVED DA,E: ATTN: Saied Naaseh ~__: ~ FROM: ~,~C.~/ JOHN SILVA, P.E. Senior Public Health Engineer, Deparm~ent of Enviromnental Health RE: ~EMECULA VALLEY UNIFORM SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION. ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY - DRAFT EIR WATER/SEWER: (John C. Silva, P.E.. Senior Public Health En2ineerL Denartment of Environmental Health The 6.642 acre site will be receiving its 23,911 gallons per day of domestic water from Rancho California Water District. A total of 19.926 gallons per day of sewage is estimated from the project which will be treated at the Eastem Municipal Water District plant in Temecula. Use of RECLAIMED WATER is mentioned but not fully explored for project implementation. Should a dual plumbing system be used to iragate the landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made available to serve about 50 homes or fanulies. In the reclaimed business, a project such as this is the ideal ~'pe of project for dual uses of water. The dual system would be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer with review/approval by the Pdverside County. Health Department. SOLID WASTE: Chuck Strev, P.E., Civil Engineer. Denartment of Environmental Health The LEA offers the following comments on the above referenced project: 1. TheEIRsh~u~daddr~ssth~pr~perhand~ing~andre~yc~mg~fc~nstructi~nwastegenemtedduringthe project development. 2 Multi-family dwelling umt waste bin enclosures should provide adequate space for storage of recyclable materials. 3. If any significant illegal land filling activity. is discovered as a result of this project, the LEA shall be notified prior to burial or removal. If you should have an>' further questions regarding the above Document, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 275-8980. JS:dr State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Memorandum To From : Subiect: :State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention Mari Lewis DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION District 8 Dote : April 1, 1994 FileNo.: 08-RiV-79-R3.9 SCH# 93092023 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Valley School District Bus and Maintenance Facility We have reviewed the above-referenced document and request consideration of the following comments: Care should be taken when developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration must be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure that a highway drainage problem is not created. Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winchester Road), opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Caltrans approval. All matters regarding access, grading, and drainage should be sent to: Mr. Gerry Lunt Development Review California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 (909) If you have any questions, please contact La Keda Johnson at 383-5929 or FAX (909) 383-7934. -c RCOB R / ( ~ ' Riverside County Coordination Branch LKJ:cl DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS PO BOx2/tt February 28, 1994 RECEIVED NAR O f99z km'd ............ office of the Chief Regulatory Branch RECEIVED City of Temecula Planning Department Attn: Saied Naaseh 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Gentlemen: It has come to our attention that you plan to construct a transportation and maintenance facility adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Winchester Road and north of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. A Corps of Engineers permit is required for: a. Structures or work in or affecting "navigable waters of the United States," including adjacent wetlands, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) constructing a pier, revetment, bulkhead, jetty, aid to navigation, artificial reef or island, and any structures to be placed under or over a navigable water; 2) dredging, dredge disposal, filling and excavation. b. The discharge of dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) creating fills for residential or commercial development, placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling for utility line crossings and constructing outfall structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other structures; 2) mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying or degrading waters of the United States; 3) allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States; 4) placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill material. c. The transportation of dredged or fill material by vessel or other vehicle for the purpose of dumping the material into ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; d. Any combination of the above. Enclosed you will find an information packet that describes our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please contact Eric Stein of my staff at (213) 894-0352. Refer to this letter in your reply. Sincerely, Bruce A. Henderson Acting Chief, South Coast Section Enclosures RECEIVED APR O 8 199~ /ins'd ............. South Coast LI AIR QUA TY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 March 8, 1994 Saled Naaseh City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Naaseh: RE: Temecula Valley School District and Maintenance Facility SCAQMD# RVC940225-01 RECEIVED mAR I 0 1S94 Due to staffing cutbacks the SCAQMD is unable to comment on your project at this time. SCAQMD staff recommends that you follow the procedures and methodologies set out in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Utilizing the information in the Handbook will assist you in adequately addressing the potential air quality impacts of your project. The Handbook will be updated periodically, in an effort to assist your staff in evaluating air quality impacts that may result from land use projects. The District staff will, however, make every effort to evaluate rojects of a regional nature. We are available to answer any questions you may have regar~in the use of the CEQA Handbook. Please feel free to contact the Local Government - ~dQA section at (909) 396-3109 for assistance. Program Su ervisor Planning & P;echnology Advancement CAD:Ii April 9, ]994 RECEIVLD ApRil1994 Dear city planners, ~ ~ ~ I live in the Winchester Properties just east of the proposed site, and I'm writing to you in regards to case #PA93-0757 and PA94-0002. I feel that a school district transportation facility, could be a disaster to our area. It was my understsnding that a planners' obligation to the community was to project balance and harmony throughout the city. Ifeel this area is being neglected because we represent a minority of tax paying citizens which reside with-in the boundries of Temecula. Part of the taxes I pay each year are to develop parks and recreational areas which in hopes will create a pleasent environment. As it is we have to travel miles to enjoy the areas we helped finance. Ifeel the proposed transportation site will further damage, and create an unfair imbalance in comparison, of the surrounding residences. I also feel the site should be placed in an area where there is an abundance of greenery and existing parks or on the e_~stern portion of Temecula where a negative environmental impact is not as severe. I respectfully urge the planning commision to find an alternative site due to poor" climate and air quality" and an undisireable " land use " concerned citizen of Temecula, Jeffrey Glen Sechler ATTACHMENT NO. 8 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS R:\STAFFRP'T~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 37 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAINTENANCE, OPERATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITY PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0002 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 94022501 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACF REPORT RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COM1VIENTS Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Planner: Saied Naaseh (714) 694-6400 Prepared by: DOUGLAS WOOD & ASSOCIATES 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 AGENCY COMMENTS/STAFF RESPONSES The following agencies commented on the Draft EIR. Each comment received is contained herein and is followed by a summary of the respective concern and the staff response. The following Responses to Comments in combination with the Draft EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments for this project constitute the Final EIR for the Temecula Valley Unffied School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility. Page Executive Summany ................................................. 1 A. City of Temecula Planning Depax'talent (April 11, 1994) ................. 3 B. South Coast Air Quality Management District (March 8, 1994) ........................................ 4 C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (February 28, 1994) .................... 5 D. County of Riverside, Depa, tment of Environmental Health (March 9, 1994) ......................................... 6 E. Riverside County, Flood Control and Water Conservation DisWict (April 5, 1994) ............................... 8 F. State of California, Department of Transportation (April 1, 1994) ................................... 10 G. Doreen Linnen (April 6, 1994) .................................. 11 EYE, CUTIVE SUMMARY The Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility, Draft Environmental Impact Report, was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between February 22, 1994 and April 8, 1994. This circulation was in eenformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that, "The lead agency (City of Temecula) shall consuit with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: 1) Responsible agencies; 2) Trustee agencies with resources affected by the project; and 3) Other State, Federal and local agencies which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project. The lead agency may consult directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved." This 45-day public review period (per Section 15087(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines) resulted in the receipt of comments from a variety of governmental agencies and other responsible parties as listed below. As indicated in Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines: 15088. Evaluation of and Response to Comments (a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. (b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specffic comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either: (D or Revise the text in the body of the EIR, (2) Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. Provided below is a listing of each agency or responsible party who responded to the Draft Environmental Impact Report accompanied by a listing of the respective concerns raised and followed by an indication of the nature of the response to that concern. Spocific details concerning the comments made and responses provided can be found in the following Response to Public Comments package. A copy of the actual correspondence received is also included. A~encvfResnonsible Party Concern Nature of Resnonse City of Temecula PlAnning Department Request for additional mitigation concerning Evacuation Plan for flooding. Additional mitigation measure added to Section IV.F., Hydrelogy. South Coast Air Quality Man%,ement District Recommendation that CEQA Handbook procedures be followed. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook factors used in Section IV.D., Climate and Air Quality. U.S. Army Corps of A permit from the Corps of Reference made to mitigation 1 Engineere Engineers may be required. in Section N.J., Wildlife/ Vegetation. County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health Riverside County, Flood Control and Water Conservation District State of California Department of Transportation G. Doreen Linnen Additional information concerning use of reclaimed water and solid waste impacts requested. Project will not impact Master Plan facilities. NPDES, FEMA, DFG, and U.S. ACOE permits required. Prejact should not impact drainage on a State Highway. Approval of intersection des'~a required. Opposed project due to air quality, noise and trsiTac impacts. The prejest should be relocatod on the opposite side of Interstate 15. Additional reclaimed water and solid waste information provided. Reference to applicable mitigations provided. Project will not drain toward State Route 79 and will have intersection plans checked by Caltrans. No long-term significant project impacts related to air quality, noise and circulation. Alternate sites discussion in Draft EIR quoted. 2 A. CITY OF TEMECULA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT (April 11, 1994) Pursuant to the request of the City of Temecula, Planning Department, the following mitigation measure is hereby added to Section IV.F. Hydrology, of the text (page IV-65) of the Draft EIR with a similar addition made to the EIR Summary/Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm~ "3. The proposed project shall adhere to the recommendations of the "Report on Flood Warning and Evacuation for the Proposed Chaparral High School Site in the Event of Breach of West DAm of Domenigoini Reservoir". As noted on page IV-64 of the Draft EIR, this study is included in its entirely within Appendix C of the Draft EIR and outlines a plan of communication, warning and evacuation for the proposed Chaparral High School site which is immediately adjacent to the project site. This Report, prepared in September of 1992, provides an Evacuation Plan which addresses the following elements: warning time, staffing requirements, communications systems, alerting procedures, evacuation considerations and a recommended evacuation plan. The recommendations contained in this Report would appear to be appli~hle to the proposed Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility in the event of breaching of either Domenigoini or Skinner Reservoir Dams. SOUTH COAST AIR QU~,LITY MANAGE1WE-NT DISTRICT (March 8, 1994) Comment 1: The South Coast Air Quality Management Distr/ct recommends that procedures and methodologies set forth in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (April, 1993) is utilized within the analysis of air quality impacts within the Draft EIR. Response: Emission factors used to analyze air quality impacts in the Draft EIR were based upon factors taken from the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4 C$ U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (February 28, 1994) Comment: A permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required for the proposed project for: a) structures or work in or affecting "navigable waters of the United States" including adjacent wetlands pursuant to Sections 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; b) the discharge of dredged or f'~l material including any redepesit of dredged material witkin "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972; c) the transportation of dredged or ~] material for the purpose of dnmping the materis] into ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; or (d) any combination of the above. Response: As noted in Mitigation Measure 1 on page IV-75 of the Draft EIR: "1. In concert with construction activities adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek, the Cnllfornia Department of Fish and Game wffi be notffied and consulted pursuant to the California Fish and Game Cede Sections 1601-1603 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with their Section 404 permit process." COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL I~LTH (March 9, 1994) Comment 1: Use of reclaimed water for the proposed project should be more fully explored. Should a dual plumbing system be used to irrigate the landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made available to serve about 50 homes or fnmilies. This project is the ideal type of project for dual uses of water. The dual system would be designed by a rehable civil engineer with review/approval by the Riverside County Health Department. Response: As stated on pages IV-92 and IV-93 of the Draft EIR: "At the present time, there are no reclaimed water facilities to serve the proposed project. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is currently in the process of planning a backbone reclaimed water system throughout the District which may include a msjor line in Winchester Read. EMWD Ordinance No. 68, adopted in October of 1989, describes the District's policy regarding reclaimed water use. EMWD may require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that when the regional system is complete, the project can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for irrigation." "Areas most likely to ut'~ize reclaimed water are landscaped areas along the perimeter of the proposed project as well as landscaped areas within parking lots and adjacent to buildings. The proposed EMWD reclaimed water system would ultimately provide service to the project site. The proposed project will comply with EMWD's requirements for installation of on-site reclaimed water lines. The project will likely connect to the backbone reclaimed water line to be constructed in the future along Winchester road. A distribution line may be extended as part of the extension of Reripaugh Read." Mitigation Measure i on page IV-93 of the Draft EIR has been revised to state (addition underlined): "1. All water, sewer and reclaimed water facilities will be designed per the Eastern Municipal Water Distr (EMWD) and the Rancho California Water District's (RCWD) requirements. Reclaimed water facilities will also be reviewed bv the County of Riverside. Denartment of Environmental Health. The infrastructural system will be installed to the requirements of EMWD and RCWD. The property owner will also grant any requested easements to RCWD? Comment 2: The Final EIR should address the proper handling, and recycling of construction waste generated during the project development. Response: The construction phase of the proposed project will produce solid waste. Construction waste is calculated at approximately 16 pounds per square foot of building space and generally consist of lumber, roofing material, concrete debris, etc. Assuming 24,399 square feet of total interior spaco associated with the proposed project, the solid waste associated with the overall construction phase of the proposed project is estimated at 390,384 pounds of 195.2 tons. This is considered a short-term, non-significant impact. On page IV-100 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 1 states that the project applicant is required to "work with the County Waste Management Department and the City of Temecula in efforts to achieve the goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act." This requirement also applies to the generation of construction waste. Comment 3: Multi-family dwelling unit waste bin enclosures should provide adequate space for storage for recyclable materials. Response: No multi-fAmily residential land uses are proposed. Solid waste bin enclosure areas within the proposed project, the precise design of which will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula, Community Services Department, will include adequate space for storage of recyclable materials. Comment 4: If any significant illegal land filling activity is discovered as a result of this project, the DEH shall be notified prior to burial or removal. Response: As noted in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 on page IV-82 of the Draft EIR: "1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City of Temecula and any appropriate County or state agencies shall review proposed project plans to determine the potential for existence and use of toxic materials and potential adverse effects from exposure to toxic substances. Particular impacts which may occur include degradation to air and water quality, health problems, transportation, storage or disposal problems. Required measures may include requirements for setbacks, siting of structures and monitoring." "2. The proposed facility, once operating, will adhere to standards and requirements of OSHA, Cal OSHA, EPA, the County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health and the City of Temecula." 7 E. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (April 5, 1994) Comment 1: This project would not be impacted by Drainage Master Plan facilities or other facilities of regional interest. Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report. Comment 2: This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval, should not be given untfi the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. Response: As noted in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 on page IV-67 of the Draft EIR: "1. Pursuant to requirements of the Cnllfornia State Regional Water Resources Control Board, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all project- related construction activities. Construction activity includes: clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this project, the appropriate NPDES construction permit shall be obtained prior to commencing grading activities. All development within the project boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the City to implement to NPDES program." "2. The proposed project will comply with National Pollutant Discharge Ehmination System (NPDES) requirements through the provision of three- stage treatment clarifiers for surface runoff from the project site. Eastern Municipal Water District will monitor the quality of runoff from these 8H_rface8." Comment 3: If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. Response: As noted in Mitigation Measure 1 on page V-64 of the Draft EIR: "All drainage facilities for this project shall conform to the standards and requirements of the Riverside County Fioed Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula in order to mitigate potential surface 8 drainage impacts" This measure would apply to the FEMA requirements noted above, as applicable to the proposed project. Comment 4: If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601-1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. A~-my Corps of Engineers or written correspendenco from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 404 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permits. Response: See response to comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as contained in this Responses to Comments package. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (April 1, 1994) Comment 1: Care should be taken when developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the State Highway. Particular consideration must be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure that a highway drainage problem is not created. Response: The size of the project site (6.642 acres) and the direction of future drainage flows from the finished project (toward Santa Gertrudis Creek and away from State Route 79) insures that the proposed project will not result in increased storm runoff impacts to the nearest State Highway, Winchester Road (State Route 79). Comment 2: Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winchester Road), opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Caltrana approval. Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report. 10 G. DOREEN LINNEN (April 6, 1994) Comment 1: I object to the placement of a bus facility near our home for the following reasons: a) air pollution b) noise, and c) traffic congestion. These impacts will result in a loss of property value of our home. Response: The impacts of the proposed project related to air quality, noise and traffic were analyzed in detafi in Sections IV.D., Air Quality, IV.C. Noise and IV.E. Circulation. The only significant impact resulting from the analysis of these three issues is the "short-term" (construction -related) emissions of Nitrogen Oxides. This impact is short-term in that it only occurs during and as a result of project construction. Comment 2: This type of project should be placed on the opposite side of the freeway away from housing. Response: Section V.C., Alternatives to the Proposed Project, within the Draft EIR, analyzes alternate project sites. One alternate site which was considered was located on the west side of Interstate 15 (Rancho California Water District Building on Diaz Road). This alternative was rejected due to the sito's location on the west side of Interstate 15 which lengthens bus routes and would result in possible delays in bus service due to traffic congestion at the freeway overpasses. 11 South Coast ! AIR O, UAL TY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 B March 8, 1994 Saled Naaseh City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Naaseh: RE: Temecula Valley School District and Maintenance Facility SCAQMD# RVC940225-01 RECEIVED HAR 101.,q.~4 .4~'d. ........... Due to staffing cutbacks the SCAQMD is unable to comment on your project at this time. SCAQMD staff recommends that you follow the procedures and methodologies set out in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Utilizing the information in the Handbook will assist you in adequately addressing the potential air quality impacts of your project. The Handbook will be updated periodically, in an effort to assist your staff in evaluating air quality impacts that may result from land use projects. The District staff will, however, make every effort to evaluate projects of a regional nature. We are available to answer any questions you may have regarding the use of the CEQA Handbook. Please feel free to contact the Local Government - CEQA section at (909) 396-3109 for assistance. Program Su ervisor Planning & ~echnology Advancement CAD:Ii DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY February 28, 1994 Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch City of Temecula Planning Department Attn: Saied Naaseh 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Gentlemen: It has come to our attention that you plan to construct a transportation and maintenance facility adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Winchester Road and north of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. A Corps of Engineers permit is required for: a. Structures or work in or affecting "navigable waters of the United States," including adjacent wetlands, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) constructing a pier, revetment, bulkhead, jetty, aid to navigation, artificial reef or island, and any structures to be placed under or over a navigable water; 2) dredging, dredge disposal, filling and excavation. b. The discharge of dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following: l) creating fills for residential or commercial development, placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling for utility line crossings and constructing outfall structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other structures; 2) mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying or degrading waters of the United States; 3) allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States; 4) placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill material. c. The transportation of dredged or fill material by vessel or other vehicle for the purpose of dumping the material into ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; d. Any combination of the above. Enclosed you will find an information packet that describes our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please contact Eric Stein of my staff at (213) 894-0352. Refer to this letter in your reply. Sincerely, Bruce A. Henderson Acting Chief, South Coast Section Enclosures County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RECEIVED MAR 11 199 . TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. AIIN: SaiedNaaseh ~__; ~C'2/ JOHN SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer, Deparanent of Environmental Health 2~M: ~/~T(EMECULA VALLEY UNIFORM SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAIN-rENANCE FACILITY - DRAFT EIR WATER/SEWER: (John C. Silva. P.E.. Senior Public Health Enlfineer), Department of Environmental Health The 6.642 acre site will be receiving its 23,911 gallons per day of domestic water from Rancho California Water District. A total of 19,926 gallons per day of sewage is estimated from the project which will be treated at the Eastern Mumcipal Water District plant in Temecula. Use of RECLAIMED WATER is mentioned but not fully explored for project implementation. Should a dual phmbmg system he used to irrigate the landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made available to serve about 50 homes or families. In the reclaimed business, a project such as this is the ideal ~'pe of project for dual uses of water, The dual system would be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer with review/approval by the Riverside County Health Department. SOLID WASTE: Chuck Strev. P.E.. Civil Engineer. Department of Environmental Health The LEA offers the following comments on the above referenced project: 1. TheE~Rsh~u~daddressthepr~perhand~ing~andre~yc~mg~fc~nstructi~nwastegeneratedduri~gthe project development. 2. Multi-family dwelling unit waste bm enclosures should provide adequate space for storage of recyclable materials. 3. If any significant illegal land filling activity is discovered as a result of this project, the LEA shall be notified prior to burial or removal. If you should have any further questions regarding the above Document, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 275-8980. JS:dr 1 2 3 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECEIVED APR 0 5 199z Ans'd ............ Ladies and Gentlemen: Tho I:XStrlCl does not normally recommend c~x',dilions for land divisions or other land use oasos In incorp~aled Cities. The Dlslrlct ei~o d~es ns, l plan che~ dty land use cases, or provide State Oivisic~q of Real Estate letters o~ other flood hazard rel:x:~ls for mjch c.,ase.~ Distric~ commenldreoomrnendatlons for s,Jch ceJes ere noffnedly limited to ]tams of spedtic Interest to the Dls*,ri~ including 1~41HCl Master Drainaide Plan ladltUes. other regionad flood conlrol and drainage facilities which could be consjdotad a logical o:;~'qxment o~ eXtendon of a m~ster plan system, and Di~trid Area Di'alnage Plan fees (development mitlg~tian lees). In eddltlon. klfarmalian of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed *,he proposed projed in dotall and the Idlowing checkel comments do not In any wey conetote or impiy Dl~lr~ approvaJ or endorsement ot lhe proposed project with rsspe~ to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: ~T his project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage PIe,1 facilities nor are other fadElies of regional interest propOSed. F'~Thls projed involves Distr~ct Master Ran tadlilies. The District will acoepl ownership o~ such tadlitles otl written request of the City. Fac~ljlje$ must be Gonstructed to ~strlct standrods, and DistriO plan check and tnspedion will be required for District ec~eplanCe. Plan inspeotlon arid administrative fees will be required. [""}This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in dlamerer. or Other fadlilies that could be COnsiderel regional in natu~u and/or a logiczd extension of tho adopted Master Dralnago Plan. The District would Consider accepting ownership ot such fecilitie.~ on writton r~tuest ot the Ctly. Fadlille~ must be COnsmjcted to Distrim $latldards. and District plan cheok and inspedion will be required for I~slric~ 8cceptance. Plan Check, inspedlon and administrative fees will be required. ~"]Th~s projgd is J0caled vffih~n the liratie of the Dislrict's Area Drainage Plan lot which drainage fees havo boon edopted; spplicablo Ioos should be paid to tho Flood Control District or CiP/prior to final approvaJ ol iho project, Gr in the c,a.se of a parcel map or sulxtivislon prior to recordslion 0t the final map. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in elloct it the tim of recordslion. or if deterred, at the time of issUanCe Ol the az.,lu~ permit. GENF. BAL.INF_QRMA_TJJ;}N This project may require a Na0onaJ Pdlutant Disc,~arge Btmlnalion System (NPDES) bereft from the State We|or Resources Contrd BoNd. Clearance for grading, re~ordation, or other final approv,,J. should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been grained a permit or is shown to ~e exempt. If this project involves a FederaJ Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped ~o~l plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide ~1 studies, C~cula~ons. plans and other into~nation required to meet FEMA requirements. and should furlher require that the applicant obta/n a ConditionaJ Letlet of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordsdon or Other Ijnai apprDva~ of the project, attd 8 Le]ter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to noojpa~cy. II a natural wateroourse or mapped fl,~Jd/..qah: is ifnpacted by this project the CIW should require the a,oplicant tO obtaJn a Sealion 1601/1603 Agreement from the C~lifotnl8 Deparlment of Icish and G~rno and a Clean Wat~ Act Sedlon 404 potn'~t from tile U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ot wrmen Co~'respondence from Ihese agencies indicating the proJecl is exempt trom these requirements. A Clean Water Ad 404 Water Ousilty C, edilication may be required from the Ioc, si California Regional Waler Quaii~ Conlrd BoNd prior to issuanCe of the Corp~ 404 permit. 3 ,_.0,,(.DUSTY WILLIAMS · Senior Civil Engineer :j.' Date; 4 -r orandu'm F 'State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 1Oth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention Marl Lewis D~ARTMENT OF TRANSPORIATION DiStrict 8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the District Bus and Maintenance Facility Dote I April 1, 1994 File No,, 08 -R~ v-79 -R3.9 SCH# 93092023 Temeoula Valley School we have reviewed the above-referenced document and request consideration of the following comments: care should be taken when developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration must be given to cumulative inorease~ storm runoff to insure that a highway drainage.problem is not created. Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winchester Road), opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Celttans approve]. All matters regarding access, grading, an~ drainage ~hould be sent to~ Mr. Gerry Lunt Development Review California Department of Transportation P.O, BoX 231 8an Bernardins, CA 92402 you have any questions, pleas~ contact La Keda johnson at 383-59~9 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Riverside County Coordination Branch LKJ:cl 1 2 AF'R rL¢ OF 8ALIFORNIA ;)VERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH TENTH STREET .,,,. CRAMiNTO CA95814 2994 PETE WILSON, Gl~.~nor RF..CEIVED APR 15 m94 011 OF TF,,MF. CULA SAZSD ~XAsIH CITY OF TgMECULA PLANNING 43174 BUSZNISS PARK DRIVE TIKECULA, CA 92590 The state Clearinghouse has submitted the above nem~ draft Invitonmentel Zmpaet Report (ZIR) to sereore6 Itahe agencies for review. The review period is no~ closed And the gOretentS from the tampending agency(Lea) is(itS) enclosed. On the encloSe(i* Notice of CompletAofi form you will no~e that the ~learLnghcuee hem checked the age-ties that have oommen~ed. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your co~ent peeRlOw is complete. Z~ the teAmant package is not 1~ ordert please notify the's~ata creatinghouse lmmedieteZy. Remember to refer to the pro~/et's eigh~-dLgit 8~ate CXeetiaghouee number so that we ma~ reeland promptly. Please note that section 211o4 of the california Public Resources Code req~ired theft "a telpone/big agency or other public agqncy shall only mak- -~ah~k^ntive con~ents rege~,~' '!,'~e 6CtlvikI~r llSvc,l.v~d In a prc~ect ~hL~h ~re aS. thin In area of e~lrtiee of the agency or which are re,/cited ~o be GetrAid or epproved b~ the agency.~ commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their c~m/nents with spellfAt documentation. These Comments ere forwarded for your use in preparing your final SIR. Should you need more information or ellrificatio~# we reoommlnd thl~ you contac~ the commenting ThAI lette~ ackno~ledgee that you have oomplAed with the State OlearLnOhouse review requiremen~s ~or draft enviroumental documents, pursuant ~0 the California Znvironmen~al ~uality A0t. Please o~ntaut Marl Lames s~ (915) 44S-0~13 ~ you have any questions regarding the envAronmtn~al review process. SAnoctal}r, Enclosures ~,~z Neescroll Agency RECEIVED APR 0 8 lggzt Ans'd ............ A'I'FACHMENT NO. 5 SCHOOL DISTRICT L~- I I ER - COMMUNITY MEETING R:',STAFFR]~"f~I57PA93.CC 6/7/94 kib '[ ~ October 19, 1993 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Patnc~a B. Novotney. Ed.D RECEIVED 0 C T 2 I LQ 3 Ans 'd ........... BOARD OF EDUCATLON Rosle Vandernaak DI Davlc~ Euncl~ Saied Naaseh City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 SUBJECT: OCTOBER 13 COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY MAiNTEN/~NCB, OFERATIGNS, & TItANSPORTATION FACILITY Dear Saied: As discussed with you, our community meeting last week was very successful in informing the Roripaugh Hills and Winchester Collection area residents of the subject project and addressing the concerns of these neighbors related to the project. As you know, we hand delivered approximately 900 invitations to the neighbors on October 8, and 12 neighbors responded by attending the October 13 evening meeting. (See attached attendee list.) in general, the comments from the 12 neighbors were positive toward the site and building design, and the following questions were raised: 1. What would be the working hours of this facility? Generally 6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 2. Would there be stadium lights at the adjacent high school site? No, par nigh school EIR. 3. Is there a need for a Margarita entrance stop lite? Being addressed in EIR traffic study, Doug Wood to follow up. 4. Is the 40 bus design capacity sufficient to support the complete build-out of the District? Yes. E. Do the traffic studies address the recently completed Margarita extension? Doug Wood to follow up. 6. What is being incorporated in the design to reduce graffiti potential? trmes on bare walls. 7. What is the process for final approval of this project by the City ? January Planning Commission and City Council hearings and EIR certification. 8. Would a footbridge across Santa Gertrudis Creek be feasible to serve the new High School? footbridge across Highway 79? May be desirable but very costly and difficult to secure funding. 9. What will ultimately be the speed limit on Highway 79? Caltrans data needed. 10. Could property north of the high school site be set aside for a city park? City Planning Department determination. 11. Wil~ the emissions from the buses be an impact to surrounding neighbors? No. SCAQMD testing data forwarded to interested neighbors and included in EIR. Also attached are our comments to Doug Wood on the Screencheck Draft EIR for this project. We have asked Doug to do everything possible to work with you to be ready for the January 3 Planning Commission meeting, and the January City Council meeting. Thank you for combining the Planning Commission/City Council hearing notices, and for your continuing efforts to keep this EIR on schedule. ,,~. ~ · Director of Facilities Development cc: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, City of Temecula Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D.. Superintendent John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Doug Wood. Douglas Wood and Associates Tom Burke, BGRP (SAIEU.OCT} 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE/TRANSPORTATION FACILITY INFORMATIONAL MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1993, 7:30 pm MARGARITA MIDDLE SCHOOL ATTENDEES LIST 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. NAME Elise Turner Nick & Irene Vultaggio John & Annette Roberrs Lee Dietz Bob & Eileen Merrill Robert Wyatt Coleen Moorhouse Ed & Marilyn Mowles ADDRESS 39859 Creative Drive 39813 Creative Drive 27440 Bolandra Court 14507 Staring Street 39730 Barberry Court 39100 Rising Hill Drive 39534 Long Ridge Drive 27595 Dandelion Court DAYTIME PHONE# 909-677-3225 909-677-2423 909-676-2528 909-699-1503 909-694-8419 639-1120 734-1111 909-677-5763 909-694-9649 ATTACHMENT NO, 6 FEE CHECKLIST A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 6 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST Planning Application No. PA93-0157 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project (refer to the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission Staff Report. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Ouimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Consistent with Specific Plan Consistent with Future General Plan Condition of APProval Condition No. 12 Condition No. N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No. 89 Condition No. 52 N/A YES ITEM 18 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPRO~.~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER . CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning' June 28, 1994 Planning Application No. PA93-0191, City Skateboard Ordinance Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Adopt an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.36 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING, OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS. BACKGROUND On November 9, 1993, due to numerous letters to the City Council from business owners, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding on private property in those areas designated by resolution of the Council. The Council further directed staff to include provisions in the ordinance which would permit skateboarding on all public streets and/or public sidewalks except in those areas designated by resolution of the City Council and to address skateboarding, roller skating, and roller blading in public parks. On May 2, 1994, staff presented to the Planning Commission a draft ordinance based upon the Council's direction. The Commission recommended approval of the ordinance with only minor modifications. The change was to delete the requirement for minors to wear knee, elbow and wrist protection while skating on public property (see attachment No. 1 ). In developing the Draft Ordinance, staff sought input from business owners, property owners and property managers who had previously requested that the City adopt such an ordinance. To date, there has been no response from any property owner, property manager or business owner. In an attempt to discuss the Draft Ordinance with members of the skating community, scheduled a meeting on April 14, 1994 at the Community Recreation Center (CRC) and staff mailed a notice of the meeting to those skaters who were involved in the proposed skateboard park at the CRC. However, none of the 15 invited skaters attended the meeting or contacted staff about the ordinance. Staff has sent copies of the draft ordinance to various City departments and the Temecula Police Department, and their comments have been incorporated into the Draft Ordinance. R:\STAFFRPT\191PA9:~,CC 6/20/9/, kLb 1 In addition to soliciting input, staff reviewed ordinances from other jurisdictions. The Draft Ordinance includes various elements of other cities adopted ordinances which staff felt addressed the needs of Temecula. DISCUSSION Skateboardine on Private Prooertv The proposed Draft Ordinance would provide private property owners with the ability to request that their property be posted as a "No Skateboarding" area. The property owner, or their representative would make application to the Planning Department for approval to place signs designating their property a "No Skateboarding" area. The applicant would provide a site plan indicating the number and location of the signs. Planning staff and the Police Department would then review and approve the site plan to ensure the location and number of signs is adequate. Staff would then prepare a notice of public hearing and a resolution for the next available City Council Meeting. Skateboardina on Public Prooertv Upon recommendation of the Director of Public Works, the Council may designate certain public roadways, sidewalks or other public properties as a "No Skateboarding" area. The process for posting public property would be similar to that on private property with regards to Planning and Police Department review and public noticing. Skateboarding activities would be restricted only in these designated areas in public rights-of-way; the limitations would not be city wide. The City would be responsible for securing, posting and maintaining the necessary signage. Postinq of Sians The Draft Ordinance requires that private property owners secure, post and maintain the "No Skateboarding" signs. To ensure that all signage is uniform throughout the City, staff has prepared a sample sign (see Exhibit 4a). All private property owners posting "No Skateboarding" signs would be required to use this format. The Draft Ordinance also provides the Council with the ability to establish a fee for posting the signs for private property owners. However, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that all signs on private property be posted by the property owner. Penalties The Draft Ordinance provides for the first two violations to be infractions with a 925.00 fine for a first violation of the ordinance and 950.00for a second violation. Subsequent violations would be a misdemeanor. The fee penalties are comparable with those of other jurisdictions. FISCAL IMPACT Each sign posted by the City of Temecula will cost approximately 9125 per sign. This cost will include both the printing and posting of the sign. R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.CC 6/20/94 ktb 2 Attachments: City Council Ordinance No. 94- - Page 4 PC Resolution No, 94-11 - Page 10 Exhibit - Proposed "No Skateboarding" Sign - Page 12 R:\STAFFRPT\191PAg],CC 6120194 k[b 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.CC 6/20/94 ktb 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TE1VIECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.36 TO TRE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING, OR SIMHJAR ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN DESIGNATRD AREAS. ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HERERY ORDAIN AS FOIJ~OWS: Section 1. Chapter 10.36 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 10.36 SKATEBOARDING, ROLLPRBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS SECTIONS 10.36.010 10.36.020 10.36.030 10.36.040 10.36.050 10.36.060 10.36.070 10.36.080 Definitions General Prohibition Designation of Private Property as No Skateboarding Area Designation of Public Property as No Skateboarding Area Posting of Signs Required, Content Fees set by Resolution Penalties Exemptions from the Provisions of this Chapter 10.36.010 Definitions As used in this Chapter, the foliowing terms shall have the meanings set forth herein: A. "Private Property" shall mean any property held by private interests winch is used primarily for business, commercial, retail, office space, business park, religious, multi-family or recreational ptaposes. This shall also include the sidewalks contained within the private property (Amended by the planning Comm|~sinn May 2, 1~)4), parking lots, alleys and parking facilities for these "Private Property" areas. B. "Public Property" shall mean any property owned or maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Valley Unified School District, County of Riverside and any public utility with the geographical (Amended by the Planning Comml~sion May 2, 1994) boundaries of the City of Temecula. R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.CC 6/22/9~ ktb 5 D. "Skateboard" shall mean a board of any material, designed for the user/rider to stand or sit upon, which has wheels attached to it and which, if propelled or moved by human, gravitational, or mechanical power, and to which no separate steering mechanism is attached which directly controls the turning of the wheels or no mechanical braking system which will allow the rider to safely stop the wheel(s). 10.36.020 General Prohibition A. It shall be unlawful and subject to punishment in accordance with section 10.36.070 of this Chapter, for any person utilizing or riding upon any skateboard, rollerblades or any similar device to ride or move about in or on any public or private property when the same property has been designated by Resolution of the City Council and posted as a No Skateboard, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area. B. No person shall use a skateboard, rollerblades or any similar device outside of a designated No Skateboard, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area in a manner which creates a nuisance. For the purpose of this Chapter "nuisance" is defmed as any activity which: 1. Threatens injury to any person or property, public or private; 2. Creates an obstruction or presents a hazard to the free and unrestricted use of public or private property by pedestrians or motorists; or 3. Generates loud or unreasonable noise. C. No pcrson under the age of 18 years shall use a skatoboard, rollerblades, or similar device on public property unless the person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads and lcnec ~a~a. (Deleted per Planning Commission direction May 2, 1994). 10.36.030 Designation of Private Property as No Skateboarding. Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area A. If the property is owner-occupied property, the owner shall submit a written application requesting a designation of a No Skateboarding, Rollerblaring or Similar Activity Area. B. If the property is occupied by tenants of the owner, then the tenants shall submit a written application with 2/3 (66%) of the tenants on the property supporting a designation of No Skateboarding, Rollerbtading or Similar Activity Area and the application shall also contain the written consent of the property owner or his or her designated representative. C. The City Council may, by Resolution, designate a private property as a No Skateboarding, Rollerbhding or Similar Activity Area. The City Council shall designate such areas and the times when such activity would be prohibited and order the posting of appropriate signage in accordance with Section 10.36.050 of this Chapter. R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93,CC 6/20/94 ktb 6 D. The City Clerk shall cause notice of City Council consideration of this application to be published in any newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to City Council consideration. 10.36.040 Designation of Public Property as No Skateboarding. Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area A. The City Council may, upon review and recommendation by the Director of Public Works, designate any public roadway, sidewalk, or other public property as a No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area. The City Council shall designate such area and the times when such activity would be prohibited by Resolution and order the posting of appropriate signage in accordance with Section 10.36.050 of this Chapter. 10.36.050 Posting of Signs Required. Content A. Prior to the enforcement of the prohibition on skateboarding, rollerblading or similar activities, the area so designated shall be posted with signs which provide substantiaily as follows: "Skateboarding, roilerblading or similar activity, is prohibited by Temecula Municipal Code Section 10.36.020. Any violation is punishable by a free of $25.00 for the first offense. City of Temecula Police Department 696-3000." B. Such prohibition shall apply to the property or area so designated once the property or area has been posted with signs in plain view at all entrances to the property or area. Signs so posted at the entrances to the property or area, shall comply with the California Vehicle Section 22658 (a)(1). These signs will be 17" x 22" with lettering not less than one inch in height. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner or tenant(s) to post and maintain all signs prohibiting skateboarding. 10.36.060 Fees set by Resolution A. The City Council may, by Resolution, establish fees for the receipt and processing of any applications for No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Areas. In addition the City Council may, by Resolution, establish fees sufficient to cover the costs of developing, printing and posting the areas designated pursuant to this Chapter. 10.36.070 Penalties A. Any violation of this Chapter is deemed an infraction, punishable by a fme of $25.00. A second violation of this Chapter shall be punishable by a f'me of $50.00. All subsequent violations shall be deemed a misdemeanor punishable in accordance with Section 1.20 of this Code. R:\STAFFRPT\191PA9S.CC 6/20/9~ ktb 7 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of , 199 . RON ROBERTS MAYOR ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 -__ was duly introduced and placed upon its furst reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEIVlBERS COLINCH -MEMBERS COtINCH ,MEMBERS JUNE S. GI~F.h":K CITY CLgRK R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93,CC 6/20/94 ktb 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - MAY 2, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\191PA9~.CC 6120/94 ktb 10 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 2, 1994 Planning Al~plication No.: PA93-0191 Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 94-_ recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance which would prohibit Skateboarding, Rollerblading and Similar Activities in Certain Designated Areas of the City based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: To adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding, rollerblading and similar activities in certain designated areas of the City. LOCATION: City Wide BACKGROUND Over the past several months, the City has received numerous requests from property owners to adopt an ordinance that would prohibit skateboarding, rollerblading and similar activities in certain areas of the City. The property owners feel that skateboarding, rollerblading and similar activities have damaged their property and pose a threat to public safety. On November 9, 1993, staff presented a report to the City Council which outlined alternatives for a potential ordinance for both public and private property. The Council recommeded staff prepare an ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding on private property in those areas designated by resolution of the Council. The Council further directed staff that the ordinance permit skateboarding on all public streets and/or public sidewalks except in those areas designated by resolution of the City Council and to address skateboarding, roller skating, and roller blading in public parks. R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 Idb DISCUSSION Overview In developing the Draft Ordinace, staff has sought input from business owners, property owners and property managers who had previously requested that the City adopt such an ordinance. To date, there has been no response from any property owner, property manager or business owner. in an attempt to discuss the Draft Ordinance with members of the skating community, staff scheduled a meeting on April 14, 1994 at the Community Recreation Center (CRC) and staff mailed a notice of the meeting to those skaters who were involved in the proposed skateboard park at the CRC. However, none of the 15 invited skaters artended the meeting or contacted staff about the ordinance. Staff has sent copies of the draft ordinance to various City departments and the Temecula Police Department, and their comments have been incorporated into the Draft Ordinance. In addition to soliciting input, staff reviewed ordinances from other jurisdictions. The Draft Ordinance includes various elements of other cities adopted ordinances which staff felt addressed the needs of Temecula. Skateboardino on Private Pronertv The proposed Draft Ordinance would provide private property owners with the ability to request that their property be posted as a "No Skateboarding" area. The property owner, or their representative would make application to the Planning Department signs designating the property a "No Skateboarding" area. The applicant would provide a site plan indicating the number and location of the signs. Planning staff and the Police Department would then review and approve the site plan to ensure the location and number of signs is adequate. Staff would then prepare a notice of public hearing and a resolution for the next available City Council Meeting. Skateboardino on Public Prooertv Upon recommendation of the Director of Public Works, the Council may designate certain public roadways, sidewalks or other public properties as a "No Skateboarding" area. The process for posting public property would be similar to that on private property with regards to Police Department review and public noticing. Skateboarding activities would be restricted only in these designated areas in public right-of-way; the limitations would not be city wide. The City would be responsible for securing, posting and maintaining the necessary signage. Postino of Sions The Draft Ordinance requires that private property owners secure, post and maintain the "No Skateboarding" signs. To ensure that all signage is uniform throughout the City, staff has prepared a sample sign (see Exhibit 4a). All private property owners posting "No Skateboarding" signs would be required to use this format. The Draft Ordinance also provides the Council with the ability to establish a fee for posting the signs for private property owners. R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 2 Penalties The Draft Ordinance provides for the first two violations to be infractions with a ~25.00 fine for a first violation of the ordinance and $50.00 for a second violation. Subsequent violations would be a misdemeanor. The fee penalties are comparable with those of other jurisdictions. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, subsequent to Section 15061 (b)(3). SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. It is staff's opinion that the proposed ordinance will reduce potential conflicts between skaters and the general public on both private and public property. FINDINGS 1. The proposed Skateboard Ordinance will provide for a safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property. 2. The proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan through the creation of a safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property. 3. The proposed Skateboard Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment and staff has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3). Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution No. 94- o Blue Page 4 Draft City Council Ordinance No. 94- - Blue Page 7 City Council Minutes - November 9, 1993 - Blue Page 13 Exhibits - Blue Page 14 a. Proposed "No Skateboarding" Sign R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93,PC 4/28/94 klb 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 4 AT~ACHlvfF_ANT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THF~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD PROH1RIT SKATI~ROARDING, ROI,I,ERBLADING AND SIIVlrI,AR ACTIVrrI~S IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS OF TttE CITY Vv'YIEREAS, skateboardillg, rollerbl3ding and sil~ilar activities have the potential to cause personal injury to the general public; and Wvw~REAS, skateboarding, rolleeolading and similar activities pose a threat to public and private property; and, WItF~REAS, the proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan; and, WItEREAS, that this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WtW. REAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall; County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, Temecula Town Association and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, Wltl~.REAS, a public hearing was conducted on May 2, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition. NOW, TYII~REFO RE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TYIE~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOIJ~OWS: Section 1. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula fmds that the proposed Skateboard Ordinance will provide for a safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property. Section 2. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecuh further finds that the proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan through the creation of a safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property. Sectinn 3. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula funher finds that the proposed Skateboard Ordinance does not have the potop~al to cause a significant impact on the environment and has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3). R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93,PC 4/28/94 kJb 5 Section 4. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council that the Council adopt the proposed Skateboard Ordinance. This Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 199_. __ day of STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ltl~.RI~.Ry 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 __ day of , 199__ by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNBIlJ. SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPTH91PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT~191PAe3.PC 4/28./94 Idb 7 ATTACHMENT NO, 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1993 R:%STAFFRPT%q91PA93.PC 4/28/94 kJb 13 City Council Minutes November 9, 1993 14. Rh3ht-of-Wav Weed Control Prooram for Fiscal Year 1993-94 Councilmember Stone asked since only one bid was received, if the Department checked to see if this is competitive pricing. Director of Public Works Tim Serlet stated four companies were contacted, but Pest Masters has a franchise in Temecula and does not have the travel expense of other companies. He stated most other cities provide this service in house, however this contractor does work for CalTrans and the City of Lake Elsinore. He stated that various licenses are required to perform this type of service. Councilmember Stone asked if the City has qualified people to perform this service in- house. Mr. Serlet answered that the City does not, at this time, have qualified people or the man-power to perform these duties. Mayor Mu~oz asked that an "environmentally friendly" approach to this problem be investigated. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: 14.1 Award contract for Fiscal Year 1993-94 Right-of-Way Weed Control Program to Pestmaster Services, the lowest responsible bidder, for the sum of $29,250. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone, Mu~oz NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCIL BUSINESS 19. Consideration of Proposed Skateboard Ordinance Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. Councilmember Parks stated he has received letters of complaint from business owners regarding skateboarding on private property and asked if the City has received similar letters. Director Thornhill stated that he has received letters from business owners in the Tower Plaza and Palm Plaza regarding the need to address the skateboarding issue. Ciw Council Minutes November 9.1993 He requested direction from the Council on how they would like staff to proceed. Mr. Thornhill reported that the Police Department feels skateboarding should be permitted on all public streets and sidewalks, except as designated by Resolution, and asked if the Council wishes to enforce regulations on private property. Mayor Mur~oz stated he has a concern about skateboarding in commercial centers and asked what staff's position is on this issue. Mr. Thornhill stated that it is not unusual for cities to prohibit skateboarding in commercial centers, however, typically cities are most involved with enforcement on sidewalks and streets. Mayor Pro Tom Roberts stated he does not have a problem with prohibiting skateboarding on private property if requested by property owners, however he feels skateboarding should be allowed on public streets and sidewalks. Councilmember Stone stated he would be against any ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in public streets and sidewalks, but would like to see an ordinance addressed to commercial properties at the request of property owners. He stated he does feel that skateboarding should be prohibited on certain busy streets, such as "Ynez." Councilmember Birdsall asked that this ordinance also address roller blades and roller skating. It was approved by consensus to direct staff to prepare an Ordinance that supports staff recommendation//'2, "That prohibits skateboarding on private property in those areas designate by resolution of the Council. This would require property owners to petition the City for prohibition of skateboarding for a particular property," and staff recommendation/f3 "That would permit skateboarding on all public streets and/or public sidewalks except those areas designate by resolution of the City Council" and further directed that the proposed ordinance will also be drafted to address use in public parks and will additionally cover roller skates and roller blades. PUBLIC HEARINGS 20. APPeal of Plannino Commission AoDroval of Planning Aoolication NO. 93-0158. Amendment No. I - Expansion to the Existing Temecula Valley Unified School District Facilitv in Two Phases Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. He stated staff recommends the addition of new Conditions of Approval Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17, with respect to truck deliveries, outside lighting, ingress and egress via the existing gate, incorporated additional conditions on landscaping to better screen warehouse facilities and finally required that any storage of hazardous materials be reviewed and approved by Riverside County Fire and Health Department. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PROPOSED "NO SKATEBOARDING" SIGN R:\STAFFRPT\191PAg~.CC 6120194 kLb 11 cc: City Council G. Thornhill April 22, 1994 39668 Firethorn Ct. Murrieta Ca, 92562 Patricia Birdsall, Councilwoman City of Temecula 43174 Businass Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590 Councilwoman Patricia Birdsall, I am writing to you, councilwoman of Temecula, because just recently something important was brought to my attention. It is on the subject of skateboarding. First off my son skateboards and we are both thankful for the proposed skateboard park that is scheduled to be built in Temecula. But, today there was an article in The Californian that stated that skateboarding will be prohibited from public and private property. I can understand it being prohibited on private property but not on public property. That just isn't fair for these skaters of all ages not being aloud to do something that they enjoy. Skateboarding is a sport just like baseball or any other. It takes talent for someone to skateboard just as it does for other sports, if not more. The article also read that the city is not waiting for the park to open first before the ordinance goes into effect. This is absurd if you ask me. If skateboarding is banned then wher are these talented youth going to go especially if the park is not open. I would really like to hear your opinions on this subject. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Steve Manning ITEM 19 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning.' June 28,1994 Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of Planning Application No. PA94- 0019, Plot Plan for the Black Angus Restaurant Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends the City Council: Adopt: THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA94-0019, AND; Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019 - APPEAL, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,200 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-270-047 BACKGROUND On June 2, 1994, the Temecula Planning Commission heard Planning Application No. 94- 0019. After the public hearing and Commission discussion, a motion was made to approve the project. However, the vote was 2-2 (with Commissioner Fahey) and the project was denied. DISCUSSION The two dissenting commissioners stated various concerns about the project. Commissioner Salyer expressed concerns relating to traffic patterns and traffic flow to the project. Commissioner Salyer further stated that he did not concur with the results of the traffic study which found that the project would not result in significant increases in traffic on Ynez Road. Commissioner Blair stated that she did not feel the project contained adequate parking, that the project would be better located in the middle of the shopping center, and that it is currently difficult to get to the portion of the shopping center where the project is proposed. R:\STAFFRPT\19PA91,.CC 6/20/94 k~b 1 With respect to circulation in and out of the site, the Public Works Department feels that the recent widening of Ynez Road to its ultimate width, and the associated traffic signal installations, provide for adequate circulation. The approved traffic study prepared for the project (see Planning Commission staff report attachment No. 5) identified one mitigation measure. The mitigation measure, lengthening of the northbound left*turn signal timing for the middle driveway into the shopping center from Ynez Road, has already been performed by staff. This intersection is currently functioning at a acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "C" . Second, the traffic study determined that, as a result of this project, traffic at the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road will increase 1.43% at peak hour, Per City policy, for a traffic increase to be considered significant, the increase would have to exceed 5%. Therefore, staff feels that the traffic concerns raised by the Commission have been adequately addressed and mitigated (see Public Works Department Memo date June 14, 1994). FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Resolution No. 94- - Page 3 Conditions of Approval - Page 8 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 2, 1994 - Page 9 Public Works Department Memo, June 14, 1994- Page 10 Planning Commission Draft Minutes, June 2, 1994 - Page 11 R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6120/~ ktb 2 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6/20/94 ktb 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AlPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019 - APPEAL, REVERSING ~ DECISION OF ~ PLANNING CO1VIMISSION TO DENY ~ CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,200 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON ~ NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-270-047 WHEREAS, Troy McClellan, on behalf of ARG, Inc., fried Planning Application No. PA94-0019 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0019 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0019 on June 6, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WItRREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0019; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said heaxing, the Commission denied Planning Application No. PA 94-0019; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeal of Planning Application No. PA94- 0019 on June 28, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Council considered all facts rehting to Planning Application No. PA94-0019; NOW, T~EREFORE, TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Seaion 2. Findines. The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA94- 0019 makes the following f'mdings: R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94,CC 6/20/94 klb 4 A. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: 1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. 2. 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. B. The City Council, in approving proposed Planning Application No. PA94-0019, makes the following specific findings, to wit: 1. PA94-0019, Plot Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the fact that the restaurant use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway Tourist Commercial. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not rapresent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area and the use is similar to the surrounding commercial uses. 5. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. 6. 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 due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. 7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects with Ynez Road. 8. 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 due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project. 9. 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 as represented on the site plan. R:\STAFFRPT\19PA9~.CC 6/20/9~ ktb 5 C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0019, as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding proper~y. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Plarming Application No. PA94-0019 to construct a 10,200 square foot building for a Black Angus Restaurant located on the northwesterly comer of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-270-047 subject to the foliowing conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. R:\STAFFRPT\~9PA94.CC 6/20/9~ ktb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6/20/94 ktb 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan Project Description: The construction and operation of a 10,200 square foot Black Angus restaurant, wall signage and one on-site monument sign Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-270-047 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00), which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars (91,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711,4(d)(2) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (978.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section 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). General Requirements 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 attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0019. 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 the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A", and approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0019, or as amended by these conditions. R:~STAFFRPT\19PA94CC.COA 6/20/94 kib 5. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibits "D" & "E", or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C", or as amended by these conditions. (color elevations and material board). Materials: Stucco Stucco-Accent Metals Awning Roof Wood Truss Neon Tube Colors: Amarillo White Frazee 5444 D (Grey) Frazee 6285 R (Rust) Sunbrella Burgundy 4631 Maxi Tile - Slate Grey Olympic Espresso Red Signage for the proposed project shall comply with exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The proposed monument sign shall not include advertisement for of-site businesses. A minimum of 118 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348.118 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit "A". A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit 10. 4 Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. 11. Deliveries to the building shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 am. In addition, the drive aisle to adjacent to the northerly side of the building, between the restaurant and the service station shall be posted "No Parking at Any Time." 12. At no time shall delivery vehicles be parked within the drive aisle adjacent to the northerly side of the building, between the restaurant and the service station. 13. The water feature on the corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road shall not be constructed with-in the ultimate right-of-way of Rancho California Road. 14. All existing trees along Rancho California Road shall be preserved on site. A notation on the construction landscape plans shall state that all existing trees shall be preserved on site. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15, Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view, 16. The applicant shall make application and pay applicable application fee for Consistency Check with the Department of Building and Safety. 17. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Construction Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94CC,COA 6/20/94 klb be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 19. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans, except as amended herein. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 21. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 22. Additional landscaping shall be required to provide sufficient screening, if deemed necessary by the Director of Planning. 23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 24. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 25. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 26. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 37. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State Water Resources Control Board; San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; Community Services District; General Telephone; Southern California Edison Company; and Southern California Gas Company. 38. A Precise Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. 39. A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 40. An erosion control plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. ,,1. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department, the Community Services District, and the Department of Public Works for review. (Including the parkways in addition to private landscaping). 42. 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 and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 43. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 44. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. 45. Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb 46. The Developer 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 upgrading or upsizing existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or obtaining a letter of approval as directed by the Department of Public Works. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. 47. A drainage easement or a letter of approval shall be obtained from affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto adjacent property. A copy of the drainage easement, prior to recordation, or the letter of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the grading plan. 48. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 49. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility, Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits 50. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 51. The Developer 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 and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. Landscaping (slopes, medians, and parkways). b. Erosion control and slope protection. 52. All landscaping within the parkways along Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, adjacent to Tower Plaza, shall be completed. Plans shall be designed in compliance with City Standards and approved by the Planning Department. R:\STAFFRPT\lgPA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 53. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Fire Department; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; and The Community Services District. 54. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 55. All building pads 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. 56. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 57. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 58. The 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 the 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 the Developer, Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the 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. The 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, the 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 the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy 59. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; General Telephone; Southern California Edison; R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb Southern California Gas; Planning Department; and Department of Public Works. 60. All on-site improvements and landscape improvements including the landscaping within the parkways along Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, adjacent to Tower Plaza, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards. 61. Adjacent to Tower Plaza, Rancho California Road is classified as an Urban Arterial Highway with a 134foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Element of the City of Temecula General Plan. There is an existing 55 foot of half width right-of-way and an additional 12 foot of dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 12 foot offer of dedication shall be made to the City of Temecula on Rancho California Road along Tower Plaza. 62. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 63. The existing improvements shall be reviewed, Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 64. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 65. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Geologist transmittal dated April 21, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 66. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, 67. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 29, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 68. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District transmittel dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 69. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 2, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6/20/94 kLb 9 RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 6, 1994 Planning Application No.: PA94-0019# Plot Plan Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT The Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 94--- approving PA94-0019, Plot Plan, based upon the Analysis and Findings, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: ARG Enterprises, Inc Troy McClellan, Form Guild Architects A Plot Plan application to construct a 10,200 square foot Black Angus restaurant on a vacant parcel of land. Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road General Commercial (C-P) North: South: East: West: C-P (General Commercial) S-P (Specific Plan 180) C-P (General Commercial) Interstate 15 Highway Tourist Commercial Vacant North: South: East: West: AM/PM Gas Station Embassy Suites Hotel Tower Center Commercial Center Interstate 15 R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb PROJECT STATISTICS Parking Standard 76 Compact 36 Handicapped _~6 Total 118 Number of Restaurant Seats 324 Site Area Calculation Use Square feet % of site Building Area 10,200 12% Landscaping 19,565 23% Paving/Parking 54,392 65% TOTAL 84,157 100% BACKGROUND On March 17, 1994, the applicant submitted Planning Application No. PA94-0019 for a restaurant. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting for the project was held on April 7, 1994. At the conclusion of the DRC meeting, staff requested the applicant make several changes to the site and landscape plans to comply with various City requirements. Subsequent to the DRC meeting, the applicant made the necessary changes to staff's satisfaction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for the construction of a 10,200 square foot Black Angus restaurant on a vacant 1.9 acre parcel of land, a monument sign and wall signs. The building pad was previously mass graded as part of the underlying map. In addition to the restaurant building, the project will include a total of 118 parking spaces and 19,565 square feet of landscaping. ANALYSIS Site Plan The proposed project is located on the northwesterly corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The project shares common drive aisles for access to Ynez Road with the adjacent Chili's restaurant and Arco AM/PM gas station, and the nearby Tower Center shopping center. The project will also share a common drive aisle located between the restaurant and the AM/PM. Patrons of the gas station use the drive aisle to exit the station and the restaurant will use the aisle for deliveries. To ensure that the aisle is clear for both the gas station and emergency vehicles, the drive aisle will be posted as a no parking area (see condition No. 12), deliveries to the restaurant will be restricted to the hours between 6:00 am and 10:00 am (see condition No. 12) and no parking will be permitted in said drive aisle (see condition No. 13). Restaurant delivery trucks will park in front of the restaurant entrance and hand-carry supplies to the service delivery door located on the northerly side of the building. R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 2 The site plan incorporates a pedestrian walkway that provides access from Rancho California Road to the main entrance, located on the westerly side of the building. The site plan also provides outdoor waiting and a drop-off areas. Architecture The proposed building has been designed with materials to be compatible with the surrounding buildings. The materials include Amarillo white stucco, slate grey tile roof, burgundy awnings and wood trusses. It is staff's opinion that the structure will be compatible with the existing buildings in the vicinity. Siqnaqe The proposed signage on the building meets the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. However, the proposed on-site monument sign does not meet the requirements of City Ordinance No. 93-09. The sign is to be located on the corner of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (see Exhibit "G"), and proposes the names of the three businesses, the Black Angus, and two businesses located on adjoining (off-site) parcels. However, City Ordinance No. 93-09 expressly prohibits off-site commercial signs. Further, Section 4 of Ordinance No. 93-09 states "no application for sign location plan, plot plan or other application discretionary entitlement for an outdoor advertising display shall be accepted, acted upon, or approved. Therefore, staff has conditioned the project to permit the on-site tenant as permitted by City Ordinance No. 93-09 (see condition No. 8). Landscaoino Ordinance No. 348 requires that a minimum of 10% of the parking area be landscaped. The proposed plan provides for approximately 23% of the site to be landscaped. The landscaping palette has been designed to be compatible with the existing landscaping of the surrounding properties. The prominent design element of the plan is a water feature on the corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road (see Exhibit "G")o The water feature incorporates the design element of the corner properties on the southerly side of Rancho California Road. Parkinq Ordinance No. 348 requires that the project contain one parking space for every three seats for a total of 108 spaces. The applicant has provided 76 standard parking spaces, 36 compact spaces and 6 handicapped spaces. The total of 118 parking spaces exceeds the City's requirements by 10 spaces. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The project site is zoned C-P (General Commercial). Adjacent parcels to the North and East are zoned General Commercial, Specific Plan to the South and Interstate 15 to the West. The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the requirements of the C-P Zone and Sections 18.30 and 18.43 of Ordinance 348 which requires that the proposed use not pose a threat to public health, safety and general welfare of the community. R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94,PC 6/1/94 klb 3 The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects with Ynez Road. 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 due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project. 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 as represented on the site plan, Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution - Blue Page 6 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Initial Study - Blue Page 20 Exhibits - Blue Page 21 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan Traffic Study o Blue Page 22 Ordinance No. 93-09 - Blue Page 23 R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.pC 611194 klb 5 A'i'I'ACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT%lePA94.PC 6/1194 klb 6 ATrAC~ NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TItF. CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019 TO CONSTRUCT A 10,200 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON A PARCI~-L CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO CALII~ORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCI~J. NO. 921-270047 Wt~REAS, Troy McClellan, on behalf of ARG, Inc., fried Planning Application No. PA94-0019 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WItR~REAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0019 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; ~, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0019 on June 6, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHERE., at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0019; NOW, TI:I~.P~J~RE, THE~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findin2s. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA94-0019 makes the foliowing fmdings: A. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following fmdings can be made: 1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. R:\STAFFRPT\lgPA94.PC 6/1/94 tdb 7 B. The Planning Commission, in approving preposed Planning Application No. PA94-0019, makes the following specific findings, to wit: 1. PA94-0019, Plot Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the fact that the restaurant use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway Tourist Commercial. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general weftare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30. 4. The proposal wffi not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area and the use is similar to the surrounding commercial uses. 5. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. 6. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation paRems, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. 7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects with Ynez Road. 8. 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 due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval pwvide for the necessary mitigation for the pwject. 9. 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 as represented on the site plan. C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0019, as proposed, conforms to the logical development of ks proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepaxed 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. R:\STAFFRPTX19PA94,PC 6/1/94 klb 8 Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA94-0019 to expand an existing automobile dealership located on the northwesterly comer of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-270-047 subject to the foliowing conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 6th day of June, 1994. STEVEN J. FORD 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 day of , 199__ by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONF_3~: PLANNING COMISSIONF, RS: GARY THORNI-KLL SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 8/1/94 klb 9 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 811/94 Idb 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan Project Description: The construction and operation of a 10,200 square foot Black Angus restaurant, wall signage and one on-site monument sign Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-270-047 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328o00), which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars (91,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section 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). General Requirements 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 attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0019. 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 the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1194 Idb 11 The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A", and approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0019, or as amended by these conditions. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibits "D" & "E", or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C" , or as amended by these conditions. (color elevations and material board). Materials: Stucco Stucco-Accent Metals Awning Roof Wood Truss Neon Tube Colors: Amarillo White Frazee 5444 D (Grey) Frazee 6285 R (Rust) Sunbrella Burgundy 4631 Maxi Tile - Slate Grey Olympic Espresso Red Signage for the proposed project shall comply with exhibit "F" , or as amended by these conditions. The proposed monument sign shall not include advertisement for of-site businesses. A minimum of I 18 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 118 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit "A". A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit 10. 2 Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. 11. Deliveries to the building shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 am. In addition, the drive aisle to adjacent to the northerly side of the building, between the restaurant and the service station shall be posted "No Parking at Any Time." 12. At no time shall delivery vehicles be parked within the drive aisle adjacent to the northerly side of the building, between the restaurant and the service station. 13. The water feature on the corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road shall not be constructed with-in the ultimate right-of-way of Rancho California Road. 14. All existing trees along Rancho California Road shall be preserved on site. A notation on the construction landscape plans shall state that all existing trees shall be preserved on site. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. R:\~TAFFRPT~1SPA94.PC 8/1/94 klb 12 16. The applicant shall make application and pay applicable application fee for Consistency Check with the Department of Building and Safety. 17. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Construction Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 19. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans, except as amended herein. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 21. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 22. Additional landscaping shall be required to provide sufficient screening, if deemed necessary by the Director of Planning. 23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.pC 8/1194 klb 13 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 24. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 25. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 26. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. 27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 28. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. 29. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 30. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. 31. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 32. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 33. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all on-site flat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 34. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 14 35. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. 36. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 37. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State Water Resources Control Board; San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; Community Services District; General Telephone; Southern California Edison Company; and Southern California Gas Company. 38. A Precise Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. 39. A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 40. An erosion control plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. 41. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department, the Community Services District, and the Department of Public Works for review. (Including the parkways in addition to private landscaping). 42. 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 and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 43. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. R:~STAFFRPT\1SPA94.PC 8/1194 klb 15 44. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. 45. Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. 46. The Developer 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 upgrading or upsizing existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or obtaining a letter of approval as directed by the Department of Public Works. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. 47. A drainage easement or a letter of approval shall be obtained from affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto adjacent property. A copy of the drainage easement, prior to recordation, or the letter of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the grading plan. 48. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 49. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits 50, All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 51. The Developer 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 and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. Landscaping (slopes, medians, and parkways). b. Erosion control and slope protection. R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1194 klb 16 Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy 59. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; General Telephone; Southern California Edison; Southern California Gas; Planning Department; and Department of Public Works. 60. All on-site improvementsand landscape improvements including the landscaping within the parkways along Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, adjacent to Tower Plaza, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards. 61. Adjacent to Tower Plaza, Rancho California Road is classified as an Urban Arterial Highway with e 134 foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Element of the City of Temecula General Plan. There is an existing 55 foot of half width right-of-way and an additional 12 foot of dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 12 foot offer of dedication shall be made to the City of Temecula on Rancho California Road along Tower Plaza. 62. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 63. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 64. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 65. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Geologist transmittal dated April 21, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 66. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 29, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 67. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 18 68. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFI!}T%lgPA94.PC 8/1194 klb 19 April 21, 1994 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEIWENT AGENCY PlanninE Department MEMORANDUM A/~aJ.~ Direaor of Planning TO: Craig Ruiz - City of Temecula - Planning Department ~ FROM: Steve Kupferman - Engineering Geologist Riverside County Planning Department a City of Temecu'la Case No.: PA-94-0019 County GeologicReport.;Nos."~6.29:.-and 857~: City of Temecd'ia ....'::':'.': /"::':""~::":'::::;!Y-!}:.. ":";':..:!.' ' This project siteis?locat'ed.:in,th~'AiqUist'Priolo. Earthquake Fault Zone and is.':=ccvere~.:'b~;pre~iau~!y".prapared.geol0gic reports. County Geologic Report' NG'. 629 'included'an exploratory geologic trench on theproject..si~e:and!::~ona~uded that active""'faults do not traverse the eits...:.::i;;;e~t~,'~?:~iX:~!~i! Report Nc.:.eS.~!"included a trench directly adjacent tc and n~z~::i!;~f:.thei;~!.subS'ect site and also concluded that no active faults tra~e!';;~h~;;a~'~snt site. Copies of letters apprcving these reportS'are attached=.. Based on the above, a geologic report to e~alUate:~he earthquake fault zone is not necessary for this p~Oject. I~::'.is recommended that a g.eotechnical report, addressing soils and foundation conditions atthe site, be prepared prior to issuance of:grading or building permits. ' ......................... Please d'o not hesitate to call me at (909) 275-32~1 if you need further assistance. RECEIVED ..... APR 2 2 i99z) 4080 Lemtm Street, 91h FlooroRivenid~, California 925010(909) 275-3200 P. O. Box 14090Riversid~, California 92502-1409,FAX (909)275-3157 RIVER_,DE COUNTY PLANK JG DEPARTMENT Joseph A. Richorals, Planning Director Keith D. Downs, A.I.C.P., Assistant Director Jtlne 29, 1993 SEACOR 1180 Nevada Street, Suite 200 Redlands, CA 92374-2843 Attention: Paul Davis Nicholas Selmeczy RE: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Job Number 40007-049-02 CU 93-089 APN: 921-270-041 County Geologic Report No. 857 City of Temecula Gentlemen: We have reviewed your report entitled "Fault Investigation Report, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Proposed ARCOta/PN Facility, Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA," dated June 11, 1993; and your "Addendumto Fault Investigation Report," dated June 25, 1993. It should be noted ~hat this report has been reviewed as an update and supplement to County Geologic Report (CGR) No. 629F, due to the potential for cross-faulting on the subject site. CGR 629F was previously prepared by Converse Consultants Inland Empire for an office building and parking structure on this site. Your report and addendum determined that: 1. No active faults are know~ to pass through the subject property. 2. Moderate to strong ground shaking, as a result of seismicity on the nearby Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone can be expected at the site during the anticipated life of the proposed structure. A peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.50g would result from a 100- year probable 6.5 magnitude event on this fault zone 3. The water level variations measured in the borings on the site are moat likely the result of local stratigraphy and active pumping, rather than a fault-related barrier. Main Office 4080 LEMON STREET. 9fn FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 ("714) 275-3200 FAX (714) 27,5-3157 79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. SUITE E BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA ~rZ201 (619) 863-8277 FAX (619) 863-7062 County Geologic Report No. 857 page 2 4. The exploratory ~Lrench backfill should be considered as uncompacted fill. Your report and addendum recommended that: 1. No building setbacks are required or recommended relative to the potential for surface fault rupture. 2. Structures shall be constructed in compliance with the current edition of the Uniform Building Code and founded as recommended in the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by SEACOR, dated June 4, 1993 (County Geologic Report No. 858) for ~his project. 3. The exploratory trench backfill shall be removed and recompacted in accordance with the recommendations made in the June 4, 1993 SEACOR preliminary geotechnical investigation for this project. It is our opinion that your report and addendumwere prepared in a competent manner and satisfies the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act and the request for additional fault information by the City of Temecula. Final approval of your report is hereby given. This report and addendum now supplement the conclusions and recommendations made in County Geologic Report No. 629F, previously prepared for this property. The recommendations made in your report shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. Very truly yours, SCE 20~' Kupfe neering Geologist SK:al co: Craig Ruiz - City of Temecula Ida Sanchez - Markham & Associates Yon M. Carpenter - ARGO Products Company Earl Hart - California Division of Mines and Geology ' I.M. HARR.IS FIRE CI-IIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACIINTO AVENUE ,, PERR.IS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183 March 29, 1994 TO: ATTEN: RE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRAIG RUIZ PA94-0019 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all co~=nercial buildings using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 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. The required fire flow shall be available from a super (6"x4"x2~21/2") fire hydrant, located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured alon~ vehicular travelways. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approvB1 signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. 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. PA93-0019 PAGE 2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $558.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to system. Plans shall be submitted to the approval prior to installation. install a fire alarm Fire Department for Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Install a hood duct fire extinguishering system. Contact a certified fire protection company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section 3314(a). Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. PA-93-0019 PAGE 3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Applicant/developer Shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of'these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist Water March 25, 1994 I tAR 2 9 19- ...... Mr. Craig Ruiz City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SLrBJECT: Water Availability APN 921-270-047 Black Angus Restaurant Dear Mr. Ruiz: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). 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 fights, ff any, to RCWD. ff you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT /./~ ~/'t---~~-~'-*'~ Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager SB: SD: eb29/F 186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician J Craig Ruiz City of Temecula March 25, 1994 Page 2 Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468. very truly yours, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT David G.C.rosley ~ Senior Engineer Customer Service Department DGC/cz AB 94-305 (w~-ntwk-PA940019 Eastern Municipal ater District Craig Ruiz, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Mar&h 25,' 1994 SUBJECT: PA 94-0019 (Black Angus Restaurant Plot Plan) Dear Mr. Ruiz: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project restaurant located at the northwest corner of the Ynez and Rancho California Roads. is a proposed intersection of The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area.. However, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as follows: 8-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer located along Ynez Road, fronting the subject project. 18-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer located along Ynez Road, fronting the subject project. Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jadnm · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E OaJdand Avenue, Hemet, CA ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 20 City of Temecula Planning Department Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND iNFORMATiON 1. Name of Project: 2. Case Numbers: 3. Location of Project: 4. Description of Project: 5. Date of Environmental Assessment: 6. Name of Proponent: 7. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Black Angus R~tanrant planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan The northwesterly comer of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road The construction of a 10,200 square foot restaurant on a 1.9 acre parcd May 6, 1994 Troy McCle!len Form Guild 34094 Mazo Avenue Dana Point, CA 92629 C/14) 240-8321 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section Ill] 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? R:%STAFFRFr~19PA94.1ES 5110/94 klb h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground failure, or similar hazards? i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movemeat, temperature, or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally'? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or torbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related bnTnrds such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Maybe m m m R:%STAFFRPl~lgPAB4.1ES 5/10/94 klb 2 Ye~ Maybe b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal repleni.~hment of existing species? d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? d. A barrier to the migration or movement of snlmnls? e. Deterioration W existing fish or wildlife habitat. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people W severe noise levels? c. Exposure of people W severe vibrations? ?. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? b. Alteration to the future p]anned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? R:~STAFFI!~T~19PAB4.1E8 6110/94 Idb 3 Ye~ Ma~e 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upse~ conditions (hazardous substances includes, but is not limited ~o, pesticides, chemicals, oil or radiation)? b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any b~-~rdous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oH, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing?. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?. c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air ffaffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. 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? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X X R:~STAFFR~'%lgPA94.1ES 5/10/94 klb 4 f. Other governmental servi~es~ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?. 16. Utilities, Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to any of the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Comm~lnications systems? c. Water systems? d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage systems? f. Solid waste disposal systems? g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivexy system improvements for any of the above? 17. Human Health, Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of semitive recepWrs (such as hospitals and schools) W toxic pollutant emi.~sions? 18. Aesthetics, Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? 19. Recreation, Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? Y~ Maybe m m m X X X x R:%STAFFRPT%19PA94.1E8 6110/94 kJb ~ 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object'? c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth 1.a. No. Although the proposed project will result in minimal grading there will not be changes in the base geologic substructures. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.b. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-coverin_g. A grading plan will be certified by the Engineering Department which will mitigate any potential impacts. 1.C. 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. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.d. No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. i.e. 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 and use of watering trucks and the planting of permanat landscaping in distin'bed areas aff. er grading. No. The site has been graded and is vacant and unlandscaped. The proposed improvements will include bardscape and permanent landscaping. The improvements will deerease the mount of siltetion, deposition or erosion. Therefore, no significant impam are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.g. No. There will be no modification of water course or body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.h. Yes. The projea site is located within a liquefaction area. A Geoteehnical Report was prepared for the adjacent parcel. The project is conditioned to comply with the recommendations set forth in that report. The conditions placed upon this project will reduce this impact below a level of significance. 1.i. No. The project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Smdias Zone. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air 2.a. Yes. While this project will have a cumulative impact on the overall air quality of the South Coast Air Basin, this impact is not considered significant. This impact is not considered significant since the air emi-~sions from this project are not expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) threshold of significance. R:%STAFFRP'I~19PA94.1E~ 5/10/94 Idb 7 2.b,c. No. The proposed project will not result in the creation of objeetion~hle odors or an alteration of air movement, temperatures, or moisture or any change in climate either locally or regionally. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Water 3.a. No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will have a significant effect on any body of water. 3.b. Yes. The proposed project will increase the mount of impermeable surfaces on the site which will reducetheamountofwaterabso~p~on. A hydrology study prepared for the project has datermined that existing drainage facilities havc adequate capacity to handle the increased surface runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 3.c. No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in changes to the course or flow of flood waters. 3.d. No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in significant changes in the amount of su~ace water in any water body. 3.e. No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts is anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality. 3.f,g. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of ground waters. The proposed project will not interfere with the present ground water conditions. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 3.h. No. Due to the small size of the project, it is not anticipated that there will be a significant effect on the public water supply or system. 3.i. No. The project is not located in the 100-year flood plain or in a area that is subject to flooding. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated due to the fact that the project will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flood. Plant Life 4.a. No. The project site has been previously Faded. Currently, there are no native species of planm on the site. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 4.b. No. The project site has been previously Faded. Currently, there are no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants on the site. Therefore, there will be no siguificant impacts as a result of this project. R:~STAFFIIq'~19PA94.1ES 6110/94 klb 8 4.c. No. While the projec~ will inwoduce new species of plants through the addition of landscaping, the site has been previously graded and there ere no native species on this site. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 4.d. No. This property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the Draft General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Animal Ufe 5.a,c,d,e. No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. The site is curren~y graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this location. Therefore, there will be no significant impam to nnimnl life as a result of this projecL 5.b. No. The site is currently graded and is in an asea that h~ been experiencing urbani~a~on for a number of years. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat HabRat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees have been paid as part of the underlying parcel map to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Noise 6.a. Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during cunstruc~on. Coustruaion related impacts will be mitigated through the standard conditions of appwval for cunstruction activities which will be imposed by the Public Worl~ Deparunent. Long-term noise impacts will occur due w inereasad traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise sensitive. 6.b,c. No. Severe noise and severe vibrations will not be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Light and Glare Yes. The project site is located within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District. The lighting sumdards within this distria require that only low pressure sodium stree~ and security lights be installed and all other lighting must be oriented or shielded to reduce the glare in the night sky near the observatory. The impact of the additional light and glare will be mitigated by following the standards of the Mount Paiomar Observatory Special Lighting District (Ordinance No. 655) and through the appropriate design of the lighting system. L~nd Use 8.a. Yes. This site is currently vacant.. However, the General Plan Land Use Designation is Highway/Tourist Connnercial. The surrounding land uses ere also designated Highway/Touriat Commercial and Professional Office. The current zoning is General Commercial. The surrounding developed parcels are commercial and office uses. The intensification of the proposed use is not anticip_t_~ to be significant due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan. R:XSTAFFII~TX10PAD4.1ES 5110~94 kJb 9 8.b. No. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan Designation of Highway/Tourist Commercial and the current zoning designation of General Commercial. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Resources 9.a,b. No. This project, due to its' small size and nature, will result in a marginal increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and the depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource. Therefore, due w small increase in the use of natural resources, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Risk of Upset 10.a,b. No. The proposed use does not use or swre haT-qrdolB substances. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. lO.c. 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 Sheriff Depaxhuent. The project is design to have adequate access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Ponulation 11. No. The proposed project is expected to ereate approximately 45 jobs. The project will have a cumulative impact on the regions population but is not considered to be significant due to the small number of jobs created. Housin~ 12. No. The proposed conunercial project will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this Transportation/Circulation 13.a. No. This project will generate additional vehicular movement. However, a traffic study prepared for this project determined that the increase in traffic volume is not considered to be significant. The recent improvements construaed by Assessment Distria 88-12 on Ynez Road are sufficient to handle the increased traffic. 13.b. Yes. The project will create a need for additional parking spaces. The project has been designed to meet the City's requirements for parking. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 13.c. No. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. However, the traffic study prepared for this project has determined that this increase will not be significant. The traffic that is generated by the pwject may add an incremental impact to the M5 Interchanges which are currently operating at capacity during peak hours. This potential impact will be R:%STAF~19PA94.1ES 5110/94 Idb l0 mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee. There will not be a sigul~cant impact upon existing transportation systems due to the small size of the project. 13.d. No. The project has been designed so that there will not be alterations to present paRems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 13.e. No. The project is not located near, nor will it use waterbone, rail or air traffic. Therefore, there will be no signi~cnat impacts resulting form this project. 13.f. Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. However, the street improvements that have recently been constructed will reduce the impact below a level of significance. Public Services 14.a,b,e. No. The project will require public services in the areas of polica, fire, maintenance of roads, and public facilities. This impact is not considered significant due to the small size and nature of the project. 14.c,d,L No. Due to the small size and nature of the proposed project, there will be no substantial effects on these public services. 15.a,b. No. Due to the small size of this project, the project will not result in the use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy or substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Utilities 16.a,b,c,d, e,f,g. No. Adequate utilities exist for this project. The project has been conditioned to meet the requirements of all utilities to insure that any impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance. Human Health 17.a,b. No. The construction of this project will not create any health hazards. This project is not located near sensitive recepWrs. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 18.a,b,c. No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of theproposedproject erearchitecturaly compa~ble with the surrounding buildings. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. R:XSTAFFI~f~19PA94.1ES 5/10/94 Idb Recreation 19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses nor will the project create the need for additional facilities. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 20.a. No. The City's General Han does not identify this area as an "Area of Sensitivity for Archaeological Resources". The site is currently graded. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 20.b. No. The project site is vacant and does not contain any known prehistoric buildings, strut'tares or objects. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 20.c. No. The project site is vacant and its' development is not expected to significantly impact any known unique ethnic values. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. 20.d. No. The project site is vacant and is not known to have any existing religious or sacred uses. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. R:IS'rAFFRPT~lgP,~94.1ES 5/10/94 klb 12 IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustnining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or shims] species, or e|iminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Yes Maybe No X Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental 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 projea have impaas which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A projea's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the Wtal of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Does the project have enviromental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS* IMPACT FINDINGS Does the project have the potential to cause any advene effe~, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined as 'all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish end Game Code). Yes R:%STAFe-e,'I,,19PAO4,1ES 5/10/94 kJb ENVIRONMENTAL DKrv. ILMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and in the Condition of Approval that have been added to the project will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and 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. Prepared by: Signature Craia Ruiz. Assistant Planner Name and Title May 9. 1994 Date R:%STAFFl!~I'~19PA94.1es 5110/94 Idb 14 AI'I'ACHMENT NO, 4 EXHIBITS R;%STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 21 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT: A "C. DATE: June 6, 1994 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94,PC 513'1194 klb BP CITY OF TEMECULA M )S H EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL ~ O R-3 ~,, R.3 R'4 -S EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: C-P, GENERAL COMMERCIAL CASE NO.: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN P.C. DATE: June 6, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.PC 5/31/94 klb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT: D ""L DATE: June 6, 1994 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPTX19PA94.PC 5131/94 klb ATTACHMENT NO. 5 TRAFFIC STUDY R:\STAFFRPT%lgPA94.pC 6/1/94 Idb 22 March 11, 1994 May 3, 1994 (Revision No. TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS 1) Mr. Troy McClellan Project Architect Form Guild 34102 Violet Lantern Dana Point, CA 92629 Dear Mr. McClellan: As requested, we have conducted a traffic study to examine the adequacy of traffic circulation within the project site and the potential impact of project traffic on the existing shopping center driveways. Detailed study analyses are as follows: 1. Pro~ect Location and Description The proposed project will occupy approximately 1.932 acres of land situated at the northwest corner of the intersec- tion of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road in the City of Temecula (see Figure 1). The project site is within the existing Tower Plaza Shopping Center. The project will consist of a 10,200 square-foot Black Angus Restaurant. 2. Pro~ect Traffic Peak hour traffic generation forecasts for the proposed project are summarized below: AM Peak Traffic Hour Inbound Outbound Total PM Peak Traffic Hour Inbound Outbound Total Land Use Generation Rate Quality Restaurant 5.19 1.14 6.33 6.32 3.40 9.72 (Trips/TSF) Traffic Generation Quality Restaurant 53 12 65 65 35 100 (10.2 TSF) TSF denotes 1,000 square feet of floor area Source of Generation Rate: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use code 831(Quality Restaurant) 3100 MARYW00D DR. ORANGE, CA 92667 (714] 974-7863 FAX (714] 974-1043 Page 2 3. Proiect Trip Distribution and Assiqnments The directional distribution of the project-generated trips was estimated based on the existing traffic patterns and the surrounding land uses. Because of the service-oriented characteristic of this project, it can be reasonably estimated that 70% of the new trips generated by the project will be originated from south of the project site and the remaining 30% will be from the north. Based on these trip distribution percentages, project traffic was assigned as turning movements at the two Tower Plaza's southerly driveways (see Figure 2). 4. Site Access Direct access to the proposed project will be made at the two existing Tower Plaza's southerly driveways on Ynez Road. To determine the impact of future traffic generated by the proposed project on the operation of these driveways, existing driveway traffic turning movement volume counts were collected. A total of 133 egressing right-turn vehicles were observed at the southerly-most driveway during the P.M. peak traffic hour. These vehicles were observed to turn freely without any waiting delay. The total combined existing plus project traffic right- turning out of this driveway will be 133 + 25 = 158 vehicles per hour, or approximately 3 vehicles per minute. The available safe gap for traffic right-turning out of the driveway averages 8 vehicles per minute during the P.M. peak traffic hour. This exceptionally long safe gap occurs whenever the northbound left-turn signal phase is activated at the signalized Tower Plaza Shopping Center middle driveway. The driveway aisle between Ynez Road and the first parking circulation aisle that leads to the project site can store up to 6 vehicles. Therefore, no overflowing of queueing traffic will be anticipated to block this parking circulation aisle with the addition of project traffic. The middle driveway is presently signalized. This driveway can accommodate a total of 8 eastbound vehicles per lane. The left-turn pocket on Ynez Road can store up to 10 northbound left-turn vehicles. To assess the adequacy of this driveway and the northbound left-turn pocket to handle the additional project traffic, the following field observations were taken on 5-2-94 between 4:30 P.M. and 5:30 P.M.: The longest observed traffic queue waiting to exit out of this driveway consists of 4 left-turning vehicles and 2 right-turning vehicles. Page 3 b e No stacking problem was observed for the left-turn pocket on Ynez Road except for the short duration between 4:45 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. During this period, heavy northbound traffic left-turning into the Tower Plaza was observed to overflow out of the left-turn pocket. As evidenced from the field observations, no stacking problem was observed for either the eastbound left-turn or right-turn driveway exiting traffic. The addition of 10 project trips in an hour will not cause traffic stacking on this driveway. The existing stacking problem for northbound traffic left-turning into the Tower Plaza can easily be mitigated through the lengthening of left-turning signal timing. This left-turn stacking situation occurs only during the short duration between 4:45 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. However, the estimated 46 incoming restaurant trips will not begin until after 6:00 P.M. Exhibits "A" and "B" show the detailed level of service calculations for existing plus project traffic during the P.M. peak traffic hour for the two study Tower Plaza Shopping Center driveways. Results of these level of service calculations are outlined below for comparison: Tower Plaza Driveway Critical Traffic Turning Movement Level of Service Eastbound Eastbound Right-Turn Left-Turn Out of Plaza Out of Plaza Southerly A Driveway Northbound left-Turn Into Plaza Middle C C C Driveway Page 5 It has been a pleasure to serve you on this project. We trust that this traffic analysis will be of immediate assistance to you and the City of Temecula. If you have any questions concerning our finidngs and conclusions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call us at any time. Respectfully submitted, TP~AFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS C. Hui Lai, P.E. Traffic Engineer FIGURES TO~Ar'ER PLAZA EXISTING ARCO AM/PM EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAM )SED BLACK ANGUS RESTAURANT EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT FIGURE ] PROJECT VICINITY MAP EXISTING ARCO AM/PM EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAM >OSED ~LA~CK ANGU~~ ~: P.M. EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT FIGURE 2 PEAK HOUR pROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS ~as. ..i?~L~ ! ,~'TOWER PLAZA ! '.'~ . -- NORTH -4-94 4:30 to 5:30 PM ~ J ~_~j,xI' PM EXISTING ARCO AM/PM EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAN ~OPOSED BLACK ANG~i }~ EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT 4:45 to 5:45 P~-~ 3-10-94 FIGURE 3 EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 93-09 R:%STAFFRPT~19PAS4.PC 811194 Idb 23 ORDINANCE NO. 93--09 AN ORDINANCE OF 'FFrF, TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THR USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TE1VIECULA DOES Im~.RRRy ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Eiv._diagl That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporatexi 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 siam hw that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: A. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. B. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and t~king other actions, each of the following: 1. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal be'rag considered at the current time. - 2. 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. 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ord'mances. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest potion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this lime, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelin~ while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: C. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. O~ts 93~)9 -1- D. The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this tit/e, each of the following: 1. There is reasonable probability that this Ordinance No. 93-09 will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a rea,sonable time. 2. 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 ultrnately inconsistent with the plan. 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordthances. Section 2. Pumose The purpose of this Ordinance is to set forth the development standards for the inst~llation and maintenance of outdcor advertising displays within all land-use zones of the City. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design and location of outdoor advertising displays are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the City. It is a desire of the City that the design of this community be of the highest quality, that new development be architecturally distinctive as well as homogeneous in design, and that accessory facilities be compatible with the overall theme. The quality of signage plays a very distinctive role in achieving the above. When abused, signs can create a visual blight which detracts from the quality Of the environment and an individual's visual perception of the City. RecogniTing that the primary purpose of signs is proper business identification, the regu~tions of this Ordinance are enacted to: A. Ensure that signs erected within the City are compatible with their surroundings and are in keeping with the policies of the City; B. Provide for the identification of businesses and should not be used for advertising purposes; C. Promote traffic safety and community identity while also enhancing the quality of the visual environment of the City; and D. Establish regulations which control outdoor advertising displays within the City. Section 3. Definitions For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, tin'ms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the Orals 93-09 -1- context, words used in the present tense singular include the plural. A. "Commercial Off-Premise Sign" me,~ns any sign structure advertising an establishment, merchandise, service, or entertainment, which is not sold, produced, manufactured, or funfished at the property on which the sign is located. A commercial off- prernis= sign may be commonly known or referred to as an off-premis~s billboard. B. "Non-Commercial Off-Premise Sign' means any sign structure exhibiting non- commerchl speech or message in lieu of commercial sign copy; and any sign structure exhibiting non-commercial signing unrelated to the buying or selling of commodities or anything involved and practiced, Section 4. Prohibited Si~-ns The establishment of the following outdoor advertising displays are hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan, or other application discretionary entitlement for a outdoor advertising display shall be accepted, acted upon, or approve& Section 5. Exempt Outdoor Advertising Displays The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to any application for: A. Directional Signs, as defined in Chapmr 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code. B. On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.5 of the non- codifi_ed ordinances of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of Temecula under Ordinance No. 90-04). C. Non-commercial off-premises advertising smactures and signs, subject to the foliowing design and performance standards: less; Square footage of the sign board is limited to twelve (12) square feet or 2. There shall be no more than one (1) sign board per parcel; 3. Total height of a ground-mounted sign and supporting structure shall not exceed six (6] feet; 4. No sign shall be illuminated. Section 6. Non-conforming Outdoor Advcxfisin, g Displays All outdoor advertising ds ~3-09 displays, in any zone, lawfully constructed and erected prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinanc~ for the particular zone in which they are located, shall be accepted as non-conforming sign. Section 7. To the ext~nt the provisions of this Ordinance conflict with any provisions of Article XIX of Ordinance No. 348 the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply. Section 8. Effective Date This Ordinanc~ shall be in fall force and effect thirty · (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 9. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are sereruble and it 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 10. Environmental Compliance, The City Council hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b) (3). Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as requixed by laws. PASSED, APPROVED .4ND ADOPTED this llth day of May, 1993. ATTEST: SuC .oreek,C,C CityG kerk' ) k [SE~L] 0~ 93-09 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMO JUNE 14, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6/20/94 ktb 10 ~ / MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning ~,~/Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer June 14, 1994 PA 94-0019- Plot Plan Black Angus Restaurant @ Tower Plaza All Applicants/Developers are required to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the proposed project's generated traffic. Mitigation measures may be conditioned by the Department of Public Works to be implemented at intersections and approach legs experiencing an increase of 5% or more in peak hour traffic volumes based on existing traffic volumes. As determined by the Traffic Engineer, and reviewed by the Department of Public Works, the above project's traffic impact is 1.43% at the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road.'The signalized middle driveway, providing access to Tower Plaza is currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS C) and would continue to do so with the addition of the proposed project. The other southerly restricted access would continue to operate at a LOS A. The Traffic Engineer suggested that lengthening the northbound left turn signal timing for the middle driveway would alleviate the vehicle stacking problems at both the southerly and middle Tower Plaza driveways. Since this report was done, staff has extended the northbound left turn signal timing for the left turn pocket along Ynez Road into Tower Plaza middle driveway to 25 seconds. Consequently, that left turn pocket no longer experiences the stacking it did before. After consulting with the Traffic Engineer, it is staff's opinion that restricting the U turn movement at that intersection would not significantly improve stacking on that left turn pocket. Two accidents have occurred at that intersection since the improvements to Ynez Road were constructed and the signals were installed. Both accidents were due to driver's negligence; failing to stop at a red light. pwl 2\pourkaze~nem%O60794A ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES JUNE 2, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94,CC 6/20/9~ ktb 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DRAFT JUNE 6,1994 Dorese Rosner asked that language be added to Condition No. 22 specifying the screening of equipment. Ms. Rosner asked for clarification of Condition No. 52. Ray Casey explained this condition applied to the project only. Ms. Rosner asked staff to amend the condition to reflect it is project specific. Ms. Rosner asked staff to amend Condition No. 61 adding language that will allow for reimbursement in the future with CSD 88-12 regarding the purchase of right-of- ways. Ms. Rosner said the applicant feels the City ordinance which prohibited the tenant signs, was originally developed to address billboards and is not applicable to tenant signage within a shopping center. Commissioner Salyer said he does not agree with the traffic study. He said he feels the project will create a significant increase in the traffic on Ynez Road. Commissioner Blair expressed a concern that there may not be adequate parking at the proposed restaurant. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said he feels the center has more than enough capacity, the issue may be that someone has to walk a greater distance at peak dinner period. Engineer Casey said the traffic study suggests the timing for left turns into Tower Plaza could be increased. He said the City Traffic Engineer could discuss this with the Traffic Commission. Commissioner Hoagland said he feels this is a good project and a keystone element for this shopping center. He said the traffic report was prepared by a reputable firm. Commissioner Hoagland said he does not disagree that perhaps reviewing the ability to make a U-turn at the first signalized intersection north of Rancho California Road might not be a bad idea. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Chairman Ford to close the public hearing at 6:40 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA94-0019, Rot and Adopt Resolution No. 94- approving PA94- 0019, Plot Plan, based on the analysis and findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report, modifying the Resolution as suggested by staff, adding Condition of Approval No. 69 and modifying Conditions of Approval 22 and 52 as suggested by the applicant and agreed to by Staff. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Ford NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMIN06/06194 3 06/14194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PCMIN06106194 DRAFT Ju.E Commissioner Blair said she feels it is a good idea to get a traffic generator into the shopping center, however, she feels that placing the restaurant in the middle of the shopping center may generate more traffic to the merchants. Commissioner Blair said it is already difficult to get to the portion of the shopping where the restaurant is proposed. CommissionerSalyersaidheisconcernedwiththecurrenttrafficcongestion. Hesaid many individuals have expressed to him their concern with the traffic problems in this area. Engineer Casey said the project has very little impact on the intersection. Dennis Chiniaeff, representing Kernper, said if the U-turns are limited to left turns to the northbound traffic on Ynez, between the banks, then the traffic is moved into the middle of the shopping center. Chairman Ford advised this item will go forward to the City Council on appeal. PA93-0067, Minor Public Use Permit Proposal to allow a church in an existing building. Located at 27512 Enterprise Circle West. Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. Father Ed Renner, St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 27512 Enterprise Circle West, said many other churches are operating, that are not being required to provide parking as the church is being required to provide. Commissioner Hoagland suggested Conditions be added to the CUP stating that should the parking conditions deteriorate, the permit could be subject to revocation should the parking become inadequate and create a problem. Commissioner Hoagland asked if a license agreement would be applicable. Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz said the problem could be resolved by a real estate attorney. He said a personal easement could be applicable to this particular issue. Mr. Diaz said a license agreement would also be applicable as long as it is recorded. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. and to send this item back to the Planning Director, and direct him to approve this item with some of the ideas put forward by the Commission. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said the item could be approved at this hearing with direction that a condition be added acceptable to the Planning Director and City 4 06114194 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. PA94-0019,PLOT PLAN Proposal to construct a 10,200 square foot restaurant on a vacant 1.9 acre parcel in the General Commercial (C-P) zone. Located at the northwesterly corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Planner Ruiz advised that Page 9 of the Resolution, line two, will be revised to read "to construct a 10,200 square foot Black Angus Restaurant", deleting the reference to expanding an automobile dealership. Planner Ruiz said staff received a letter on this date from the Health Department requiring the applicant submit their plans to the Health Department. Staff has added Condition No. 69 which reads, "The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Environmental Health Transmittal dated June 6, 1994, a copy of which is attached. Commissioner Hoagland expressed that he feels the proposed water feature at the corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road is not appropriate for the area considering the past year's rainfall and the higher temperatures during the summer months. Commissioner Salyer said he is concerned with the traffic patterns and traffic flow to the project and this portion of the center. Ray Casey explained there are specifically no access points off of Rancho California Road or Ynez Road to this project. He said the problems in this area are a result of a traffic back-up at Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. Phillip Gilbert of Formbuild Architects, representing the American Restaurant Group, the operators of the Black Angus Restaurant. Mr. Gilbert said he was present to accept the conditions of approval for American Restaurant Group however he stated that the applicant is a leaseholder and has no authority to act upon Condition No. 61. Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz explained a leaseholder applying for a permit is the same as the underlying fee holder of the property. The leaseholder will be required to obtain the consent of the property owner. Dorese Rosner, representing Kernper Real Estate Management, asked for clarification of Condition No. 22. Craig Ruiz explained the applicant is being required to provide additional landscaping to adequately screen equipment. PCMIN06/06/94 2 06114194 G. Thornnii2 Jeff Stone~ President 6/11/94 Board of direetors~ Temecula. Dear Mr Stone and fellow Directors; I noticed by the Califorian that the building of a 31ack Angus on the corner of Rancho and rnez is being considered negatively.. Traffic doesnt seem to be a good reason to turndown a chance to have a beautiful estabishment such as the Black Angus' in our town. Their peak hours differs from our!normal high traffic hours..Flease reconsider and do put a Blank Angus on tha~ corner. I~s a good cover for Arco.. r H.E, &Mae V. Foster L 0 V E 40576 Calle r~ara ,- """"- ...... * - T~lt, "~' "~ CA 9~591 :.¥ = ~,: - \ .... "' ' ro~-Tl6o '-; . .: - ...... . ..... _ "- /S3& -=: ..... '~ ....... "- ~ USA 3eff Stone. City HatI 43174 Business park Dr. Temeclu, Ca. 92590' RE E. IVED JUN I 3 June 9, 1994 City of Temecula Planning Commission 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Stuart Anderson's Black Angus Gentlemen: I am once again stunned and amazed at the thought ~rocess of our city planners. I learned from an article in The Californian that the Planning Commission has turned down plans for the proposed Stuart Anderson's Restaurant on Ynez and Rancho California Road. The article stated that Arthur Salyer and Billie Blair felt the restaurant would create traffic. I would like to inquire as to what type of business could be on the site in question which would not create traffic. If a business does not create traffic, it will surely fail. Alot of money has been spent on that particular corner, are you saying that the money spent did not take into account future businesses that will be occupying this corner? Since word broke that a Stuart Anderson's may be coming to town, people have been talking about it. I have yet to hear any negative comments. It seems like it may even solve the problem of the large group of adults. in our Valley, who would like to go out and listen to music and dance. Shakespears and Tramps are over-run with younger people and those of us a little older would like a place to go too. I would like to suggest you reconsider your decision for a number of reasons. The most obvious being that if you are looking for a business at this location that will not bring traffic, we will never have anything there but an empty lot. Yours truly, Temecula Business Owner 40370 Via Francisco Mumeta, CA 92562 June 8, 1994 RECEIVED JUN 2 0 19N Mr. James Foimer, Editor The Californian 27450 Yne'/,.Road, Suite 300 Ternecula, CA 92591 Dear Mr. Folmer, We are writing in response to the article in your pa~er, today's dine, 'Temuda Planning Commission denies pruposed Black Angus'. It was urdoelievable that Arthur Salyer and Bile Blair could be so short-sighted and uncardng toward the Iocalloeo~etovote_-'~3~stthisenterptse. Thekcortcemfortrafficcorm'olal3Cearstobeun-inforrned. smce ffiere are three (3) enrance/extts to this site, two (2) of which are conl~olled by traffic ights. This area is not 'just a bedroom community', ~ere are peopte who reside here permaneqtly such as where we have Iocmed a~ The Colony, mMun'iem. Weareftom rnanywalks of life and areas andhavelong enjoyed dining m the Black Angus in years pam. It is a restaz.rant thm is affordable wibh good food and ser~ice to the Seniorc~t~-eq as well as the younger genermion. Thelocallon is idealwhere itis l3ro~osed. Wefeelsure thm anyone wishing to dine there would be willing to ddve to that loca~jon. lf the lane arrangement frm Jefferson to Ynez on Winchestar is the result of Ibis 'Planning Commission', well enough said, they sure demonstrated lack of judg~nent there by not 'planning' ahead! We are glad an al~eal to the decision will be made and whole heartedly sul:Ix~rt that ap,oeal. Arthur and Billie should wake up and small the seafood/steak/chk:ken. Sincerely, Mildred M. McGlashan cc:City Commission ITEM 20 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPRO~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning. June 28,1994 Master Conditional Use Permit Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council: Read by Title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS" BACKGROUND The City Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on November 5, 1993 to investigate the feasibility of developing a major destination entertainment facility in and around the Old Town area. During the preliminary development of this project, Staff identified the need for a mechanism to permit the development of the facility while ensuring the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Master Conditional Use Permit would create a simplified two-step permitting process that allows the City Council to approve the Master Conditional Use Permit (with a Planning Commission recommendation) and allows the Director of Planning to approve the specific building(s) and facilities. The provisions of the proposed Ordinance are intended to: · Apply only to public-private development projects for which the City is a partner in; Provide for the specific approval of project facilities or uses in specified general locations; Incorporate all specified mitigation measures identified during the environmental review process; Satisfy the requirements for specific conditional use permit in the City zoning ordinance; and R:\STAFFRPT~MCUP-ORD.CC 6/20/94 Idb Facilitate the timely development of certain complex City-private sector development projects. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance was considered by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1994. The Commission made one minor change to the ordinance. The change would allow the use of a master conditional use permit only its use is specifically authorized in an approved memorandum of agreement or development agreement. The Commission then adopted Resolution PC 94-018 which recommended that the Council adopt the proposed Ordinance. Adoption of the proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance will facilitate the approval process for the Old Town Redevelopment (Buffman) Project by providing an innovative land use approval tool. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the Director of Planning has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Staff has reviewed the proposed Ordinance and has determined that the Ordinance is consistent with the following policies contained in the City's adopted General Plan: · Land Use Element Policies: 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 · Community Design Element Policy: 2.4 As a result, the proposed Ordinance has been determined to be consistent with the adopted City General Plan. FISCAL IMPACT No Fiscal Impact is anticipated from the adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Attachments: 1. CC Ordinance No. 94- - Page 3 2. PC Resolution No. 94-018- Page 9 R:\STAFFRPT~MCUP-ORD.CC 6120194 klb 2 A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 94-,__ R:\STAFFRP'~MCUP~3RD.CC 6/20/94 ldb 3 A'I-rACIilVIF_,I~FF NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 94- ~ ORDIN'ANCE OF TIIF, CrFY COU'NCH- FOR T,HE CITY OF TEIV~_,CIJ1,A _,MViF, NDING ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE PROVISIONS AND RF, Q~S FOR TILE, APPROVAL OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: A. That according to State Planning and Zoning Law, a City may adopt locally appropriate zoning and development regulations; B. That the City Council adopted the zoning regulations for the County of Riverside by reference shortly after incorporation; C. That the Council has determined there is a need to amend the current zoning regulations to create an appropriate mechanism for permitting the timely and efficient development of joint public-private projects; D. That an appropriate mechanism for permitting joint public-private projects is the Master Conditional Use Permit; and, E. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. Section 2. Ordinance Section 18.48 is hereby added to Article XVHI of Ordinance No. 348 to read as follows: "Section 18.48. MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS a. Purpose and Intent. The City Council has enacted this section to facilitate the timely and efficient development of large scale joint public-private projects. This section may be applied to any large scale development project for which the City of Temecula, Temecuh Redevelopmerit Agency, Temecula Community Services District, or Temecula Industrial Development Authority has entered into a memorandum of understanding or development agreement to jointly investigate, consider, develop or construct a project, and the memorandum or agreement specifically authorizes the use of the master conditional use permit process. This section is intended to provide for the specific approval of project facilities or uses in general locations. A Master Conditional Use Permit satisfies the requirements for specific conditional use permit(s) identified in the City zoning ordinance. b. Application Requirements. Applications for a Master Conditional Use Permit shall be submitted to the Planning Department on City application forms together with all fees, plans and any other information required by Section 18.26 of Ordinance 348 and the Director of Planning. c. Hearing and Notice. Upon determination that an application for a Master Conditional Use Permit is complete, a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be noticed and scheduled in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 18.26. The Director and Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall be the final hearing body for Master Conditional Use Permits. d. Findings. To approve or conditionally approve a Master Conditional Use Permit, the City Council must make the following findings: 1. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan, the development code, and applicable specific plans. 2. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with a signed memorandum of understanding or development agreement between the City and a private party. 3. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit will result in a tangible and substantial public benefit. 4. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and that the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, and structures. 5. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the zoning ordinance. 6. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general weftare of the community. 7. The subsequent site specific development permits will be submitted and approved to incorporate all appropriate environmental impact mitigation measures and related on- and off-site improvements. e. Conditions of Approval. A Master Conditional Use Permit Shall not be granted unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use(s) will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general weftare of the community. Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety or general weftare of the community. f. Subsequent Development Permits. 1. No specific use or activity authorized by a Master Conditional Use Permit may be initiated, and no authorized structure may be erected or used, unless a site specific development permit or plot plan has been approved by the Director of Planning. 2. The application for the subsequent approval(s) shall include the appropriate fee and shall be made in a manner and on the forms specified by the Director of Planning. 3. The Director of Planning shall ensure that all appropriate environmental impact mitigation measures and related on- and off-site improvements are made conditions of, or prerequisites to, the approval of the subsequent development permit. 4. The Director of Planning shall make a fmding that any proposed subsequent development permits are consistent with the conditions identified in the approved Master Conditional Use Permit. 5. After a duly noticed public hearing, the Director of Planning may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a subsequent site specific development permit. The Director may deny any application that is inconsistent with the approved Master Conditional Use Permit or the mitigation measures in the certified environmental document, or if the proposed subsequent development permit does not meet the performance standards contained in the zoning ordinance, or an applicable approved specific plan. g. Transferability of Master Conditional Use Permit. No Master Conditional Use Permit may be transferred or assigned without the specific written approval of the City Council. h. Use of Master Conditional Use Permit. 1. Unless otherwise provided in the conditions of approval, a Master Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void three (3) years after approval unless the permittee has commenced the conditionally approved use(s). Commencement of the use(s) shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of the authorized use(s), which construction must thereafter be pursued diligently to completion, or in the case of an existing building, the actual occupancy of the building or land under the terms of the approved permit. 2. Prior to the expiration of the Master Conditional Use Permit, the permittee may request an extension of time in which to use the permit. For good cause, two (2) twelve (12) month time extensions may be granmd by the City Council. The City Council may add additional conditions or requirements to the conditions of approval when approving a time extension. The request for an extension of time shall be made on the forms and in the manner prescribed by the Director of Planning. i. Revocation of a Master Conditional Use Permit. Any Master Conditional Use Permit may be revoked upon the f'mdings and procedures contained in Section 18.31." R:\STAFFRPT\MCUP-OED.CC 6/20/94 klb 6 Section 3. Environmental Compliance The City Council determines that this amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act because adoption of this ordinance will have no impact on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). Each application for a Master Conditional Use Permit will undergo the appropriate environmental analysis and review when specific applications are made. Section 4. Sevembility The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are sereruble and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1994. RON ROBHITS MAYOR June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CAI .II~ORNIA COUNTY OF R/VERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMEULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 94- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1994, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEIvlBRS COUNCILM~'MBERS COUNCILIVlEMBERS .FU'NE S. CITY CLERK ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-018 ATFACH]VfF_aNT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-018 "A RESOLUTION OF TWF~ PLANNING CO1VIMIqSION FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMFArDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ~ ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE PROVEIONS AND REQUIRES~,NTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS"" WIIEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the non- codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348; and, WIW. REAS, such regulations do not contain adequate provisions concerning the development of some public-private joint venture projects; and, WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance would provide another mechanism to facilitate the timely development of joint public-private projects; and, WI~REAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WIIEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WItF. REAS, a public hearing were conducted on June 6, 1994, at which time interested persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support or opposition. NOW, TWEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby fmds that the proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance will provide for the timely and efficient implementation of joint venture projects for which the City is an active partner. Section 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further fmds that the proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. Section 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula funher finds that the proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impacts on the environment and has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). R:~STAFFRFBMCXFP-ORD.CC 6/20194 lab 10 Section 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council that the Council adopts the proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994. STEVEN I. FORD CHARMAN I ItF. REBY 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 day of , 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI4IIJ, SECRETARY R:L~TAFFRPT\MCUP-ORD.CC 6/20/94 lab 11 ITEM 2 1 APPRO~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planningl;~/ June 28, 1994 Planning Application No. 94-0035 - Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of a Thirty (30) Foot High Freeway Oriented Sign for the Ynez Car Care Center. Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission Recommends the City Council: Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 - APPEAL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO APPROVE A THIRTY (30) FOOT HIGH, ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FEET IN AREA FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGN LOCATED AT THE REAR PORTION OF THE YNEZ CAR CARE CENTER AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 921-720-008. BACKGROUND The project as originally submitted was for two signs - a fifteen foot high monument sign along Ynez Road and a forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign. Staff's recommendation in the May 2, 1994, Agenda Report was to deny both signs. The report recommended that both signs be lower in height (the monument sign along Ynez at 12 feet in height and the freeway oriented sign at approximately 25-30 feet in height). Staff's basis for this recommendation was that no other monument signs along Ynez Road had been approved by the City in excess of eight feet in height. In addition, Staff had concerns about the freeway oriented sign - the proliferation of this type of signage along Interstate 15, the aesthetic impact of trimming trees along the freeway, and the difference in scale between the building and the sign. However, prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with Staff and submitted a design for the monument sign at twelve feet in height. Staff felt that this height was reasonable because the sign was a multi-tenant sign and the City had previously approved signs at this height. Staff modified their recommendation of the monument sign to approval. Staff still requested direction from the Commission regarding the height of the freeway oriented sign. R:\STAFFRFf~SPA94.CC 6/20/94 klb The Planning Commission supported Staff's modified recommendation for the twelve foot high monument sign along Ynez Road. In addition, they upheld the recommendation in the Agenda Report for a freeway oriented sign that was lower than forty feet in height. They directed Staff to bring revised Resolutions (the one's in the Agenda Report recommended denial) back to them with Staff's recommendation at their next meeting. After the May 2, 1994 Commission meeting, Staff directed the applicant to contact CALTRANS to determine the extent of "pruning" that could be done to enhance visibility of the sign at the lower heights. The applicant informed Staff that CALTRANS does not allow people to top the trees; however, they may be laced and trimmed with the approval of plans that meet their criteria. In addition, CALTRANS requires that the sign be erected prior to the submittal of these plans. It was Staff's position that this would pose a hardship on the applicant. Staff brought back a resolution to the Planning Commission for a forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign. The Commission approved the sign at the height recommended in the May 2, 1994 Agenda report (25-30 feet high). The applicant appealed the decision, requesting that the Council direct staff to approve the originally requested height of 40 feet for the proposed sign. The reasoning for the appeal is that Section 19.4 of Ordinance No. 348 allows up to a forty-five (45) foot high sign within 660' feet of the freeway right-of-way. A flag test was conducted per City policy and the test concluded that the sign was clearly visible at a height of forty (40) feet at a distance of 3/10 of a mile from the sign location (this distance is chosen to allow motorists to transition from the fast lane to the exit lane safely once they see the sign), FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments: Resolution No. 94- - Page 3 Planning Commission Staff Report: May 2, 1994- Page 7 Draft Planning Commission Minutes: May 2, 1994 - Page 8 R:~STAFFRPT~35PA94.CC 6/20/94 kib 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFP, PT~SPA94,CC 6/20/94 kJb 3 Ai-IACHNIE~T NO. ] RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T1TE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 APPEAL UPHOLDING THY. PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO APPROVE A TITIRTY (30) FOOT HIGH, ONE I]'LrNDI~Rr~ FIFTY (150) SQUARE FEET IN AREA FIH~.EWAY OIHY~NTED SIGN LOCATED AT THE REAR FORTION OF ~ YNEZ CAR CARE CENTER AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 921-720-008. WHEREAS, Larry Gabele Fried Planning Application No. 94-0035 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 94-0035 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WITEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 94-0035 on May 2, 1994; WHEREAS, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. 94-0035; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 94-0035 for a thirty (30) foot high freeway oriented sign; WHEREAS, larry Gabele fried an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding Planning Application No. 94-0035 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding Planning Application No. 94-0035; W/IRREAS, the City Council considered Planning Application No. 94-0035 on June 28, 1994; NOW, THY~REFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecuh City Council hereby makes the following f'mdings: R:\STAFFRPTX35pA94.CC 6;20/9~, lab 4 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The sign provides design excellence in signage, and it serves to preserve and enhance the positive qualities of individual districts. Further, it contributes to a streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfaxe. The height selected for the sign is the minimum necessary for effective identification of the site. 3. The project conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign is the minimum necessary for effective identification of the site. A. As condifioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. 94-0035 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. This project is a Categorical Exemption per Article 19, Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This Exemption states: "Class 11 consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities, including but not limited to on-premise signs." Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:~STAFFRI~T~3$PA94.CC 6/20/94 Iflb 5 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 199 . RON ROBBRTS MAYOR ATI'~ST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAn] STATE OF CAI-WORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the __ day of , 199__ by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COLTNCII,]ERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: C 0UNCILIVlEMBERS: JUNE S. G]~.~ CITY CI ,I~-RK R:\STAFFRPT~35PA94.CC 6/20/94 klb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 2, 1994 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 2, 1994 Planning Application No. 94-0035 Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- denying Planning Application No. 94-0035 for a monument sign on Ynez Road and a forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: J. Larry Gabele REPRESENTATIVE: America West Signs & Neon PROPOSAL: A one hundred fifty (150)square foot, forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign and a eighty-six (86) square foot, fifteen (15) foot high monument sign on Ynez Road LOCATION: 26672 Ynez Road (Ynez Car Care Center) EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) C-P (General Commercial) C-1/C-P (General Commercial) Interstate 15 PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SC (Service Commercial) EXISTING LAND USE: Multi-Tenant Automotive Car Care Center SURROUNDING LAND USES:' North: South: East: West: Toyota of Temecula Norm Reeves Chrysler/Plymouth Retail Commercial Interstate 15 R:%STAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 4/2il/94 edl PROJECT STATISTICS Freeway Oriented Sion Height: Forty (40) feet Area of Sign: One hundred fifty (150) square feet Number of Tenants on Sign: Six (6) Monument Sian Height: Fifteen (15) feet Area of Sign: Eighty-six (86) square feet Number of Tenants on Sign: Fourteen (14) BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA94-0035 was submitted to the Planning Department on April 20, 1994. A flag test was conducted on April 20, 1994. Planning Application No. 94-0035 was deemed complete on April 25, 1994. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Ynez Car Care Center currently consists of two multi-tenant buildings on three parcels. One parcel remains vacant at this time. The applicant proposes two free-standing signs, each one on a separate parcel. One is a one hundred fifty (150) square foot, forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign and the second is an eighty-four (84) square foot, fifteen (15) foot high monument sign on Ynez Road for the Ynez Car Care Center. The freeway oriented sign identifies the center as well as six of the tenants. The applicant has submitted two (2) different designs for the monument sign along Ynez Road. Both signs are approximately fifteen feet in height. They identify the center, and have space for identification of fourteen tenants. ANALYSIS Provisions Contained in Ordinance No. 348 Section 19.1 of Ordinance No. 348 states: "It is the intent of this ordinance to provide standards to safeguard life, health and property and the public welfare, to provide the means for adequate identification of businesses and other sign uses by prohibiting, regulating and controlling the design, location, and maintenance of signs." It is with this authority that the Planning Department reviews sign submittals, Section 19.4 also contains criteria for free-standing signs located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right-of way line and free-standing signs for "all other locations." The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 45 feet in height and the maximum surface area shall not exceed 150 square feet if it is within the 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right-of way line. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 20 feet in height and a maximum surface area of 50 square feet for those signs located in all other areas. The proposed freeway-oriented sign is within 660 feet of Interstate 15. R:~STAFFRPT~35PAg4.PC 4/28194 =all 2 Precedent Established Alone Ynez Road Although Ordinance No. 348 provides for signs up to a maximum of twenty (20), Staff has been attempting to keep the height of monument signs around six (6) feet in height. This has come through the direction and support of the Planning Commission and City Council. Signs that have been approved by the City of Temecula along the portion of Ynez Road where the proposed sign is to be located have been limited to approximately six (6) feet in height. Since the City's incorporation, three auto dealership signs have been approved (Nissan, Toyota and Chevrolet). In all three cases, the signs are approximately six feet in height. Most recently, Norm Reeves Auto Group applied for a twenty (20) foot high sign. This item was taken before the Planning Commission; whereby, the Commission denied the application based upon the height of the sign and the precedent that had been created in the area. After the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with the Planning Director and Staff. A site visit was conducted and based upon the analysis of all of the facts, a slight increase in height was granted. This variation from the six foot high sign was allowed because visibility at that site was blocked by the tall power line poles. Staff hds made the applicant aware of the six (6) foot high policy on a number of occasions. To allow each existing business along with future businesses, to erect fifteen (15) foot high signs along Ynez Road would result in visual blight, unless there in Staff's opinion are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the project. In this case, it is Staff's opinion that there are no circumstances to warrant an increase in the height of the sign to fifteen feet. Monument Sian on Ynez Road The monument sign that is proposed along Ynez Road is approximately fifteen (15) feet in height and eight-four (84) square feet in area, with space for fourteen tenants to be listed on the sign. The maximum area permitted under Ordinance No. 349 is fifty (50) square feet. In addition, as discussed above, precedent has already been established along this section of Ynez Road. The sign as proposed exceeds the height of other signs within the area. Although the sign is for a multi-tenant center, the precedent has also already been established for the number of tenants within a center that identify themselves on the free-standing center sign. Some of these examples exist at Palm Plaza, Tower Plaza and Palomar Village. The maximum number of tenants listed on these signs is approximately four (4). The applicant proposes to list fourteen (14) tenants on the sign. Freeway Oriented Sian The maximum height allowed for a freestanding sign located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right-of-way shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet and the maximum surface area of a sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. The proposed sign is approximately one hundred fifty (150) square feet in area. A flag test is conducted in order to ascertain the appropriate height of any freeway oriented signs. The position of the Planning Department is to recommend heights to the Planning Commission that will provide the maximum amount of identification at the lowest possible height. A flag test was conducted for this sign on April 20, 1994. Staff observed the flag both northbound and southbound along Interstate 15. The distance of 3/10 of a mile from the site was utilized as a standard in order to allow people to transition from the fast lane to the lane closest to the exit ramp. At this distance, the sign was clearly visible at forty (40) feet and forty-five (45) feet in height. Trees obscured the sign at heights lower than this at this distance. Staff recommended to the applicant's representative that they consider contacting CALTRANS in order to trim the trees R:~STAFFRP*r~35PAS4.pC 4/28194 edl 3 FINDINGS The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Neither free-standing sign provides design excellence in signage, nor do they preserve and enhance the positive clualities of individual districts. Further, they do not contribute to a streetscape system that provides cohesivehess and enhances community image. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. To allow each existing business, along with future businesses, to erect fifteen {15) foot high signs along Ynez Road and forty (40) foot high free-standing signs adjacent to Interstate 15 would result in visual blight. To approve projects that would result in visual blight would be contrary to the general welfare of the community. The project does not conform to the logical development of the land and is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. Based upon direction from the City Council and Planning Commission, Staff has not approved any signs in this area along Ynez Road in excess of six feet with the singular exception being Norm Reeves which was permitted at eight (8) feet due to site visibility constraints. To approve a fifteen (15) foot free standing sign at this location would not conform to the logical development of the land and would be inconsistent with present and future logical development in the area. The forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign is not compatible with the scale of the buildings that are located on the site. The maximum height of these buildings is approximately twenty-three (23) feet, with tower elements approximately twenty-eight (28) feet. Attachments: PC Resolution No. 94- Exhibits - Blue Page 9 - Blue Page 6 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. Site Plan D. Elevations El. Freeway Oriente~l Sign E2. Monument Sign(s) R:~STAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 41211194 dl 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94.- R:',STAFFRPT%35PA84.PC 4128/94 edl 6 ATTA~ NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- A I~F-~OLUTION OF T~F. PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 94-003~ - A REQUEST FOR A FORTY (40) FOOT HIGH, ONE HUNDI~k'n ~'w-l'Y (150) SQUARE F~.F.T IN AREA FIt~.k'zWAY OBH~ITED SIGN AND A ~ (15) FOOT HIGH, EIGHTY-FOUR (84) SQUARE FEET IN AREA MONUME~NT SIGN ALONG YNt. z ROAD LOCATED AT 26672 YNF_,Z ROAD (Yl%1Z CAR CARE CENTER) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUlVIBERS 921-720-008 921-720-010. WREREAS, Larry Gabele fried p|anning Application No. 94.0035 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, wkich the City has adopted by reference; WI~REAS, Planning Application No. 94-0035 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; Vv'w~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered planning Application No. 94-0035 on May 2, 1994; WnT. REAS, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. 94-0035; NOW, TI~F.R~FORE, Tn~. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~r~. CITY OF Ti~IECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FO/_LOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations axe true and correct. Section 2. ~ A. The Planning Commission in denying Planning Application No. 94-0035, makes the following fredlugs, to wit: 1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Neither free- standing sign provides design excellence in signage, nor do they preserve and enhance the positive qualifies of individual districts. Further, they do not contribute to a streetscape system that provides cohesivehess and enhances community image. 2. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and genera] weftaxe. To allow each existing business, along wiffi future businesses, to erect fifteen (15) foot high signs along Ynez Road and forty (40) foot high free- R:\STAF:F:RPT%3SPA94,pC .4/28194 edl 7 standing signs adjacent to Interstate 15 would result in visual blight. To approve projects that would result in visual blight would be contrary to the general welfare of the community. 3. The project does not conform to the logical development of the land and is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. Based upon direction from the City Counc~ and Phnning Commission, Staff has not approved any signs in this area along Ynez Road in excess of six feet with the singular exception being Norm Reeves which was permitted at eight (8) foet due to site visibility constraints. To approve a fifteen (15) foot free standing sign at this location would not conform to the logical development of the land and would be inconsistent with pre,~nt and future logical development in the area. The forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign is not compatible with the scale of the buildings that are located on the sit~. The maximum height of these buildings is approximately twenty-three (23) feel, with tower elements approximately twenty-eight (28) feet. Section 3. Environmental Complian6e. This project is a Statutory exemption per Article 18, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This Exemption states: "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." Section 4. PASSED, AImlOVED AND ADOPTED this 2rid day of May, 1994. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ltV. REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COM1VIISSION,~tS: PLANNING CO1VI1VIISSIONFiS: GARY THORNln~J. SECR~'LA.RY R:\STAFFRP"D,3SPA94,PC 4/2~/94 8dl 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:%STAFFRrl"%35PA94,PC 4128/94 edl 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 "'HIBIT: A .;. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA BP ~P F i I P EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ,/ SERVICE COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT C ZONING DESIGNATION: CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 P.C. DATE: 'MAY 2, 1994 SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL R:~FAGANM\REPORT$~351~A94.PC 4/22/94 mf CITY OF TEMECULA MONUMENT SIGN TOYOTA DEALERSHIP n'I;'L~iLJ-I-EI-IIIIIIIIInlIIIIII ~,;,~2_.~lJll~ . ; :--.' .~. · ,_ ~.' : :~.--, ,~..~~~'/ "' , ,-t,. '._'~!' '~ ' T :. ~,.~ ' iF.,Epi!.-AGLE DEAbE~.SIIIP FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGN CASE N~3.: pLANNING AppLICATION NO. 94...0035 EXHIBIT: D , ' . DATE: MAY 2, 1994. SITE PLAN R:,,FAGANM\~EpORTS%31pA~4..pC 41221g4 mt CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 EXHIBIT: E2 ;. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 MONUMENT SIGN(S) R:~,$TAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 412~r/94 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 EXHIBIT: E2 P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 MONUMENT SIGN(S) R:\STAFFRPT'~35PA94,pC 4/28/94 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 1994 R:\STAFFRF~35!mA94.CC 6/20/94 klb 8 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING b, lf~ OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION .~d~/i~, MONDAY, MAY 2, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was held on Monday May 2, 1994, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: ABSENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford 1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher and Recording Secretary Gall Ziglet. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADoroyal of Aaenda tt was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the agenda as mailed. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Director's Hearino Update Report included as part of the agenda. Blair, Fahey, Hoagiand, Ford None -. Salyer NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM PCMIN0510211994 Planning Aoolication No. PA94-0035 Proposal by Ynez Car Care Center for a 40' high freeway sign and a 15' high monument sign on Ynez Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02, 1994 staff report. He advised the Commission the applicant has re-submitted their application for the 15' sign which is reduced to 12', a height staff feels is appropriate for the location. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said the applicant wanted to address the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair not to permit the applicant to speak on this item. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer The applicant, Larry Gabele, provided the Commission with photographs of the proprosed sign location. He advised the Commission the only access to the property is shared jointly with Toyota of Temecula. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to direct staff to re-write the resolution and the findings to the recommendation and bring this item back before the Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Planning Commission Location Chanae Inform Commission of change in location of meetings to the Rancho California Water District Board Room beginning June 1, 1994 Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve staff recommendation. PCMIN05/021 t 9~4 2 05/I 1194 ITEM 22 APPROVAL R~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: June S. Greek, City Clerk DATE: June 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Approval of Election Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT THE GENERAL MUNCIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994. 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES. BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation in December, 1989, the City Council of the City of Temecula determined to hold elections for the City Council in even numbered years to be held concurrently with the Statewide General Election. It was the desire of the Council to hold these elections at this time so that election costs could be minimized through consolidation with the election being conducted by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. Pursuant to Elections Code Sections 22003 and 23302, a municipality may request this consolidation with the General Election and may request that the Registrar of Voters conduct the municipal election, canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects if if there were only one election. This request must be made in the form of a resolution which delegates certain powers and duties of the Election Officer for the City of Temecula to the County Elections Department. This delegation does not include services routinely conducted by the City Clerk such as advertising requirements for filing periods and all campaign filings including nomination papers and campaign statements. The second resolution that the Council is being asked to adopt is the formal resolution calling and giving notice of the election. This is a requirement of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities. It also authorizes the City Clerk to give all notices of the election in the time, form and manner required by the election code. JSG RF_,SOLUTION NO. ~.__ A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, REQUESTING ~ SERVICES OF THE COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ET.~CTION TO BE HELr} ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula, California, called a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 1994, for the purpose of the election of three (3) members of the City Council and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the county election department of the County of Riverside canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were oniy one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That pursuant to Sections 22003 and 23302 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside is hereby requested to conduct the General Municipal Election in consolidation with the statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 8, 1994, for the purpose of the election of two (2) Members of the City Council of the City of Temecnla. Section 2. That, except for those services routinely conducted by the City Clerk, delegation is hereby made to the county elections department of the powers and duties of the elections officer for the City of Temecula to conduct said election in accordance with all applicable laws and procedures. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used for each of the two (2) effected Councilmanic positions. Section 3. That, in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, said election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in said City. Section 4. That the City of Temecula recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County, by reason of this consolidation, and agrees to reimburse the County for such additional costs. Section 5. That the Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside is hereby authorized, instructed and directed to give such further or additional notice of said election, in time form and manner as required. Section 6. That said Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election. Section 7. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors, the county elections department of the County of Riverside and with the County Clerk. Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVI~X) AND ADOPTED, this 281h day of June, 1994. ATI'/~T: Ron Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECLrLA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 94- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 281h day of June, 1994, by the following vote: CO~C~MtS: NOES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: CO~CILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RE~OLUTION OF T!:!F, CITY COUNCIL OF TFIE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAL~ORNIA, CAIJ-ING AND GIVING NOTICE OF ~ HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ~IJ~-CTION TO BE ~ELI} ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR THY~ ~LI~£TION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUII~k'T} BY TB'E PROVISIONS OF ~ LAWS OF THE STATE OF CAIJFORNIA R~LATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES. W~ERFAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 3, 1992, for the election of Municipal Officers; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Temecula, California, on TUesday, November 8, 1994, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing two (2) Members of the City Council for the full term of four years. Section 2. required by law. That the ballots to be used at the election shnll be in form and content as Section 3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. Section 4. That the Foils for the election shall be open at seven o'clock AM on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock PM of the same day when the Foils shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14301 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Section 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. Section 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. 2/Rcsos/21 1 Section 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 281h day of June, 1994. A'ITEST: Ron Roberrs, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALr~ORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 94-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 281h day of June, 1994, by the following vote: COUNCIL~ER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBEE: COUNCILMIi~MBER: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 23 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council June S. Greek, City Clerk June 28, 1994 Re-adoption of Curfew Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 1. Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.12 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted a curfew ordinance on July 24, 1990, which provided for the enactment of provisions to protect the public health, safety and welfare through establishment of curfew regulations. At the time the City Council was reviewing the Temecula Municipal Code for adoption in its codified form, the legal review by Book Publishing Company pointed out a section of the curfew ordinance that was superseded by the State Penal Code. Local ordinances which prohibit conduct prohibited by state law are void to the extent of the duplication. This was noted and at the time the City Council was asked to adopt Ordinance No. 93-04 which made technical and conforming amendments to the Municipal Code in preparation for codification, a section was inadvertently added which repealed the curfew ordinance in its entirety, rather than just the duplicate section. When it came to my attention that the Municipal Code did not include curfew provisions, I researched the history and discovered the error. As a result, I am presenting for your consideration a properly edited version of the previously adopted ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: JSG Proposed Ordinance No. 94- Ordinance No. 90-11 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE, C1TY COUNCIL OF TFff~ CITY OF TEMF_flHA ADDING CHAFFER 9.12 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICH'AL CODE PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF T~VIECULA DOES HERFRY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula has adopted this Ordinance in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 2. Chapter 9.12 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code, which shall read as follows: ~¢ctions: 9.12.010 9.12.020 9.12.030 9.12.040 "CHAPTER: 9.12 CURFEW FOR MINORS Intent. Curfew Established. Exceptions to Curfew. Violation of Curfew by Minor. 9.12.010 Intent. In enacting this Chapter, it is the intent of the City Council to protect children of immature age, to promote the safety and good order in the community, and to reduce the incidence of juvenile criminal and other anti-social behavior. 9.12.020 Curfew Established. It is unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter or idle upon public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds, places or buildings between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. of the day immediately following. 9.12.030 Exc~tions to Curfew. The provisions of Section 9.12.020 shall not apply in the following circumstances: R:~ORDS~65 I A. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age. B. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is returning directly home from school or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational activity, dance, or place of lawful employment. C. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is going directly from home to school or to a school-sponsored meeting or to place of lawful employment. D. When the person is under eighteen (18) years of age is accompanied by his or her adult spouse. E. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is directly in route from school or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational activity, dance or place of lawful employment to a place where food is served to the public. This exception shall continue during the time which is reasonably required to obtain and consume food at such place and to proceed directly home from such place. F. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is performing, or is in mute directly home from performing, an emergency errand pursuant to the request or direction of an adult person who is charged with the care and custody of the minor performing the errand. 9.12.040 Violation of Curfew by Minor-Punishment. A. Each person under the age of eighteen (18) years, who viohtes subsection (a) of Section 9.12.020 of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be dealt with in accordance with State law and procedures governing the pwsecution of minors who are charged with infractions. B. Nothing contained in this Section shall be consruled to prohibit the diversion of juvenile violators of Section 9.12.020 or of this Section 9.12.040 to non-criminal programs for disposition of such violations, such as youth court proceedings.' Section 3. SEVERABILrrY 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. R:\ORD$~6S 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199_, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199_, by the foilowing vote, to wit: C OUNC]LMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: C OUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\ORDS~65 4 ORDINANCE NO. 90-11 AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAFFER 11.10 TO ~ TElVlECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ~ ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Cfr Y' OF TEMECULA DOES I-]F~-RY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PURPOSE: The City Council of the City of Temecula has adopted this Ordinance in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 2. Chapter 11.10 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Cede, which shall read as follows: CHAPrk~R: 11. I0 CURFEV~ FOR MINORS Sections: 11.10.010 11.10.020 11.10.030 11.10.040 11.10.050 Intent. Curfew Established. Exceptions to Curfew Violation of Curfew by Minor Responsibility of Adult for Curfew Violations. 11.10.010 Intent. In enacting this Chapter, it is the intent of the City Council to protect children of immature age, to pwmote the safety and good order in the community, and to reduce the incidence of juvenile criminal and other anti-social behavior. 11.10.020 Curfew Established. It is unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter, idle, wander, stroll, phy or be present in or upon public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, phygrounds, places or buildings between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. of the day immediately foliowing. 11.10.030 Exceptions to Curfew. The provisions of Section 11.10.020 shah not apply in the following circumstances: (a) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age. 3/Reao~/Ordlg0-11 (b) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is returning directly home from school or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational activity, dance, or place of hwful employment. (c) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is going direc~y from home to school or to a school-sponsored meeting or to place of lawful employment. (d) When the person is under eighteen (18) years of age is accompanied by his or her adult spouse. (e) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is directly in route from school or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational activity, dance or place of lawful employment to a place where food is served to the public. This exception shall continue during the time which is reasonably required to obtain and consume food at such place and to proceed directly home from such place. (f) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is performing, or is in route directly home from performing, an emergency errand pursuant to the request or direction of an adult person who is charged with the care and custody of the minor performing the errand. 11.10.040 Violation of Curfew by Minor Punishment. (a) Each person under the age of eighteen (18) years, who violates subsection (a) of Section 11.10.020 of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be dealt with in accordance with State law and procedures governing the prosecution of minors who are charged with infractions. (b) Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the diversion of juvenile violators of Section 11.10.020 or of this Section 11.10.040 to non-criminal programs for disposition of such violations, such as youth court proceedings. 11.10.050 Retponsibility of Adult for Curfew Violations. Each parent, guardian or other adult person having the legal care or custody of a person under the age of eighteen (18) years, who causes, permits, aids, abets, suffers or conceals the violation of any provision of Section 11.10.020, or who conspires with any other person to the end that any provision of Section 11.10.020 shall be violated, shall be guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor in accordance with the provisions of Sections 1.01.200 of this Cede and, upon the conviction thereof, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.01.220 of this Cede. * SECTION 3. 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. 3/R~so~/OrdsgO*ll SECTION 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 5. F.I~FECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrF_,D this 24th day of/uly, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATYEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Re~o~/Otd~0-11 ITEM 24 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY .~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official/'~ June 28, 1994 Karl S. Henning Property - 28613 Pujol Street, Temecula CA PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, CIP Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a date, time and place of July 26, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., at 30875 Rancho Vista Road, for the purpose of conducting a Public Hearing to confirm the cost of nuisance abatement for property located at 28613 Pujol Street, and to cause that cost to be recorded against the property as a sl~ecial assessment. DISCUSSION: Ordinance No. 90-24Abatement of Public Nuisance was adopted by City Council December 4, 1990. This ordinance allows the City to provide a just, equitable and practical method whereby lands or buildings which are dilapidated, unsafe, dangerous, unsanitary, cluttered with weeds, debris, abandoned vehicles, or are a menace or hazard to life, health or general welfare of the City of Temecula, may be required to be repaired renovated, vacated, demolished or cleaned up by removal of offensive conditions. On June 15, 1992, hearing officer Harold Wolters, Judge retired, caused the property located at 28613 Pujol Street and the vacant parcel located across therefrom to be declared a public nuisance and to order the nuisances abated. The nuisances generally consisted of inoperable vehicles, barrels of liquids, tires, appliances, scrap materials, and dry brush. The total costs to abate the nuisance came to $44,986.49. As a result of the nuisance abatement actions and expenses, Council confirmed the abatement costs on January 4, 1993, directing staff to place a lien on the property in the amount of $44,986.49. Most recently, the Building and Safety Department worked under the City Manager's authorization of $9,100 to demolish the existing house structure and remove a mobile home from the Henning property. These nuisance abatement actions were completed on April 23, 1994, by Environmental Control Systems, Inc. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 6.14.013 and 6.14.109, the City Council may assess all costs of abatement against the property, Exhibit A attached, through the use of the attached Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien. Upon recordation of the Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien in the office of the County Recorder, the assessment shall constitute a lien on the property. The Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien and a Notice of Hearing on Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien were mailed to the property owner, Karl S. Henning, on June 20, 1994, and posted on the property and at City Hall on June 20, 1994. An Affidavit of Posting and Proof of Service have been executed. FISCAL IMPACT: Collection of the $19,757.41 assessment is not expected immediately. After recordation, a copy of the Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien is delivered to the Riverside County Tax Collector so that the amount of the assessment may be added to the next regular tax bill levied against the subject property. Assuming non- payment of the assessment, the amount of the lien may be collected by the City upon the sale of the property. If no sale takes place, and the assessment remains unpaid for five or more tax years, the Riverside County Tax Collector and Board of Supervisors may approve the sale of the property at public auction. The City may consent to the sale and either receives: 1 ) The total assessment if the sale price exceeds the assessment, property tax, and penalty delinquencies; or 2) Shares in a proportionate amount of the sale price if such price is lower than the amount of the assessment, property tax, and penalty delinquencies. Alternately, the City may object to the sale by adopting a resolution. In this instance, the City's right to its full assessment survives the sale of the property and the City may attempt to collect at a later date. ATTACHMENTS: 1. List of Department of Building & Safety Abatement Charges F, XI4'mIT A CITY OF TEIVfF~ULA DEPAR17vfENT OF BI. rlLI}ING AND SAFk~x'Y ABA~ CHARGES ADDRESS: 28613 Pujol Street APN: 922-054-011 Date Case Investigation Inspector's Field Time Marianne SalaTar - $25.25 Mileage @ $ .29 Inspector's Office Time Clerical Time @ $20.83 - Sandie Flaremet Clerical Time @ $15.50 - Theresa Alvafez Postage Inspector's Field Time @ $26.31 - John Rodrigaez Mileage @ $ .29 Clerical Time - Agenda P~ep @ $15.85 - Althea Kunhs Building Official - Tony Elmo @ $ Administrative Field Inspection Photos Judge Walters - Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services Inc. Attorney' s Fees and Costs Billed Contractor Abatement Costs TOTAL Time Spent 17.5 Hours 28.0 Hours 4.0 Hours 7.0 Hours 1.0 Hour 6.0 hours 1.0 Hour 1.0 Hour Hours 65.5 Hours Distance 144 miles 1 mile 145 miles Charges $441.88 $41.76 $707.00 $83.82 $108.85 $17.48Ceff $26.31 $ .29 $95.10 $53.65 $53.65 $25.00 $650.00 $8352.62 $9100.00 $19,757.41 ITEM 25 APPRO~ CITY ATI'ORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager June 28, 1994 Revised Solid Waste Rates for FY 1994/95 PREPARED BY: Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive and file the revised solid waste rates for single family, multi-family, and commercial refuse and recycling services in the City of Temecula. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the existing solid waste franchise agreement with Temecula Environmental, the City Manager has the authority to approve non-disputed rate increase that related to the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Riverside County landfill tipping fee adjustments. The rate increases for fiscal year 1994/95 have been reviewed by staff and approved by the City Manager. The CPI increase as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, is 1.8%. The Board of Directors of the Waste Resources Management District approved a $4.00 landfill tipping fee increase on June 7, 1994 to be effective for FY 1994/95. The single family residential refuse and recycling collection rate was heard and approved by the Board of Directors at the June 14, 1994 public hearing for the TCSD Rates and Charges for FY 1994/95. The attached Exhibit "D" shows the new rates for collection to be effective July 1, 1994. Also attached is a comparison between July 1, 1993 and July 1, 1994 rates. FISCAL IMPACT: The fee increases represent appropriate collection rate adjustments based on provisions in the solid waste franchise agreement. The franchised and grandfathered solid waste haulere will begin collecting the new fees as of July 1, 1994. No additional costs will be borne by the City of Temecula since these services are paid for directly by the customers receiving the services. Attachments: Exhibit "D" Comparison of Rates CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT "D" Schedule of Rates (effective July 1, 1994) Mechanized single family attached residential collection, disposal, recycling - grantee billing composting, and Monthly Rate: $ 14.38 Mechanized single family detached residential collection, disposal, composting, and recycling - parcel charge Monthly Rate: $ 14.38 Mechanized single family attached and detached residential additional refuse, composting, and recycling container - grantee billing Monthly Per Container Rate: $ 5.46 Single family attached and detached residential additional bulky item pick up - grantee bilhng Pick up Rate: $ 6.53 rates (one 2 cubic Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential refuse monthly bin yard bin) with following pick ups per week: 1 x week $ 62.70 2 x week $ 125.40 3 x week $ 188.10 4 x week $ 250.80 5 x week $ 313.50 6 x week $ 376.20 7 x week $ 438.90 Compacted 2 Cubic Yard pick up: 2.5 x weekly pick up rate Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential refuse monthly bin rates (one 3 cubic yard bin) with following pick ups per week: 1 x week $ 73.04 2 x week $ 146.08 3 x week $ 219.12 4 x week $ 292.16 5 x week $ 365.20 6 x week $ 438.24 7xweek $ 511.28 Compacted 3 Cubic Yard pick up: 2.5 x weekly pick up rate CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT "D' Schedule of Rates (effective July 1, 1994) Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential recycling monthly bin rates (one 3 cubic yard bin) with following pick ups per week: lxweek $ 32.15 2 x week $ 64.30 3 x week $ 96.45 4 x week $ 128.60 5 x week $ 160.75 6 x week $ 192.90 7 x week $ 225.05 Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential refuse yard bin) with following pick ups per week: 1 x week 2 x week 3 x week 4 x week 5 x week 6 x week 7 x week monthly bin rates (one 4 cubic $ 83.39 $ 166.78 $ 250.17 $ 333.56 $ 416.95 $ 500.34 $ 583.73 Compacted 4 Cubic Yard pick up: 2.5 x weekly Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential recvclin_~ cubic yard bin) with following pick ups per week: pick up rate monthly bin rates (one 4 1 x week $ 42.55 2 x week $ 85.10 3 x week $ 127.65 4 x week $ 170.20 5 x week $ 212.75 6 x week $ 255.30 7 x week $ 297.85 10. Temporary 3 cubic yard bin rate: 11. Extra temporary 3 cubic yard pick up: 12. Redeliver and reinstatement rate: 13. Roll-off disposal rate: 14. Roll-off recycling rate: 15. Roll-off compactor rate: 62.38 32.51 26.66 139.33 + lancl~II/recycler fee 139.33 minus market value 278.68 + lanclfill/recycler fee CITY OF TEMECULA Comparison of Rates Service Descriotion Effective Julv 1.1993 3. Mechanized single family attached & detached residential additional refuse, cornposting, & recycling container - grantee billing (Monthly per container) 4.73 4. Single Family Attached & Detached Residential Additional Bulky Item Pickup - Grantee Billing (Pickup Rate) 5.79 5. Commercial, Industrial, and Multi- Family Residential Refuse Monthly Bin Rates (one 2 cubic yard bin) 58.31 6. Commercial, Industrial, and Multi- Family Residential Refuse Monthly Bin Rates (one 3 cubic yard bin) 68.52 7. Commercial, Industrial & Multi- Family Residential RefuSq Monthly Bin Rates (one 3 cubic yard bin) 31.58 8. Commercial, Industrial, & Multi- Family Residential Recvqlinq Monthly Bin Rates (one 4 cubic year bin) 78.74 9. Commercial, Industrial, and Multi- Family Residential Recvclino Monthly bin Rates (one 4 cubic yard bin) 41.80 1 O. Temporary 3 Cubic Yard Bin Rate: 57.99 11. Extra temporary 3 cubic yard Pickup 31.27 12. Redelivery & Reinstatement Rate 26.32 13. Rolloff Disposal Rate 136.87 14. Rolloff Recycling Rate 136.87 15. Rolloff Compactor Rate 273.75 16. Rolloff Recycling Compactor Rate 273.75 Effective July 1.1994 $ 5,46 6.53 62.70 73.04 32.15 83.39 42.55 62.38 32.51 26.66 139.33 139.33 278.68. 278.68 ITEM 26 DEPARTMENTAL 'REPORTS FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official June 21,1994 Building and Safety May 1994, Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: During the past several months, single family housing starts have averaged upwards of 125 per month. The total housing starts for the fiscal year '93-'94 is fast approaching the 1000 mark. As a result of this volume, the inspection workload has also increased. The department inspection staff, which consists of three (3) City staff and two (2) project employees last month performed 3511 building related inspections in response to the increase in permit activity we have been experiencing. Code Enforcement has performed inspections on approximately 350 parcels of land within the City in an effort to gain voluntary weed abatement. This program should be completed within the next thirty (30) days. This program has been managed by department staff consisting of one (1) Code Enforcement Officer and a project employee. The entire Building Department staff has done an excellent job in managing the recent increased workload. V:~TO~PORTS%MAY94.RPT Agenda Report June 21, 1994 Page 2 The following is a summary of activity for May 1994: Building Permits Issued ............................................. 169 Building Valuation .......................................... Revenue Collected .......................................... Housing Starts .................................................... 43 New Commercial Starts ............................... 2 = 144,718 Sq. Ft. Commercial Additions/Alterations .......................... 7 = 1,957 Sq. Ft. Building Inspections ............................................. 3,511 Code Enforcement Actions .......................................... 402 Active Cases Pending .............................................. 347 Closed Cases .................................................... 23 $7,506,913 $74,775.21 CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning June 28, 1994 Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Discussion: The following is a summary of the Planning Department's caseload and project activity for the month of May 1994: Caseload Activity: The Department received applications for administrative cases and for public hearing cases for the month of May as follows: Minor Conditional Use Permit 1 Public Use Permit 1 Rephasing 2 Administrative Cases 6 Total 10 Ongoing Projects: Old Town Specific Plan: The initial implementation program for the plan was presented to the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee on May 31 st. Staff will begin the consultant selection process for the West Main Street Demonstration Project. Old Town RedeveloDment Project: Staff continues to meet with Zev Buffman to identify the scope, scale and approval mechanism for the project. The next meeting will be June 16th. Project alternative have been developed and the impacts are being assessed. The Master Conditional Use Permit ordinance was approved by the Planning Commission on June 6th. Staff is working with the Hancock Development Company and Hunsaker and Associates to develop the West Side Specific Plan. R:~MONTHLY.RPT\1994\MAY 6/20/94 vgw Development Code: Four industrial area workshops were held in late May. Staff presented the City's approach to industrial zoning and the business community provided substantial comments back to staff. The development provided staff with final comments on the draft code. After the revisions are made the Advisory Committee will take one more final review. Upon its recommendation, staff will schedule a joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop to formally introduce a public hearing draft of the development code. A draft zoning map will also be presented at the workshop. French Valley Airport: The City Council and Planning Commission reviewed the ALUC's preferred alternatives on April 17, 1994. Temecula Reoional Center SPecific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: The Specific Plan was scheduled for a Planning Commission Hearing on March 21, 1994 for direction and was continued to May 23, 1994. At the May 23 Planning Commission meeting, the project was Environmental Impact Report 340 prepared for the Temecula Regional Center was approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 1993 and certified by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Winchester Hills and CamDos Verdes Soecific Plans and Environmental Imoact Reports: These Specific Plans were discussed at a Planning Commission Workshop on May 4, 1992 where the Commissioners gave direction to the applicant and staff. The Notice of Completion for the Campos Verdes EIR went to State Clearinghouse July 1 O, 1992. Both of these Specific Plans went to the DRC meetings on January 5, 1993, Campos Verdes Specific Plan was scheduled for a March 21,1994 Planning Commission Hearing for direction and was continued to May 23, 1994. Murdv Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Imnact Report: This Specific Plan was presented to the Planning Commission at a Workshop on April 6, 1992. The Commission provided Staff and the applicant direction relative to design issues. The applicant has incorporated these changes into the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan will be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting upon completion of the Development Agreement and the Congestion Management Plan. An addendure to the EIR is currently being reviewed by staff, Johnson Ranch Specific Plan: The Specific Plan has been to a Development Review Committee meeting and is currently being amended to incorporate staff's comments, The EIR has been submitted and is being reviewed by staff. A workshop was held at the Planning Commission on April 25, 1994, where the Commission provided directions to the applicant. Attachments: 1. Revenue and Status Report - page 3 R:\MONTHLY,RPT\1994\MAY 6/20/94 vgw 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REVENUE STATUS REPORT R:\MONTHLY.RPT\1994'~VlAY 6/20/94 vgw 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager /~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer June 28, 1994 Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for May, 1994. \agdrpt\O222~qoactrpt CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report JUNE, 1994 Submitted b~)l'im D. Serlet Prepared by: Don Spagnolo Date: June 20, 1994 I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1. Pala CommuniW Park: Negotiations between the City and the contractor to revise the scope of work to reflect the proposed phasing of the project are expected to be completed in June, 1994. Construction should begin in July, 1994. 2. Soorts Park Slope Re,}air: The contractor is currently installing a protective, reinforced, concrete cap over M.W.D.'s San Diego Pipeline No. 2. The contractor has completed approximately 65% of the project, which includes the reconstruction of the slope below Margarita Road, the installation of an irrigation system and landscaping on the reconstructed slope, and the reconstruction of a portion of the earthen channel meandering through the park. 3. Loma Linda Park - Ih A construction contract was awarded to Marina Contractors, Inc. during the June 14, 1994 Board of Directors meeting. Construction is expected to begin in the beginning of July, 1994. The project consists of grading and the installation of irrigation, landscaping, play equipment and other amenities. 4. Solaria Way Street Improvements: On June 20, 1994 Yeager Construction started work by clearing and grubbing. The contractor is expecting to complete the street widening between Ynez Road and Margarita Road at the end of August. 5. Ynez Road Landscaoe Imorovements: On June 15, 1994 Emerald Landscape Services started clearing and grubbing. The contractor will start at the north end of the project and continue working south to Rancho California Road. The contractor is expecting to complete the landscaping by the end of July. pwO4~rnoactrpt\cip%94Uune 08/20/94 Monthly Activ~y Repo~ Jun~ 1994 Page 2 I1. PROJECTS BEING BID: 1. Long Valley Wash Channel: Plans and Specifications will be completed by the middle of June, 1994. Advertisement for the solicitation of bids will begin in late June and the construction contract should be awarded by the middle of July. Construction is expected to begin in the beginning of August, 1994 and be completed by the beginning of September, 1994. The project consists of the removal of sediment from several deslilting basins and portions of the channel flowline, the reconstruction of portions of the channel's flowline and banks, and the rehabilitation of a rip-rap drop structures. 2. Kent Hinteroardt Memorial Park: The plans and specifications for the concession stand and rest room facilities at Kent Hindergardt Memorial Park, Project No. PW94-01CSD, have been completed. Solicitation of bids will begin in the middle of June, 1994. A construction contract is expected to be awarded in the middle of July, 1994 and construction is expected to begin in the middle of August, 1994. III. WORK IN DESIGN 1. Winchester Road Interim Ramp Imorovements: The Consultant received Caltrans comments back on May 27, 1994. The final plan check and comments should be returned to Caltrans by July 8,1994. 2. Winchester Road Loop: The consultant has submitted the revised Project Report to Caltrans and the plans were submitted to Caltrans on December 27 for their review. 3. Liefer Road, John Warner Road, and Santiago Road: The City has selected a consultant for each of the three road projects. The consultants were selected and ranked on qualifications. Staff has notified all participants of the results. The service level R funding source for the above road projects was scheduled for a public hearing on June 14, 1994, but the City Council has recommended that an alternative source of funding be used for the above project. pwO4~moactrpt~cip\94Uune 06/20/94 Monthly Activity Report June, 1994 Page 3 4. Walcott Corridor: RBF & Associates has started the design and is expected to submit the first plan check at the end of July. 5. Pala Road/Route 795 Interim Imorovements A contract has been entered into with Trans-Pacific Consultants to perform professional engineering services on Pala Road/Route 79S for an east bound to south bound right turn lane. The consultant submitted improvement plans to Caltrans for second plan check on Wednesday, June 15, 1994. The consultant will also obtain a Caltrans encroachment permit. 6. Sports Park Parking and Skate Board Park The conceptual design has been approved by the Board of Directors. The design engineer is expecting to submit the improvement plans for first check by the middle of June, 1994. The improvements include grading, installation of irrigation, landscaping, roller hockey rink, skateboard park, sidewalk, rest room facility and parking lot. pwO4~oactrpt~cip~94~June 06/20/94 LAND DEVELOPMENT Monthly Activity Report Special Projects May, 1994 Submitted b~Tim D. Serlet Prepared by: Raymond A. Casey Date: June 16, 1994 FEMA/OES REIMBURSEMENT: Staff is continuing to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) representatives in seeking reimbursement for costs incurred by the City due to the January 1993 floods and ensuing disaster declaration. OES has reimbursed the City a total of $246,297 to date. LIEFER ROAD/BRIDGE (PROJECT NO. PW93-02): The project has been completed and a ribbon cutting ceremony was held on May 24, 1994. PARKVIEW SITE (PROJECT NO. PW93-09): ~'he biological review for the Parkview Site is complete and no Gnatcatchers were observed. The ~quest for Engineering Proposals have been submitted for analysis, and the interviews were held last week. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 (AD 159): The Supplemental Assessment District were approved by the Riverside Debt Advisory Council. The supplemental Series "A" bonds are now being sold. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 (AD 161 ): The Supplemental Assessment District is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors hearing of July 13, 1994. The Series "C" bonds, from the original district, have been sold. r:~ect~t~e~4~yleX9 0000 OOO0 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Suron, Maintenance Superintendent June 1, 1994 Monthly Activity Report - May 1994 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of May 1994: I. SIGNS II. Ill. IV. VI. A. Total signs replaced B. Total signs installed C. Total signs repaired TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns POTHOLES A. Total square feet of potholes repaired CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. STENCILING A. 139 new and repainted legends B. 2,796 L.F. of red curb new and repainted C. 4,200 S.F. of sandblasting/grinding VII. 16 19 1 2 26 2 55,277 23 2,811 r:\roads%actrpt\94\05 06106/94skg MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT - May, 1994 Page No. 2 Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 26 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 28 service order requests for the month of April, 1994. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 37 hours of overtime which includes standby time, P.M. surveillance (weekends only), and response to street emergencies. ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING AND STENCILING COMPANY has completed the followinci: · 0 L.F. of new and repainted striping · 0 L.F. of sand blasting · 0 L.F. of red curb · 0 new and repainted legends The total cost for Orange County striping services was $0.00 compared to $6,712.30 for April, 1994. PESTMASTER SERVICES has completed the followino: · 59 sites, 479,110 S.F. of right-of-way weed control, total cost $2,850.00 compared to $3,950.00 for April, 1994. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of May, 1994 was 4,881.00 compared to $27,138.75 for the month of April, 1994. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 $4,881.00 $0.00 CC: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer r:%roads~actrpt\94\05 06/06/94skg MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT - May, 1994 Page No. 3 STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following project for the month of December. NELSON PAVING AND SEALING Account No. 5402 Date: May 5, 1994 Emergency Street Repair Moraga North of Rancho California Road Furnish and place 3" of AIR 4000 asphalt material to construct street patching and sidewalk repair. Furnish and place berm material to construct 20' of 8" berm. Total S.F. 450 Total A.C. 8 Tons Total Cost $1,700.00 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Account No. 5402 Date: May 4, 1994 Moraga @ Temecula Elementary School Emergency Slope repair due 'to traffic collision - 4 hrs. D6H dozer - 7 hrs. 446 Backhoe - 16 hrs. labor - Lowbed Truck 4 hrs. - 8 hrs. labor - Compactor Total Cost $2,931.00 ARBOR PRO TREE SERVICE Account No. 5402 Date: May 19, 1994 Remove and stump grind I dead tree from City R.O.W. Total Cost $250.00 r:\roeds%actrpt\94%05 06/O6/94skg DATE 05-02-94 05-02-94 05-03-94 05-04-94 05-04-94 05-05-94 05-09-94 05-09-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 05-11-94 05-11-94 05-11-94 05-11-94 05-11-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-17-94 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETED MAY 1994 SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG 30062 Pechanga Drive Drainage concern NS Rancho Vista Road Install R-26-D/R-81 Front of C.R.C. WO 94-024 La Primavera @ Pauha Street failure 45366 Zuma Drive Tree removal 41423 Ave. de la Reina Tree removal Pauba @ Butterfield Stage Litter East of Pauba & Butterfield Litter Target Center Sweeper concern Calle Palmas Wrong Phone UTL Broken fence East of N.Gen'l Kearney Noisy manhole lid @ Sierra Madre Solana E/O Margarita Litter Ave. de la Reina Broken glass Ynez Road/Traffic Medians Weed concern Solana Way Pot hole 200' W/O Acacia Apt. Flood Channel @ Nicholas Road Children Playing in channel 30062 Pechanga Drainage concern (Calif, Sunset tract) Margarita @ Santiago Road Debris on roadway 29920 Via Serrito Weed spray removal 30062 Pechanga Drain concern 27393 Ynez Road Graffiti removed WORK COMPLETED 05-03-94 05-11-94 05-04-94 05-05-94 05-05-94 05-05-94 05-06-94 05-09-94 05-12-94 05-12-94 05-16-94 05-12-94 05-12-94 05-12-94 05-11-94 05-17-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-17-94 05-17-94 pwO3\roeds\wkcmpltd%94\OS,svrq 060894 Oh- ~ 7-94 05-17-94 05-17-94 05-17-94 05-18-94 05-25-94 30443 Danube NAN corner of Rio Nedo @ Diaz 30939 Pina Colada 31635 Via Saltio 281 O0 Front 31181 Calle Alhambra Contractors removing sidewalk. Tree trim White Fly/Aphid infestation Sight distance problem T.C. debris removed Water leak 05-17-94 05-17-94 05-18-94 05-18-94 05-18-94 05-25-94 TOTAL S.O.R'S 26 pwO3%roads%wkcrnplM\94%O5.swq 060894 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION MAY 1994 GRAFFITI REMOVAL DATE 05-02-94 05-04-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 05-12-94 05-12-94 05-13-94 05-13-94 05-13-94 05-13-94 05-17-94 05-17-94 05-19-94 05-19-94 05-20-94 LOCATION 31109 El Torito Court Nicholas Rd. ~ N. Gen'l Kearney Winchester Rd. @ Murrieta Creek Bridge 4180 Enterprise Circle S. 27461 Diaz 28816 Pujol Winchester Rd. 600 foot E/O C)iaz Winchester Rd. @ Murrieta Creek Jefferson Avenue @ Flood Control Pala Road @ Wolf Valley Ave. de la Reina L~ Vista Bahia Winchester Road ~b Flood Control 27393 Ynez Road L~ Nicholas 31690 Rancho Calif. Road @ Butterfield Stage Road Ynez Road (~ Pauba Road Stonegate ~ Creative Margarita @ Rancho Calif. Road WORK COMPLETED Removed 63 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 232 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 75 S.F, of Graffiti Removed 150 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 44 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 90 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 20 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 537' S.F. of Graffiti Removed 350 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 8 S,F. of Graffiti Removed 10 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 45 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 325 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 36 S.F. of Graffiti Removed 12 S.F. of Graffiti Removed I S.F. of Graffiti Removed 60 S.F. of Graffiti -1- pwO3%roads\wkcmpltd\94%OS.Graffiti 060294 GR,-,. ,:ITI REMOVAL- MAY, 1994 05-23-94 05-26-94 05-27-94 05-27-94 05-31-94 05-31-94 Solana Way E/O Margarita 29645 Rancho California Road C.R.C. ~ Mira Loma Winchester Road 2 Diaz I-15 W/O Equity Via Dos Picos @ Diaz Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed 2 S.F. of Graffiti 78 S.F. of Graffiti 480 S.F. of Graffiti 45 S.F. of Graffiti 128 S.F. of Graffiti 20 S.F. of Graffiti TOTAL 23 LOCATION TOTAL S.F. 2.811 REMOVED -2o pwO3%roeds\wkcmpltd\94%05.Graffitj 060294 ;'1 DATE 05-02-94 05-04-94 05-06-94 05-09-94 05-10-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-18-94 05-18-94 05-25-94 05-26-94 05-26-94 05-31-94 05-31-94 05-31-94 LOCATION Front S~reet, First St. S/O Front Street @ Del Rio Plaza N/O Jefferson N/B Btn. Rancho Calif. Rd. and Winchester Rainbow Canyon N/B N/O City Limit Roripaugh Btwn Winchester and Nicholas Road Solana Way E/O Margarita S/S Solana Way E/O Margarita N/S Marg. Road N/B S/O Solana Way Nicholas E/S @ Via Lobo Calle Medusa W/B W/O Nicholas Road Cafie Medusa E/B E/O Enfield Via Lobo Channel S. Gen'l Kearney @ La Serena Rancho California Rd. N/O Park Drive Rancho Way Btwn Diaz and Business Park Drive Via Dos Picos Black Deer Loop CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETED MAY 1994 WEED ABATEMENT I Abated WORK 1,200 Abated 6, 192 Abated 15 Abated 5,020 Abated 1,250 Abated 5,500 Abated 2,000 Abated 500 Abated 1,500 Abated 3,500 Abated 2,000 Abated 8,250 Abated 10,400 Abated 1,150 Abated 7,900 Abated 300 Abated 400 COMPLETED S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds L.F. of Sidewalk S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S:F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds 55,277 TOTAL S.F. -1 - pwO3\roegls\wkcmpitd\94%OS.Weeds 060394 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETED MAY 1994 STREET STENCILING DATE 05-02-94 05-02-94 .)2-94 05-02-94 05-03-94 05-04-94 05-05-94 05-09-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 '-11-94 U5-12-94 05-16-94 I LOCATION Rancho Calif. Road @ Lyndie Lane Rancho Calif. Road E/O Ynez Road Rancho Calif. Road @ Business Park Dr. Rancho Calif. Road @ Front Street Meadowview area Meadowview area Meadowview area Meadowview area Meadowview area Area Area #4 Area #4 Area I Painted WORK COMPLETED Painted Painted Painted Grind and repaint Grind and repaint Grind and repaint Grind and rel~aint Grind and rel3aint Grind and repaint Grind and rel~aint Grind and reDaim Grind and rel~aint 275 L.F. of Red Curb 150 L.F. of Red Curb 1,040 L.F. of Red Curb 390 L.F. of Red Curb 7 Legends 11 Legends 11 Legends 8 Legends 6 Legends 6 Legends 13 Legends 7 Legends SB/SL Legends 10 PWO3~ROADSANY, CMPLTD%94~OS.STN 060194 STENCILING - MAY, 1994 05-17-94 Area #4 05-18-94 Area #4 05-19~94 Area #4 05-23-94 Area #4 05-24~94 Nicholas ~ Liefer Road 05-24-94 Area #4 05-25-94 Jefferson @ Tony Roma's 05-26-94 Sparkman School 05-26-94 Sparkman School 05-31-94 Area #4 Grind and repaint Grind and repaint Grind and repaint Grind and repaint Installed 100 L.F. of 4" White edge line. Repainted 941 L.F. of Red Curb. Installed 2 "Keep Clear" stencils. Installed 28 L.F. of double yellow. Repainted 3 school Cross-walks. Grind and repainted SB/SL 11 3 9 13 19 Legends Legends Legends Legends Legends TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 139 TOTAL L.F. RED CURB NEW & REPAINTED TOTAL S.F. SANDBLASTING & GRINDING OF STRIPING & LEGENDS 2,796 4.200 PW03~ROADS/WKCMPLTD%94%05.STN 060194 DATE I~ 05-06-94 05-06-94 05-06-94 C a-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 05~10-94 05-12-94 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETE MAY 1994 PO THOLES LOCATION Moreno Road ~ Front Street Del Rio N/O Front Street Rancho Calif. Road between Front and Margarita Margarita S/B between Rancho Calif. Road and Rancho Vista Front Street and Main Street Pujol N/O First Street Rancho Calif. Road @ Moraga Solana Way @ Acacia Apt. WORK COMPLETED 4 Cu. Ft. of Teml~. AC 8 Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC 3 Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC I Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC I Cu. Ft. of Temp, AC 4 Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC I Cu. Ft. of Teml~. AC 4 Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC TOTAL$.F. 26 pWO3%ROAD~;/WKCMPLTD~94%05.POTHOLES 060694 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETE I DATE 05-02-94 05-03-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 05-10-94 05-13-94 05-13-94 05-14-94 05-16-94 05-17-94 05-23-94 05-23-94 05-24-94 05-25-94 05-25-94 MAY 1994 SIGNS Rancho Calif. Road Replaced @ Via Los Colinas Via Norte W/O Pina Colada Installed Pala Road (City Limit) Overlay Population Rainbow Canyon (City Limit) Overlay Population Rancho Vista Road @ C.R.C. New Install Rancho Calif. Rd. (most Wstly) Overlay Population Jefferson Avenue (most Nortly) Overlay Population Call out TC Replace Del Rey Road @ Buena Suerte Mira Loma (Most Wstly) Replace @ Rancho Vista Liefer Rd. @ "Bridge" Replace @ Nicholas Corte Almonte & Calle Veronica Installed Ynez Road @ Pauba N.E.C. Replaced Lifer Road @ Nicholas Installed Margarita @ Stonewood Replaced Puesta del Sol @ Avenida Verde Repaired WORK COMPLETED R-7 & R-7A W-7A R-26-D/R-81 Combo (7) R-2 "35" SPS "T.C." R-1 SPS "T.C." R-1RV-17 SPS New Install 2 N.H.W. Signs R-260 "T.C." 4 P Markers R-1 Faded S.N.S. PWO3~ROADS/~A/KCMPLTD%94%O5 .SIGNS 060694 SIL ~ - MAY, 1994 05-26-94 05-31-94 05-31-94 Rancho Calif. Rd. W/O Business Park Drive Margarita Btwn De Portola & Pauba Diaz (~ Rancho Way Replaced Replaced Replaced R-48&W-14 4R-26-D W-57 Bullet Holes 2 W-11 Stolen Type "N" "T.C." TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 16 19 pWO3%ROADS/WKCMPLTD~94~OE,SIGNS 060694 I DATE 05-06-94 05-06-94 05-06-94 05-06-94 05-13-94 05-14-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-16-94 05-17-94 05-18-94 05-18-94 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETE MAY 1994 DEBRIS Jefferson N/B Pick up debris 2 Bags Btwn Rancho California Road & Winchester Ynez Road S/B Btwn Winchester Pick up debris 1 Bag & Margarita Ynez N/B Btwn Winchester Pick up debris 1 Bag & Margarita Margarita N/B Btwn Rancho Calif. Pick up debris 1 Bag Road and Rancho Vista Pala (Btwn Wolf Valley Pick up debris 1 Bag & Hwy. 79) Call out (T.C.) Pick up debris 1 Bag Del Rey Road @ Buena Suerte Solana Way E/O Margarita SIS Pick up debris 2 Bags Solana Way E/O Margarita N/S Pick up debris 1 Bag Margarita Road N/B Pick up debris 1 Bag S/O Solana Way Santiago Road W/B @ Margarita Pick up debris 1 Bag SOR/TC Calle Medusa @ Nicholas Road Pick up debris 1 Bag Calle Medusa W/B Nicholas Road .Pick up debris 1 Bag Calle Medusa E/B E/O Enfield Pick up debris 1 Bag TOTAL DEBRIS PICKED UP 15 BAGS PW03%ROADSA'VKCMPLTD%94\05 .DEBRIS 060694 TRAFFIC DIVISION Monthly Activity Report For May, 1994 Submitted b~'~Tim D. Serlet Prepared by: Marty Lauber Date: June 20, 1994 I. TRAFFIC REQUESTS TRAFFIC REQUESTS: March April May Received 12 5 10 Completed 9 6 11 Under Investigation 10 9 9 Scheduled for Traffic Commission 4 I 2 II. ON GOING PROJECTS: Held the third meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's Jefferson Street Sub-Committee. Major topics covered included: timing of Winchester Interchange and Overland Drive Bridge projects, accident history and predominant accident types. The Committee requested staff to update the collision diagram to include accidents north of Winchester Road and all areas up to June 30, 1994. They also requested to have signal warrants run for Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road at Enterprise Circle. They would also like to work with the Planning Department regarding business signage along Jefferson Avenue to facilitate effective vehicular guidance. Staff agreed to place "Keep Clear" pavement legends at the second driveway south of Winchester Road on the east side of Jefferson Avenue, to improve access. Provided technical support to the Land Development Division regarding access issues to State Route 79 (S) which will be incorporated into a request to modify the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Caltrans. Finalized the Traffic Division's Policy No. 01 - Hierarchy of Stop Controlled Intersections. This policy defines sign and pavement marking requirements and was approved by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission on May 26, 1994. Traffic Division Monthly Activity Report For May, 1994 Page 2 D. Status of Design Projects Location Design Nicolas RdRVinchester Rd - 100% 3/1/94 Temporary Traffic Signal * 5/3/94 Avehide Barca/Margarita Rd - 100% 3/1/94 Traffic Signal ,,e 5/10/94 Margarita Rd/S.R. 79 (S) - 50% Traffic Signal et Pale Rd/S.R. 79 (S) - Rt. turn 90% 5/23/94 lane Submitted to Celttans Returned from Caltrens 4/26/94 5/27/94 4/26/94 Received approval from Caltrans. Projects will not be authorized to go to bid until receiving federal listing. Civil engineering design of ultimate improvements is underway for Margarita/SR79(S). ~\m~sctmt\trafflc%94~ay/ajp TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order on Tuesday, June 14, 1994, 8:26 P.M., at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California, President Jeffrey E. Stone presiding. PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Birdsall Also present were City Manager Ron Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson, and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Director Roberts, seconded by Director Parks to approve Consent Calendar Items No. I through 4. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Muf~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone DIRECTORS: None DIRECTORS: Birdsall Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of May 10, 1994; 1.2 Approve the minutes of May 24, 1994. Contract ChanQe Order No. 14 - Community Recreation Center. Phase II, Project No. PW92-29B RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 14 for the Community Recreation CSDMIN06/14194 1 06/011~4. COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES JUNE 14. 1994 Center - Phase II, Project No. PW92-29B, for labor, material, and equipment in the amount of $48,862. 2.2 Transfer $48,862 from Development Impact Fees to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $48,862 to Account No. 250-190-129-5804. Award of Construction Contract for Loma Linda Park - Phase II, Project No. PW94- 02CSD 3.1 Award a contract for Loma Linda Park, Phase II, Project PW94-02CSD, to Marina Contractors, Inc. for $104,104.00and authorize the President to execute the contract; 3.2 Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $10,410.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Reolacement of Landscape Bonds for Slope Imcrovements - Costain Homes/Vintaae Hill~ 4.1 Authorize the replacement of landscape bonds for slope improvements to Tract No. 22915-02, Tract No. 22915-3, and Tract No. 22916-3- Costain Homes/Vintage Hills. DISTRICT BUSINESS 5. TCSD Proposed Rates and Charaes for Fiscal Year 1994-1995 It was moved by Director Mu~oz, seconded by Director Parks to receive and file affidavits of publications and mailings. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Birdsall absent. President Stone asked TCSD Secretary June Greek if she has received any written protests or objections against the adoption of rates and charges for park and community services, street lighting, slope maintenance and a recycling and refuse program for fiscally year 1992-93 within the Temecula Community Serivces District. Ms. Greek reported she received letters of protest from: Mrs. Leonilde Farally, 29611 Ramsey Court, Temecula, CA, and Renald J. Anelle, 12139 Mt. Vernon Ave., Ste 200, Grand Terrace, CA 92324. She reported that three formal requests to appeal classifications were received from the following: Masanobu Imakura c/o Super Moon 3406 N.W. 59th Street Seattle, WA 98107 Joo S. Yee 4047 Wilshire Blvd., #201 Los Angeles, CA 90010 CSDMIN06/14194 2 06/01/94 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES JUNE 14, 1994 Ingeborg A. Hyde 17847 Lakewood Blvd. Bellflower, Ca 90706 TCSD Secretary June Greek also reported one recluest to renew a hardship appeal approved during FY 1993-94 from: Mr. & Mm. Richard Hoffman 41487 Yankee Run Court Temecula, CA 92591 It was moved by Director Roberrs, seconded by Director Parks to waive the reading in full of the letters of protest and to receive and file them for the record. Director Mur~oz announced he would abstain on this item since he represents Mr. & Mrs. Hoffman. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 DIRECTORS: Parks, Roberts, Stone NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Birdsall ABSTAIN: I DIRECTORS: Muf~oz Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson presented the staff report. President Stone opened the public hearing at 8:43 PM. John Hunneman, 39557 Del Val Drive, Murrieta, spoke in favor of the proposed rates and charges. David Stovall, 31093 Lahontan St, on behalf of the CRC Foundation, spoke in favor of the proposed rates and charges: Director Parks thanked Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson and the Community Services staff for their efforts and commended them for holding down costs even though facilities and new parks have been added this year. President Stone commended Maintenance Superintendent Bruce Hartley for his control over the maintenance contracts which reduced some costs for the upcoming year. CSDMINO6/14194 3 O6/01/94 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES JUNE 14, 1994 It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Roberrs to approve staff recommendation as follows: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 94-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, PARKS AND RECREATION, STREET LIGHTING, SLOPE MAINTENANCE, RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICES, AND STREET AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-1995 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 ABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: Parks, Roberts, Stone DIRECTORS: None DIRECTORS: Birdsall DIRECTORS: Muf~oz GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT None given. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT Director Nelson advised the Board of Directors that in preparation for the 4th of July fireworks, a controlled burn on the Parkview site will take place on Thursday, June 16th. BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS Director Parks asked that the Fire Station be given priority as to master planning of the Parkview Site. The Board concurred with this request. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Roberrs, seconded by Director Mu~oz to adjourn at 8:50 P.M. to a meeting on June 28, 1994, 8:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Birdsall absent. CSDMIN06/14194 4 06/01194 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES JUNE 14, 1994 ATTEST: President Jeffrey E. Stone June S. Greek, City Clerk CSDMIN061141i~4 5 06/01194 ITEM 2 APPRO~ CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager DATE: June 28, 1994 SUBJECT: TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contracts - FY 1994-95 PREPARED BY:~ Bruce A. Hartley, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Approve purchase order of ~ 184,851 to California Landscape Company to provide median and park maintenance services for FY 1994-95. 2. Approve purchase order of $ 305,664to Excel Landscape to provide slope and park maintenance services for FY 1994-95. BACKGROUND: The Community Services District conducted competitive bids for landscape maintenance services in March, 1993. The contracts were awarded for a term of two years. The above recommendations will provide spending authority to execute the second year of the contract. California Landscape, Inc. currently maintains neighborhood parks and medians. The amount of the contract for FY 1994-95 is $ 184,851, which includes a 5% contingency for extra-work items. Excel Landscape maintains slope areas and the Rancho California Sports Park. The amount of the contract for FY 1994-95 is $ 305,664 which also includes a 5% contingency for extra-work items. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the contract with California Landscape is ~ 184,851 The cost of the contract with Excel Landscape is ~ 305,664. These costs have already been included in the Community Services Department Budget for FY 1994-95. CAIJFORNIA LANDSCAPE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS CONTRACT AMOUNTS Parks Monthly Amount Veterans Park P1 Sam Hicks Park P2 Calle Aragon Park P3 Bahia Vista Park P4 Loma Linda Park P5 Rivenon Park P6 John Magee Park P7 Kent Hintergardt P8 Paloma Del Sol SP2 C.R.C. F1 Senior Center F2 1,877.05 280.50 281.29 220.39 568.55 1,958.33 376.13 3,326.31 3,582.81 1,619.00 175.00 PARK SUB-TOTAL: $ 14,265.36 Annual Amount 22,524.60 3,366.00 3,375.48 2,644.68 6,822.60 23,499.96 4,513.56 39,915.72 42,993.72 19,428.00 2,100.00 $ 171,184.32 IX~.rsIANS CONTRACT AMOUNTS Rancho Cal Rd Median M1 Ynez Rd Median M2 E. Rancho Cal Median M3 MI~.IHAN SUB - TOTAL: Total Total contingency at 5% of total contract: 282.13 100.36 22.86 $405.35 3,385.56 1,204.32 274.32 $ 4,864.20 $ 176,048.52 $ 8802.43 GRAND TOTAL: $ 184,850.95 EXCEL LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AMOUNTS Monthly Amount Annual Amoum Saddlewood/Pavillion S-1 Winchester Creek S-2 P, ancho Highlands S-3 Vineyards S -4 Signet Series S-5 Woodcrest S-6 Ridgeview S -7 Villages A/B S-8 Rancho Solaria S-9 Martinque S-10 Meadowview S - 11 Vintage Hills S-12 Preslev S-13 SLOPE SUB - TOTAL: 2,270.00 1,150.00 492.85 243.83" 2,423.83 535.00 701.73 4,528.01 124.50 340.00 143.36 3,724.15 704.00 $17,381.26 27,240.00 13,800.00 5,914.20 2,925.96 29,085.96 6,420.00 8,420.76 54,336.12 1,494.00 4,080.00 1,720.32 44,689.80 8,448.00 $ 208,575.12 Rancho California Sports Park PARK SUB - TOTAL: Total Total contingenct at 5% of total contract: COMMUNITY pAllKS 6,877.81 $ 6,877.81 GRAND TOTAL: 82,533.72 $ 82,533.72 $ 291,108.84 $14,555.44 $ 305.664.28 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and Excel Landscape (J & R Landscape), (hereinafter referred to as "'Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: Section 1 Term of the Agreement is extended through J, r~_-30_, 1 qg5, Section 2 The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following: Landscape Maintenance Services per City of Temecuia Specifications for the following area: Rancho California Sports Park. Section 3 Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all 'services described in the Amendment and shall be payable monthly not to exceed 96,877.81. Section 4 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. "/~cel Landsca~; (J & R Landscape) General Manager U APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney A'I'FEST: AMENDMEI' ', ,J AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSION. . SERVICES The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and Excel Landscape (J & R Landscape), (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: RE: Landscape Maintenance Services Section 1 Term of the Agreement is extended through June 30, 1995. Section 2 The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following: Landscape Maintenance Services per City of Temecuia Specifications for the following area: Slope Service Area "A". This includes the following sites: Winchester Creek, Woodcrest Country, Saddlewood/Pavilion Pointe, Martinique. Section 3 Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the Amendment and shall be payable monthly not to exceed 94,295.00. Section 4 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. By: By: ~~ irdsall, President Community Services District APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney A3'FEST: AGREEMENT This Agreement, made and entered into this 11 th day of May 1993. By and Between City of Temecula, a Municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Excel Landscape (J & R Landscape a California CorPoration hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR" RECITALS WHEREAS, CiTY desires to obtain the services of a landscape maintenance contractor to perform landscape maintenance within the CITY's greenbelts, landscape service areas, medians, open space areas, parkS'and rights-of-way. WHEREAS, Contractor is a firm that possesses the necessary equipment, licenses, insurance, and personnel to provide such services; and WHEREAS, CITY's Council has authorized execution of this AGREEMENT to retain the services of Contractor. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that CITY does hereby retain Contractor to provide landscape maintenance under the following terms: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The complete Contract includes all of the Specifications. When the 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. 2. 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: "City of Temecula: General Landscape Maintenance Specifications" and for areas and dollar amount as specified in Attachment 'A'. 3. CHANGE ORDERS All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manger is hereby authorized by the City Coun'~il to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 4. PAYMENTS The City agrees to compensate monthly the Contractor for services at the rates on the schedule attached'hereto as Exhibit 1, incorporated herein by reference, for services actually performed. Included with monthly billing will be the work functions accomplished during that period, (i.e., fertilization, pest control, etc.). The City shall review the invoices submitted by the Contractor to determine whether the services were performed. Payment shall be made thirty-five (35) days following submittal of the invoice, or City shall provide the Contractor with a written statement objecting to the invoice. Monthly invoices shall be sent to: City of Temecula Finance Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; NONPERFORMANCE Contractor may be assessed penalties by City up to one hundred percent (100%) of the monthly value of a bid item for nonperformance and up to sixty percent (60%) of the monthly value of a bid item for substandard performance. Such penalties shall be assessed at the discretion of the City, Contractor shall be notified of any penalties in accordance with the terms of this Contract, The Contract may be terminated by City for failure of Contractor to satisfactorily perform any corrective action after being notified of Service failure on more than seven (7) occasions during the base term of the Contract. C. Contractor shall be notified of service failure by delivery of a "Performance Deficiency Notification" form (See Section XV) to Contractor by City. Said notice will serve as formal notification that Contractor has incurred a service deficiency sufficiently material that contract termination may result if satisfactory corrective action is not taken by Contractor. The Performance Deficiency Notification will contain the acceptable time period for service correction. U~n Deficiency Notification, the correction will either be accepted or rejected. If accepted, part or all of the penalties may be waived, regardless of whether City has incurred loss as a result of said service failure. Contractor will be notified of correction acceptance status by delivery of a Performance Deficiency Status Memorandum. Should correction not be accepted; a separate additional Performance Deficiency Notification will be delivered to Contractor, thus increasing the number of Deficiency Notices received by Contractor, If Contractor should neglect or refuse or fail for any reason to perform the work, the City may terminate the Contract for-nonperformance with five (5) days written notice to Contractor. In case of termination by the City for nonperformance, the City may contract or cause to be done any work 'not completed at the time of the termination, and the Contractor shall pay for such work. 6. WAIVER OF CLAIMS Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Contract, on or before making each request for payment, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out of this Contract; the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each 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 execute an affidavit and release with each claim for payment. 7. PREVAILING WAGES Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR ~hall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of th'~ Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of ~25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 8. LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies: "1 am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' 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, 9...TERM The Contract shall remain in full force and effect for a period of 24 months from the date of written notice to proceed, unless terminated by either pare/. City reserves the right to exercise its option to extend this Agreement for one two-year extension within ninety (90) days prior to its expiration. Contract price shall be adjusted at the beginning of each calendar year in accordance with the changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area published monthly by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI). C. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause with ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE Time is of the essence in this Contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION All work covered by this Contract done at the work site 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 tee operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. 12. CONTRACTOR'S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION No plea of ignorance of conditions that exist or that may hereafter exist or of conditions or 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. 13. GRATUITIES CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 14. 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 provider of Specifications. 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. 15. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT Simultaneously with submitting each monthly invoice, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City 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. 16, SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR Corporations The signature must contain the name of the corporation, must be signed by the President and Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and the corporate seal must be affixed. Other persons may sign for the corporation in lieu of the above if a certified copy of a resolution of the corporate board of directors so authorizing them to do so is on file in the City Clerk's office. Partnerships The names of all persons comprising the partnership or co-partnership must be stated. The bid must be signed by all partners comprising the partnership unless proof in the form of a certified copy of a celticate of partnership acknowledging the signer to be a general partner is presented to the City Clerk, in which case the general partner may sign. Joint Ventures Bids submitted as joint ventures must so state and be signed by each joint venturer. Individuals Bids submitted by individuals must be signed by the bidder, unless an up-to-date power of attorney is on file in the City Clerk's office, in which case said person may sign for the individual. The above rules also apply in the case of the use of a fictitious firm name. In addition, however, where the fictitious name is used, it must .be so indicated in the signature. 17. 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 Fedorally 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. UTILITY LOCATION CITY acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility facilities pursuant to California Government Code Section 4215. 21. REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS CONTRACTOR agrees to contact the appropriate regional notification center in accordance with Government Code Section 4216.2. 22. TRENCH PROTECTION AND EXCAVATION 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. 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: The presence of any material that the CONTRACTOR believes is hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safe~y Code: 2. Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated in the specifications; or Unknown physical conditions 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. 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. In the event of a dispute between CITY and CONTRACTOR as to whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or 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. 23. INSPECTION The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY. 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. 24. 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. 25. GOVERNING LAW This Contract and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by the law of the State of California. Venue shall be the County of Riverside. 26. WRITFEN 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: Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: EXCEL ANDSCAPE (J & R LANDSCAPE) Print or type TITLE DATED: June 8, 1993 Scott F. Field, City At-torn/m/ CITY OF TEMECULA By: ;Mu~noz, Ma~or~'~ J. S Munoz, ATTEST: JunLS)Y. Greek, City AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The Agreement dated May 11, 1993 , between the City of Temecula, and California Landscape, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: RE: LendsceDe Maintenance Services Section 1 Term of the Agreement is extended through June 30, 1995. Section 2 The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following: Landscaoe Maintenance Services Per City of Temecula Specifications for the followino areas: John Maoee Park (Seot. 1, 1993 thru June 30, 1995), Medians Service Area (Nov. 1, 1993 thru June 30, 1995), and Kent Hinteroardt Memorial Park (Nov. 1, 1993 thru June 30, 1995). Section 3 Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the Amendment and shall be payable monthly not to exceed $376.13 for John Maclee Park, 9475.00 for Medians Service Area. and 93.326.31 for Kent Hinteraardt Memorial Park. Section 4 *_ :~ ~ ~ '* All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. ~ cia H. Birdsall, President California C. Community Services District APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Reid, City Attorney A'R'EST: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSION~,~ SERVICES The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and California Landscape, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: RE: Landscape Maintenance Services Section 1 Term of the Agreement is extended through June 30, 1995. Section 2 The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following: Landscape Maintenance Services per City of Temecula Specifications for the following area: Paloma Del Sol Park. Section 3 Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the Amendment and shall be payable monthly not to exceed $3,582.81. Section 4 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney ATTEST: Ju~.G~~ AGREEMENT This Agreement, made and entered into this 1 lth day of May 1993. By and Between City of Temecula, a Municipal corporation hereinaffer referred to as "CITY" and California Landscape a California Corporation hereinaftar referred to as "CONTRACTOR" RECITALS WHEREAS, CITY desires to obtain the services of a landscape maintenance contractor to perform landscape maintenance with~ the CITY's greenbelts, landscape service areas, medians, open space areas, parks and rights-of-way. WHEREAS, Contractor is a firm that possesses the necessary equipment, licenses, insurance, and personnel to provide such services; and WHEREAS, CITY's Council has authorized execution of this AGREEMENT to retain the services of Contractor. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that CITY does hereby retain Contractor to provide landscape maintenance under the following terms: 5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; NONPERFORMANCE Contractor may be assessed penalties by City up to one hundred percent (100%) of the monthly value of a bid item for nonperformance and up to sixty percent (60%) of the monthly value of a bid item for substandard performance. Such penalties shall be assessed at the discretion of the City. Contractor shall be notified of any penalties in accordance with the terms of this Contract. The Contract may be terminated by City for failure of Contractor to satisfactorily perform any corrective action after being notified of service failure on more than seven(7) occasions during the base term of the Contract. C. Contractor shall be notified of service failure by delivery of a "Performance Deficiency Notification" form (See Section XV) to Contractor by City. Said notice will serve as formal notification that Contractor has incurred a service deficiency sufficiently material that contract termination may result if satisfactory corrective action is not taken by Contractor. The Performance Deficiency N~ti~cation will contain the acceptable time period for service correction. Upon Deficiency Notification, the correction will either be accepted or rejected. If accepted, part or all of the penalties may be waived, regardless of whether City has incurred loss as a result of said service failure. Contractor will be notified of correction acceptance status by delivery of a Performance Deficiency Status Memorandum. Should correction not be accepted, a separate additional Performance Deficiency Notification will be delivered to Contractor, thus increasing the number of Deficiency Notices received by Contractor. D. If Contractor should neglect or refuse or fail for any reason to perform the work, the City may terminate the Contract for nonperformance with five (5) days written notice to Contractor. In case of termination by the City for nonperformance, the City may contract or cause to be done any work not completed at the time of the termination, and the Contractor shall pay for such work. 6. WAIVER OF CLAIMS Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Contract, on or before making each request for payment, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out of this Contract; the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each 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 execute an affidavit and release with each claim for payment. 7. PREVAILING WAGES Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. CopiesmaybeobtainedatcostattheCityClerk'sofficeofTemecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor C. ode, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 8. LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies: "l am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' 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. 9. TERM The Contract shall remain in full force and effect for a 'period of 24 months from the date of written notice to proceed, unless terminated by either party. City reserves the right to exercise its option to extend this Agreement for one two-year extension within ninety (90) days prior to its expiration. Contract price shall be adjusted at the beginning of each calendar year in accordance with the changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area published monthly by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI). C. Either parcy may terminate this Agreement without cause with ninety (90) days written notice to the other par~/. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE 'Time is of the essence in this Contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION All work covered by this Contract done at the work site 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 pro~.ercy, 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. 12. CONTRACTOR'S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION No plea of ignorance of conditions that exist or that may hereafter' exist or of conditions or 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. 13. GRATUITIES CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 14. 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 provider of Specifications. 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. 15. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT Simultaneously with submitting each monthly invoice, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City 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. 16, SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR Corporations The signature must contain the name of the corporation, m. ust be signed by the President and Secretary or Assistant Secretan/, and the corporate seal must be affixed. Other persons may sign for the corporation in lieu of the above if a certified copy of a resolution of the corporate board of directors so authorizing them to do so is on file in the City Clerk's office. PartnershiPs The names of all persons comprising the partnership or co-partnership must be stated. The bid must be signed by all partners comprising the partnership unless proof in the form of a certified copy of a certificate of partnership acknowledging the signer to be a general partner is presented to the City Clerk, in which case the general partner may sign. Joint Ventures Bids submitted as joint ventures must so state and be signed by each joint venturer. individuals Bids submitted by individuals must be signed by the bidder, unless an up-to-date power of attorney is on file in the City Clerk's office, in which case said person may sign for the individual. The above rules also apply in the case of the use of a fictitious firm name. In addition, however, where the fictitious name is used, it must be so indicated in the signature. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. UTILITY LOCATION CITY acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility facilities pursuant to California Government Code Section 4215. 21. REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS CONTRACTOR agrees to contact the appropriate regional notification center in accordance with Government Code Section 4216.2. 22. TRENCH PROTECTION AND EXCAVATION 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. 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: The presence of any material that the CONTRACTOR believes is hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code: 2. Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated in the specifications; or Unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially for those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the char_..acter 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 preventthe hazardous waste or physical conditions from causing bodily injury to any person. 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. In the event of a dispute between CITY and CONTRACTOR as to whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or 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. 23. INSPECTION The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY. 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. 24. 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. 25. GOVERNING LAW This Contract and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by the law of the State of California. Venue shall be the County of Riverside. 26, WRI'I'FEN 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: Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: :~ NDSCAPE Print or type TITLE DATED: June 8, 1993 city Atto;nZ ,' ATTEST: CITY OF TEMECULA, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT BOND NO.890] 0827 Premium $677.00/1 r. PERFORMANCE B~D FOR lANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT THAT, WHEREAS, the City of Ternecula, State of California, entered into a contract dated Nay 11th ,1993 , hereinafter called "Contract," with: C~lHron"zja La~dscaDe NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR hereinafter called "Principal," for the work described as follows: Neighborhood Parks ; and WHEREAS, the said Principal is required under the terms of said Contract to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said_Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Principal, and Vigilant Insurance Company NAME OF SURETY duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, hereinafter called "Surety," are held and firmly bound unto the City of Temecula in the penal sum of Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Flfty and 36/100th~ DOLLARS and CENTS ($ 45, ] 50.36 l. lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that, if the Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to, abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements in the said Contract, and in any alteration thereof made as therein pr6vided, on his or its part to be kept and performed, at the time and in the manner therein specified, in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and sh.all indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula. its officers and agents, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and virtue. CITY OF TEMECULA, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT BOND NO. 890l 0827 Premium included in FP Bond LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT, WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has awarded to CaJj. forDj. a Landscape CONTRACTOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS hereinafter called "Contractor," a contract for the work described as follows: Neighborhood Parks · hereinafter called "Contract," and WHEREAS, said Contractor is require"d by the provisions of Sections 3247-3252 of the Civil Code to furnish a bond in connection with said Contract, as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the undersigned Contractor, as Principal, and Vigilant Insurance Company, 15 Mountain View Rd, Warren, New Jersey 07061~1615 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, hereinafter called "Surety," are held and firmly bound unto the City of Temecula, California, and all contractors, sUbcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid Contract and referred to in Title 15 of the Civil Code, in the penal sum of FOrty Five Thousand One Hundred Fift~v and 36/l(l(lfh~ DOLLARS and CENTS ($ 45,150.36 ), lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than fifty (50%) of the estimated annual amount payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. POWER OF ATTORNEY Know all Men byehess Presents, That the VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Mountain Vmw Reid, Wsffen, New Jersey, a New york Corpora- lion. has COnstituted end appointed, Ind does hereby constitute and appoint Hovard Siskel. Richard Adair, Joseph E. Cochran, and Bron~yn Hutdock of Los Angeles, California each its true and taw~u Attomey4n-Fact to execute under such designation in IIs name Ind to affix its COrporate seal to and deliver for and on its behaU es surely thereon or otherwise, pentie or obligations given or executed n the course of its business, and consents for the release of retained percentages mr final estimates. ~m,i~=~ 19Ch eye November ~o 92 County of Somerset o,,.,,. 19oh e,., November st 92 .~w, mnmwav=am~a, no. er.,n~ml,,mm~mum,m**mt, mmlkm~v,~mvmu~v~ iANFr~S~VO~ .93 ,w,w.~.w,.wvm.~v.mmwacmem.vwawmwm,mmam.,www---.mmesww Cali forni a 6..._.~..,,.,.,m.,,.ec.~wsw.m~,u.-. 17th ~w June CITY OF TEMECULA, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND RELEASE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT This is to certify that C=11foz-aj.a T.a~dscaDe (hereinaher the "undersigned") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the undersigned or by any of the undersigned's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of its Landscape Maintenance contract with the City of Temecula, as follows: The undersigned declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which Would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice of any unpaid sums owing to the undersigned. Further, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or causes of action which exist or might exist in favor of the undersigned by reason of the Contract executed between the undersigned and the City of Temecula or which relate in any way to the work performed by the undersigned with regard to the above-referenced Landscape Maintenance Contract. Further, the undersigned expressly acknowledges its awareness of, and waives the benefits of, Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at 'the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially effected his settlement with the debtor." This release is intended to be a full and general release of any and all claims which the undersigned now has or may, in the future, have against the City of Temecu|a and/or its agents and employees with regard to any matter arising from the construction of the above- referenced project or the Contract between the City of Temecula and the Contractor with respect thereto, whether such claims are now known or unknown or are suspected or unsuspected. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that, if said Contractor, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, or subcontractors, shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, provender or other supplies, or teams, implements or machinery, used in, upon, for, or about the performance of the work under the Contract to be done, or for any work or labor thereon of any kind or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to such work or labor, as required by the provisions of Chapter 7 of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, and provided that the claimant shall have compiled with the provisions of said Civil Code, the Surety shall pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the Surety will pay costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the Court, This bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file claims under Section 3181 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond, and shall also cover payment for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Contractor or his or its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond. The Surety hereby waives notice of any suchJ;hange, extension of time, alteration. or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications accompanying the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on June ] 7th , 19 93 Richard Adair (Print Name) Attorney in Fact (Print Title) P~<~,~~andscape (Print Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOI'F F. FIELD, City Attorney By: (Print Name) (Print Title) As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified, costs and reasonable expenses and fees shall be included, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the City of Temecula in successfully enforcing this obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work, or to the specifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on June ]7th , 19 93 . Richard Adair (Print Name) Attorney in Fact (Print Title) L M"~C~a Landscape (Print Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: D, City Attorney By: (Print Name) (Print Title) STATE OF CALIFORNIA C0UNTYOF LOS ANGELES OFFICIAL SEAL pATRIC1A A, DOLAN NOTARY pUBLIC-C~LI~ORNI& LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comrnilg, mn E,~iml F~. 8, t~95 (Sea~) ss. : On June 17.1993 betomme. Patricia A. Dolan, a Nora rv Publ i c pe~on~lWappeRre, Richard Adair,Attorney in Fact · personally known to me (er..lamv~{~ tone on the basis ot satisfactory evidence) to be m person(s) whose name~) is/am.subscribed Io the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s/~e/~he~/executed the same in ttiSThe~/llWLr- m/~todzed capacity(ies), ant by hisrneWtheW. signature(s) on the instrument the pezson(s~ or the entity upon I}ehaltthe person(s) acted, executed the in ent ITEM 3 APPRO~. CITY ATFORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager DATE: June 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Muni Financial Services Contract PREPARED BY: ~ ~lBeryl Yasinosky, Management Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve contract with Muni Financial Services to provide assessment administration services related to the TCSD Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 1994-95. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to an agreement dated March 15, 1991, Muni Financial Services (MFS) has provided assessment administration services regarding the annual TCSD Rates and Charges. These services include preparing the TCSD levy report, analyzing parcel activity, updating software data, conducting field surveys, calculating the equivalent dwelling units (EDU's) per the City's rate formula, and submitting the levy tape to the County of Riverside for inclusion on the property tax rolls. MFS also coordinates the mailing of the public hearing notices and parcel charges to all the property owners within the City. For Fiscal Year 1994-95, the TCSD will administer rates and charges for (5) service levels, which include 14,654 parcels within the City. Approximately 73,270 data entries were required to prepare the Fiscal Year 1994-95levy report. Additionally, the method of spreading the apportionment of the rates and charges requires the input of accurate parcel data to insure equity throughout the TCSD. MFS also monitors new legislation which may effect the TCSD and the current assessment process. Therefore, it is recommended that a contract for 918,750 be awarded to MFS to provide for the ongoing administration of the TCSD Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 1994-95. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost of the assessment administration services and reimbursables will not exceed 918,750. This amount has already been included in the Community Services, Parks, and Recreation Budget for Fiscal Year 1994-95. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement with Muni Financial Services. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 1st day of July 1994, by and between the City of Temecula (C/ty), a municipal corporation, and Muni Financial Services Inc. (MFS), a Financial Service (Consultant). The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. .Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Consultant shah complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 2. Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his/her ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. 3. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hou~y rates set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. The amount will not exceed $18,750 for the term of the Agreement. Consultant will submit invoices quarterly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each quarter, for services provided in the previous quarter. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. 4. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City and Consultant. 5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepaxed in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services performed. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultants acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 8. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1994 and shall remain and continue in effect through June 30, 1995. 10. Subcontracts. The Consultant Shall not enter into any subcontracts for services to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of this Agreement without the consent of the City. At all times, Don Webber shall be primarily responsible for the performance of the tasks described herein. Consultant shall provide City with fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Den Webbet from Consultant's employ. Upon such notice, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be for the value of service rendered to the City. 11. DefaUlt. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final. Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT By: Title ATrP_;ST: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Jeff Stone, President APPROVED AS TO FORM: June S. Greek, Secretary/City Clerk Peter Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT A Scope of Services Section 1 of the agreement specifies the Scope of Services to provide special district administration services itemized in the following paragraphs. Community Services District Assessment Administration Services Meet with City as needed to gather information, discuss City needs and concerns, project history, services provided by the District, etc. Assist City staff in preparing budgets. MFS will provide comparison studies as requested by staff to aid in the analysis of various methods of assessment, benefit to equity evaluations, EDU calculations and rates, etc. Review Boundary Diagrams and on-site characteristics of the District in order to be completely familiar with the specific Service Levels within the District. Review existing method of spread to address staff concerns and to ensure equity throughout the District. Hold public meeting workshops prior to any public hearings to discuss the District services, budgets, and any concerns generated by property owners in order to alleviate any negative misconceptions, if so desired by City. Be available as needed throughout the year to meet with City staff or property owners to discuss district administration, budgeting, method of fee application, levy, or other related topic at the discretion of the City. Coordinate with the County of Riverside to obtain all necessary information, i.e. latest secured roll, APN maps, etc. (See Fee Schedule, Special Projects). Coordinate with City staff to obtain all necessary information, i.e.; boundary maps, budget information, District reports, special circumstances on particular parcel levy dam, etc. Prepaxe Preliminaxy Report (1 unbound copy) for review by staff which will include but not be limited to: method of spread; explanation of caicuhtions; District budget background information; description of the District and Service Level; listing of preliminary assessment by Service Level; tables showing the number of parcels per Service Level along with their anticipated assessment land use code, etc.; description of District services; District Boundary Diagram(s) (provided by City); sample formula and calculations for each land use type; explanation of any special calcuhtions required etc. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Provide computer print out to staff listing the "Noticed" levy amours for each assessors parcel number; acreages; land use codes; CSD Service Levels; number of dwelling units; EDU values; sirs address; owner information; along with a definition of each field provided in the print out. After staff has reviewed the Preliminary Report, modify the Report or provide additional comparison scenarios as directed by staff. Prepare a sample assessment for each parcel and submit to City for review. City to provide notice of public hearing that wffi be mailed with approved assessment mount to each parcel. Notice to include the date, time and phce of the hearing, description of the District and services, parcel number, owner information, assessment amount per parcel, applicable levels of service, etc. After corrections or changes have been made, prepare Final Report (one unbound copy) and accompanying print oR listing "Applied" levy amours, EDU's, parcel listing, assessments, etc. Also provide the applied levy database to the City on a computer disk compatible with the City computer sysRra. Prepare a magnetic tape and submit to the County to be used for entering individual parcel levy amounts onto the tax bills. File the Collection Tape and Enabling Resolution with the County. Upon receipt of a parcel exceptions list from the County, revise parcel numbers and report the remaining levy mounts to the County Assessor' s Office. Make all necessary adjustmeRs for annexations into the District upon notification by the City. A revised Boundary Diagram can be p~tred for an additional fee. Attend all council meetings, public hearings, etc. as requested by staff. Maintain communication with City staff regarding regnlatoty changes which may affect the District(s) and current administration procedures. Provide continual administrative consulting to the City as needed. MFS to conduct field verification for changes in parcel use. EX/IIBITB PAY'MF, NT SCHEDULE The following fLxed fees and schedule are proposed to accomplish the scope of services as set forth in Section 3 and 9 of the Agreement: Month Amount July $4,500.00 October $4,500.00 January $4,500.00 April $4,500.00 TOTAL: $18,000.00 The cost of all items incidental to the performance of the engineering services that are not otherwise discussed in this proposal are included in the charges, and no additional charges will be made thereof. The charges for authorized services outside the Scope of Services will be based on MFS's hourly rate schedule which are in effect at the time the services are rendered. Hou~yRate Director $125.00 Associate 85.00 Senior Associate 65.00 Data Entry 40.00 Support Staff 35.00 The cost of printing, reproduction, and other "out of pocket" expenses where provided by consultant shall be Reimbursed to consultant at consultant's direct cost, said amounts not to exceed $750.00 based on the then current hourly rate. Expenses not included in the above production, postage and mailing of brochures, newsletters, notices, etc. These additional costs will be billed to the City at cost and are not part of the not-to-exceed amount. Proposal Assumptions The following are the approximate number of parcels and districts the proposed fees are based upon. If the actual number varies substantially it may cause a change in our fee structure. The District currently consists of approximately 15,000 parcels (actual assessable approximately 14,654). The District curren~y consists of 6 distinct Service Levels. The City will provide consultant with plats and legal descriptions for any annexations that effect the City Boundary. The City will provide Tract and APN identification for any new slope areas to be maintained in Service Levels C1, C2, C3 and C4 for Fiscal Year 1994/95. Abandonment In the event that this project is abandoned prior to its completion, the Agency will pay MFS a fee equal to the reasonable value of its services. Reasonable value shah be determined by using the then current hourly rates for our services or the percentage completion of the project, whichever is lowest. The project may be abandoned at any time by the Agency. MFS may cancel its obligation under this Agreement by providing thirty (30) days notice in writing to the Agency. In the event of litigation or arbitration between the parties over the terms or performance of this agreement, the prevailing party shah be enti~ed to reasonable attorney' s fees and costs. Payment Payment for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be made within thirty (30) days of the submittal of an MFS invoice. MFS invoices for the creation, distribution, collection and follow-up of the tax installments shah be based upon the pro-rated percentage of the project as described in Attachment "A ". Invoices shall be submitted to the Agency on a monthly basis. In the event of abandonment, the payment will be due within thirty (30) days of the receipt of an invoice. ITEM 4 APPRO~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ~ RECOMMENDATION: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager June 28, 1994 Release of Bond for Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park eryl Yasinosky, Management Assistant That the Board of Directors: Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond for the construction of Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. BACKGROUND: On May 11, 1993, the Board of Directors entered into a Parkland/Landscape Agreement with: The Presley Companies of San Diego 15090 Avenue of Science #201 San Diego, CA 92128 for the construction of Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park, a 9.2 acre public park facility located at 31465 Via Cordoba. Upon receiving clear title to the property, the park was officially dedicated to the City on January 24, 1994. On January 25, 1994, the Faithful Performance Bond was exonerated by the Board of Directors. The remaining surety bonds, issued by The American Insurance Company, are identified as follows: 1. Labor and Materials Bond No. 111 19257738, in the amount of ~126,120. 2. Park Land Warranty Bond No. 111 1925 7738-M, in amount of ~25,224. Pursuant to the Park Land/Landscape Agreement, the Labor and Materials Bond shall be released six months after the completion and acceptance of the park, pending the settlement of any claims or obligations by the developer. Subsequently, the City Clerk has verified that no claims have been filed by persons providing labor or materials for the construction of Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. Therefore, staff is recommending a total exoneration of the Labor and Materials Bond for this facility. The remaining Warranty Bond shall be retained for a period of one year and until any claims filed during the warranty period have been settled. r:\yesinobk\ced,khb 062894 FISCAL IMPACT: Materials Bond. No fiscal impact is anticipated from the release of the Labor and ATFACHMENTS: Park Land/Landscape Improvement Agreement Surety Bonds Staff Report dated 1/25/94 r:%yasinobk\csd.khb 062894 CITY OF T]LVfECULA PARICLAND / LANDSCAPE EVfPROVITvU~NT AGREENIEYT DATE OF AG~A'MiF_,NT: April 12, 1993 NAlVEE OF SUBDrVIDIEP,: The Presley Companies (R~f,'rrexi to as "SUBDIVIDER") NA1Vi~ OF SUBDIVISION: fRd~rmd to as "SUBDIVIDER") TRACT NO.: 23267 and. 26861 -l .h~,rrATr'v~ ~ RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO.: Cl~ef,'rr~d to as "Resoludon of Approval") PARKLAND INIPROVENIENT PLANS NO.: fRcferfed to as "Resolution of Approval") F_.STII',,4A-L6D TOTAL COST OF PARKLAND I1VIPROVENIF_NTS: S 252,240.00 COlrEPLETION DATE: June 30, 1993 NAME OF SURETY A3N'DBONDNO. FOR LABORANDlv~ATERIA.LSBOND: The American Insurance Co. - 111 1925 7738 NANliE OF SLrKETY AND BOND NO. FOR FAITHFLFL PER~OR/~IANCE BOND: The American Insurance Co. - 111 1925 7738 NAiVEE OF SIFR.F. TY AiN'D BOND NO. FOR WA.RR.A.NrFY BOBrID: The American Insurance Co. - 111 1925 7738-M and approved by the City Attorney. The term "Parkland" includes landscape areas intended to be maintained by the Temecula Community Services District. E. CompleteParldand/LandscapeImprovementPlansfortheconstruction, installation and completion of the Parkland Improvements have been prepared by SUBDIVIDE and approved by the Director of Community Services. The Parkland Improvement Plans numbered as referenced previously in this Agreement are on file in the Office of the DiZector of Community Services and m incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. All references . in this Agreement to the Parkland Improvement Plans shall include reference to any specifications for the Improvements as approved by the Director of Community Services. F. An estimate of the cost for construction of the Parkland Improvements according to the improvement Plans has been made and approved by the Dizector of Community Services. The estimated amount is stated on Page 1 of this Agreement. The basis for the estimate is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. G. The CITY has adopted standards for the construction and installation of Parkland/Landscape improvements within the CITY. The Parkland/Landscape Improvement Plans have been prepared in conformance with the CITY standards, (in effect on the date of approval of the Resolution of Approval). H. SUBDIVIDE recognizes that by approval of the final map for SUBDIVISION, CITY has confen-ed substantial fights upon SUBDIVIDE, including the fight to sell, lease, or finance lots within the SUBDM SION, and has taken the final act necessary to subdivide the property within the SUBDMSION. As a result, CITY will be damaged to the extent of the cost of ;nstallation of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements by .qUBDIVIDF~'~'S failure to pex-form its obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, SUBD.~VIDER'S obligation to complete construction of Parkland/Landscape Improvements by the Completion Date. CI'I'Y encumbrances for the SUBDIVIDER'S obligations with regard to acquisition by CITY of off-site rights-of-way, easements and other interests in real property shah be subject to a separate A~eemcnt between SUBDIVIDER and CITY. 2. Acquisition and Dedication. of Easements or Rights-of-Way.. If any of the Park/and/Landscape Improvements and land development work contemplated by this Agreement are to be constructed or installed on land not owned by SUBDIVIDIi~., no construction or installation shall be commenced before: a. The offer of dedication to t.:n'x/or appropriate rights-of-way, easements or other interest in xr. al property, and appropriate authorization from the prope.rty owner to allow construction or installation of the Improvements or work, or b. The dedication to, and acceptance by, the CITY of appropriate fights-of-way, easements or other interests in real property, and approved by the Department of Public Works, as determined by the Director of Community Services. C. The issuance by a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the State Eminent Domain Law of an order of possession. SUBDIVIDER shall comply in all respects with order of possession. Nothing in this Section 2 shall be construed as authorizing or granting an extension of time to SUBDIVIDER. 3. Security. SUBDIVIDER shall at all times guarantee SUBDIVllDER'S performance of this Agreement by furuishh'ag to CITY, and maintaining, good and sufficient security as requixed by the Subdivision Laws on forms approved by CITY for the purposes and in the amounts as follows: improvement, SUBDIVIDER shall provide improvement security for faithful performance as required by Paragraph 3 of this Agreement for 100% of the total estimated cost of the improvement as changed, altered, or amended, minus any completed partial releases allowed by Paragraph 6 of this Agreement. b. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the Parkland Improvements in accordance with the CI'I'Y' Standards in effect at the time of adoption of the Resolution of Approval. CITY reserves the right to modify the standards applicable to the SUBDM SION and this Agreement, when necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare or comply with applicable State or federal law or CITY. zoning ordinances. If SUBDIVIDER requests and is granted an extension of time for completion of the improvements, Crr~' may apply the standards in effect at the time of the extension. 5. Inspection and Maintenance Period. a. SUBDIVIDER shall obtain City inspection of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements in accordance with the City standards in effect at the time of adoption of the Resolution of Approval. SUBDIVIDER shall at all times maintain proper facilities and safe access for inspection of the Parkland Improvements by CITY inspectors and to the shops wherein a.ny work is in preparation. Upon completion of the work the SUBDIVIDER may request a f'mal inspection by the Director of Community Services, or the Director of Community Service's authorized representative. If the Director of Community Services, or the designated representative, determine that the work i~as been completed in accordance with this Agreement, then the Director of Community acceptance of the improvement work. In no event shah the Director of Community Services authorize a release of the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Security which would reduce such security to an mount below that required to guarantee the completion of the improvement work and any other obligation imposed by this Agreement. c. Security. given to secure payment to the contractor, his or her subcontractors and to persons furnishing labor, materials or equipment shall, six months after the completion and acceptance of the work, be reduced to an amount equal to the total claimed by all claimants for whom Hen have been fried and of which notice has been given to the legislative body, plus an mount reasonably determined by the Director of Community Services to be required to assure the performance of any other obligations secured by the Security. The balance of the security shall be released upon the settlement of all claims and obligations for which the security was given. d. No security given for the guarantee or warranty of work shall be released until the expiration of the warranty period and until any claims filed during the warranty period have been settled. As provided in paragraph 10, the warranty period shall not commence 'until final acceptance of all work and improvements by the City Council. e. The CITY may retain from any security released, and amount sufficient to cover costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including r~sonable attorneys' fees. thereof, or any conveyance in lieu or in avoidance of foreclosure; or SU'BDF~i:DER's failure to perform any other obligation under this Agreement. b. The CITY reserves to itself all remedies available to it at law or in equity for breach of SU'BD/VIDER's obligations under this Agreement. The CITY shall have the right, subject to this setion, to draw upon or utilize the appropriate s~curity to mitigate C1TY ~mages in event of default by SL~BDIVEDER. The right of Cr'fY to draw upon or ufili~ the security is additiona/to and not in lieu of any other r~medy available to CFfY. It is specifically recognized that the estimated costs and security amounts may not reflect the actuai cost of construction or instal/ation of Park/and/Landscape Improvements and, therefore, Cl'l':/damages for SUBDI'VIDER'S default shah be measurecl by the cost of completing the required improvements. The sums provided by the improvement security may be used by CITY for the completion of the Park/and/Landscape Improvements in accordance with the Park/and/Landscape Improvement Plans and specifications contained herein. In the event of SUBD/VIDER'S default under this Agreement, SUBDIV'IZDF~R authorizes CITY to perform such obligation twenty days after mailing written notice of default to SUBDIVFDER and to SLrBDIVIDER'S Surety, and agrees to pay the entire cost of such performance by CITY. CITY may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract or by any other method C1TY may deem advisable, for the account and af the expense of SUBD/V/DER, and S'C.~BDiW]ZDER'S Surety shall be liable to C]~TY for any excess cost or damages occasioned CITY thereby; and, in such event, CITY, without liab~ty for so doing, may take_possession of, and utilize in caused to be done, furnished, installed or constructed by SUBDIVIDER fails to fuLFdl any of the requirements of this Agreement or the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Plans and specifications referred to herein, SUBDIVIDER shall without delay and without any cost to CITY, ,~pah- or replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory pan or pans of the work or structure. Should SUBDIVIDER fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement, SUBDIVIDER heroby authorizes CITY, at CITY option, to perform the work twenty days after mailing written notice of default to SUBDIVIDER and to SUBDIVIDER's Surety and agrees to pay the cost of such work by CITY. Should CITY determine that an urgency requires repairs or replacements to be made before SUBDIVIDER can be notified, CITY may, in its sole discretion, make the ne~.essary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work and SUBDIVIDER shall pay to CITY the cost of such repairs. 11. SUBDIVIDER Not Agent of CITY. Neither SUBDI'v'IDER nor any of SUBDIVIDER'S agents or contractors are or shah be considered to be agents of CITY' in connection with the performance of SUBDIVIDER'S obligations under this Agreement. 12. Injury to Work. Until such time as the Parkland/Landscape Improvements are accepted by CITY, SUBDIVIDER shall be responsible for and bear the risk of loss to any of the improvements constructed or installed. CITY shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, happening or occurring to the work or improvements specified in this Agreement prior to the completion and acceptance of the work or improvements. All such risks shah be the responsibility of and are hereby assumed by SUBDIVIDER. 13. Other AEreements. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude CITY from expending monies pursuant to agreements concurrently or previously executed between the parties, or from entering into agreement with other subdividers for the apportionment of costs in whole or in pan, the design or construction of the Parkand/Landscape Improvements. This indemnification and Agreement to hold harmless shall extend to injuries to persons and damages or taking of property resulting from the design or construction of the larkand/Landscape improvements as provided herein, and in addition, to adjacent property owners as a consequence of the diversion of waters from the design or construction of public drainage systems, streets and other public improvements. Acceptance of any of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements shall not constitute any assumption by the ul'i'x' of any responsibility for any damage or taking ..covered by this paragraph. CITY shall not be responsible for the design or construction of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements pursuant to the approved Paxkland/Landscape Improvement Plans, regardless of any .negligent action or inaction taken by the CITY in approving the plans, unless the particular improvement design was specifically required by CITY over written objection by SUBDIVIDER submitted to the Director of Community Services before approval of the particular improvement design, which objection indicated that the particular improvement design was dangerous or defective and suggested an alternative safe and feasible design. After acceptance of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements, the SUBDIVIDER shall remain obligated to eliminate any defect in design or dangerous condition caused by the design or construction defect, however, SUBDIVIDER shall not be responsible for routine maintenance. Provisions of this paragraph shall remain in full force and effect for ten years following the acceptance by the CH'T of Parkla.nd/Landscape Improvements. It is the intent of this section that SU'BDIVIDER shall be responsible for all liability for design and construction of the Par"kland/Landscape Improvements installed or work done puBuant to this A~-n'e, ement and that CIT"x' shall not be liable for any negligence, nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in approving, reviewing, thee'king, or correcting any plans or specifications or in approving, reviewing or inspecting any work or construction. The improvement security shall not be an extension of time for completion. As a condition of such extension, the Director of Community Services may require SUBDIVIDER to furnish new security guaranteeing performance of this Agreement as extended in an increased amount as necessary to compensate for any increase in construction costs as determined by the Director of Community Services. 21. No Vestin~ of Ri~,hts. Performance by SUBDIVIDER of this Agreement shall not be construed to vest SUBDIVIDER'S fights with respect to any change in any change in any zoning or building law or ordinance. 22. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided in this Section. Notice shall be effective on the date it is delivered in person, or, ff mailed, on the date of deposit in the United States Marl. Notices shall be addressed as follows unless a written change of address is fried with the City: Notice to CITY: City Clerk City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Notice to SUBDM DER: The Presley Companies 15090 Avenue of Science #201 San Diego, CA 92128 Ann: Project Manager 23. Severability. The provisions of this A~reement are severable. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force mid effect unless amended or modified by the mutual consent of the panics. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this A_~rccm,nt is cxccutcd by CITY, by and through its Mayor. Tb.e Presley .Cc~panies SUBDIVIDER Name: Titl~: By: , Name: ld P. Nordenan Tide: Senior Vice President Vice President CITY OF TEMECLrLA By: Mayor ....... i(..~.....qper.~otar/z~.~.o.n-~of.S.UBDIVIDER,S si~amrc E OF CALIFORNIA TY OF SAN DIEGO v-/'--/c::2 _~.,~2 . before me. Nanc? J. Webb. a Notary in and lor sa~d State. personally appeared Gerald P. Nordemon and John bors. Jr., personoily known to me (or proyea on the Dasls of ~aastactory TNESS THE REOF. I have hereunto Set my h~nd ant affixed my officm~ seal. Sale Ccunty and State. the ciay aria year first adore wn~en, FOR NOTARIAL STAMP oremission expires ~j3/94 ~/ APPROVED AS 'A U rvr, A,~. By: ~ Scon F. Field CiW. Artomcy , .,:slcy of San Diego Vafwood Ncighborhoo<i Park April ~ 1993 Page Two ITEM QTY. UNIT TOTAL Remote control valve 17 HA I-1/T Pressure reducing valve I EA Quick coupler valve 5 F..A Valve box~ 45 EA. . PVC CL 315 ~'~'nl'Fne 2,450 LF 2-1/2' PVC CL 3~5 11/2" 540 I.~ PVC SCH 40 lateral line 4,470 LF · ¢C SCH 40 hteral line 5,380 LF 3/4' PVC SCH 40 lateral l~.e 4,430 LF PVC SCH 40 lateral ~ 1,740. LF 1-1/4" PVC SCH 40 hteral Iiue 695 LF 1ol/2' I'VC SC.H 40 lateral line 940 LF . PVC SCH 40 lateral Line · 260 LF 2-1/2" Trenc_hingJbac¥'Hll 17,910 LF L2' deep '1'Yenehing/baek-'Hll 2,990 LF lg* deep Con',~ol w/xing 7~?00 LF Sub-total PLANTIZNG _Soft prep./fine grade 423,140 SF 'ydroseeded turf 260,000 SF f, ooted groundcover 109,420 SF Hydroseed groundc~ver 53,720 SF 350.00 350.00 55.00 19.00 2.75 230 ,28 .42 .48 .62 30 .08 5,950.OO 350.00 28O.O0 860.00 6,740.OO L35o.oo 980.00 L500.O0 5oo.oo 730.OO 330.00 5gO.GO 33O.00 5,370.OO .08 33,850.00 .04 10,400.00 10 - 21,880.00 .04 2,150.00 s 7 1o.oo eo0'39ud 3NIA~I NUlaI~3d WOH~ Ll:lI 8G. ~ ~'~ CI~, OF P.MIELaND/LANDSCA,~E LABOR AND MA'l'~...,a~-~ ~OND Bond #111 1925 7738 Premium included in Performance bond 'W'/--r'~RE~.S. the Cit'/of Tem~ula. Sm~,. of California, ~.nc~ TEE PRESLEY COMPANIES : (h.cr~ir~ft:r design~,md ~ "Principal') have en:er~d into an Agr""ment 'whereby Prb'.cipal z..gr-_e.s :o inslull and compl~"~:¢ c~..-m.in P"'-_r~and Improvement, '~hich said dared April 12~, 19 93 , and icien:if~.-..d as Projc,~ TR ~123267 and 26861 tS h~r'.b.',' mferr:~ to ~nd made ', pa-~ ]aemof; and WIa"~__m. EAS, under ~he :ermi of s.~id Agre..~m,'nE, P.'-incipa/Ls mqui..md before upon m= p-..rformanc.~ of ~hc work, m f'Ll: ~. good and sufficisn: payme~ bond ~'r~h the Ci~, of Tem~cub., :o i,'cum th~ c. laims ro which r=f=mnc: is made in Tk[e 1~ (comn~cncing v,'kh 5=cUnn 30~2) of PZLr~ ~. of Division 3 Of th~ Civil Code of :he S:a;e of CalLforrLia; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE held NOVa', TiEOR.E, w~ the principal and co.,~'~NY ~s -~umD',are and i."n'fiy bound umo th~ City of Tem~cLtla, C.-difornia, and ~.11 conL-mc..:orL subcontrac:on, l~-Dorc.-~, ma::.-,~lrn.en, ?tnd o:her p.=rsom empley=d in :ho pedormancs of lhe afoms~d Agrs~-zsn~ and ref,'rr,~d ~o in Tifie 15 of me Civil Cod-.,, in ~l'~ p:n~.i suu'~ of S126, 120. ,0(Paw-f'ul money of :us Urnled SLz,.~a. ,"or m--,[eria/-: i, rnish:d or b. bor rher,e~n of any 'ld.nd, or for amounts due uz~,r :he Un,,mploym'_.n~ .In,~urn_nce A~': '~,irh re~ec',:. :0 such '~'ork or laDor, fi'm~ SureIy will pay :~'. s--__m,', in an arncur,~ na exc~.eding ',.he a.moun~ see forth. As a pa.n of rILe obli~a~on s:cur'-..d her=by and i?. addiUon to Eke re. ca :z.noun[ lherefcr. r. izer~ shall be inc~ud=d costs and masonable exp,.nsas ~n.d f"~, i~cluding r~".sonable zr:.orn-_F's f~,e.e~s. incurr-,.~i by City in succz.ssfully ~r~cn:ing ~uch oOEg~.:ion, ai! m be taxed STJ'R.~i f THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY VICTORIA M. CAMPBELL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT Certificate of Acknowledgemerit PREqCIPAL By: TftE PRESLEY COMPANIES I;TATE OF CALIFORNiA County of C~="C= On April 8, pe.~onally appeared 1993 before me. Kat,bleen Viodes, Notary Public Victoria M. Camobell pemon~11:,' Known co me ~ ~ - to be the pomona) whose n~rne~) LV~R subscnbea to me w~thm instrument ano acxnowledged to ~ tha~sh~ ~ecutea me ~e m ~her/~ aumome~ cap~s~ ~d that by E'her/:~ slgnature~ ~ on the ms~ent the oe~ona) or the entt~ upon beh~ of which the penom.~ actM. execut~ the ~t~ment. / ',;'[TNESS my nana an,, officml seal. onlpri 1 9, 1 qq~ .Oelore me, [he undersigned. a Notary PuOhc In and for Premium included in Per~o~ance bond improvements. w~h a~d A~mcn;, ~ April 12, 19 93 ~d iden~ Project TR ~23267 & 26861 , is h:~by refe~ed to ~d mad~ z p~ her:of; ~d ~}'=EAS, P~cip~ is mqu~d [o w~ty the ~'ork don: undcr rhc (c~s of the Agm:m:nt for = peffod of on= (i) y~ fo~owing ~c=~nc: ~h:rcof by Cky aghast (]05) of the eszjmz(ed:cost of the TEE ~RIC~ INS~CE NO~. ~rO~, we th: ~cipll ~d CO~ ~ SU~zy, ~ held ~d f~ly bound unto the Ci[y of Tcm~uh. CaliFornia, in ~hc pcn~ sum of S 25,22~. 00 h~'~l[ monc~' of the United States, for ~hc payrnc=[ of such sum ~]] ~nd ~[y to bc made, wc bind ourss!v~n. our hc=s. succc~son, exscutom and ad~n~sulrors. johKly m~d severally. condition or' ti~s obUEtuon is suc~, that C~c ob~1[mn sh~ becorn: nuD ~d void if th= bound:d P~mc{p~. i~ or its hairs, exccmors. ad~ullors. succ=sso~, or Is~gns sh~l ~ngs 5~d to, abide by, well ~ ~mly k~p, ~d p~o~ m~ coven~ts, condkions, ~nd Frovisions in :h.~ A~rc~m~n[ ad ay Mtcm~ion lhe~f maa as th:r=m provided, on t~ or thc~ p~, to hc k~[ ad peffo~ al th: :~e ~d ~ me m~cr there~ SD~ed and in ~sp~:s according to his or th~ ~e intent ~d m~ng, ~d ~h~ mdem~7 ~ rove the Ck~' of Temecu~, its of~cc~, ag~n~, ~d cmDloy~s as th:~L~ ~tipul~:cd; othe~zi~, SUR,FfY Certificate of Acknowiedgemen~ pELNCIPAL TEE pRESLEY COMPANIES .By: STATE 0F CALIFORNIA Counvy of 0n April peI'sonady appeared 1993 b~on me. Kath3.een Viodes, Notary Public Victoria M. Camvbell ; "sonaljy known co me ( ' ' ' =o be me peson~) whose name~) m subscribed to the · .'. ~hin lnstrumen~ aria acKnow tedged to me ma~v~',sheZG(~ executed ~he same in YiM/~erllti]t aumor~zed capaclvfN~s~ and tha~ by · ~,her/mwh' slgnscurel ~ on me ins~en~ the peaone), or ~e en~ upon ~h~ of which the pe~on(~ ac~ed, ex~u~ me ':,'~' 3 my hand and of~aai seat, A.Tn3KNEY TI-IE AMERICA~ INSURANCE 'COM'PA. NY --VICTORL~ .~. CA~?BrT-T ts~ ~yof june 1~ 90 , T]4~ AMEKICAN I'NSUR. A.NCE COMPAHY i e J' ~' YANDEVOIL'T ~OTARY PUBLIC-CALiFORNIA L.u~Lu. sCATE 8=h ~a oc April 93 Y t9 , APPROVAL CITY ATFORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the release CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors David F. Dixon, General Manager January 25, 1994 Release of Bond for Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park ~,Fu~Beryl Yasinosky, Management Assistant That the Board of Directors: of the Parkland/Landscape Faithful Performance Bond for the construction of Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. BACKGROUND: On May 11, 1993, the Board of Directors entered into a Parkland/Landscape Agreement with: The Presley Companies of San Diego 15090 Avenue of Science #201 San Diego, CA 92128 for tile construction of a 9.2 acre neighborhood park within Tract No. 23267-2, currently kno, ;n as Kent Hintergardt Memorial Perk. Accompanying the parkland agreement were surety bonds issued by The American Insurance Company, as follows: 1. Faithful Performance Bond No. 111 1925 7738, in the amount of $252,240. 2. Labor and Materials Bond No. 111 1925 7738, in the amount of $126,120. 3. Parkland Warranty Bond No. 111 1925 7738-M, in the amount of $25,224. On October 26, 1993, the Board of Directors accepted the grant deed for Kent Hintergardt [vlemorisl Park. Upon receiving clear title to the park property, the TCSD assumed the maintensnce of this facility on January 3, 1994. The park has been constructed per the approved plans and inspected end approved by the City's Maintenance Superintendent. Therefore, staff is recommending a total exoneration of the Faithful Performance Bond for this facility. The Warranty Bond, in the amount of ten percent of the Faithful Performance Bond, shall be retained for a period of one year and until any claims filed during the warranty period have been settled. yasinobk~kh.b~r 122993 Pursuant to the Parkland/Landscape Agreement, the Labor and Materials Bond shall be retained for an additional six months to allow for the settlement of all claims and obligations concerning those persons furnishing labor and materials for this project. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact is anticipated from the release of the Parkland/Landscape Faithful Performance Bond. ATTACHMENTS: · Vicinity Map Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Surety Bonds yasin0bk\kh.bdr 122993 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPRO~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ronald Bradley, General Manager DATE: June 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Departmental Report PREPARED BY: ~_,~hawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services DISCUSSION: The bronze plaque is now ordered for the installation of a memorial for Officer Kent Hintergardt, which will be placed at Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. It will take approximately 4 to 6 weeks to receive the plaque. Once received, staff will move forward with the installation. The Community Recreation Center (CRC) Pool is now open and has been greatly utilized by the community. Currently, approximately 100 people have signed up for swim lessons and open swimming should be extremely successful with the new water slide at the pool. Many recreation classes, sports programs, and drop-in recreation programs are also being offered at the CRC as well. Staff is moving forward with the Loma Linda Park Project - Phase II. The Board awarded the contract for construction on June 14, 1994. It is anticipated that construction will begin within 30 days. Staff is currently working on potential construction options concerning the Pala Community Park Project. This item will be considered by the Board of Directors on June 28, 1994. Staff has completed interviews for day camp staff to provide summer recreation programs and activities. in addition, a summer concert schedule for the outdoor amphitheater is being prepared by the Recreation Division. Staff is proceeding with the restroom facility at Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. The architect's design is completed, and it is anticipated that a public bid for construction will be released by the end of June, 1994. Construction is currently ongoing concerning the Rancho California Sports Park Slope Repair Project. This project will provide slope and channel improvements that will create the main infrastructure for the Sports Park Improvement Project. This project is expected to be completed by the end of July, 1994. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD JUNE 14, 1994 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 9:04 PM. PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Mur~oz, Roberrs, Parks, Stone ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsell Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, General Counsel Peter Thorson and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Agency Member Roberrs, seconded by Agency Member Mufioz to approve staff recommendation as follows: 1.1 Approve the minutes of May 10, 1994; 1.2 Approve the minutes of May 24, 1994. Agency Member Stone stated he would abstain on 1.1 since he was not present at that meeting. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Birdsall absent and Agency Member Stone abstaining on recommendation 1.1. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. International Rectifier Owner Participation Agreement Executive Director Ronald Bradley presented the staff report. He introduced Mike Magee, Vice President of Finance and lan Warbrick, Vice President of Fab to give a presentation. Mr. Magee presented a report describing International Rectifier Products. After his presentation Mr. Warbrook explained expansion plans and future projections. Finance Officer Mary Jane McLarney gave a perspective on International Rectifier and explained the value of this company to the community. She explained the cooperative Temecula Redevelopment AEeney Minut~ June 14. 1994 effort through City, County and State agencies to put this agreement together. Executive Director Bradley summarized the report and outlined the provisions of the Owner Participation Agreement. Chairman Parks opened the public hearing at 9:21 PM. Hearing no requests to speak, he closed the public hearing at 9:21 PM. Mayor Roberts reconvened the City Council Meeting in joint session with the Redevelopment Agency at 9:23 PM. After City Council Action on the Owner Participation Agreement, it was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Muffoz to approve staff recommendation as follows: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 94-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Birdsall absent. Authorize ConsultinQ Contracts with Wimberlee. Allison, TOnQ & Goo and Barton Aschman Executive Director Ronald Bradley presented the staff report. General Counsel Peter Thorson announced that since this decision only involves consultant contracts, both Agency Member Stone and Agency Member Mu~oz may participate. It was moved by Agency Member Muf~oz, seconded by Agency Member Stone to approve staff recommendation as follows: 3.1 Authorize the Chairperson to execute an agreement with Wimberly Allison Tong & Goo for architectural and planning services not to exceed $54,620 and with Barton-Aschman for traffic impact analysis not to exceed $34,000. 'Agreements will be subject to approval of the Executive Director and General Counsel as to final form. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Birdsall absent. Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes June 14. 1994 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Bradley commended the Agency Members for being far-sighted and visionary with regard to the International Rectifier Agreement. GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Agency Member Roberrs, seconded by Agency Member Stone to adjourn at 9:32 PM to a meeting on June 28, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Birdsall absent. Ronald J. Parks, Chairperson ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary ITEM 2 APPROVAL ~ ' TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency/Executive Director Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer June 28, 1994 Review and Approval of the Fiscal Year 1994-95 Budget PREPARED BY: Luci Romero, Financial Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 FOR THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS. DISCUSSION: The Temecula Redevelopment Agency (RDA) consists of three funds, the Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund; the Capital Projects (CIP) Fund, and the Debt Service Fund. LOW/MOD SET-ASIDE FUND The revenue projection of $1,565,095, reflects a 5% increase in tax increment revenue. Expenditures are estimated at $114,262. Although current year expenditures are budgeted at $405,000, actual year-to-date expenditures are significantly lower because the RDA housing plan has not yet been adopted. Appropriations for FY 1994-95 include a portion of a Senior Planner's time as well as appropriations for project feasibility studies. CIP FUND The operating and capital improvement project appropriations in this fund have been separated. The operating portion of the budget is presented for consideration herein. The capital improvement project appropriations will be addressed at a later date in the Capital Improvement Program document. Revenue to this fund for operating purposes consists of investment income and rental revenues from the Honda property. The revenue projection of $396,300, reflects a 5% decrease compared to FY 1993-94. The decrease is primarily attributable to the anticipated draw down on the balance of bond proceeds as they are used for projects during the year. The estimated expenditures of $600,775, refiect a decrease over current year appropriations. The reductions include a transfer of a portion of personnel costs to the Low/Mod Set Aside Fund, as well as a reduction in expenditures for economic development. DEBT SERVICE FUND The revenue projection of $5,809,579, reflects a 5% increase in tax increment revenue. Expenditures are estimated at $4,672,968. One of the significant changes in this budget is the inclusion of an appropriation for County Property Tax Administration Fees. FISCAL IMPACT: The Low/Mod Set Aside Fund is projected to have a fund balance of $6,123,261 at June 30, 1995, an increase of $1,450,833,in the fund balance. The CIP Fund is projected to have a fund balance of $14,547,508,before consideration of capital projects. The Debt Service Fund is projected to have a fund balance of $7,570,969, an increase of $1,136,611, over the current year. Attachments: Resolution Schedules A through C: -Low/Mod Set Aside Fund -CIP Fund -Debt Service Fund RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE. ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-9~ FOR ~ TEMECULA RI~.DEVELO PMF~NT AGENCY FUNDS WHEREAS, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors have reviewed the proposed final Operating Budget for fiscal year 1994-95, and NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Temecula Redevelopment Agency as follows: Section 1. That the following controls are hereby placed on the use and transfers of budget appropriations: A. No expenditure of funds shall be made unless there is an unencumbered appropriation available to cover the expenditure. B. The Department Director may prepare a transfer of appropriations within departmental budget accounts up to $10,000 per transfer, with the approval of the City Manager. C. The City Manager may authorize expenditures of funds in mounts up top $10,000. Any expenditure of funds in excess of $10,000 requires City Council action. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 281h day of June, 1994. ATTEST: Ron Parks, Chairperson June S. Greek, Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HERI=.RY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopmerit Agency at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 28th day of June, 1994, by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AGENCY MEMBERS: NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: June S. Greek, Board Secretary Revenue Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures Operating Transfers Increase (decrease) in Fund Balance Fund Balance, July 1, 1993 Est. Fund Balance, June 30, 1994 Fund Balance, June 30, 1995 I TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LOW/MOD SET ASIDE FUND SUMMARY FY 93-94 CURRENT BUDGE FY 93-94 YTD 05/24/94 1,492,809 10,420 1,482,389 1,522,200 $ 405,000 1,117,200 1,117,200 3,555,228 4,672,428 1,482,389 SCHEDULE A FY 94-95 PROPOSED BUDGET $ 1,565,095 114,262 1,450,833 1,450,833 $ 4,672,428 $ 6,123,261 28-June-94 Revenue Expenditures ~xcess of Revenues Over Expenditures Operating Transfers In Increase (decrease) in Fund Balance Fund Balance, duly 1, 1993 Est. Fund Balance, dune 30, 1994 Est. Fund Balance, dune :30, 1995 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CIP FUND SUMMARY FY 93-94 FY 93-94 CURRENT YTD BUDGET @ 05/24/94 418,318 $ 393,651 960,765 750.264 (542,447} (356,613) 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,457,553 $ 1,643,387 13,294,430 14,751,983 SCHEDULE A FY 94-95 PROPOSED BUDGET 396,300 600,775 (204,475) (204,475) 14,751,983 14,547,508 28-June-94 Revenue Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures Operating Transfers (Out) Increase (decrease) in Fund Balance Fund Balance, July 1, 1993 Est, Fund Balance, June 30, 1994 Fund Balance, June 30, 1995 I TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEBT SERVICE FUND SUMMARY FY 93-94 FY 93-94 CURRENT YTD BUDGET @ 05/24/94 5,625,521 $ 5,598,679 4,577,849 4,544,537 1,047,672 1,054,143 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,047,672 $ 3,054,143 3,386,686 6,434,358 $ $ SCHEDULE A FY 94.95 PROPOSED BUDGET 5,809,579 4,672,968 1,136,611 1,136,611 6,434,358 7,570,969 28-June-94 ACCT NO LOW/MOD SET ASIDE FUND 4015 *Tax Increment 4065 -Investment Interest 4158 -Property Tax Increment 165 TOTAL LOW/MOD SET ASIDE FUND ACCT NO CIP FUND 4065 -Investment Interest 4066 -Loan interest 4068 -Loan Fees 4075 -Rental Income 4090 -Operating Transfers In 4800 -Bond Proceeds 280 TOTAL CIP FUND ACCT NO DEBT SERVICE FUND 4015 -Tax Increment 4065 -Investment Interest 4800 -Bond Proceeds 380 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LOW/MOD SET ASIDE REVENUE DETAIL BY FUND SOURCE FY 92-93 ACTUAL REVENUE FY 93-94 CURRENT BUDGET 1,335,205 115,696 0 1,375,900 146,300 0 1,450,901 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CIP FUND REVENUE DETAIL BY FUND SOURCE FY 92-93 ACTUAL REVENUE FY 93-94 CURRENT BUDGET 157,399 0 0 0 25,383 15,906,080 418,318 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 16,088,862 2,418,318 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUE DETAIL BY FUND SOURCE FY 92-93 ACTUAL REVENUE FY 93-94 CURRENT BUDGET 1,876,248 65,038 1,448,920 5,503,601 121,920 0 3,390,207 5,625,521 SCHEDULE B FY 94-95 PROJECTION 1,425,095 140,000 0 1,5~,095 FY 94-~5 PROJECTION 500 140,000 0 0 FY 94-95 PROJECTION 5,7~,3~ 1~,200 0 28-June-B4 ACCT ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION PERSONNEL SERVICES 5100 SALARIES & WAGES 5101 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 5102 RETIREMENT 5103 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT 5104 FICA 5106 AUTO ALLOWANCE 5108 LIFE INSURANCE 5109 UNEMPLOYMENT TRAINING TAX 5110 DISABILITY INSURANCE 5112 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 5113 HEALTH INSURANCE 5114 DENTAL INSURANCE 5115 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT 5116 VISION INSURANCE 5117 CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT 5118 TEMPORARY HELP 5119 PART-TIME (Project) 5120 PART-TIME RETIREMENT 5121 OVERTIME WAGES 5126 COMPENSA'I'ED ABSENCES 51 g0 LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES TEMECULA REDEVELOPMEN'~AGENCY LOW/MOD SET ASIDE DEPARTMENT 199 FY 1994-95 OPERATING BUDGET FY93-94 CURRENT BUDGET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHEDULE C FY94-1t MANAGER RECOMMENDED 10.506 0 1.492 0 152 0 0 494 0 442 1,176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,262 95FY-165 28-June-~4 RDA LOW./MOD-DEPARTMENT 199 ACCT NO. ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION 5248 CONSULTING SERVICES 5250 OTHER OUTSIDE SERVICES 5805 ACQUISITION-RANCHO WEST TOTAL RDA LOW/MOD SET ASIDE FY CURRENT BUDGET 250,000 155,000 405,000 SCHEDULE C PAGE 2 FY 94-~5 MANAGER RECOMMENDED 100,000 114,262 95FY-165 28-June-94 ACCT ACCOUNT NO, DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION PERSONNEL SERVICES 5100 SALARIES & WAGES 5101 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 5102 RETIREMENT 5103 STAT~ UNEMPLOYMENT 5104 FICA 5106 ALR'O ALLOWANCE 5108 LIFE INSURANCE 5109 UNEMPLOYMENT TRAINING TAX 5110 DISABILITY INSURANCE 5112 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 5113 HEALTH INSURANCE 5114 DENTAL INSURANCE 5115 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT 5116 VISION INSURANCE 5117 CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT 5118 TEMPORARY HELP 5119 PART-TIME (Project) 5120 PART-TIME RETIREMENT 5121 OVERTIME WAGES 5126 COMPENSATED ABSENCES 5190 LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CIP/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 199 FY 1994-95 OPERATING BUDGET FY93-94 CURRENT BUDGET 42,355 0 6,015 0 614 0 0 1,990 0 2,584 3,528 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57,086 SCHEDULE C FY~4-95 MANAGER RECOMMENDED 22,593 0 3,208 0 328 0 0 1,062 0 2,352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,494 95FY-280 28,1une-94 RDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-DEPARTMENT 199 ACCT ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION OPERATING EXPENDITURES 5228 DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS 5227 TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES 5228 PUBLICATIONS 5230 POSTAGE & PACKAGING 5246 LEGAL SERVICES 5248 CONSULTING SERVICES 5250 OTHER OUTSIDE SERVICES 5258 CONFERENCES 5260 PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS 5261 STAFF 'rRAINING/EDUCATION 5264 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 5270 CITY PROMOTIONAL PROGRAM 5275 ASSESSMENTS 5276 SALES TAX REIMBURSEMENTS 5360 CITY ADMIN CHARGES TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES TOTAL RDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FY93-94 CURRENT BUDGET 325 40.200 200 2,500 50,000 162.300 4,500 5,477 0 0 263,173 0 189,623 110,381 75,000 903.67g 960,765 SCHEDULE C PAGE 2 FY94-95 MANAGER RECOMMENDED 200 40.200 200 2,000 50,000 150,000 5,000 1,000 200 1,100 90,000 45,000 0 110,381 570,281 600,775 95FY-280 28-June-94 ACCT ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION OPERATING EXPENDITURES 5227 TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES 5231 PROPERTY TAX ADMIN FEES 5241 PASSTHROUGH AGREEMENTS 5245 ED. REV. AUGMENT. FUND (ERAF) 5390 DEBT SERVICE-PRINCIPAL 5391 INTEREST TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 5901 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL RDA DEBT SERVICE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEBT SERVICE DEPARTMENT 199 FY 1994-95 OPERATING BUDGET FY93-94 CURRENT BUDGET 9,160 0 2,971,208 150,073 505,000 942,408 4,577,849 2,000,000 6,577,849 SCHEDULE C FY94-95 MANAGER RECOMMENDED 68,000 3,000,000 1.50,073 530,000 915,895 4,672,968 0 95FY-380 28-June-94