Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091394 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER - 30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD SEPTEMBER 13, 1994- 7:00 PM In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact, the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35. 102.35. 104ADA Title II] 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. 94-26 Resolution: No. 94-90 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Roberts presiding Invocation: Pastor Dan Hoekstra, Discovery Christian Church Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Stone ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberrs PRESENTATIONS/ Swearing in Ceremony for Planning Commissioners PROCLAMATIONS Government Finance Officers Association CAFR Award - Certificate of Achievement 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 not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. R:%Agendl%091394 1 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. 1 Standard Ordinance Adootion 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 August 9, 1994. 3 Resolution AoDrovina 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 8 9 City Treasurer's Reoort as of July 31.1994 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of July 31, 1994. Record's DestructiOn ADDrOVal RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve scheduled destruction of certain records as provided under the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. Memorandum of Understandina Concernina Plannina Area No. 7, Specific Plan No. 164, Rorioaugh, Model Home Aareement for Coscan Homes RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Planning Area No. 7 of Specific Plan No. 164, Roripaugh, authorizing the payment of development fees at a specified level and directing the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto. Consideration of Reaulations for Newsracks in Public Riaht-of-Wav (Continued from the meeting of 8/23/94) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Continue this item to the meeting of September 27, 1994. Award of Vehicle Purchase Bid No. 94-20 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Award the purchase of the vehicle to Paradise Chevrolet. The purchase price is $12,633.79,excluding tax. ProPertY Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize staff to cancel the current property insurance coverage. 9.2 Authorize participation in the Public Entity Property Insurance Program (PEPIP). 9.3 Authorize staff to obtain insurance coverage through PEPIP, in accordance with the schedule carriers who underwriter the coverage. 10 Authorization to Execute Supplemental Aareement for the Use of 20th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds RECOMMENDATION: 10. 1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Supplemental Agreement for the 20th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds. 11 12 13 14 ADDrOVal Of Contract Award for Plan Review Services RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve an award of contract to Esgil Corporation, Vandorpe Chou Associates, Ray Grage and Associates and Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, to provide building plan review services on an as needed basis, to the Building and Safety Department. Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-1 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-1, and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety. Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-2 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-2, and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety, Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-3 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-3, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety. 15 Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-4 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-4, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety. 16 17 18 19 Acceotance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street Svstem (Within Tracts No, 21675-1, -2. -3 and -4) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS NO. 21675-1,-2, -3 AND Acknowledae Comoletion of Certain Imorovements in Tract No. 26861-2 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Acknowledge completion of certain improvements in Tract No. 26861-2, authorize the reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of private streets, accept the Faithful Performance Warranty Bond Rider in the reduced amount and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and surety. Final Parcel MaD No. 26232-1 (Located East of Winchester Road at Nicolas Road) RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve Final Parcel map No. 26232-1, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Solicitation of Bids for the Acauisition of Street StrioinQ Contract (Project No. PW94-17) RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the annual street striping contract (Project No. PW94-17). 20 Comoletion and Acceptance of the Solana Way Street Improvements, Proiect No. PW93-12 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Accept the Solana Way Street Improvements, Project No. PW93-12, as complete. 21 22 20.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond !n the amount of 10% of the contract. 20.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Contract for the Construction of an Interim Traffic Sional at Winchester (Hw¥. 79N) and Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-11 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Authorize payment to the State of California for an encroachment permit fee in the amount of $6,720. "No Parkin~l" Zone on Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to 160 Feet North of Avenida Alvarado RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON DIAZ ROAD FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO 160 FEET NORTH OF AVENIDA ALVARADO 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. 23 Specific Plan No. 263 (Reoional Center) and Change of Zone No. 5589 RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 340;'T0 ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 340 INCLUDING A NEW MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND DETERMINING NO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF CHANGING THE CIRCULATION MITIGATION MEASURES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD 23.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5589, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM RoR {RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD 23.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 (REGIONAL CENTER) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD 23.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 2634 PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CORE, 810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE-INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ AND WINCHESTER ROADS 24 Specific Plan No. 1 (CamDOS Verdes). Environmental Impact RePort 348. and Chanoe of Zone No. 5617 RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND THE ADDENDA TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD 24.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES) LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD 24.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD 24.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES) PROPOSING 308 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL\OFFICE\CHURCH USES, A 5.8 ACRE DETENTION BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND 13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD COUNCIL BUSINESS 25 Non-Profit Loan Program Policy (Continued from 8/9/94) RECOMMENDATION: 26 27 28 29 30 25.1 Review and approve the Non-Profit Loan Program criteria with revisions aS appropriate. City Council Meetinq Schedule - November and December 1994 RECOMMENDATION: 26.1 Direct the City Clerk to cancel and/or re-schedule meetings in November and December, 1994, and to perform all the appropriate postings and noticing requirements of the Government Code. Consideration of Traffic Sianalization - Pala Road, La Paz and Marearita at Hiahwav 79- South (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Stone - Oral Report) Transient and Road Side Vendino Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 28. I Direct staff to prepare an Ordinance regulating vendors in the City of Temecula. Discussion of Timelines for Winchester Road Improvements (Requested by Mayor Roberrs) Cable Television Rate Reaulation Procedures RECOMMENDATION: 30.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO REGULATE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT RATES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 93-74 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: September 27, 1994, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00) CALL TO ORDER: President Jeffrey E. Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mur'ioz, Parks, Roberts, 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 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of August 9, 1994. 1.2 Approve the minutes of August 23, 1994. GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting September 27, 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, Mu~oz., 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 2 MinUteS RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of August 9, 1994. 1.2 Approve the minutes of August 23, 1994. RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Criteria RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Amend the Redevelopment Agency Loan Program for Commercial Rehabilitation (RDA Loan) criteria to allow for exceptions on a case-by-case basis to allow loans that exceed the $100,000 limit when appropriate. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting: September 27, 1994, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. PROCLAMATIONS/ PRESENTATIONS ITEM i ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1994 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order on Tuesday, August 9, 1994, 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California, Mayor Ron Roberrs presiding. PRESENT: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz Also present were City Manager Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager. Harwood Edvalson, and City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Assistant City Manager Harwood Edvalson. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Ron Roberrs proclaimed the week of August 7, 1994 "Temecula Volunteer Firefighters Week". PUBLIC COMMENTS Marvin Zeldin, 38027 Via Del Largo, Murrieta, representing the Old Town Temecula Merchants Association, presented the City Council a petition containing 73 signatures representing the Old Town businesses supporting the Zev Buffman proposal. Mike Thesing, 28636 Front Street, Temecula, read from an editorial he will be forwarding to the newspaper expressing his support of the Zev Buffman proposal. Therese McLeod, 42200 Main Street, Temecula, expressed her opposition to the Zev Buffman proposal. Stacey Tescier, 40595 Eyota Court, Murrieta, expressed her opposition to the Zev Buffman proposal and asked the Council to place the issue on the November ballot for a vote by the general public. Evelyn Harker, 31130 - 85 South General Kearny, Temecula, complemented the City for working on the Old Town Specific Plan and asked the City Council to wait for all the reports and studies come back on the Zev Buffman proposal before any money is expended for an election on this matter. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, requested an appeal be set for Classic Shotz Billards. He said the applicant has agreed to give up their application for a liquor license. CCMIN08109194 I W16194 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1994 Councilmember Birdsall said she would like e public hearing to be scheduled to hear an alepeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding Classic Shotz Billards. Jerry Geller, 42450 Wilson Valley Road, Aguanga, advised the Council the Owl Rock project will be presented to the County Board of Supervisors on August 23, 1994, which was unanimously denied by the County Planning Commission. Mr. Geller advised there are currently 70 years of sand mining permits in effect, or 30 years if there were to be a significant boom in construction such as in the 1980's. Allan Packler, 43495 Golden Hill Drive, Aguanga, said he is concerned about an already abundant supply of sand should the project be approved. Mr. Packler said the concern of the opposition is that the applicant has promised to give $18,000,000 to $20,000,000 to this project CountY, however, with the existing permits in effect, the opposition feel there will be no benefit to the County from Owl Rock. Mr. Packler added that Owl Rock is owned 100% by Mitsubishi and most of thq net profits will go directly to Japan. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that the City of Los Angeles is now requiring automatic shut-off valves for gas meters on all new developments. He explained that in the event of an earthquake of 5.5 magnitude or greater, the valve would automatically shut off the gas. He suggested the City consider this as an ordinance that would apply to all new projects. Mayor Pro Tern Stone said, pursuant to a request at a previous meeting, he and Mayor Roberts met with Cal Trans Manager Ken Steele and discussed the issue of placing a historical Temecula freeway sign on I-15. Mayor Pro Tem Stone said he and Mayor Roberts were invited to attend a rally by Governor Wilson supporting the bills going to the legislature regarding victims of violent crimes. He presented the City Clerk with literature regarding the legislative bills for the public's reference. Councilmember Parks reported on the recent SCAG meeting where there was heated discussions regarding traffic control measures. CONSENT CALENDAR City Clerk June Greek advised the Council one member of the public requests to speak on Consent Calendar Item No. 5. Councilmember Birdsall pulled Item No. 7 for discussion and stated she would be abstaining on Item No. 3. Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained on Items No. 2.2 end No. 5 and removed Items No. 9, 10 and 13 for discussion. CCMIN081Oe194 2 8/16194 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1994 Mayor Roberrs removed Items No. 5, 10, and 11 for discussion. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar Items No. I - 4, 6, 8, 12 and 14. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of July 19, 1994. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: 2.2 Approve the minutes of July 26, 1994. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 ABSENT: 1 CCMINOB/Og/94 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs None Mur~oz Birdsall, Parks, Robe~s None Stone Mu~oz 8/16/94 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3. Resolution ADorovino List of Demands AUGUST 9.1994 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Stone, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz City Treasurer's Reoort as of June 30.1994 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 1994. Out-of-State Travel Plans RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Authorize certain out-of-state travel plans. Council Suooort for SB 302 - Graffiti Abatement RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached letter to local legislators on behalf of the Council and in support of SB 302 - Graffiti Abatement. CCMIN08/09194 4. 8/16/94 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12. AUGUST 9. 1994 Acceotance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (Within Tracts 22715-1 end 22716-1) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY- MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS 22715-1 AND 22716-1 ) SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 14. Second ReadinQ of Ordinance No. 94-23 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-23 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 348, 92-16 AND 93-12 PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS 5. FY 1995-99 Capital Improvement ProQram Therese McLeod, 42200 Main Street, Temecula, asked the Council to consider moving the Western Bypass Corridor to the bottom of the priority list and the bridges at First and Sixth Streets to the top of the priority list. Councilmember Parks said the Western Bypass Corridor would occur if the Zev Buffman proposal were approved however, it would not take precedence over the bridge. He confirmed the Western Bypass Corridor has already been placed at the bottom of the priority list at this time. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve staff recommendation as follows: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-81 CCMIN08/09194 5 8118194 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9,1994 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 1995-99 AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FY 1994-95 The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES': ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: MuAoz Community Service Fundine3 Loan Criteria Councilmember Birdsall said she is concerned that the various types of non-profit organizations are clearly defined and asked the City Attorney to review the policy. Councilmember Parks'asked the City Attorney to provide examples of organizations that would qualify as non profit. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone to continue this item to the meeting of August 23, 1994 with direction to staff to clarify concerns regarding definition of Non-profit organizations and need for a Federal I.D. number. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Robarts NOES: 0 · ~30UNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz Contract ChanQe Order No. 2 for Proiect No. PW93-12, Solana Way Street Imorovements Mayor Pro Tem Stone asked if the signal was part of the original project. Public Works Director* Tim Serlet explained the signal was not a part of the original project however, staff found a majority of the equipment necessary to install the signal available in the City's surplus supplies. CCMIN08/09194 6 8/16/94 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9. 1994 It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve staff recommendation as follows: RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 9.2 Approve Contract Change Order No. 2 with Yeager Construction Company, Inc. increasing the' contract amount $43,855.00 to widen the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way. ' Transfer $43,855.00 from the Development Impact Fund/Traffic Signal Mitigation and appropriate in Capital Projects Account No. 210-165-651-5804. The m~tion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs None Mu~oz 10. Award of Contract for the Construction of an Interim Traffic Sional at Winchester (Hwv. 79N) and Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-11 Mayor Roberrs advised he has met with Cal Trans District Director Ken Steele regarding this item and Mr. Steele said he will follow-up on the matter. Mayor Roberrs said he would like to approve. the project with the understanding the City does not pay the $10,500 until they hear from Mr. Steele. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve staff recommendation as follows: 10.1 Award a contract for the construction of an interim traffic signal on Winchester (Hwy. 79N) and Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-11 to Paul Gardner Corporation for $64,822.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $6,482.20 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None CCMIN08/09/94 7 8/16194 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz AUGUST 9, 1994 11. Award of Professional Services Contracts for Civil Enaineerina to NBS/Lowrv for Proiect No. PW93-09. Perkview Site Mayor Roberrs expressed concern that he keeps seeing the same names come up in the award of contract services. Public Works Director Tim Serlet said staff is in the process of establishing a new I~olicy on the selection of consultants. The proposed policy will go before the Coordinating Committee in September. was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to al~prove staff recommendation as follows: 11.1 Award Professional Services Contractors to provide services for the design of the Parkview Site and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the following contract: NBS/Lowry for civil engineering and land surveying services in the amount of $19,945.00 with a $1,994.50(10%) contingency amount. 11.2 Approve an operating transfer from the General Fund to the Cal~ital Improvement Fund in the amount of $21,939.50(including 10% contingency), and appropriate $21,939.50in the Capital Improvement Fund for the design of the Parkview Site, Project Number PW93-09. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Stone, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz 13. Reoetitive Plan Review Compensation It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve staff recommendation as follows: 13.1 Approve an appropriation in the amount of $105,140to Account No. 001-162- 999-5248 for repetitive plan review performed by VanDorpe Chou Associates and the Esgil Corporation during fiscal years 1992-1993, and 1994. CCMINOa/09194 8 8/16/~4 AUGUST 9, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz Mayor Ron Roberts declared a recess at 8:25 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:43 P.M. following the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Mayor Ron R0berts reordered the agenda and moved Items No. 20 and 22 ahead of Item No. 15. PUBLIC HEARINGS 20. Temecula Town Association Assistance Councilmember Birdsall stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Ralph Schmidt, 30221 Via Corsica, Murrieta, representing the Lions Club of Temecula, expressed support of the Temecula Town Association. Mr. Schmidt said the Lions Club uses the facility to hold their monthly meetings. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve staff recommendation as follows: 20.1 Consider providing a loan of $68,000 to the Temecula Town Association based on a "Value-in-Use" Appraisal. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Stone, Roberrs NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz 22. Consideration of Financial Support for the Economic Development CorPoration Finance Director Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report. She said staff recommends Funding Level B. CCMTN08/09/94 9 8/I 8/94 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9,1994 Gary Plantz, 4909 Murphy Canyon Road, San Diego, Managing Director of Pacific Region Publishing and a member of the EDC, spoke in support of the request by the EDC. Mr. Plantz says that it has been his experience that the communities with a professional executive director have attained very positive results. It was moved by Cduncilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve staff recommendation for Funding Level "B". CounCilmember Birdsall asked if the City was able to find a rent free location for the EDC. City Manager Bradley said staff has found the EDC a location. Councilmember Birdsall asked if the applicant could utilize volunteers in place of the position for a part-time secretary. Doug Davies, representing the EDC, explained the position of secretary was an addition to the budget. He said the EDC is willing to cut this position. Councilmember Parks said he would like the EDC called "Temecula Valley EDC". Mayor Roberrs said he met with Murrieta Mayor VanHaaster and advised him of the Temecula City Council workshop. Mayor Roberts said the City of Murrieta is supportive of the name change to Temecula Valley EDC, Mayor Pro Tem Stone said he supports the request by the EDC however, he is concerned there is not an Economic Development policy in place. Mayor Pro Tern Stone said he is opposed to using City of Temecula tax dollars to promote another city and would like the name changed to the Temecula EDC. Mayor Pro Tem Stone asked the Council to consider a loan of $10,000 to the EDC, changing the name to Temeoula EDC and having the EDC help the City to develop a policy. Once the policy is in place the City could then provide the funding that is needed. Mayor Roberrs agreed the City should have a policy in place. He asked Mr. Davies if the EDC would agree to changing the name to the Temecula Valley EDC, including commercial development in the focus and asked Mr. Davies to explain the request for a full time Executive Director. Doug Davies said he would have to present the proposal for the name change and the expanded focus to the EDC Board. Mr. Davies said he has received several job descriptions from across the United States and the proposed salary is in line with the position. He feels an Executive Director could help the City in establishing their policy. Mayor Pro Tern Stone said he supports funding $55,000 after the City has their policy in place and set a deadline of three months. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to amend the motion to approve funding of the EDC at level "B" in the amount of $55,000, and CCMIN08/09194 10 8/16/94 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Mayor 15. AUGUST 9, 1994 subject to a request to the EDC Board of Directors to consider a name change for the organization to the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz Roberts declared a recess at 9:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 P.M. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to extend the meeting to 10:30 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Mur~oz absent. Planning ADolication No. PA94-0022, Specific Plan No, 219, Amendment No. 4, Paloma Del Sol Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. Mayor Ron Roberts opened the public hearing at 9:55 P.M. Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultant, 3242 Halladay Street, Santa Ana, representing Kemper Real Estate Development Company, stated he was present to answer any questions by the Council. Mayor Roberts closed the public hearing at 9:55 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve staff recommendation as follows: 15.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0022,SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 4, PALOMA DEL SOL, LOCATED SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 AND WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 15.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: CCMIN08/091~4 11 8/16194 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 16. AUGUST 9, 1994 RESOLUTION NO. 94-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0022,SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 4; LOCATED SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 AND WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts NOES:' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz Variance No. 10 - A Fifty-Five (55) Foot Hioh Freeway Oriented Sion for Creekside Tex. aco Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. Mayor Ron Roberts opened the public hearing at 10:00 P.M. Lou Kashmere, 29115 Front Street, Temecula, said he feels his sign does not represent blight in the City. Mr. Kashmere said he needs the sign to attract business. He said the sign as it stands is 18' below the roadway. Jim Allan, 27195 Rainbow Canyon Road, Temecula, said he supports the applicant's request. Mr. Allan said he feels Mr. Kashmere's station is a very positive element of the community and a quality development. Therese McLeod, 42200 Main Street, Temecula, said she feels all gas stations should have signs visible from the freeway as a courtesy to travelers. Evelyn Harker, 31130-35 South General Kearny, Temecula, expressed support for the applicant's request. Ms. Harker said Mr. Kashmere is a strong supporter of the community's non-profit organizations. Mayor Robarts closed .the public hearing at 10:08. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve staff recommendation 16.1 as follows: 16.1 Approve Variance No. 10 with no additional requirement for extensions of time. CCMIN08/09194 12 8116/94 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES The motion carried as follows: AUGUST 9,1994 AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz COUNCIL BUSINESS 17. Plannine Commission AoDointments City Cderk June S. Greek presented the staff report. Mayor Pro Tern Stone said he would like to appoint Marcia Slavin and Andrew Webster. Councilmember Parks said he would like to appoint Marcia Slavin and re-appoint John Hoagland. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to appoint Marcia Slavin to a three-year term on the City of Temecula Planning Commission. The motion carried as.follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz Councilmember Parks suggested the Council consider reappointing Commissioner John Hoagland because he has been a Planning Commission for four years and the appointment of two new commissioners at this time might create a disruption of performance by the Commission. Councilmember Birdsall said she feels the Council should provide an opportunity for other members of the community who are interested in serving on the Commissions. Mayor Pro Tern Stone said he agrees with Councilmember Birdsall. He said he spoke with Andrew Webster and he seemed very enthusiastic. Mayor Pro Tem Stone said Mr. Webster has a lot of experience with the Rancho California Water District and is very familiar with the City's General Plan. CCMIN08109194 13 8116194 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 18. 19. AUGUST 9, 1994 Mayor Robarts said he feels John Hoagland has done an outstanding job however, Mr. Webster appears to have the background necessary for the position and he supports his appointment. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Stone, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to appoint Andrew Webster to a three-year term on the City of Temecula Planning Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts NOES:' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz Councilmember Parks asked staff to ensure appropriate recognition be given to Commissioner John Hoagland for his four years of service. Community Services Fundine RePresentative Finance Director Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to appoint Councilmember Birdsall to serve as Council representative. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Robarts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz ProDosed Keep Temecula Clean "Adoot-A-Street" ProQram Public Works Director Tim Serlet presented the staff report. Councilmember Parks said he supports the program however, he is concerned about the clutter of signs and he feels the proposed sign is too large. Councilmember Birdsall said she feels this is an important program and she agrees with reducing the size of the sign. Councilmember Parks asked staff to bring back alternatives to the sign program. CCMINO~09194 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 21. AUGUST 9, 1994 It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve staff recommendation and direct staff to present alternatives to the sign portion of the program: 19.1 Approve the Keep Temecula Clean "Adopt-A-Street" program. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz DiSD0Sal of Surolus EouiDment end SupPlieS Assistant City Manager Harwood Edvalson presented the staff report. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve staff recommendation as follows: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT THROUGH DONATION TO CHARITABLE NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS OR CITY SPONSORED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None CCMIN08/09194 15 8/16/94 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1994 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Parks to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Muf%oz absent. The next regular meeting of the Temecula City Council will be held on Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 7:00 P.M., Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Roberrs ATTEST: City Clerk June S, Greek CCMIN08/09194 16 8/16194 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THF~ CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $1,166,088.45. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTEr), this 13th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: Ron Roberrs, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] Resos 38 I 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 13th day of September, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: 0 NOES:' 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCIJ.,lvm~MBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILME~MBERS: None June S. Greek, City Clerk Relol 38 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 08/19/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN: O8/25/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 09/01/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 09/13/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 08/25/94 TOTAL PAyROLL: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 09/13./94 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 180,450.87 136,660.15 419,316.06 118,724.27 $ 1,166,088.45 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL 100 GAS TAX 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 165 RDA-LOW/MOD 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ (CIP) 220 MARGARITA ROAD REIMB. DIST. 300 SELF-INSURANCE 310 VEHICLES 320 INFORMATIONS SYSTEMS 330 COPY CENTER 340 FACILITIES 380 RDA-DEBT SERVICE 390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE 511,102.65 59,071,42 0.00 0.00 264.78 60,336.47 8,959.53 19,787.14 44,408.71 0.00 45,305.49 134,171.29 85,739.34 46,437.27 0.00 8,275.89 8,156.50 14,347.70 0.00 O. OO $ 1,047,364.18 PAYROLL: 001 GENERAL 100 GAB TAX 165 RDA-LOW/MOD 190 TCSD 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 280 RDA-CIP 300 SELF-INSURANCE 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 COPY CENTER 340 FACILJTIES 70,149.43 13,647.70 575.24 26,406.49 447.86 862.61 1,783.25 355.50 642.88 1,308.92 678.82 118,724.27 TOTAL BY FUND: PRE~PAR Y RETA W :STO~ I'RONALD'E. BRADLEY, C/['I'Y~NAGER / 'f' '''f , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. VOUCHRE2 08/10-'''~ 15:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 16133 08/12/94 16134 08/12/94 16135 08/12/94 16136 08/12/94 16216 08/15/94 13005 08/19/94 13006 08/19/94 13007 08/19/94 13007 08/19/94 13007 08/19/94 13008 08/19/94 13C~ 08/!9/94 1~ 08/19/94 130u~ 08/19/94 13009 08/19/94 13009 08/19/94 13010 08/19/94 13010 08/19/94 13011 08/19/94 13012 08/19/94 13013 08/19/94 13014 08/19/94 13015 08/19/94 13015 08/19/94 13015 08/19/94 13015 08/19/94 13016 08/19/94 13017 08/19/94 13018 08/19/94 162Z~ 08/19/94 VENDO~ VENDOR NUMBER NAME 001569 CREEMERS, AD 0014/.4 EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVI 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION 000202 J F DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES 80R~ERS~ KIN 001570 STATE NET 000310 TENECULA CREEK iNN 000825 TEMECULA CYCLES 000825 TEMECULA CYCLES 000825 TENECULA CYCLES 000306 TENECULA VALLEY PiPE & 000642 TENECULA, CITY OF ' FLE 0006~2 TENECULA~ CITY OF " FLE 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF ' FLE 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF ' FLE 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE 001487 TIERRA MECHANICAL, INC. 001487 TIERRA MECHANICAL, iNC. 000668 TINNY D. PROOUCTIONS TON GENTRY CALiFORNiA C 000320 TONNE CENTER STATiONERS TRAPP, RUTH 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE 000326 UNffOG RENTAL SERVICE 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE 001112 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNI 001509 VALLEY WINDS CO~n~ CONCE 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 000105 A E I SECURITY, iNC. 162,~ 08/19/94 000680 A M S - T M S CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER NAYON'S TRAVEL-NETHERLA 001-100-~9-5258 REIMBURSE W/RE TRANSFER 001-2220 REIMBURSE MiRE TRANSFER 001-2220 REIMBURSE M%RE TRANSFER 001-2220 REINB/DAY CAMP 190-183-4984 ADDITIONAL LOGIN 001-110-~-5226 ACCT 001173 12/28/93"3/ 001-110-~9~-5260 BL LIGHTS,KICKSTANDtOIL 001-170-~-5214 BATTERY 2 FRONT/2 REAR TIRES HAINTENACE PARKS/REC 001-170-~-5214 001-170-~-5214 190-180-~-5212 REIMB FOR P/R 08/11/94 001-1020 REINB FOR P/R 08/11/94 1~0-1020 REINB FOR P/R 08/11/~ IO0*1020 REZMB FON P/R 08/11/94 300-1020 REINB FOR P/R 08/11/94 330-1020 H.V.A.C. NA[NT i CRC 190-182-9~-5212 H.V.A.C. HAINT a SR CTR 190-181-~-5212 ADDwL MICROPHONES 190-180-9~9'5301 REFUND/DEPOSiT 001-2650 OFFICE SUPPLIES ' PUBLI 100-16/.-60/.'5220 TCSD CANCELLED CLASS UNIFORMS TCSD RATS AT CITY HALL RATS FOR CRC MATS AT SR CENTER 190-183-4982 190-180-~g~-5243 340-1~-~-5250 190-182-~-5250 190-181-~-5250 TURFGRASS/LANDSCPE COtIF 190-180-~-5261 CRC BAND CONCERT JULY 9 190-18]-~-5301 BLDG MAINTENANCE SUPPLi 190-182-~-5212 CiTY HALL JULY/AUG/SEPT ~0-1~-9~-5250 POSTAGE METER REIMB 001-100-~-52]0 ITEM ANOUNT 1,295.00 134,967.83 17,008.20 7,515.00 125.00 10.00 50.72 177.29 66.2~ 835.81 96.97 3,597.39 506.66 30.25 12.50 11.11 250.00 89.00 150.00 212.00 28.80 23.00 18.85 30.75 69.39 16.75 50.00 400.00 70.52 105.00 5.91 PAGE I CHECK AMOUNT 1,295.00 134,967.83 17,008.20 7,515.00 125.00 10.00 50.72 1,07~.37 96.97 4,157.91 339.00 150.00 212.00 28.80 25.00 135.74 50.00 400.00 70.52 105.00 V~UCHRE2 08/19/94 15:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 16250 08/19/94 000680 16250 08/19/94 000680 16250 08/19/94 000680 16250 08/19/94 000680 16250 08/19/94 000680 16250 08/19/94 000680 16250 08/19/94 000680 16250 08/19/94 000680 16250 08/19/94 000680 16251 08/19/94 16252 08/19/94 16253 08/19/94 16253 08/19/94 16253 08/19/94 16253 08/19/94 16254 08/19/94 16255 08/19/94 16256 08/19/94 16257 08/19/94 16258 08/19/94 001193 16259 08/19/94 001275 16260 08/19/94 001535 16261 08/19/94 000155 16261 08/19/94 000155 16261 08/19/94 000155 16262 08/19/94 000518 16263 08/19/94 000946 1626~ 08/19/94 001572 16265 08/19/94 000643 16266 08/19/94 000993 16267 08/19/94 001103 16267 08/19/94 001103 16268 08/19/94 000177 CTTY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGXSTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VENDOR NAME AMS TMB ANS TMS ANS TMS ANS TMS A'NS TNS ANS TMS ANS TNS AM5 TNS AMS-TMS ALVARADO, JOHN BELL, JEANETTE 000129 CAL ~EST RENTAL CENTER 000129 CAL ~EST RENTAL CENTER 000129 CAL ~EST RENTAL CENTER 000129 CAL ~EST RENTAL CENTER 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 000597 CALIFORNIA MATER RESOUR 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC CHRISTENSEN, RICHARD CUMP USA, INC. CUMPUSERV, INC. CREEKSIDE TEXACO ITEM DESCRIPTION POSTAGE METER REIMB POSTAGE METER REIMB POSTAGE METER REINB POSTAGE METER REIMB POSTAGE METER REIMB POSTAGE METER REIMB POSTAGE METER REIMB POSTAGE METER REIMB POSTAGE METER REIMB TCSD CANCELLED CLASS TCSD CANCELLED CLASS PARK MAINT RENTAL EQUIP PARK HAINT RENTAL EQUIP LAWN ROLLER RENTAL PARK HAINT RENTAL EQUIP ANNUALS COLOR - INSTALL ~ATER QUALITY CERT CRC SEC & FIRE ALARN REFUND-CLASSES CANCELLE MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES JULY USAGE CHARGES VEHICLE NAINT. FOR PUBL DAVLIN PLANNING MTG 07/18 DAVLIN PLANNING MTG 08-01 DAVLIN 08/09 COUNCIL MTG DEL RIO CARE ANINAL HOS MEDICAL CARE/POLICE DOG DISCOUNT FEED & TACK EMPLOYERS GROUP, THE FORTNER HARDUARE FREEDOM COFFEE, INC. FREEDUM MATERIALS FREEDUM MATERIALS FOOl) FOR POLICE DOG ANNUAL DUES 07/94-06/95 NISC SUPPLIES AND EQUIP COFFEE SUPPLIES FY94-95 100 LB. BAGS SILICA SAN TAX GLENNIES OFFICE PROOUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-110-999-5230 001-120-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 001-150-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 001-1990 100-164-604-5230 190-180-999-5230 320-199-999-5230 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 190-180-999-5238 190-180-999-5238 190-180-999-5238 190-180-999-5238 191-180-999-5415 001-1280 190-182-999-5250 190-183-4982 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5228 100-164-601-5214 001-161-999-5250 001-161-999-5250 001-100-999-5250 001-170-999-5327 001-170-999-5327 001-150-999-5226 190-180-999-5212 340-199-999~5250 100-164-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 190-180-999-5220 ITEM AMOUNT 47.69 157.28 416.57 80.52 563.57 103.89 173.87 224.82 2.66 40.00 25.00 38.79 7.00 8.62 73.27 728.00 250.00 53.00 38.00 404.~7 19.72 26.95 150.00 150.00 700.00 33.00 80.78 720.00 201.88 98.19 220.50 17.09 137.70 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 1,776.78 40.00 25.00 127.68 728.00 250. 53.00 38.00 19.72 26.95 1,000.00 33.00 720. O0 201 98.19 Z]7.59---~ 137.?,, VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 08/lg-~ 15:06 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERInnS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 16269 08/19/94 16270 08/19/94 16271 08/19/94 16272 08/19/94 16273 08/19/94 16274 08/19/94 16275 08/19/94 16276 08/19/94 16277 08/19/94 16278 08/19/94 1627~z 08/19/94 ld 08/19/94 16217 08/19/94 16279 08/19/94 16280 08/19/94 16280 08/19/94 16280 08/19/94 16281 08/19/94 16281 08/19/94 16281 08/19/94 16281 08/19/94 16282 08/19/94 16283 08/19/94 16284 08/19/94 16285 08/19/94 16286 08/19/94 16286 08/19/94 16287 08/19/94 16288 08/19/94 ld 08/19/94 162~," 08/19/94 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME GREEN, SALLY HOLL, WANDA 000806 HC/aARDo BORBY HUNPHRIES, SUSAN iTEM DESCRIPTION TCSO CANCELLED CLASS TCSD CANCELLED CLASS PAYMENT TO INSTRUCTOR TCSD CANCELLED CLASS 000388 I C B 0 ANNUAL CORF/ELMO, ANTHO 00157'5 iNLAND EMPIRE TOURISN C DAVE HOGAN/SEMiNAR 08/9 001407 INTER VALLEY POQL SUPPL MISC POOL SUPPLIES OPEN 001186 IRWIN, JOHN 000204 J R FREEMAN CO., ]NC. 000488 KNOTT'S BERRY FARM PAYMENT TO/NSTRUCTOR REPAIR OF TYPEWRITER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE MAINTENANCE SHALL TOOLS TAX HAINTEHANCE SUPPLIES - TAX 001406 KUSTOR SIGNALS, INC. LEATHER RADAR HOLSTER 001406 IdJSTON SIGNALS, INC, FREIGHT 001406 KUSTON SIGNALS, INC. TAX 001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT CON EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT COM PRUNER/C/RCLE SAW 001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT CON TAX 001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT CON REPAIRS TO EQUIPMENT 000653 LUCKY STORE DAY CAMP SNACKS MARTINI, DONA MCKEE, PATRICIA 001526 MiCHAELS STORES, INC. TCSD CANCELLED CLASS TCSD CANCELLED CLASS CRAFT SUPPLIES 000239 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERV/C TEMP SERVICES/VICI(Y GRA 000239 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC TEMP SERVICES/VICKY GRA PAED, ARNI 000248 PETROLANE TCSD CANCELLED CLASS PROPANE B&S VEHICLE 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH ACCOUNT NONHER 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 190-183-999-5301 190-183-4982 001-162-999-5258 001-161-999-5261 190-182-999-5212 190-18~-999-5301 001-162-999-5242 190-183-999-5301 100-16/.-601-5242 100-164-601-5242 100-16/,-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 001-170-~-5215 001-170-~99-5215 001-170-99~-5215 100-164-601-5215 100-164-601-5610 .100-164-601-5610 100-164-601-5215 190-183-999-5301 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 190-180-999-5301 001-162-999-5118 001-162-99~-5118 190-183-4982 001-162-999-5263 190-183-999-5301 190-183-999-5301 ITEM AMOUNT 35.00 40.00 160.00 55.00 355,00 ?5.00 142.23 246.40 101.00 636,30 7'28.14 56.43 777.00 60.28 24.82 4.15 1.92 124.29 699.00 54.17 76.21 100.00 25.00 14.00 19.35 374.40 468.00 30,00 254.38 53.06 16.15 CHECK AMOUNT 35.00 40.00 160.00 55.00 355.00 ?5.00 142.~ 246,40 101.00 636.30 1,622.65 30.8~ 953.67 100.00 25.00 14.00 19.35 842.40 30.00 254.38 VQUCHRE2 CITY OF TENEC1JLA PAGE 4 08/19/94 15:06 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIQOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VEMDOR NLk~BER DATE Nt. AqBER MANE 16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16E89 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16Z89 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16290 08/19/94 000580 PHbTOMORKS 16291 08/19/94 000740 PICCA DELl 16292 08/19/94 001046 REXON, FREEDMAN, KLEPET 16293 08/19/94 RISCH, VICKI 16294 08/19/94 001527 RYKOFF-SEXTON, INC. 16294 08/19/94 001527 RYKOFF-SEXTOM, INC. 16294 08/19/94 001527 RYKOFF-SEXTON~ INC. 16295 08/19/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY 16295 08/19/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY 16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON ITEM DESCRIPTION PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH FILM & SLIDE SUPPLIES EAP NGMT TRAINING LUNCH ACCT 200513'00ON JULY 1 TCSD CANCELLED CLASS CRC DISHWASHER SERVICE CRC DISHMASHER SERV%CE CRC DISHWASHER SERVICE LETTERHEAD FOIL TAX 06/02-07/01/94 07/01/94-08/02/94 07/01-08/02/94 06/02-07/01/94 07/01-08/02/94 ACCOUNT MI/qBER 001-150-999-5260 190-180-999-5250 320-199-999-52~0 190-180-999-5230 001-100-999-5260 100-164-602-5260 001-161-999-5220 001-161-999-5260 190-180-999-5301 001-150-999-5260 001-130-999-5247 190-18~-4982 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 001-110-999-5220 001-110-999-5220 190-180-999-5240 190-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 ITEM AMOUNT 3.99 4.31 15.70 5.75 2.13 15.00 12.02 14.00 13.46 87.55 272.00 40.00 198.75 15.68- 15.68 33.00 2.56 16.13 18.07 15.36 25.11 27.70 CHECK AMOUNT 142.11 13.46 87.55 272.00 40.00 198.715 35.~ 102.37 TOTAL CHECKS 180,450.87 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9 08/;>"'% 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 165 RDA DEV- LO~/NOD SET ASIDE 190 CCIqI4UNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL INPROVEHENT PROJ FUND 220 RARGARITA ROAD REINB DIST 280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORHATION SYSTEHS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 3/*0 FACILITIES TOTAL AKOUNT /,1,115.93 10,35~,,~,6 2~4.78 23,234.53 7,7~6.56 19,787.1/* 9,803.22 860. O0 13Z,,171.29 45,416.48 321.57 5,407 · 39 11,~8.07 310,93~.10 VQUCHREZ C]TY OF TENECULA PAGE 08/26194 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PER[OO$ VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME iTEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 13019 08/22/94 13019 08/22/94 13019 08/22/94 13019 08/22/94 13020 08/25/94 ]20211 08/25/94 320Zll 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 ]20211 08/25/94 ]20211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 ]20211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 ]20211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 320211 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/Z5/94 369008 08/25/94 ]69008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 ]69008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 ]69008 08/25/94 369008 08/25/94 ]69008 08/25/94 000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA 000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA 000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA 000430 .GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 0004/~ FIRSTAX (EDD) 000/,44 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000283 F4RSTAX {IRS) 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) · 00028~ FIRSTAX (]RS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FIRSTAX ([RS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FIRSTAX (%RS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] FIRSTAX CIRS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FXRSTAX (iRS) 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FiRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) AUGUST PAYMENT AUGUST PAYMENT AUGUST PAYMENT AUGLIST PAYMENT RDA PROMOTIONAL FUNDS 000~,4 000444 000444 ~)I O00,V~ O00z~, 000444 SDI 000444 SDI 000/+/,4 SDI 000444 STATE O00z~-~+ STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 0004/~ STATE 000283 FEDERAL 00028~ FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 0002Rx FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 00028~ FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 00028~ FEDERAL 00028~ FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 0002Rx FEDERAL 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283] MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDiCARE 001-1990 100-1990 190-1990 ~40-1990 280-199-999-5270 001-2070 100-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 100-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 100-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 100-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 19]-2070 32,09 3.77 10,54 ,10 45,000.00 728.55 155.12 9.36 365.90 7.82 12.19 28.46 .61 9.09 17.83 10.54 27.14 2,871.48 804.02 22.08 586.41 15.40 1.71 44.26 8.48 35.61 6~.13 17.05 15.26 10,827.94 2,359.83 103.25 3,269.81 46.88 47.46 210.57 30.24 97.96 27~.83 92.63 130.04 2,610.90 509.03 20.88 938.94 17.44 27.18 63.48 46.50 45,000.00 5,658.50 VOUCHRE2 08/2-'~'~ 11: 28 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 369008 369008 369008 369008 369008 13026 13026 13026 13027 13027 13027 13027 13028 13028 13020 13020 13030 13031 13032 13033 13033 13033 13033 13034 13035 13036 13037 13030 13039 13040 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME C]TY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERI~OS ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPT%ON NUMBER 08/25/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 0002A'x REDICARE 280-2070 08/25/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (%RSI 000283 MED%CARE 300-2070 08/25/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (%RS) 0002Rx MEDICARE 320-2070 08/25/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ NEDICARE 330-2070 08/25/94 00028~ FiRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 08/25/94 000745 A T & T 909-20~-1200-0 320-199-999-5208 08/25/94 0O0745 A T & T 909-204-1200-0 MJM 001-140-999-5208 08/25/94 000745 A T & T 619-987-1828-1 001-140-999-5208 08/25/94 001086 ADCO EQU]PMENT SALES 08/25/94 001086 ADCO EGUIM4ENT SALES 08/25/94 001086 ADCO EGUIPMENT SALES 08/25/94 001086 ADCO EQUIPMENT SALES 2 - 50255 CABLE ASSEMBL 100-164-601-5218 4 - 50067 CUTTER SHAFT 100-16~-601-5218 FREIGHT 100-164-601-5218 TAX 100-164-601-5218 08/25/94 001502 ADVANCE BUSINESS GRAPH[ PARKING CITATION FORMS 08/25/94 001502 ADVANCE BUSINESS GRAPHI ARTWORK 08/25/94 001502 ADVANCE BUSINESS GRAPNI PROOFS 08/25/94 001502 ADVANCE BUSINESS GRAPHI TAX 08/25/94 001425 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR CORP. 08/25/94 001425 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR CORP. 08/25/94 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP 08/25/94 000110 AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE 08/25/94 000102 AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C 001-170-999-5222 001-170-999-5222 001-170-999-5222 001-170-999-5222 909 204-1200 TH SO 1075255081594 MJM 320-199-999-5208 001-140-999-5208 LO~A LINDA PARK JULY 210-190-134-5802 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 330-199-999-5217 TEMPORARY FENCE RENTAL 190-180-999-5238 08/25/94 000101 APPLE ONE TEMP HELP W/E 08/06/94 001-140-999-5118 08/25/94 000101 APPLE ONE TEMP HELP W/E 08/06/94 280-199-999-5250 08/25/94 000101 APPLE ORE TEMP HELP W/E 08/13/94 001-140-999-5118 08/25/94 000101 APPLE ONE TENP HELP W/E 08/13/94 280-199-999-5250 08/25/94 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER 08/25/94 001551 BRyANfS DOG TRAINING 08/25/94 001006 BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS 08/25/94 000603 CABLE & WIRELESS COMMUN 08/25/94 001580 CAL STATE L.A. 08/25/94 001578 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF PARK 08/25/94 000502 CAL]FORNIA MUNICIPAL ST 08/25/94 000152 CALIFORNIA PARKS & RECR 08/25/94 000152 CALIFORNIA PARKS & RECR REPAIR OF C.R.C. SIGN D 190-182-999-5212 PMT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR 190-183-999-5301 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 330-199-999-5217 SERVICE 7/16 -8/15 320-199-999-5208 PLANNING & RECOVERY tats 320-199-999-5258 ACCESS TO PARKS GUIDEL[ 190-180-999-5228 1993-94 ASSESSED VALUAT 001-140-999-5250 MEMBERSHIP FOR J. CRONE 190-180-999-5226 MEMBERSHIP FOR B. HARTL 190-180-999-5226 ITEM AMOUNT 11.64 24.37 58.36 23.52 62.30 .65 .65 14.08 27.50 24.00 17.05 4.98 769.60 25.00 15,00 62.74 68.22 109.87 300.00 145.00 145,00 352.17 103.20 362.33 51.60 86.80 272.00 38.41 894.06 195.00 50.00 350.00 125.00 120.00 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 21,86~.48 15.38 7'3.53 872 178.09 300.00 145.00 145.00 869.30 86.80 272.00 38.41 894.06 195.00 50.00 350.00 245.00 VOUCHRE2 08/26/94 11:28 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 130~2 08/25/94 13042 08/25/94 130/,3 08/25/94 13043 08/25/94 13043 08/25/94 13043 08/25/94 13044 08/25/94 13045 08/25/94 13045 08/25/94 130/+6 08/25/94 13047 08/25/94 13048 08/25/94 13049 08/25/94 13049 08/25/94 13050 08/25/94 13051 08/25/94 13052 08/25/94 13053 08/25/94 13054 08/25/94 13054 08/25794 13055 08/25/94 13056 08/25/94 13056 08/25/94 13056 08/25/94 13057 08/25/94 13058 08/25/94 13058 08/25/94 13058 08/25/94 13058 08/25/94 13058 08/25/94 13059 08/25/94 13060 08/25/94 13060 08/25/94 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 00012? CALIFORNIAN.- LEGAL 000127 CALIFORNIAN - LEGAL 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER 000135 Ci:HTRAL CITIES SIGN SER 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER 000429 CH~SHER, RUTH 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC, 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. O00~J,? CORTRORIX OF HEMET 001577 CORP. FOR ENTERPRISE DE COX, ROSE 001535 CREEKSIDE TEXACO 001535 CREEKSIDE TEXACO 001233 DAN'S FEED & SEED, INC. 001029 DATAGUICK 000155 DAVLIN 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK'C 000949 G K N RENTALS ' 00018~ G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYN GAITAN, TANYA 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 00017'7 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 00017'7 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT GRAVES, ROXANNE 000186 HANKS NARDWARE 000186 HANKS NARDWARE CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION PUBLIC NOTICES CALlFORM SUBSCRIPTION-52 ~EEKS HARDWARE FOR SIGN INSTA TAX HARDUARE FOR SIGN INSTA TAX REIHB FOR CITY ~ATCHES 789-819-697-2 789-819-697-2 HANO RADIO REPROGRANED PUBLICATIONS FOR FINANC REFUND FOR TCSD REFUND VEHICLE MAINT. FOR PURL VEHICLE NAINT. FOR PUBL PROPANE GAS FOR P~ NTLY CD RI CHARGE VIDEO TAPE COPY FLD DAN EXPRESS RAIL 547~ 666~ 0391 O07~-RP 5473 6664 0391 O0?3-RP FORKLIFT RENTAL 909 181-112~ GEM 909 694-1993 GEM 909 699-8632 GEM REFUND FOR TC$O CLASS OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES F RETURNED SUPPLIES CREDI REFUND FOR TCSO CLASS SUPPLIES FOR PARK NAINT SPORTS SUPPLIES ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-120-999-5256 001-161-999-5226 100-16~-601-52~ 100-16~-601-5244 100-16~-601-524~ 100-164-601-522~ 001-1170 001-170-999-5262 001-110-999-5263 001-162-999-5242 001-140-999-5228 190-183-4982 100-164-601-5214 100-16~-601-5216 100-16~-601-5218 320-199-999-5250 001-163-999-5250 320-199-999-5730 001-100-999-5258 001-100-999-5226 340-199-999-5250 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 190-183-4975 190-182-999-5220 001-150-999-5220 190-182-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 190-180*999-5220 190-18~-6982 190-180-999-5212 190-183-999-5301 ITEM AMOUNT 611.01 56.03 117.76 9.13 120.80 9.36 96.97 85.04 53.06 35.00 35.00 30.83 26.95 13.91 62.81 16.16 9.00 259.73 40.00 186,10 588.27 1,192.16 16.86 25. O0 32.00 61.74 42.30 24.66 16.47- 20.00 505.25 209.29 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 667.0~ 257.03 96.97 138.10 35. O0 2~.90 35.00 57.7L,, 13.,,, 62.81 16.16 9.00 2~.~ 186.10 1,797.29 25. O0 20, O0 714,b,,. VOUCHRE2 08/2"" VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 13061 13062 13063 13063 13063 13063 13063 130~3 13063 13064 13065 13066 13067 13~ 13b~, 13070 13071 13072 13072 13072 13073 13073 13073 13074 13075 13076 13076 13077 13078 13079 1 11:28 CHECK DATE 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/Z5/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 CiTY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME DESCRIPT;ON NUMBER 001517 000194 000194 000194 000194 000194 000194 000194 HARRIS, VIRGINIA REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE EMPLOYEE ASSIST PROG AU RETIREMENT TRUS 00019~ DEF COIIP RETZREMENT TRUS 00019/, DEF CONP RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP 190-183-4982 001-150-999-5250 001-2080 100-2080 190-2080 191-2080 193-2080 300-2080 3/,0-2080 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL MISC. POOL SUPPLIES 001349 IC~NE, BALLHER & BERIO4AN JULY SERVICES 001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT CON REPAIRS TO CHAIN SAW, U 000596 LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES ANNUAL CONF. 10/2]-25 190-182-999-5212 280-199-999-5246 100-164-601-5215 001-100-999-5258 001579 MAIN PHOTO LAW ENFONE IBAGING SEPT 001-170-999-5261 001574 MALHERBE, SUZANNE REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS NARAIA, LAURA REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS MARGARITA VILLAGE RET C NARGARITA RD WIDENING 190-183-4982 190-183-4975 220-165-610-580~ 000219 BARTIN 1-HOUR PHOTO 000219 MARTIN 1-HOUR PHOTO 000219 MARTIN 1-HOUR PHOTO PHOTO DEVEL FOR PW PHOTO DEVEL FOR PW PHOTO DEVEL FOR PW 001-163-999-5250 001-165-9q9-5250 100-164-601-5250 000228 MOBIL 88~ 930 379 2 AUGUST I00-16~-601-526~ 000228 MOBIL 883 930 379 2 AUGUST 001-161-999-5262 000228 MOBIL 88~ 930 379 2 AUGUST 001-110-999-5263 00088~ NONTELEONE EXCAVATING WEED ABATEMENT YNEZ RD 100-164-601-5402 NUNN, TERESA 001007 N P G CORP. 001007 N P G CONP. REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS 6" ASPHALT BERM OVERLAY NANHOLE 190-183-4982 100-164-601-5A02 100-164-601-5A02 000930 NATIONAL EMBLENo INC. VOLUNTEER PATCHES 001-170-999'5243 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIO 94 SPRINKLER CODE RDBK 001"162'999'5228 000232 NEET, JOHN P., NAI APPRAISAL OF COMM CNTR 190-180-999-5250 000881 OAKRIDGE LANDSCAPE/IRRI SHRUBS-VANDALS PO 15777 100-164-601-5401 ITEM AMOUNT 70.00 325.00 1,187.87 248.6~ 436.50 74.52 91.09 37.49 29.10 213.35 148.75 25.8~ 195.00 250.00 35.00 25.00 1:~,171.29 34.72 15.37 25.4,4 18.85 30.93 30.~ 250.00 18.00 550.00 968.00 302.96 57.11 600,00 525,00 PAGE CHECK ANGUNT 70.00 325.00 2,105.20 213.35 148.75 25.86 195.00 250.00 35.00 25.00 134,171.29 75.53 80.22 250.00 18.00 1,518.00 302.96 57.11 600.00 525.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE 5 08/26/94 11:25 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER ~, FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 13081 08/25/94 13082 08/25/94 13083 08/25/94 VENDOR NUMBER 000239 001354 13084 08/25/94 000525 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 11085 08/25/94 000246 13085 08/25/94 000246 VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC P C MAGAZINE PALMER, SUSAN PARK~ RONALD J. PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEESf RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS ~MPLOYEESI RETIRE PRRS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEESt RETIRE 13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH 13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH 1108(> 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH 13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH 13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH 13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH 13087 08/25/94 000580 PHOTO~ORKS 13088 08/25/94 000253 POSTMASTER 13088 08/25/94 000253 POSTHASTER 13088 08/25/94 000253 POSTMASTER 1308~ 08/25/94 000253 POSTMASTER 13089 08/25/94 000516 PRENTICE HALL, INC. TENP HELP W/E 08/07 001-162-999-5118 PC MAGAZINE SUBSCIPTIOR 320-199-999-5228 SWIM LESSON REFUND 190-18~-4975 LEAGUE OF CC JULY 27-29 001-I00-99q-5258 000246 PER REDE 001-2130 000246 PER REDE 100-2130 000246 PERS RET 001-2J90 000246 PERS RET 100-2390 000246 PERS RET 165-2390 000246 PERS RET 190-2390 000246 PERS RET 191-2390 000246 PERS RET 192-2390 000246 PERS RET 19]-2390 000246 PERS RET 280-2390 000246 PERS RET ]00-2390 000246 PERS RET ]20-2390 000246 PERS RET 330-2390 000246 PERS RET 340-Z]90 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2,]90 000246 SURVIVOR 100-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 280-Z$90 000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 PETTY CASH REIMB. PETTY CASH REINB, PETTY CASH RE]MB. PETTY CASH REINS, PETTY CASH REINS, PETTY CASH REINS, 190-18~-999-5301 001-100-999-5258 190-180-999-5220 190-181-999-5301 001-161-999-5220 001-161-999-5260 PICTURE DEVELOPING 001-161-999-5224 EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE EXPRESS MAIL SERV]CE EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE 190-180-999-5230 001-120-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 001-110-999-5230 THE COMPLETE ~IORD BOOK 190-180-999-5228 ITEM AMOUNT 468.00 59.95 25.00 30.00 128.52 85.88 12,306.50 2,364.84 108.84 2,475.14 87.47 105.56 313.55 61.17 111.59 268.21 114.60 287.20 49.11 10.69 12.51 .42 .93 1.44 .19 .46 2.00 28.11 20.00 5.39 35.46 14.00 20.00 20.01 23.90 45.85 13.95 9.95 75.22 CHECK AMOUNT 468.00 59.95 25.00 30.00 18,897.65 122.96 20.01 93.65 75. VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEECULA PAGE 6 08/3""'~ 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR iTEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK ANESJNT 13090 08/25/94 000894 PRESENTATION PRODUCTS, SUPPLIES 001o161-999-5220 13091 08/25/94 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CORPAN 13091 08/25/94 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN 13091 08/25/94 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COHPAN COMM SERV FUNDING PRO6 001-140-999-5254 DISPLAY AD PLAN COle4 TU 001-120-999-5254 DISPLAY AD PLAN COIq4 SU 001-120-999-5254 218.21 116.55 28.00 29.60 218.21 174.15 13092 08/25/94 000992 RAHONA TIRE, INC. REPAIR OR B&S V~HICLES 001-162-999-5214 281.49 281.49 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCNO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROR 6/8- 190-182-999-5240 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCNO CALIFORNIA MATER MATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 190-180-999-5240 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 191-180-999-5240 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 193-180-999-5240 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 190-181-999-5240 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER MATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 100-164-601-5240 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/21 190-180-999-5240 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/21 191-180-999-5240 13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/21 19~-180-999-5240 13094 08/25/94 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL 13094 08/25/94 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL 1 08/25/94 000]52 RIVERSIDE CO. ASSESSOR MISCELLANEOUS JANITORIA 3~0-199-999-5212 MISCELLANEOUS JANITORIA 340-199-999-5212 ASSESSOR#S PARCEL NAPS 190-180-999'5370 799.60 4,887.65 122.94 1,557.15 80.95 21.82 ],026.02 137.68 7,492.92 29.33 177.83 13.50 18,126.T3 207.16 13.50 13096 08/25/94 000353 RIVERSIDE CO. AUOITOR 13096 08/25/94 000353 RIVERSIDE CO, AUDITOR PARKING CITATION ASSESS 001-2265 PARKING CITATION ASSESS 001~2260 50.00 60.00 110.00 13097 08/25/94 000275 ROMERO, LUCI MUN MGMT CONF 8/17/94 001-140-999-5258 149.30 149.30 13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S# INC/INLAND OIL 13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLANO OIL 13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S, ]NC/INLAND OIL ' 13098 08/25/94 000704 S'K S, INC/INLANO OIL 13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S# INC/INLANO OIL 13099 08/25/94 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE 1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 100-16~-601-526] 1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 001-110-999-5263 1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 001-165-999-5263 1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 001-163-999-5263 1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 001-162-999-526] 1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 190-180-999-5263 ENG RECRUITMENT AD 001-150-999-5254 452.21 47.52 56.35 86.47 48.T'~ 167.62 183.00 858.90 183.00 13100 08/25/94 0004~4 SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS SIERRA SYSTEM MOOIFICAT 320-199-999-5248 272. O0 272.00 13101 08/25/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - 13101 08/25/94 000537 SOUTHERN CAL]F EDISON - 13101 08/25/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EOISOR - 13101 08/25/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - STREET LIGHTS 6/30-7/~1 SERVICE ENDING 7/31/94 SERVICE PERIUD 07/08 - SERVICE 07/08 - 08/05 13102 08/25/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPNOR 904) 202-420~ WE 13102 08/25/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPROR 9092024751-TS 13102 08/25/94 000375 SOUTHERN ORLIF TELEPNOR 909 202-4756 ICRTM 13102 08/25/94 000]75 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 9092024757-J6 13~- 08/25/94 000375 -SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPROR 909 202-4758 RR 1 08/25/94 00037~ SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4759 TE 1~..~ 08/25/94 00037~ SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR 9092024760-JH 191-180-999-5319 192-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 001-110-999-5208 100-16~-60~-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-120-999-5208 001-100-999-5208 001-162-999-5208 100-164'-603-5208 6,988.88 19,592.11 210.25 46.86 39.24 52.92 36.34 62.92 81.21 55.86 80.90 26,838.10 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 08/26/94 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13102 08/25/94 13103 08/25/94 13104 08/25/94 13104 08/25/94 13105 08/25/94 13105 08/25/94 13106 08/25/94 13106 08/25/94 13107 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13100 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13108 08/25/94 13108 08/Z3/94 13108 08/25/94 13109 08/25/94 13110 08/25/94 13110 08/25/94 13111 08/25/94 13111 08/25/94 13111 08/25/94 13111 08/25/94 13111 08/25/94 13111 08/25/94 VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR 000375 ~O~JTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPNOR 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 000375 SOUTHERN CAL]F TELEPHOR 000375 SOUTHERN CAL/F TELEPHOR 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 000291 SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS 000302 SYSTEM SOURCE, INC. 000302 SYSTEM SOURCE, INC. 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO, THORAS, LORRI 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME NOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTIOR TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TiME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS 001560 TOTAL HEALTH NUTR/TIOR& 000320 TCNNE CENTER STATIONERS 000320 TOIJNE CENTER STATIONERS 909 202-4761SM 909 202-4762 RP 909202476~-88 9092024765-GB 909 202-4769 JS 909 202-4770 RB 909 202-5153 GY 909 202-4753 BH 909 202-4754 KH 6/29 - 7/28/9(. 9092054070-MJM 909 205-7826 EOC 001-100-999-5208 001-100-999-5208 100-16~-601-5208 100~164-601-5208 001-100-999-5208 001-110-999-5208 001-150-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 190-180-999*5208 190-180-99~-5208 001-140-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 NAINT FOR OR VEHICLE 001-110-999-5214 SCREEN FAB/MINDOU IMSTA 190-180-999-5212 RR DAMAGE WINDO~ AT CRC 190-182-999-5212 PW OFFICE FURNISHINGS ]Z,0-199-999-5219 TAX 340-199-999-5219 TROPHIES 190-182-999-5301 PARENT/TEEN TROPNYS 190-182-999-5301 REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS 190-183-4980 TMT-620 LAN CABLEMETER 320-1970 FREIGHT 320-1970 FREIGHT REFUND INV OVER 320-1970 TAX 320-1970 TMT-A~/45 MULTI-PURPOSE 320-199-999-5242 TMT-700C CORDURA CARRY[ 320-199-999-5242 TMT-E91525 CRIMPING TOO 320-199-999-5242 TMT-323KT CABLE SPLICER 320-199-999-5242 TMT-S21N SCISSOR W/NOTC 320-199-999-5242 TMT-CK-IO PHILLIPS #13 320-199-999-5242 FREIGHT 320-199-999-5242 TAX 320-199-999-5242 FAT LOSS TCSD CLASS 190-18]-999-5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PUBLI 100-164-604-5220 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PUBLI 100-164-604-5220 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO IDEF. C 001065 DEF COHP 001065 U S C M/PEGSCO (DEF. C 001065 OEF CORP 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CORP 001065 U S C N/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CORP 001065 U S C N/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CORP 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CORP 001-2080 100-2080 190-2080 300-2080 320-2080 340-2080 174.95 92.77 67.78 43.40 42.57 48.30 61,10 46.97 105.51 49.83 132.54 36.34 20.99 349.40 794. O0 96. O0 7.44 25.86 16.17 15.00 795.00 4.80 4.80- 61.61 15.95 15.00 2] .95 29.95 10.75 8.95 8.10 140.00 255.96 127.99- 2,518.52 188.45 275.09 5.00 312.50 50.00 1,311.45 20.99 1,143.40 103.~. 42.0~ 15.00 97'5.94 140.00 127.97 3,349. VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8 08/2/"'"" 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK HLIMBER 13112 13112 13113 13113 13113 13113 13114 13114 13114 13115 13116 13117 13117 13118 13~ 1: 13119 13119 13119 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 00/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 iTEM ACCOUNT iTEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT 000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M/PEBSCQ (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW 000325 UNITED MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 IN 000325 UNITED gAY OF THE INLAN 000325 IN 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE iNLAN 000325 IN 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE 000326 UN/TOG RERTAL SERVICE 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE VOLIVITCHo JUDZ 0003?9 W DEAN DAVIDSON CO. 001342 MAXZE SANITARY SUPPLY 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 000342 WINDSOR PARTNERS - RANC 000342 WINDSOR PARTNERS - RANC 000342 WINDSOR PARTNERS - RANC 000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 001-2160 190-2160 001-2120 100-2120 190-2120 280-2120 UNIFORMS PW UNIFORM MAINTENANCE FOR RENTAL AND CLEANING OF 100-164-601-5243 190-180-999-5243 340-199-999-5250 REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS 190-183-4982 NH PARK iMPROVEMENT PRO 210-190-136-5802 BLDG MAINTENANCE SUPPLI 190-182-999-5212 BLDG MAINTENANCE SUPPLI 190-182-999-5212 CREDIT FOR CAM SEPT RENT CAM FOR AUGUST 340-199-999-5234 340-199-999-5234 3~,0-199-999-5234 FIRST AiD REFILLS & SUP 001-165-999-5242 TAX 001-165-999-5242 F]RST AiD REFILLS & SUP 100-164-601-5218 258.78 1,137.70 65.85 10.05 17.00 .60 24.08 18.85 30.75 36.00 560.00 178.72 153.74 610.07- 8,803.60 2,6'}'3.95 49.95 3.87 177.67 CHECK AHOUNT 1,396.48 93.50 73.68 36. O0 560.00 332.46 10,867.48 231.49 TOTAL CHECKS 310,934.10 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE 6 08/]1/94 16:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER "'--, FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 190 CONNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IHPROVENENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 1NFORNATION SYSTENS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TOTAL ANQUNT 106,8252.40 11,351.68 7,778.24 705.97 165.00 417.06 882,0/, 3,425.95 2,986.12 2,115.6~ 136,660.15 VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1 08/.t""'~ 16:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER EOR ALL PERInnS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAJlE 13123 09/01/94 001586 A C C R A 13124 09/01/94 001587 A P W A 13125 09/01/94 000558 ADVANCED NOBILECONN ITEM DESCRIPTION COST OF LIVING INDEX 94 ~KSHP FOR CLEAN WATER & NOiILE COVERAGE 13126 09/01/94 000102 AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C FENCE INSTALLATION/CITY 13127 09/01/94 001323 ARRONHEAD WATER 13127 09/01/94 001323 ARRONHEAD WATER 13128 09/01/94 13129 09/01/94 001590 13130 09/01/94 000129 13131 09/01/94 001004 13132 09/01/94 000126 1 09/01/94 000127 13~J 09/01/94 000127 13134 09/01/94 000365 13135 09/01/94 000138 13135 09/01/94 000138 13136 09/01/94 000571 13137 09/01/94 13138 09/01/94 13139 09/01/94 13140 09/01/94 13141 09/01/94 13142 09/01/94 13142 09/01/94 13143 09/01/94 15144 09/01/94 1:~5 09/01/94 13,~o 09/01/94 BAILEY, VERONICA CRA CAL WEST RENTAL CENTER WATER FOR PW YARD 7/25 - 8/17/94 WATER REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS CRA RDA WKSHP NOV 14-16 PARX MAINTENANCE RENTAL CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FISH 92 ANN REPT/WILD HERITA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR M CALIFORNIAN - LEGAL CALIFORNIAN - LEGAL CASSIERE, KATHLEEN CITICORP NORTH AMERICA CITICORP NORTH AMERICA DISPLAY ADS DISPLAY ADS REFUND FOR GOLF TOURAME SEPT 94 iNSTALLMENT SEPT 94 INSTALLMENT CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERIN gXSNP FOR CDNNISSIONERS CLARK, LORI 000442 COMPUTER ALERT'SYSTEMS 000447 CORTRONIX OF HEMET 001535 CREEKSIDE TEXACO REFUND FOR TCSO CLASS FIRE ALARM MONITORING A ANTENNA FOR HAND RADIO VEHICLE HA/NT. PUBLIC W 001233 DAN'S FEED & SEED, INC, PROPANE GAS FOR FIELD T 000155 DAVLIN VIDEO DUPLICATION OF CC 000155 DAVLIN COPIES OF VIDEO TAPES 001542 DEFABIIS, SEAN PAUL PNT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR 001245 000164 001056 ACCOUNT NUI~BER 001'140'~-5228 001-163-~9-5261 320-1~'~'5209 ~0-1~'~'5219 100'16/+'601'5240 ~40'1~'~'5240 lq0'18~'4975 001-140-~-5258 190'180'~'5238 001'161'~9'5228 190'180'~'5212 280-1~9-~9~-5264 190'180'~'5254 001'2172 320-2800 320-1~-~qq-5391 100'164'602'5261 190-18~-4975 340-1~-~-5250 100-164-601-5242 001-16~-~9~-5214 100-164-601-5218 001-120-~-5250 001-100-~-5250 190-18~-~-5301 DISPOSAL CONTROL SERVIC NAZ-HAT STOPJ~GE & DISPO 100-164-601-5430 ESGIL CORPORATION PLAN REVIEW FOR FY 92,9 001-2030 EXCEL LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE F 1~-180-~-5415 ITEM AMOUNT 110.00 85.00 738.00 985.00 22.00 139.86 25.00 290.00 20.56 29.45 401.54 417.06 208,54 55.00 1,185.69 241,88 200,00 25.00 135.00 28.56 Z~.5,05 12.47 53.88 700.00 408.00 314,87 91,640.94 405.97 CHECK AMOUNT 110.00 85.00 T38.00 985.00 161.86 25.00 290.00 20.56 29.45 401.54 625.60 55.00 1,427.57 200.00 '25.00 135.00 28.56 /~,5.05 12.47 753.88 408.00 314.87 91,640.96 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE 08/~1/94 16:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME [TEN DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 13146 09/01/94 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 13147 09/01/94 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 13148 09/01/94 000993 FREEDOM COFFEE, INC. 13149 09/01/94 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 13149 09/01/94 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 13149 09/01/94 00018/. G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 13149 09/01/94 00018~ G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS EXPRESS HAIL COFFEE SUPPLIES FY94-95 909 695-356~ GEN 909 699-6267 GEN 193-180-999-5415 001-162-999-5230 340-199-999-5250 320-199-999-5208 100-164-601-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 13150 09/01/94 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT 94 RENT 190'180'999-52~ 13150 09/01/94 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT 94 REHT 100-164-601-5234 13151 09/01/94 GANIRO, ROBIN REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS 190-18~-4975 13152 09/01/94 000481 GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIROBM PROF SERVICES FOR PALA 210-190-120-5802 13153 09/01/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PROBUCT NISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES F 001-140-999-5220 13153 09/01/94 OOO177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRCOUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-120-9~9-5220 13154 09/01/94 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL OF 94 COVfT ACCT, AUDIT & 001-140-999-5228 13155 09/01/94 001292 GRAPHIC EMBROIDERY OF T HAINT. INSPECTOR SHIRTS 190-180-999-524] 13155 09/01/94 001292 GRAPHIC ENBROIDERY OF T HAINT. CUSTOOIAL SHIRTS 190-180-999-5243 13155 09/01/94 001292 GRAPHIC EMBROIDERY OF T TAX 190-180-999-5243 13156 09/01/94 001348 HANK NOHLE & ASSOCIATES i4ESTERN BY-PASS ENG SER 100-164-603-5248 13157 09/01/94 001566 HCOGES BADGE CORPANY, 13157 09/01/94 001566 HODGES BADGE COMPANY, 13158 09/01/94 001582 HEE)SON SAFE-T-LITE RENT 13158 09/01/94 001582 HUDSON SAFE-T-rITE RENT 13158 09/01/94 001582 HUDSON SAFE-T-LITE RENT R]BBORS FOR SUIM MEET: 190-18]-999-5301 FREIGHT 190-18]-999-5301 EMERGENCY RENTAL OF SOL 300-199-999-5207 EMERGENCY RENTAL OF SOL 300-199-999-5207 EHERGENCY RENTAL OF SOL 300-199-999-5207 13159 09/01/94 001429 [MACON %NFORNATIOB SYST SYNOPTICS 2813-05 lOBAS 320-1970 13159 09/01/94 001429 INACON INFORHATIOR SYST TAX 320-1970 13160 09/01/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL 13160 09/01/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL 13160 09/01/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL NISC POOL SUPPLIES NISC POOL SUPPLIES MISC POOL SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 13161 09/01/94 JENN]NGS, SUSAN REFUND FOB TCSD CLASS 190-183-4975 13162 09/01/94 001282 KNORR POOL SYSTEMS, INC MZSC POOL SUPPLIES FOR 190-182-999-5212 13162 09/01/94 001282 KNORR POOL SYSTEMS, INC N[SC POOL SUPPLIES FOR 190-182-999-3212 13163 09/01/94 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPL[E HAINTENANCE SHALL TOOLS 100-164-601-5242 13163 09/01/94 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE TAX 100-16l.-601-5242 iTEM AMOUNT 300.00 13.50 94.20 33.44 38.53 208.51 42.34 392.00 308.00 25.00 165.00 76.13 65.95 · 280.00 160.00 34.10 262.50 912.00 72.96 325.00 497.0~ 60.00 855.00 71.99 237.05 188.96 165.94 30.00 19.95 85.70 80.68 6.25 CHECK AMOUNT 705.97 13.50 94.20 322.82 700.00 25.00 165.00 210.66 65j 474.10 262.50 984.96 882.04 926.99 ,591.95 30.00 105.65 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 08/31~ 16:03 VOUCHER/CHECX REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTICI 13164 09/01/94 001329 KOHLHAAS, JEANNETTE 13165 09/01/94 000]80 LAIDLAW TRANSIT 13166 09/01/94 001574 13166 09/01/94 001574 13167 09/01/94 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. 13168 09/01/94 MILLS, TERRY 13168 09/01/94 MILLS, TERRY PMT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP TRA NARGARITA VILLAGE RET C F/NANCING & CORSTRUCT]O NARGARITA VILLAGE RET C RETENTION DIV/DERS FOR OPER BUDGT OVER CHARGE FOR BUILDIN OVER CHARGE FOR GUILD|N 13169 09/01/94 00097'5 NIRACLE RECREATION EQUX MOOEL 2990 C360" TOT SE 13169 09/01/94 00097'5 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI FREIGHT 13169 09/01/94 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI TAX 13170 09/01/94 0004]7 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 13170 09/01/94 000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 13170 09/01/94 0004]7 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 131'~''' 09/01/94 1317{ 09/01/94 13172 09/01/94 TOT AUDIT SERVICES CITY AUDIT FY 93°94 HAVE NOT RECD FINAL TOT 001189 MURRIETA DEVELOPMENT CO EMERG FIRE SYS REPAIR C 001591 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP TCSO 001591 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP TCSD 13173 09/01/94 001225 0 P R 13174 09/01/94 STATE PLANfZONING & DEV 0002]90LSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 8/14/94 13175 09/01/94 00124] PALMQUZSTo MARY PMT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR 13176 09/01/94 000248 PETROLANE PROPANE SERVICE 13176 09/01/94 000248 PETROLANE PROPANE USE 13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB. 13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH RE]MB. 13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB. 13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB. 13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB. 13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB. 13178 09/01/94 000580 PHOTO ~)RKS 13179 09/01/94 000253 POSTMASTER 13179 09/01/94 000253 POSTMASTER 15179 09/01/94 00025] POSTMASTER 13179 09/01/94 000253 POSTMASTER 131~~ 09/01/94 13 ~9/01/94 FILM, SLIDES AND PICTUR EXPRESS NAIL 7/23-8/19 EXPRESS MAIL 7/23-8/19 EXPRESS MAIL 7/23-8/19 EXPRESS MAIL 7/23-8/19 000546 RADIO SHACK/BUTTERFIELD POWER ADAPTER 000546 RADIO SHACK/BUTTERF/ELD PO~ER ADAPTER ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-183-999-5]01 190-183-999-5301 100-164-602-5405 100-2035 001-140-999-5222 001-162-4200 001-162-4285 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 001-140-999-5248 001-140-999-5248 001-140-999-5248 190-182-999-5212 190-180-999-5226 190-180-999-5228 001-161-999-5228 001-162-999-5118 190-183-999-5301 · 001-162-999-5263 190-180-999-526] 001-100-999-5258 001-162-999-5220 001-162-999-5260 001-163-999-5261 190-183-999-5301 320-199-999-5220 190-180-999-5301 001-120-999-5230 001-150-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 100-164-604-5220 100-16~-60~-5220 ITEM AMOONT 168.00 535.15 9,771.50 977.15- 491 26.25 ]5.00 666.00 39.12 51.62 4Q9.11 426,98 499.11- 435.00 18.00 12.00 18.00 468. O0 321.60 272.42 48.44 38.00 9.59 32.00 38.76 22.16 5.38 45.85 9.95 1] .95 5.38 8.61 CHECK AMOUNT 168.00 533.15 8,7~4.35 491.34 61.25 756.74 426.98 435.00 30.00 18.00 468.00 321.60 320,86 175,15 5.38 13.99 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 08/31/94 16:03 VCUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 13181 09/01/94 13181 09/01/94 13181 09/01/94 13182 09/01194 13183 09101194 13184 09/01/94 13184 09/01/94 13184 09/01/94 13184 09/01/94 13184 09/01194 13184 09/01/94 13185 09101194 13186 09/01/94 13187 09/01/94 13107 09/01/94 13188 09/01/94 13189 09/01/94 13190 09/01/94 13191 09/01/94 13192 09/01/94 13192 09/01/94 13193 09/01/94 13194 09/01/94 13195 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 13196 09/01/94 VENDOR NUMBER 000/,26 000/,26 000426 000266 000357 000704 000704 000704 000704 000704 000704 000285 000988 000375 000375 001589 000291 VENDOR NAME RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL RIGHT~AY RIVERSIDE CO. TRANSPORT S F S# INC/INLAND OIL S K S~ INC/INLAND OIL S K S# INC/INLAND OIL S K S, INC/INLAND OIL S K S, INC/INLAND OIL S K S, INC/INLAND OIL SIR SPEEDY SOLANO PRESS BOOKS SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALI~ TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SPEE DEE OIl CHANGE & T STARLIGHT FARM STEAK RANCH RESTAURANT 000302 SYSTEM SOURCE, INC. 000302 SYSTEM SOURCE# INC. 000]09 TEMECULA COPIERS 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. TERREAULT-SHEVLOFF, SAR 000320 TOWHE CENTER STATIONERS 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS 000]20 TOf~NE CENTER STATIONERS 000]20 TOt4NE CENTER STATIONERS 000]20 TQt4NE CENTER STATIONERS 000]20 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS 000320 TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS [TEN DESCRIPTION MISC SUPPLIES FOR SR CT MISCELLANEOUS JANITORIA MISCELLANEOUS JANITONIA PONTABLE TOILET FOR CIT ENG SERICES CORSTR TRAF FUEL EXPENSE FUEL EXPENSE FUEL EXPENSE FUEL EXPERSE FUEL EXPENSE FUEL EXPENSE BUS LIC APPLICATIONS CAL LAND USE & PLAN LAW 909 202-4763 PB 909 202-4752 SN C[G LIGHTER ADAPTER PW V~H NAXNT. BUSINESS LICENCE REFUND OVERPA]D FOR BUSINESS L 2 DRAUER~ 3 SHELF FILE REPAIR LAMINATE ON MAIN COPIER SERVICE AT FIRE KENT HINTERGARDT BRONZE REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FY9 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PUBLI OFFICE SUPPLIES * PW PR OFFICE SUPPLIES - PW PR OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FY9 OFFICE SUPPLIES. OFFICE SUPPLIES. OFFICE SUPPLIES. OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FY9 ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-181-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 100-164-601-5238 100-164-602-5405 100-164-601-526] 001-110-999-5263 190-180-999-5263 001-165-999-5263 001-163-999-5263 001-162-999-5263 001-140-999-5220 001-161-999-5228 001-100-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-163-999-5214 001-199-4056 001-199-4056 001-163-999-5601 340-199-999-5212 001-171-999-5217 190-180-999-52/~ 190-183-4984 001-16~-999-5220 100-164-604-5220 001-165-999-5220 001-165-999-5220 001~16~-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 001-16~-999-5220 [TEN AMOUNT 121.30 38.73 15.37 57.39 93.33 436.93 80.67 118.6] 53.27 86.17 7~.35 149.35 48.05 37.8~ 101,87 26.94 64.94 35.00 5.00 657.27 161.63 7~.00 380.00 95.00 322.46 650.21 116.09 35.56 6.23 40.18 25.27 6.03 15.05- CHECK AMOUNT 175.40 57.39 93.33 855.02 149,35 48,05 139.'/~..~ 26. ,~., 64.94 35.00 5.00 818.90 75.00 380.00 9~.00 1,186.98 13197 09/01/94 000326 UNXTOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORMS - FY94-95 FOR 100-164-601-5243 31.62 13197 09/01/94 000326 UN[TOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORM MAINTENANCE FOR 190-180-999-5243 16.35 VOUCHRE2 08/3'~ VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 13197 13197 13198 13199 13200 13201 13202 13203 13204 13205 13205 13205 16:03 CHECK DATE 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 CITY OF TEMEOULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 000326 UN[TOG RENTAL SERVICE 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI 001437 VIRACX, MARYANN WAGONER, CARRIE REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS 000339 WEST PUBLISHING COI4PANY CALIF CODES VOL ~6'26a 001076 WESTERN WASTEe INC. PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 000~42 WINDSOR PARTNERS * RANC "D" BLDG 4 DAYS 8/16'8/ 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 5100 XEROX COPIER MONTH 000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID REFILLS & SUP 000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE TAX 000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NLIIBER FLOOR NAT RENTAL AND CL 190-182-999-5250 FL(~3R NAT RENTAL AND CL 190-181-999-5250 PLAN REVIEW FOR FY 92,9 001;2030 PNT FOR TCSI) INSTRUCTOR 190-18]-999-5301 190-18]-497~ 001-120-999-5228 190-180-999-5238 340-199-999-5Z~4 330-199-999~5259 001-163-999-5242 001-163-999-5242 TO CORRECT BILL# 37~076 001-163-999-5242 TOTAL CHECKS ITEM AMOUNT 69.39 16.75 9,259.82 224. O0 25.00 69.40 455.00 600. O0 2,986.12 35.15 2.7~ 3.23- PAGE 5 AMOUNT 9,259.82 224.00 25.00 69.40 455,00 600.00 34.64 136,660.15 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE 08/31/9~ 16:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 190 CONNUNZTY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL [NpROVENE~T PROJ FUND REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 330 SUPPORT SERVICES TOTAL ANOUNT 191,873.68 3A,276.50 24,738.52 47L97 33,831.35 39~905.80 ~5,221.16 4,716.59 ~19,319.06 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE 1 08/3''~'' 16:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERI~OS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUNBER DATE NUMBER NAME 13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIAT 13208 09/13/94 001516 BARTOR*ASCHMAN ASSOCXAT 13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTOR*ASCHMAN ASSOCIAT 13208 09/13/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIAT 13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHNAN ASSOCIAT 13208 09/13/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHNAN ASSOCIAT 13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHHAN ASSOCIAT 13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTON-ASCRI, t~N ASSOCIAT ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUNBER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OLD TOWN TRAFFIC STUDy TRAFFIC INPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC INPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC INPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 280-199-999-5248 280-1270 280-199-999-5248 280-1270 280-199-999-5248 280-1270 280-199-999-5248 280-1270 13209 09/13/94 00012~ BURKE UXLLIAMS & SORENS DECEHBER SERVICES 190-2030 13209 09/13/94 000123 BURKE WILLJAMS & SORENS DECEMBER SERVICES 001-2030 13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE W[LLIAMS & SORENS DECENBER SERVICES 300-2030 13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILLJAMS & SORENS DECEMBER SERVICES 001-1280 13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILLJAMS & SORENS JUdE SERVICES 001-2030 13209 09/15/94 000123 BURKE WILLJAMS & SOltENS JUNE SERVICES 001-1280 13209 09/13/94 00012] BURKE W[LLIAMS & SORENS JUNE SERVICES 001-2030 13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILL[ANS & SORENS JUNE SERVICES 190-2030 13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILLIANS & SORENS JUNE SERVICES ]00-2030 13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE W[LLIAMS & SORENS RDA JUNE SERVICES 280-2030 13209 09/13/94 000125 BURKE W[LLIANS & SORENS CORRECTION FOR INV 1892 280-199-999-5246 13~ 09/13/94 000123 BURKE WILLIANS & SORENS JULY SERVICES GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 12 09/13/94 000123 BURKE WILLIANS & SORENS JULY PROF SERVICES 001-1280 132uy 09/13/94 000123 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENS JULY PROF SERVICES 001-130-999-5246 13209 09/13/94 00012] BURKE WILL[ANS & SORENS JULY PROF SERVICES 190-180-999-5246 13209 09/1]/94 00012] BURKE W[LLIANS & SORENS JULY PROF SERVICES 300-199-999-5207 13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILL[ANS & SORENS JULY SERVICES 280-199-999-5246 13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILL[ANS & SORENS JULY SERVICES GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 13209 09/1]/94 00012] BURKE N]LLIANS & SORENS CREDIT NENO FOR INV 189 001-2030 13209 09/1]/94 00012] BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENS CORRECT INV 19112 001-130-999-5246 13210 09/13/94 001006 BURTRONICS BUSXNESS SYS 13210 09/13/94 001006 BURTRONIC$ BUSINESS SYS 13210 09/1]/94 001006 BURTRORICS BUSXNESS SYS 13210 09/1]/94 001006 BURTRONICS BUSXNESS SYS 13211 09/13/94 000126 CALIFORN]A LANDSCAPE HA 15211 09/13/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 13211 09/1]/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE NA 13211 09/13/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 13212 09/13/94 000143 COPY-LINE CORPORATION 13213 09/13/94 001009 D B X, INC. 13214 09/13/94 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION 13214 09/13/94 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION 13214 09/1S/94 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION 13214 09/13/94 0015/+4 E L YEAGER CORSTRUCTIOR 1: 09/13/94 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 1]c~ 09/15/94 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE MINOLTA RP609Z READ/PRZ 330-199-999-5217 AFC2 CARD FEED SERVICE 3]0-199-999-5217 ZONE CHARGE FOR XEROX C ]~0-199-999-5217 TAX ]30-199-999-5217 CRC SERVICES AUGUST NEIGHBORHO00 PK AUGUST SR CNTR AUGUST MEDIANS SERVICE AUGUST 190-182-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-181-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 SERVICE CONTRACT RICOH 330-199-99q-5217 EMERGENCY STREET REPAIR 100-164-601-5402 SOLANA WAY ST IMPROVEHE SOLANA WAY ST IMPROVEME SOLANA WAY ST IMPROVEME SOLANA RAY ST IMPROVEME 210-165-651-5804 210-2035 210-165-651-5804 210-2035 LANDSCAPE NAINTEMARCE F 19]-180-999-5415 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE F 193-180-999-5415 ITEM AMOUNT 1,731.46 1,731.46 1,215.13 1,215.14 1,955.01 1,955.01 1,685.00 1,685.00 1,012.66 19,570.35 6,933.18 1,177.43 5,620.77 762.90 12,455.97 430.00 19,985.67 18,73].57 2.60 3,150.00 295.00 14,374.76 792.50 16,902.41 1,501.15 5,591.76 11.20- 7.20- 2,100.00 350.00 25.00 26.59 1,619.00 12,471.36 175.00 474.97 2,215.00 3,350.00 32,891.25 3,Z89.13' 10,963.75 1,096.38- 4,295.00 11,302.24 CHECK ANOUNT 13,1U.Z1 129,274.28 2,501.59 14,740.33 2,215.00 3,350.00 39,469.49 VOUCHRE2 CITy OF TENECULA PAGE 08/31/94 16:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 13215 09/13/94 13215 09/13/94 13215 09/13/94 13215 09/13/94 13215 09/13/94 13215 09/13/94 13216 09/13/94 13217 09113194 13218 09/13/94 13219 09/13/94 13219 09/13/94 13219 09/13/94 13219 09/13/94 13220 09/13/94 13220 09/13/94 13221 09/13/94 13221 09/13/94 13221 09/13/94 13222 09/13/94 13222 09/13/94 13222 09/13/94 13223 09/13/94 13223 09/13/94 13224 09/13/94 13225 09/13/94 13225 09/13/94 13226 09/13/94 13226 0911319¢ 13227 09/13/94 13227 09/13/94 13228 09/13/94 VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NtJMBER 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001581 GELLER, MICHAEL 000481 GE~TECHNICAL & ENVIRONM 001142 HARKHAM & ASSOCIATES 000220 NAURICE PRINTERS, iNC. 000220 NAURICE PRINTERS, INC. 000220 NAURICE PRINTERS, INC, 000220 NAURICE PRINTERS, INC. 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING 000883 NONTELEORE EXCAVATING 001521 NORTON TRAFFIC MARKINGS 001521 MORTOR TRAFFIC MARKINGS 001521 MORTON TRAFFIC MARKINGS 000231 N B S/LQ~Y, [NC, 000231 N B S/LOWRY, ]NC, 000231 N B S/LO~RY, INC, 000267 RIVERSIDE CO. FIRE DEPT 000267 RIVERSIDE CO. FIRE DEPT 000357 R~VERSIDE CO. TRANSPORT 001483 TON DODSON & ASSOCIATES 001483 TON DODSOR & ASSOCIATES 001179 TREBOR CORPANY, THE 00117~ TREBOR CORPANY, THE 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI 000539 WINI4ER YAMADA ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 193-180-999-5415 AUGUST SERVICE FOR $PTS 190-180-999-5415 AUGUST SLOPE SERVICES 193-180-999-5415 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE F 193-180-999-5415 SPECIFICATIONS MOT NET 19~-180-999-5415 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE F 193-180-999-54t5 EQUIP FOR RESERVE OFFIC 001-1220 SPTS PX SLOPE REPAIRS 210-16/~-&48-5804 ENG SERVICES FOR SPRTS 190-180-~99-5250 ONERATING BUDGET COVER INSIDE PAPER FOR TEXT 0 CLEAR COMBS TAX 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 CLEAN OUT CHANNEL 100-16~-601-5401 RAIN ST SAFETY RAILINGS 100-164-601-5402 424-151 PQ~RLINER 4000 424-810 DUAL BEA~ DISPE TAX' 100-164-601-5610 I00-164-601-5610 100-164-601-5610 ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING SERVICES 100-164-603-5248 100-164-603-5248 100-164-603-5248 4TH QTR FIRE PROT SERVI 001-2030 4TH QTR FiRE PROT SERVI 001-171-999-5251 TRAFFIC SIGNAL NAINT. 100-2030 INITIAL STUDY & TECH RP 280-199-999-5248 INITIAL STUDY & TECH RP 280-1270 REPAIRS ON SOLAR ARROI4 300-199-999-5207 ADDITIONAL REPAIRS TO S 300-199-~-5207 PLAN CHECK FOR JUNE SER 001-162-999-5248 PLAN CHECK JULY SERVICE 001-162-999-5248 PALA RD PARK 210-190-120-5802 ITEM AMOUNT 1,200.00 6,877.81 16,003~21 1,368.05 1,705.20- 1,368.05 1,666.00 3,266.00 1,360.19 982.00 341.00 32.00 105.02 2,000.00 5,181.00 4,105.00 895.00 387.50 5,345.00 1,120.00- 1,725.00- 80,000.00 40,137.13 15,858.00 3,247.64 3,247.6~ 1,099.90 300.00 2,568.89 3,061.10 1,545.00 CHECK AMOUNT 40,709.16 1,666.00 3,266.00 1,360.19 1,460.02 7,181.00 5,387.50 2,500.00 120,137.13 15,858.00 6,495.27 1,399.90 5,629.99 1,545.00 TOTAL CHECKS 419,319.06 ITEM 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer September 13, 1994 City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1994 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of July 31, 1994. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and ~eceipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the Code Sections as of July 31, 1994. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1994 2. Schedule of Fund Balances as of July 31, 1994 City of Temeeula City Treasurer's Report As of July 31, 1994 Cash Activity for the Month of July: Cash and Investments as of July 1, 1994 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as of July 31, 1994 46,267,557 1,850,400 (1,477,319) 46,640,638 Cash and Investments Portfolio: Type of Investment Petty Cash General Checking Benefit Demand Deposits Local Agency Investment Fund Deferred Compensation Fund Deferred Compensation Fund Defined Contribution Fund Trust Accounts-TCSD COPs Trust Accounts-RDA Bonds Institution Yield Balance City Hall $ 800 First Interstate 177,960 First Interstate 7, 107 State Treasurer 4.823% 32,673.896 ICMA 214.350 PEBSCO 238,565 PEBSCO 19,979 Bank of America 3.829% 510,447 Bank of America 3.829% 12,797,534 $ 46,640,638 (1) (1) (1)-This amount is net of outstanding checks. Per Government Code Requirements, this Treasurer's Report is in compliance with the City of Temecula's investment policy and there are adequate funds available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City of Temecula for the next thirty days. City of Temecula Schedule of Fund Balances As of July 31, 1994 City Total Assets $ 28,820,414 Less: Liabilities 3,948,535 Total Fund Balances 24,871,879 Less: Reserved Amounts (1) 3,844,771 Less: Designated Amounts (2) 14,264,914 Unreserved, Undesignated Fund Balances $ 6,762,194 Community Services Redevelopment District Agency Total $ 2,668,338 $ 21,272,611 $ 52,761,363 600,236 506,334 5,055,105 2,068, 102 20,766,277 47,706,258 1,047,582 8,669,891 13,562,244 1,020,520 12,096,386 27,381,820 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6,762,194 (1) Includes amounts reserved for encumbrances, land held for resale, long-term notes receivable, low/rood housing, and debt service, (2) Includes amounts designated for economic uncertainty, debt service, and continuing appropriations, ITEM 5 APPROVAL 'R~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: ' City Clerk DATE: September 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Records Destruction Approval RECOMMENDATION: Approve scheduled destruction of certain records as provided under the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. BACKGROUND: On March 22, 1992, the City Council spproved Resolution No. 92-17 which authorizes the destruction of certain city records which have become outdated, obsolete or are excess documents, in compliance with Sections 34090 through 34090.7 of the Government Code. The records outlined in the Destruction of Records Request are all Plot Plans which date from 1988 through 1991. The records have been microfilmed in triplicate, with copies of the film stored in the City Clerk's records vault, with the appropriate department and in off-site storage. The City Attorney has reviewed this request and has signed Exhibit "1" of the Annual Review as provided for in Resolution No. 92-17. ATTACHMENTS: Destruction of Records Request Exhibit "1" (Executed by City Attorney) JSG TO: City Clerk FROM: Gaff Zigler, Offic~ Specialist DATE: August 17, 1994 SUBJECT: Destruction of Records Request Attached is a print out of Plot Plans (Retention Type 20324) dating from 1988 through 1991. These records have been microfilmed in triplicate with a copy distributed to the City Clerk's Records Vault, the Planning Department and a copy to the Vault in San Diego. The following have reviewed and approved this destruction request. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 34090, I hereby give my consent to the destruction of records under the direction of the City Clerk pursuant to the City of Temecula's adopted Destruction of Obsolete Records Policy. D~p~ant ~ead... aT.. '~ ~}.,. ,,. · ~! ~.: . .....~:...:~....Th~~~ .... .' City Attorney: RRDESTY...RR061 City of TemecuLa Doc. Ref ......... 161 Page 1 08/26/1994 FiLes Ready for Destructien Retention Code... 20324 13:45:16 Destruction Date. Doc... item Rat. File Reference # Storage Media Re Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security Class Storage Location Location Reference 161 08/31/1976 2484 PLot PLan 2~8~ 20324 0011 FiLm 38Z1N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 1Z/09/1976 2706 PLot PLan 2706 20324 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/0711979 ~49 Plot PLan 4z,/,9 20324 D011 FiLm ~aZlN1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 1&1 0~17/1979 4~48 PLot PLan 46/,8 20324 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 01/02/1980 48A9 Pto~ PLan 4849 20324 0011 FiLm 3821NIAO001 Gro~ 161/120/The VauLt 161 08/17/1983 7262 PLot plan 7262 20324 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 06/02/1988 10719 PLot PLan 10739 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Grot~ i 161/120/The VauLt 161 08/01/1988 10854 PLot PLan 10854 20324 0009 FiLm 3821NIAO001 Group i 161/120/The VauLt 161 08/23/1988 10745 PLot PLan 10745 20324 0009 FiLm 3821NIAO001 Group i 161/120/The VauLt 161 08/23/1988 10792 PLot PLan 107~2 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Grcx~ 161/120/The VauLt 161 08/23/19B 10800 PLot PLan 10800 20324 0009 FiLm 387. lN1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 08/29/198B 10732 PLot PLan 107'S2 20324 0009 FiLm 3821H1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 08/29/1988 107~0 PLot PLan 10790 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 09/06/1988 10749 PLot PLan 10749 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 09/0~1988 107~2 PLot PLan 10792 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 09/09/1988 10~3 PLot PLan 10~3 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt , ,: ............................................................... 16 ~/09/1988 10801 PLot PLan 10801 20324 0009 FiLm ]821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 09/15/1988 10767 PLot PLan 10767 20324 0009 FiLm 3821X1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt RRDESTY...RR061 City of TemecuLa Page 08/26/1994 Files Ready for Destruction 13:/.5:16 DOCk Item Ret. File Reference # Storage Nedia R~ Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Location Location Reference 161 12/01/1988 10928 PLot PLan 10928 20324 000~ Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 12/01/1988 10976 Plot PLan 10976 20324 000~ Film 3821H1AO001 Group I 161/lZO/The Vault 161 12/02/1988 10930 PLot PLan 10930 2032~ 000~ Film 3821N1AOO01 Group % 161/120/The Vault 161 12/06/1988 10969 Plot PLan 10969 2032/* 0009 Film 3821NIAO001 Group ! 161/120/The Vault 161 12/07/1988 10932 PLot PLan 10932 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001 Group | 161/120/The Vault ....................... '. .......................................... 161 12/12/1988 10942 PLot PLan 10942 20324 0009 Film 38211I1AO001 Group Z 161/120/The Vault 161 12/13/1988 10940 PLot PLan 10940 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001 Grcx4> I 161/120/The Vault 161 12/21/1988 109/,2 PLot Plan 10~42 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001 Group i * 161/120/The Vault 161 12/21/1988 10956 PLot PLan 10956 2032/* 0009 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The V~utt 161 IZ/22/1988 10967 PLot PLan 10~67 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 01/03/1989 1100/, PLot PLan 1100/, 2032/* 0009 Film 3821N1AOO01 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 01/05/1989 1097~ PLot PLan 10979 20324 0009 Film 38Z1H1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 01/07/1989 11000 PLot PLan 11000 20324 0009 Film 3821NIAO001 Group 161/lZO/The Vault 161 01/13/1989 1098~ Plot PLan 10~8~ 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 01/20/1989 1098~ PLot Plan 10986 20324 0009 Fi Lm 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 01/23/1989 10~7 PLot PLan 10~<)7 2032/* 000~ Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault - -_~ ............................................................... 1~ 11/25/1989 10985 Plot PLan 10~85 20324 000~ Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 01/25/1989 11002 PLot PLan 11002 20324 0009 FiLm 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The VauLt RRDESTY...RR061 City of Telacute Page /* 08/26/199/* Files Ready for Destruction 13:/.5:16 Doc. Item Rat. FiLe Reference # Storage Hedia --~ Ref. Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Locati~q Location Refere 161 01/Z5/1989 110Z3 PLot Plan 110Z3 2032/, 0009 FiLm 38~1NIAO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 01/Z5/1989 11053 PLot Plan 11053 20324 0010 FiLm 38ZlH1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 02/01/1989 11016 PLot Plan 11016 2032/, 0009 FILm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 02/0Z/1989 11048 PLot PLan 11048 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161112Bithe VauLt 161 02/09/lg89 11022 PLot PLan 11022 20324 0009 FiLm 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The vault 161 02/10/1989 10975 PLot Pten 10975 2032/* 0009 Film 3821N1AO001 Groq} 161/120/the VauLt 161 02/16/1989 11040 PLot PLan 110/.0 20324 0009 FiLm 3821H1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 02/16/1989 11041 PLot PLan 11041 20324 0009 FiLm 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 02/17/1989 110~9 PLot PLan 11049 20324 0009 FiLm ]821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 02/23/1989 11065 PLot PLan 11065 20324 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 02/2/*/1989 11050 PLot PLan 11050 20324 0009 FiLm 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 02/27/1989 11056 PLot PLan 11056 2032/, 0010 FiLm ]821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 02/28/1989 11067 PLot PLan 11067 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 0]/06/1989 11076 PLot Plan 11076 20324 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 0]/07/1989 11066 PLot PLan 11066 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821H1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 0]/08/1989 11072 PLot PLan 11072 20]2/* 0010 FiLm 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 03/10/1989 11097 PLot PLan 11097 2032/* 0010 FILm 382.1NIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 03/1/*/1989 11086 PLot PLan 11086 2032/, 0010 FiLm 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt RRDESTY,,.RR061 City of TemecuLa Page 5 08/26/1994 Files Ready for Destruction 13:45:16 Dock_ Item Ret. File Reference # Storage Nedio Re ! Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Locati~ Location Reference 161 03/15/1989 11092 PLot PLan 11092 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Grou~ 161/120/The Vault 161 03/21/1989 11102 PLot PLan 11102 20324 0010 Film 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The Vault ....................... : .......................................... 161 0S/23/1989 11101 PLot PLan 11101 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AOOOl Group 16111201The Vault 161 03/24/1989 11108 PLot PLan 11108 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 03/24/1989 11109 PLot PLan 11109 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 16111201The Vault 161 03/24/1989 11117 PLot PLan 11117 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 03/2~,/1989 11118 PLot PLan 11118 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 03/28/1989 11110 PLot PLan 11110 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 03/]0/1989 11115 PLot PLan 11115 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 0~,/03/1989 11120 PLot PLan 11120 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 04/03/1989 11122 PLot PLan 11122 20324 0010 Film 3821HIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault .............................................................. · : _ , , 161 04/03/1989 11123 PLot PLan 11123 20324 0010 Film 382.1N1AO001 GroL~ 161/120/The Vault 161 02,/0]/1989 11124 PLot PLan 11124 20324 0010 Film 38211(1A0001 Groq~ Z 161/120/The Vault 161 04/03/1989 11128 P{ot PLan 11128 Z0324 0010 Film 3821N1AOO01 Group ] 161/120/The Vault 161 0~,/05/1989 11138 PLot PLan 11138 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 04/06/1989 11130 PLot PLan 11130 20324 0010 Film 3821H1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 1~ '4/06/1989 11132 PLot PLan 11132 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 04/07/1989 11139 PLot PLan 11139 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault RRDESTY...RR061 City of Temecula Page 6 08/26/1996 Files Ready for Destruction 13:65:16 Doc. %tam Ret. File Reference # Storage 14edia Ref. Oate Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Location Location Refere 161 06/11/1989 11169 Plot PLan 11169 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group % 161/120/The Vault 161 0/,/11/1989 11158 Plot PLan 11158 20324 0010 Film 3821H1AO001 Group ! 161/120/The Vault 161 04/12/1989 11061 PLot Ptan 11061 20326.0010 FILm 3821141A0001 Group i 161/120/The Vault 161 06/12/1989 11150 PLot PLan 11150 20326 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group Z 161/120/The Vault 161 04/12/1989 11151 PLot PLan 11151 20x26 0010 Film X821N1A0001 Group I 16111201The Vault 161 04/12/1989 11152 PLot PLan 11152 20;S26 0010 Film 3821H1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 04/20/1989 11169 Plot PLan 11169 20x26 0010 Film ~[821NIAO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 04/20/1989 11171 PLot PLan 11171 20326 0010 Film 3821NIAO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 04/20/1989 11183 PLot PLan 1118~ 20326 0010 Film 3821H1A0001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 04/21/1989 11167 PLot PLan 11167 20326 0010 Film 3821HIAO001 Gro~p 161/120/The Vault 161 04/24/1989 11176 Plot PLan 11176 20326 0010 Film 3821H1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 04/26/1989 11180 PLot PLan 11180 20326 0010 Film 3821H1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 04/26/1989 11193 PLot PLan 11193 20326 0010 Film 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 04/27/1989 11121 PLot Plan 11121 20324 0010 Film 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 04/27/1989 11191 PLot Plan 11191 20324 0010 Film 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 05/01/1989 11194 PLot PLan 11196 20326 0010 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 05/02/1989 11199 PLot Plan 11199 20326 0010 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 05/03/1989 11201 PLot PLan 11201 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault RROESTY...RR061 City of TemecuLa Page 7 08/26/1994 FiLes Ready for Destruction 13:/.5:16 Doc~ [te~ Ret. FiLe Reference # Storage Nedia Re Date Ref. Brief Descr¶ptton Code Security CLass Storage Location Location Reference 161 05/03/1989 11202 PLot PLan 11202 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821HtAO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/05/1989 11219 PLot PLan 11219 2032/*, 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/05/1989 11228 PLot PLan 11228 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/08/1989 11208 PLot PLan 11208 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/08/1989 11209 PLot PLan 11209 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/10/1989 11222 PLot PLan 11222 2032/* 0010 Fits 3821N1AO001 GPO~ 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/12/1989 11220 PLot PLan 11220 2032/* 0010 Fits 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/15/1989 11227 PLot PLan 11227 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821M1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/19/1989 1123/* PLot PLan 11234 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/19/1989 11259 PLot PLan 11259 2052/* 0011 Fits 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/22/1989 11229 PLot PLan 11229 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/22/1989 11240 PLot PLan 112/.0 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/22/1989 112/.2 PLot PLan 112/.2 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/22/1989 112/.3 PLot PLan 11243 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/22/1989 112/*/* PLot PLan 112/*~ 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/22/1989 11245 PLot PLan 112/.5 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 1~ 15/22/1989 112/.6 PLot PLan 112/.6 2032/, 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The VauLt 161 05/23/1989 11251 PLot PLan 11251 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The vault RRDESTY...RR061 City of Te~necuta Page 8 08/26/19~4 Files Ready for Destruction 13:45:16 Doc. Item Rat. File Reference # Storage Neclia Ref. Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Location Locati~ Referes 161 05/25/1989 11255 PLot PLan 11255 2032/, 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 05/25/1989 11256 Plot PLan 11256 20x2/, 0011 Film 3821N1A0001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 05/25/1989 11257 PLot Plan 11257 2032/, 0011 Film 38ZlMIAO001 Groq~ 161/120/The Vault 161 05/Sl/1989 11267 PLot PLan 11267 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16111201The Vault 161 05/31/1989 11269 PLot PLan 11269 2032/, 0011 Film )821MIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 05/31/1989 11270 PLot PLan 11270 2032/, 0010 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16111201The Vault 161 05/31/1989 11272 Plot PLan 11272 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16111201The Vault 161 05/31/1989 11273 Plot PLan 11273 2032/, 0011 Film 3821MIAO001 Group 1611120/The Vault ' 161 06/01/1989 11301 PLot PLan 11301 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16111201The V;utt 161 06/05/1989 11291 Plot PLan 11291 2032/, 0011 Film 3821H1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 06/05/1989 113/.0 Plot PLan 113/.0 2032/, 0011 Film 3821MIAO001 Grou~ 16111201The Vault ........................ · . ......................................... 161 0610c)11989 11293 Plot PLan 112inJ 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16111201The Vault 161 06/09/1989 11311 Plot PLan 11311 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16111201The Vault 161 06/13/1989 11299 PLot PLan 112~ 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16111201The Vault 161 06/1:~11989 11300 PLot Plan 11300 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Groq~ 16111201The Vault 161 0611611989 1137/, PLot PLan 1137/, 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16011201The Vault 161 0611911989 11]/*/, PLot PLan 115/*/, 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 16111201The Vault 161 0612111989 11315 PLot PLan 11315 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault RROESTY...RR061 City of T~ula Pege 9 08/26/1~/* FiLes Rea~ for D~truotion 13:/.5:16 Doe.- Ztem Ret. FiLe Reference # Storage Nedia R( ' Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Locatiofi Location Reference 161 06/22/1989 11320 PLot PLan 11320 2032/* 0011 Film 3821kI1AO001 Gro~4) i 161/120/The Vault 161 06/22/1989 11322 Plot Plan 11322 2032/, 0011 Film ]821N1AO001 Group i 161/120/The Vault 161 06/2211989 11338 PLot Plan 11338 2032/*.0011 Film 3821141A0001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 06/23/1989 11328 Plot PLan 11328 2032/* 0011 Film 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 06/23/1989 11377 PLot PLan 11377 2032/, 0011 Film ]821HIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 06/30/1989 113/.5 Plot PLan 11]/.5 2032/* 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 06/30/1989 11376 Plot Plan 11376 2032/, 0011 Film 3821141A0001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 07/03/1989 11350 PLot Plan 11350 2032/, 0011 Film 3821~41A0001 Groq~ 161/120/The Vault 161 07/06/1989 1135/* PLot Plan 1135/, 2032/, 0011 Film 3821141A0001 Oroup 161/120/the vault 161 07/06/1989 11355 Plot Plan 11355 2032/* 0011 Film 3821H1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 07/06/1989 11356 Plot Plan 11356 2032/, 0011 Film 3821NIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 07/06/1989 11357 Plot Plan 11357 2032/, 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 07/07/1989 11360 PLot Plan 11360 2032/, 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 07/12/1989 11364 Plot PLan 11364 2032/* 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 07/17/1989 11370 Plot PLan 11370 2032~ 0011 Film 3821X1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 161 07/21/1989 11383 PLot Plan 11383 2032/, 0011 Film 3821H1AO001 Group 161/120/The Vault 1,~ )7/21/1989 1138~ PLot PLan 1138~ 2032/* 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Grou~ 161/120/The Vault 161 07/21/1989 11385 PLot PLan 11385 2032/* 0011 Film 3821HIAO001 Group 161/120/The Vault RRDESTY...RR061 City of Teemcute Page 10 08/26/1996 Files Ready for Destruction 13:/.5:16 Doc. Item Rat. File Reference # Storage Nedia _ Ref. Date Ref. grief Description Code Security CLass Storage Locatio~ Location Refere 161 07/21/1989 11~86 PLot PLan 11~86 20324 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 07/25/1989 11387 PLot PLan 11387 20324 0011 File 3821N1AO001 Group L 161/120/The Vault 161 07/25/1989 11611 PLot PLan 11611 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group ! 161/120/The Vault 161 07/27/1989 11391 PLot PLan 11391 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 07/28/1989 11392 Pt~t PLan 11392 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group L 161/120/The Vault 161 08/01/1989 11225 PLot PLan 11225 20326 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The VauLt 161 08/02/1989 11396 Plot PLan 11396 20326 0011 Film 3821NIAO001 Group I 1761/120/The Vault 161 08/06/1989 1160~ Plot PLan 11606 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 08/09/1989 11616 PLot PLan 11616 20326 0011 Film 3821NIAO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 08/09/1989 11618 PLot PLan 11618 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 08/10/1989 11625 PLot PLan 11&25 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 08/10/1989 11627 PLot PLan 11627 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group 1 161/120/The Vault 161 08/10/1989 11628 PLot PLan 11628 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 08/11/1989 11617 PLot PLan 11617 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 08/14/1989 11626 Plot PLan 11/,26 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 12/06/1989 11001 PLot PLan 11001 20326 0009 Film 3821H1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 12/16/1989 11236 PLot PLan 1123/, 20326 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 01103/1990 11310 PLot PLan 11310 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault RRDESTY...RR061 City of Tamerule Page 11 08/26/1994` Files Ready for Destruction 13:4`5:16 Doc_ item Ret. File Reference # Storage Nedie R{ Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Location Location Reference 161 01/05/1990 11060 PLot PLan 11060 20324, 0010 Film 3821N1AO001 Group % 161/120/The Vault 161 01/24`/1990 10863 PLot PLan 10863 20;$24` 0009 Fitm ;$821N1AO001 Group % 161/120/The Vault 161 02/07/1990 11259 Plot PLan 11259-L 20324` 0011 Film ;$aZ1N1AO001 Group I 161/120/The Vault 161 07/27/t990 11319 PLot PLan 11;$19 20324` 0011 Film ;$821N1AO001 Group ! 161/1ZO/The Vault 161 11/Z5/1991 88;$9 PLot PLan 20;$24` 0004` Film ;$821H1AO001 Group i 161/120/The Vault 185 Records Processed ITEM 6 APPROV CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Peter Thorson, City Attorney~ September 13, 1994 Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Planning Area No. 7, Specific Plan #164, Roripaugh, Model Home Agreement for Coscan Homes RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Planning Area No. 7 of Specific Plan No. 164, Roripaugh, authorizing the payment of development fees at a specified level and directing the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto. BACKGROUND: City Staff is negotiating a Draft Development Agreement with Coscan Homes which would amend in full the existing Development Agreement and reduce the Public Facilities Fees to $3,000'per dwelling unit. The reduction is based upon (1) the excessive level at which the County originally calculated the Development Fee, (2) the high level of assessment district tax existing on the Project, and (3) the entry level nature of homes to be built in the Project. The higher existing fees, particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent the City from ever receiving Fees. The attached Memorandum of Understanding sets the Interim Public Facilities Fee at $3,000 per dwelling unit and authorizes Coscan Homes to pull building permits for model homes and Phase I of their development, approximately 24 units, without payment of the Public Facilities Fees until such time as the first production home obtains its Certificate of Occupancy. This Memorandum of Understanding is consistent with previous approvals granted to similar projects in the City. It is also consistent with the draft of a Development Agreement being negotiated between the City and Coscan for this project. Approval of this Memorandum of Understanding does not mean that the City Council must approve the draft Development Agreement. In the event the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding provides that Coscan will then pay the Public Facilities Fees as provided in the existing Development Agreement No. 37. The Planning Commission and City Council will be presented in the near future with the draft Development Agreement. The terms of the draft Development Agreement have been subject to extensive negotiations between the staff and the developer. FISCAL IMPACT: Slight delay in initial receipt of Interim Public Facilities Fees as they are delayed until the first Certificate of Occupancy for the production units. Full amount of fees would be paid in the event the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement within thirty days of the City's demand. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding. r:\~itya~ty~vor~paugh -2- MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING PLANNING AREA NO. 7 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 164 THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, (the "Memorandum") is made and entered into as of , 1994 by and between the City of Temecula (the "City") and Coscan Homes California, Inc., a California corporation dba Coscan Davidson Homes ("Owner"). RECITALS A. The City Council of the City of Temecula is reviewing and considering, as provided by law, an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between City and Owner, (the "Draft Agreement"). B. Owner is developing a residential project in what is known as Planning Area No. 7 of Specific Plan No. 164, Tract No. 27827 (the "Project"). The Project is currently subject to Development Agreement No. 37 between the County of Riverside (the "County") and Day- Bar I and others (the "Development Agreement No. 37"), which requires Owner to pay certain development fees (the "Development Fee"). C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes public facilities and services impact fees for residential development within City CRSA Fees"). City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from development of the Project in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the development. D. As the result of meetings between representatives of the City and representatives of the Owner, the City has agreed that the Project would be eligible for a Development Fee reduction due to; (i) the excessive level at which the County originally calculated the Development Fee; (ii) the high level of assessment district tax existing on the Project; and (iii) the entry level nature of the homes to be built in the Project. E. The Development Agreement No. 37 provided for public facilities and services impact fees ("County Impact Fees") higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development in the Project to a level comparable to the RSA Fees. F. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) for each residential unit as the Interim Public Facilities Fee. The Draft Agreement provides for the collection of any Interim Public Facilities Fee to be deferred until such time as Owner obtains a certificate of occupancy for the first production home built in the Project. G. Owner contemplates commencing construction of the model homes and the first phase of the Project (24 units) prior to acceptance by the City Council of City of the Draft Agreement. H. City desires, as an accomodation to Owner, to permit Owner to pay the Interim Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the Draft Agreement for the model homes and for all homes in the first phase of the Project, despite the fact that the Draft Agreement providing for payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee has not yet been approved by City. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, City and Owner agree as follows: 1. In lieu of any fee required by Development Agreement No. 37, RSA Fee or City Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per dwelling unit. If City falls to approve or adopt the Draft Agreement or if the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established by City, is some number other than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner to City shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall pay any increase or City shall pay to Owner any decrease within thirty (30) days from the effective date of City Council's action on the Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement. 2. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all units, including the model home complex, shall be deferred until such time as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home built in the Project. Thereafter, the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed in the Project. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum as of this day of , 1994. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: PROPERTY OWNER June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: COSCAN HOMES CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation ~¢'14dhM A. i'~Alnr'Ag'as /4./~,., ~ , its g..~,o. Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ITEM 7 TO: FROM: DATE: S U BJ E CT: APPROVAL: CITY ATTORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER City Council/City Manager Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official September 13, 1994/~/ Newsrack Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 27, 1994. DISCUSSION: The Chief Building Official who will be responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance is attending the International Conference of Building Officials Annual Code Development Conference and will not be present, ITEM 8 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer September 13, 1994 Award of Vehicle Purchase Bid No. 94-20 PREPARED BY: ~ Luci Romero, Financial Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award the purchase of the vehicle to Paradise Chevrolet. The purchase price is $12,663.79, excluding tax. DISCUSSION: On July 20, 1994, the City sent out an Invitation to Bid on the purchase of a two-door extended cab two-wheel drive pick-up truck. The vehicle will be assigned to the new Landscape Inspector in the Community Services Department. The bid packets were mailed to 14 vendors. The deadline for submitting bids was August 25, 1994. Six (6) bids were received, as follows: 1. Fuller Ford (Chula Vista) $12,468.00 2. Paradise Chevrolet (Temecula) $12,663.79' 3. Quality Chevrolet (Escondido) $13,112.00 4. Folsom Lake Ford (Folsom) $14,159.00 5. Schumacher Auto Sales (Temecula) $14,520.59' 6. Norm Reeves Chrysler Jeep Dodge (Temecula) $15,097.50* * Price reflects 1% sales tax discount for City of Temecula vendors. Although the lowest bid was submitted by Fuller Ford, it did not meet the bid specifications. Therefore, the lowest responsible bidder is Paradise Chevrolet of Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: The vehicle will be acquired as a capital asset through the Vehicle Internal Service Fund. In anticipation of the purchase of this vehicle, it has been included in the FY 1994-95 depreciation schedule of payments. ITEM 9 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer September 13, 1994 Property Insurance Renewal PREPARED BY: Luci Romero, Financial Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize staff to cancel the current property insurance coverage. 2. Authorize participation in the Public Entity Property Insurance Program (PEPIP). 3. Authorize staff to obtain insurance coverage through PEPIP, in accordance with the schedule carriers who underwrite the coverage. DISCUSSION: The City's current property insurance policy is provided by Aetna Insurance Company, through the City insurance broker, Strachota Insurance. The policy coverage includes all risk and earthquake at various City locations. On February 22, 1994, the City Council authorized renewal of the policy and directed staff to obtain additional quotes at mid-policy year. In accordance with the above, staff prepared and disseminated property insurance specifications to three insurance brokers. Two proposals were received: 1) Strachota Insurance Company (Strachota Proposal); and 2) Robert F. Driver Company (Driver Proposal). Strachota Insurance submitted a proposal (Attachment A} which remains unchanged from the City's existing coverage, with a premium amount of $23,291. Robert F. Driver Company submitted a proposal (Attachment B) for the City's participation in a joint insurance purchasing program. The Public Entity Property Insurance Program (PEPIP) is a combined group purchase concept with the advantage of group purchase pricing and no risk sharing. Current participants include cities throughout California, Special Districts, and Joint Powers Authorities, The quoted premium amount is $23,301. Exhibit I illustrates a comparison of the coverages in the two proposals. A brief outline of the proposals follows below: Strachota Proposal: Limits of coverage, as specified Full replacement value $250 deductible Locations - 3 & 5; $2500 deductible Location 4 Earthquake - 10% (of value, deductible Driver Proposal: Uniform limits of coverage, ~.e., $25;000,000valuable papers - all locations increased limits of coverage at all locations Added coverages, i.e., Business end Tax Interruption: Architects' and Engineers' Fees; Course of Construction on Premise or within 1000 ft. Full replacement value Flood coverage added $5000 deductible all locations Earthquake - 10% (of value) deductible In summary, the Driver Proposal provides increases in the limits of coverage the City currently has, as well as the inclusion of new coverages. Additionally, the added coverages afford the opportunity to consolidate the coverage for vehicles and contractor's equipment under this policy. These coverages are currently provided under separate policies. FISCAL IMPACT: Although the City will be assessed e penalty (approximately $650), by the current insurance company, for cancellation of the policy, sufficient funds were budgeted in the FY 1994-95 Budget. EXHIBIT I PAGE 1 OF 3 Insured Locations: STRACHOTA/DRIVER COMPARISON Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Margarita & Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592 28328 lVlercedes Street, Temecula, CA 92590 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592 28763 Front Street, Temecula, CA 92590 BuUding Valuable Papers EDP Media Office Contents Property Off Premises Extra Expense Fire Department Charge Outdoor Property Accounts Receivable STRACHOTA LOC. 1 LOC.2 LOC.3 LOC.4 LOC.5 1,000,000 270,000 140,000 460,000 10,000 200,000 5,000 ,000 120,000 560,000 3,000,000 100,000 200,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 9000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 DRIVER ALL LOCATIONS $250,000,000 Per location $25,000,000 Per location $250,000,000 Per location $250,000,000 Per location $250,000,000 Perlocation $250,000,000 Per location $250,000,000 Per location $250,000,000 Per location $250,000,000 Per location $25,000,000 Perlocation Fine Arts 5,000 5,000 5,000 $1,000,000 Per location EXHIBIT I PAGE 3 OF 3 Insured Locations: STRACHO TA/DRIVER COMPARISON Location Location Location Location Location 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 9'2590 Marga~m & Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592 28328 Metcedes Street, Temecu]~**, CA 92590 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92.592 28763 Front Sweet, Temecula, CA 92590 Course of Construction on Premises Mobil~ Equipment Service Interruption- Uffiides Interruption STRACHOTA Not provided Not pwvided Not provided Not pwvided Not provided DRIVER $5,000,000 Per localion $5,000,000 Per location $5,000,000 Per location Per location $5,000,000 Per location ATTACHMENT A BY ATTACrli'.IEN~ A PAGE z oz q COMMERCIAL PROPERTY POLICY b Policy Termz AETNA 86ACE23977561 2-26-94 TO 2-26-95 PREMIUM:. $23,291.00 INSURED LOCATIONS: LOCATION 1 LOCATION 2 LOCATION 3 LOCATION 4 LOCATION 5 43174 BUISNESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92S90 MARGARITA & RANCHO VISTA RD. TEMECULA, CA 92590 28328 MBI~CEDES TEMECD~A, CA 92S90 30875 RANCHO VISTA RDTEMECULA, CA 92590 28?63 FRONT ST TEMECULA, CA 92590 LOCATION 1 $ 460,000 $ 10,000 $ 200,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 1,000 $ 250 PIOPBRTY Office Contents (Includes Phone System) Proper~y Off Premises Extra Expense Fire Department ServiCe Charge (no deduct. applies} Outdoor Property Accounts Receivable Fins Arts Fire Extinguisher Recharge ( no deductible applies) Lost Key Consequential Lose LOCATION S $ 120,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 1,000 $ 250 Building (Snack Bar & Restroom) Fire Department Service Charge (no deduot. applies) Outdoor Propert Cost of ResearoK (Valuable Papers & Records) Computers Hardware & Software Accounts Receivable Fins Arts Exterior Signs Arson Reward (no deductible applies) Fire Exinguisher Recharge ( no deductible applies) Los Key Consequential Loss ATTAC~ENT A PAGE 3 of 4 LOCAfZON 3 560,000 100,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 1,000 250 Building Contents Fire Department Service Charge (no deduct. applies) outdoor Propert v P Records) Cost of Reseerc{ ( aluable spars & Computers (Hardware & Software) Accounts Receivable Fine Arts Fire ~.xtinguisher Recharge (no deductible a~lies) ~et Key Co~se~ential ~ss LOe/TZON 4 $3,000,000 500,000 700,000 200,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 1,000 250 $ 10,000 Covers= Buildings Swimming Pools Amphitheater Contents Fire Department Service Charge (no deduct. applies) outdoor Propert cost of Resear~ (Valuable Papers & Records) Computer (Hardware & Software) Accounts Receivable Fine Arts Fire Extinguisher Recharge (no deductible Lost Key Consequential Lose applies) CONTENTS (FENCING & BARACADE MATFRIAL) NO FARTHQUAKi Special Perils Coverage Replacement Cost valuation 90 % coinsuranus requirement LOC 1,2,3,5 100% LO0 4 $250 deductible Loc 1, 2, 3, 5' $2.500 ded. Loc 4 Earthquake Coverage 10% Deductible ..,~_~TT~.I~_.E_N_T A PAGE 4 of 4 Looatton 1 $1,000,000 valuable Papers Special Ferils coverage Actual Cash Value valuation $250 deductible each occurrence LOCAT=ON 1 270,000 140,000 Covefez Electronic Data Processing Media special Perils coverage Replacement Cost valuation 90 % coinsuranus requirement $250 deductible each occurrence Earthquake Coverage 10% Deductible ,Policy does not include Flood Coverage ATTACHMENT B PAGE Public Entity Property Insurance Program (PEPIP) The PEPIP program was developed by Robert F. Driver Associates, a leading California Pubhc Entity Broker, to bring joint purchase concepts for Property Insurance Exposures to California Public Entities. Independent thinking entities will fred that PEPIP offers the flexibility of individualiTed coverage at very competitive costs due to the joint purchase structure. As a group purchase program, there is n___o risk iharing and therefore n_.Q possibility of future assessments. This program has n__o minimum time of participation requirements beyond that which exists in any standard insurance contract, thus an entity maintains flexibility while taking advantage of group purchase pricing. Other advantages include: · Competitive Pricing. · Physical Damage Coverage for Autos including Collision. · Tax Interruption Coverage. · Municipal Bond Revenue Interruption Coverage. · Coverage no__!t confmed to Schedule of Locations. · Blanket Fine Arts Coverage Service Interruption Coverage for all Public and Private Utilities from premises to originating Source of Service. · Manuscript "Public Entity" Form. Enclosed you'll fred summary information about the program as well as a list of current participants. We invite your inquiry of further information and proposal. ROBERT F. DRIVER ASSOCIATES Thomas W. Corbett President Ralph S. Hurst Vice President Phone (714) 756-0271 Fax (714) 756-2713 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 2 of 9 PUBLIC ENTITY PROPERTY INSURANCE PROGRAM CURRENT PARTICIPANTS NAI~F,D INSUREDS: Bay Cities Joint Powers Insurance Authority (and its Members Consisting of: Albany, Emeryville, Hayward, Monte Sereno, Pleasanton, Piedmont, Redwood City, Union City and San Francisco Redevelopmerit Agency) City of Burbank City of Cathedral City Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority CCSJVRMA") (and its Members Consisting of the Cities of: Angels Camp, Arvin, Atwater, Avenal, Ceres, Clovis, Corcoran, Delano, Dos Palos, Exeter, Farmersville, Firebaugh, FowleL Kerman, Kingsburg, Lathtop, Lemoore, Lindsay, Madere, Maricopa, McFarland, Mendora, Oakdale, Orange Grove, Parlier, Patterson, Reedley, Ripon, Riverbank, San Joaquin, SangeL Selma, ShafteL Taft, Tehachapi, Tracy, Tulare, Wasco, Waterford) Community Development Commission City of Corona City of Cosha Mesa City of E1 Cajon City of El. Segundo City of Fontaria City of Fresno City of Garden Grove City of Glendale Ixvine Ranch Water District July 25, 1994 I ATTACHMENT B PAGE 3 of 9 City of Long Beach Marin County Risk Management Authority (and its Members Consisting of: Town of Cone Madera & Sanitary District #2 of Marin County, Town of Pairfax, City of Larkspur, City of Mill Valley, City of Novato, Town of San Anselmo, City of Sausalim, Twin Cities Police Department) City of Merced City of Modesto Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District City of Pasadena Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC) (and its Members Consisting of: Blue Lake, Callstoga, Canyon lake, Carlshad, Highland, Pacific Grove, Placentia, Plymouth, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Ridgecrest, Tehama, Trinidad, Twentyme Palms, Wheatland, Yountville, Yucaipa and Yucca Valley) San Diego Pooled Insurance Program Authority (SANDPIPA), San Diego County Cities Risk Management Authority (SDCCRMA) (and its Members Consisting of: Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside, San Elijo Joint Powers Authority, Santee, Solana Beach and Vista) City of San Buenaventum City of San Mateo City of Santa Aria City of Santa Barbara City of Santa Clara City of Santa Monica Sonoma, County of Public Works Sanitation Department, et al City of Simi Valley July 25, 1994 2 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 5 of 9 PUBLIC ENTITY PROPERTY INSURANCE PROGRAM ALL RISK PROPERTY PROPOSAL FOR CITY OF TEMECULA NAMF~D INSLTRI?,D: PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: INSURANCE CARRIF. RS: · COVERAGE: Public Entity Property Insurance Program including: City of Temecula To Be Determined See Attached Schedule All Risk of Direct Physical Loss or Damage excluding Earthquake and Flood Coverage includes: 1. Real Property and Personal Property 2. Rental Income including Bond Revenue Requirements 3. Business Interruption (If Values Declared) 4. Extra Expense 5. Valuable Papers and Records 6. Accounts Receivable 7. EDP Equipment, Media and Extra Expense 8. Owned/Leased Vehicles - All Risk and Collision Upset and Overturn on Declared Vehicles 9. Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction 10. Debris Removal 11. Contingent Liability due to Building Codes 12. Transit 13. Architects', Engineers' Fees and Claim Consultant Fees 14. Course of Construction on Premises or within 1,000 ft. 15. Mobile Equipment, Contractor Type Equipment (If Values Declared) 16. Service Interruption from Public and Private Utilities for Gas,Electric, Water and Telecommunications (excluding Power Plant Locations) 17. Tax Interruption (When Rel~orted) 18. Replacement Cost and Agreed Amount 19. 90 Day Notice of Cancellation except 10 days for Non- Payment ATTACHMENT B PAGE 6 of 9 PEPIPPropos~ Page - 2 - COVERAGE CONTINUED: LIMITS: 20. Coverage not Confined to Schedule (Except Licensed Vehicles, l~rthquake and Flood) 21. Automatic Coverage - 120 Days 22. Expediting Expense 23. Errors and Omissions 24. Fine Arts 25. Fire Department Service Charges 26. Vacancy Clause - Deleted 27. Joint Loss Agreement with Boiler and Machinery Insurance Company(ies) $500,000,000 Loss Limit Per Occurrence/S250,000,000 Per Location all Coverages except as follows: 1. Valuable Papers 2. Accounts Receivable 3. Transit 4. Architects, Engineers and Claim Consultant Fees 5. Mobile and Contractor type Equipment 6. Fine Arts (Unscheduled) 7. Service Interruption 8. Expediting Expense 9. Newly Acquired Locations (except l:~rthquake must be reported) 10. Earthquake/per Occurrence and Annual Aggregate 11. Flood/per Occurrence and Annual Aggregate 25,000,000 25,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 1,000,000 5,()00,000 500,000 5,000,000 Not Covered Not Covered DEDUCTIBLE: TOTAL INSURED VALUE: ANNUAL COST: (Includes premium, estimated taxes & fees where applicable and surplus lines brokerage fees) $ 5,000 All Other Perils $ 6,145,000 $ 3,001 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 7 of 9 PUBLIC ENTITY PROPERTY INSURANCE PROGRAM (PEPIP) ALL RISK SCHEDULE OF COMPANIES $2.500.000 PRIMARY/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD COMPANY BEST RATING CA STATUS Lexington Ins. Co A+ +;XV Non-Admitted $2,500,000 EXCESS OF $2,500,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD RLI Ins~ Co. A;VII Admitted $2.500.000 EXCESS OF $5.000.000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD Royal Indemnity A-;X] Admitted $7,500,000 EXCESS OF $7,500,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD Allianz A; VIII Admitted $10,000,0OO EXCESS OF $15,000,0O0/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD Westchester Fire A-;XV Admitted $25,000,000 EXCESS OF $25,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD Essex A;VI Non-Admitted Firemang Fund A;XIV Admitted Agricultural A;XI AdmiRed $50,000,000 EXCESS OF $50,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD U.S. rim A-;XV Admitted $100,000,000 EXCESS OF $100,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD Royal Indemnity A-;XI AdmiRed U.S. Fire A-;XV Admitted Travelers A-;XV Admitted $50,000,000 EXCESS OF $200,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTFIOUAKE AND FLOOD Travelers A-;XV Admitted U. S. Fire A-:XV Admitted $250,000,000 EXCESS OF $250,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD Federal (Chubb) A+ +;XIV Admitted Fireman's Fund A;XIV Admitted revised 5117194 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 8 OF 9 Ms. Luci Romero City of Temecula August 11, 1994 Page -2- In regard to the Earthquake and Flood coverage: Company: Limit: Deductibles: Agricultural Insurance Co. (Best's Guide rating: &Excellent; XI,Policyholders' Surplus of $750,000,000 to $1,000,000,000) $ 5,000,000 Annual Premium: All Risk Premium: Total: 10% $ 200,000 $ 25,000 $ 22,500 $ 3.001 $ 25,501 Loss Limit Per Occurrence and Annual Aggregate of Total Insurance to Value Per Location as respects Earthquake As respects Flood ar~ ~O;~c~v_~,~e-c_- As respects All Other Perils We hope this will be of assistance to you and if we can provide additional information, please let us know. Sincerely, ROBERT F. DRIER ASSOCIATES Executive Vice President SWN/msy *See finalized premium on Page 9. ROBERT F. I)RIVER ASSOCIATES a Divi.~iml ,Jfiobet7 F. Dr~ver ~;.. FA~IM~E TRANS~SSION ~L PAO~ NOT REC~BD, PL~$E TRI,EpHO~ O~ FAX ~IMEDIA~LY ATTACHMENT B PAGE 9 OF 9 DATE: TO; September 1, 1994 City of Temecula ATTENTION: h.ci Romero FAX NO.: 909-694-1999 FROM: Robin Wcstlund ORIGINAL TO,FOLLOW IN MAIL? YES X NO__ RE: PEPIP Property Proposal Dear Luci: Per your conversations with Ralph Hunt and myself, I am plcascd to confirm the following finalizrxl pricing for entry .into the captioned program: *All Risk Annual Preenlure $ 2,458 ,Earthquake/Flood Annual Premium 20.843 ,Total Annual Premium $ 23,301 This pricing is based on tim City purchasing both All Risk and Earthquake/Flood coverage. All coverages am to remain as previously quoted to you. There is essentially no charge for Hood coverage so it would not save you any money to delete this coverage. The Earthquake/Flood coverages would be issued on a separate policy for an anuual policy t~rm. The All risk coverages Would be added to our Public Entity Propert), Insurance Program policies and the premium would be pro-riled based on when you join with an expiration da~ of May 15, 1995. Per Ralph, Ihe all risk pricing could remain as is for the May 15, 1995-96 renewal. Sh{~uld you have any questions, please do not hesiUue U~ call. Thank you for this oppo~.mity anti look forward to hearing back from you soon. Since y, Robin L. estlund' .t6.t6 BIRCH ,'~'l'Rt"t"l; $urlE 2jO, NE WI'ORT 13FACIL CALIFORNIA 92660-26]9 (7J4) 7.56-0271 · I./,X 1714J 7.~6-271.~ ITEM 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer September 13, 1994 Authorization To Execute Supplemental Agreement For The Use of 20th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds PREPARED BY: ~//C~Luci Romero, Financial Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Supplemental Agreement for the 20th Year Community Development Block Grant · Funds. DISCUSSION: The City entered into a Cooperation Agreement with the County of Riverside (dated June 29, 1993), for the purpose of receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The City, in conjunction with the County, is now participating in the 20th Year CDBG entitlement. On March 22, 1994, the City Council approved the funding for the 20th Year CDBG projects, as follows: Alternatives to Domestic Violence Emergency Food Program Handicapped Access Ramp Program Sam Hicks Park Improvements Operation School Bell TOTAL $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 30,000 $149,521 $ 7,250 $206,771 Execution of the attached Supplemental Agreement to the Cooperation Agreement authorizes the use of 20th Year CDBG funding for the above projects. FISCAL IMPACT: None. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .7 28 File No: 1.TM017, 018, 019, 0. 104, 0. 108 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS COUNTY OF RI~za{SIDE of the State of California, herein called, "COUNTY," and the City of Temecula, herein called "CITY," mutually agree as follows: 1. G~ERAL. COUNTY and CITY have executed a Cooperation Agreement ~dated June 29, 1993, whereby CITY elected to participate with COUNTY, which has qualified as an "Urban County" for purposes of receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and to assist and undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, hereinafter referred to as "Act". Said Cooperation Agreement dated June 29, 1993., is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if each and every provision was set forth herein. 2. PURPOSE. CITY promises and agrees to undertake and assist with the community development activities, within its jurisdiction, by.utilizing the sum of $206.771, CDBG Entitlement Funds, as specifically identified in Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D", "E" respectively, which are attached hereto and consist(s) of 3 pages (each), and by this reference are incorporated herein, for the projects: 1.TMO17 Rmergency Food Program. $10,000 1.TMO18 Sam Hicks Park Improvements, $149.521 1.TMO19 Handic~ped Access Ram~ Project. S30,000 0.104 Alternatives to Domestic Violence. S10,000 1 0.108 Operation School Bell. S7,250. 2 CITY shall obtain COUNTY's approval, through its Economic 3 Development Agency, of the project plans and specifications prior 4 to CITY's construction of same. CITY promises and agrees to 5 utilize and maintain the projects for a minimum period of five (5) 6 years or.the life of the project, whichever is less. 7 3. TERM OF AGR~N~NT. The term of this Agreement for the 8 projects shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing upon the 9 date of the execution of this Agreement and proceed consistent with 10 the completion schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D", 11 and "E". In the event that the project is not substantially 12 completed by the time set forth in the completion schedule due to 13 unforeseen or uncontrollable causes, the schedule for the 14 completion of the project may be extended by the period of the 15 enforced delay. Times of performance may also be extended in 16 writing by the mutual agreement of CITY and COUNTY. If substantial 17 progress toward completion in conformance with the completion 18 schedule, as determined by COUNTY of the projects is not made 19 during the term of the Supplemental Agreement, COUNTY may suspend 20 or terminate this agreement by the procedures set forth in the 21 Section titled "Termination", of this agreement and the entitlement 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 funds associated with the projects after appropriate notice is given. 4. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS. may be reprogrammed by COUNTY COUNTY's Board of Supervisors shall determine the final disposition and distribution of all funds received by COUNTY under the Act consistent with the provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Agreement. COUNTY, through its Economic Development Agency, shall: 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .~7 28 (1) make payment of the grant funds to CITY as designated in Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E", and (2) monitor the project activity to ensure compliance with applicable federal regulations and the terms of this Agreement. City shall comply with timely drawdownof funds by submitting monthly requests for reimbursement. All disbursements of grant funds will be on a reimbursement basis and made within thirty '(30) days after the CITY has submitted its letter identifying payments made and requesting reimbursement. 5. COOPERATION WITH HOUSING ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES. CITY shall cooperate with COUNTY in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and public assistance housing, and shall assist COUNTY in carrying out its housing assistance plans Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy and other requirements of the Community Development Block Grant Program. 6. LRAD AGRNCY FOR RNVIRONMRNTAI. OUALITY ACT (CEOA]. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA Pursuant to Section 15051(d) of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, as the lead agency for the projects that are the this Agreement. 7. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDRMNIFICATION. CITY is designated subject matter of CITY shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, and shall indemnify, save and hold harmless COUNTY and its agency members and their respective agents, servants and employees of and from any and all liabilities, claims, debt, damages, demands, suits, actions and causes of action of whatsoever kind, nature or sort including, but not by way of limitation, wrongful death, expenses of the defense 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .7 28 cited in the above-mentioned Cooperation Agreement. 10. INDRPRNDRNT CONTMACTOR. CITY and its agents, servants and employees shall act at all times in an independent capacity during the term of this Agreement, and shall not act as, shall not be, nor shall they in any manner be construed to be agents, officers or employees of the COUNTY. ll. TRRMINATION. a. CITY. CITY may not terminate this Agreement except upon express Written consent of COUNTY. b. COUNTY. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph lla, COUNTY may suspend or terminate this Agreement upon written notice to CITY of action being taken and the reason for such action: (1) In the event CITY fails to perform the covenants herein contained at such times and in such manner as federal, state rendering any untenable; or provided in this Agreement; and (2) In the event CITY fails to perform the covenants herein contained at such times and in such manner as provided in this Agreement; and (3) In the event there is a conflict with any or local law, ordinance, regulation or rule of the provisions of this Agreement invalid or (4) In the event the funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above is terminated or otherwise becomes unavailable. c. Upon suspension of this Agreement, CITY agrees to return any unencumbered funds which it has been provided by COUNTY. 5 1 In accepting said funds, COUNTY does not waive any claim or cause 2 of action it may have against CITY for breach of this Agreement. 3 d. Upon suspension of this Agreement, CITY agrees not 4 to incur any additional cost with regard to the projects that are 5 cited in the written notice as necessitating the suspensions. 6 12. NONDISCRIMINATION. CITY shall abide by Sections 7 570.601 and 570.602 of Title 24 of the Federal Code of Regulations 8 which requires that no person in the United States shall on the 9 grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from 10 participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 11 discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in 12 part with Community Development funds. 13 13. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 14 a. CITY and its assigns, employees, agents, 15 consultants, officers and elected and appointed officials shall 16 become familiar with and shall comply with the CDBG regulations 17 prohibiting conflicts of interest contained in 24 CFR 570.611, 18 attached hereto as Exhibit ,,CI,, and by this reference incorporated 19 herein. 20 b. CITY and its assigns, employees, agents, 21 consultants, officers, and elected and appointed officials shall 22 become familiar with and shall comply with Section A-11 of the 23 County's CDBG Policy manual, attached hereto as Exhibit "CI,, and by 24 this reference incorporated herein. 25 c. CITY understands and agrees that no waiver of 26 exception can be granted to the prohibition against conflict of 27 interest except upon written approval of HUD pursuant to 24 CFR 28 570.611 (d). Any request by CITY for an exception shall first be 6 1 reviewed by COUNTY to determine whether such request is appropriate 2 for submission to HUD. In determining whether such request is 3 appropriate for submission to HUD, COUNTY will consider the factors 4 listed in 24 CFR 570.611 (e). 5 d. Prior to any funding under this Agreement, CITY 6 shall provide COUNTY with a llst of all employees, agents, 7 consultants, officers and elected and appointed officials who S are in a position to participate in a decision making process, 9 exercise any functions or responsibilities, or gain inside 10 information with respect to the CDBG activities funded under 11 this Agreement. CITY shall also promptly disclose to COUNTY any 12 potential conflict, including even the appearance of conflict, 13 that may arise with respect to the CDBG activities funded under 4 this Agreement. 15 e. Any violation of this section shall be deemed a 16 material breach of this Agreement, and the Agreement shall be 17 immediately terminated by the COUNTY. 18 14. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY. As to CITY or its claimants, 19 COUNTY shall bear no liability for any'later determination by the 20 United States Government, the Department of Housing and Urban 21 Development or any other person or entity that CITY is or is not 22 eligible under 24 CFR Part 570 to receive CDBG funds. 23 15. RMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO BE CAUSED BY PROJECT. 24 Sponsor City agrees to notify and to require any lessee or assignee 25 to notify Riverside County JTPD (Jobs Training Partnerships 26 Department) and GAIN - Department of Public Social Services of any .7 and all job openings that are caused by this project. 28 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. It is expressly agreed that this 7 I Agreement together with the cooperation Agreement between the 2 parties, embodies the entire agreement of the parties in relation 3 to the subject matter thereof, and that no other Agreement or 4 understanding, verbal or otherwise, relative to this subject 5 matter, exists between the parties at the time of execution. 6 17. MINISTERI~T. ACTS. The Executive Director of the 7 COUNTYIS Economic Development Agency or his or her designee(s) are 8 authorized to take such ministerial actions as may be necessary or 9 appropriate to implement the terms, provisions, and conditions of 10 this Agreement as it may be amended from time to time by COUNTY. n III 12 /// 13 III 14 /// 15 III 16 /// III III III III III 22 /// /// III III III III III 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ~7 28 modified or amended only by a writing signed by the duly authorized and empowered representative of COUNTY and respectively. MODIFICATION OF AGRRRMRNT. This Agreement may be CITY DATED: ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors By: Deputy (Seal) DATED: ATTEST: CITY OF TRMECUT.A ~.~.:mds (ls~tm\suppagr.017) By: Mayor 9 EXHIBIT A FILE: 1.TM017 Page 1 SUPPLRMRNTAT. AGRRRMENT Sponsor: City of Temecula/Senior Citizens Service Center Address: 43174 Business Park Drive. Temecula. CA 92590 PrOject Title: 'Rmergency Food Program Location: 40250 Winchester Road. Temecula. CA Description: Senior Citizens Service Center of Temecula is a non-profit organization that provides emergency food to seniors and low income persons. CDBG funds will be used to purchase food to be distributed in the form of food baskets for needy individuals. This project serves limited clientele; therefore, the attached document for Direct Benefits needs to be filled out and submitted to the County of Riverside EDA on a monthly basis. indicating NO SERVICE. Project Budget: Should there be no services rendered, submit a form Cost CDBG Approved 1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs $ S 2) Administration Costs 3) Planning Cos. ts 4) Acquisition Costs 5) Construction Costs 6) Relocation Costs 7) Equipment Costs 8) Other Costs 9) Operation/Maintenance 10,000 10) Contingency TOTAL S $ 10.000 EX]{IBIT A FILE: 1.TM017 Page 2 T_ ~table Implementation Schedule Milestone Begin Project Start Date 7/~/94 Co~letion Date 6/30/95 EXHIBIT A FILE: 1.TM017 Page 3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARY PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY FROM TO 4. X Original (each year) Revision, Date July 1, 1994 June 30. 1995 . Amendment, Date 1. NAME OF APPLICANT County of Riverside 2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBEP -- B-94-UC-06-0506 5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS Emergency Food Program 1.TM017 Exempt 8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER City of Temecula (909) 694-6480 10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Senior Citizens Service Center of Temecula is a non-profit organization that provides emergency food to seniors and low income persons. CDBG funds will be used to purchase food to be distributed in the form of food baskets for needy individuals. ELIGIBILITY: 570.201 (e) BENEFIT: 570.208 (a)(2)(i) 11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S) 100% L/M 12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Continued service to seniors and low income families, 5,000 individuals. 13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $) (List component activities using names CDBG OTHER of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source SUMMARY, Form PFJD-7067.) Benefit Benefit (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Public Service 10,000 14. Totals S10.000 $ S 15. Total costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds (Sum of Colu~tns b and c) S 10,000 EXHIBIT B FILE: 1.TM018 Page i SUPPLRMENTAL AGR/RMRNT Sponsor: City of Temecula Address: 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Project Title: Sam Hicks Park I~rovements Location: Mercedes and Moreno Street, Temecula. CA Description: This project will use CDBG funds to renovate and expand the existing Sam Hicks Park from .83 acres to 2.31 total acres. The proposed improvements will include improvements to the existing monument, removal of architectural barriers for handicapped accessibility, to lot improvements, construction of a restroom and snack bar facility, a rose garden, gazebo bandstand, trellised courtyard, additional picnic facilities, parking, lighting, landscaping and irrigation. Project will eliminate a slum and blighting condition as identified in the Redevelopment Plan. Project Budget: Cost CDBG A~proved 1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs 2) Administration Costs 3) Planning Costs 4) Acquisition Costs 5) Constructio~ Costs 6) Relocation Costs 7) Equipment Costs 8) Other Costs 9) Operation/Maintenance 10) Contingency TOTAL 149,521 S 149.521 EXHIBIT B FILE: 1.TM018 Page 2 Timetable Implementation Schedule Milestone Prepare Plans, Specifications and Bid Documents Advertise for Bid Award Contract Notice to Proceed Construction Start Date ',o/ 1/95 2/95 3/95 3/95 Co~letion Date 12/94 2/95 6/30/95 EXHIBIT B FILE: 1.TM018 Page 3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARY PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY FROM TO 4. ~ Original (each year) Revision, Date July 1. 1994 June 30, 1995 Amendment, Date 1. NAME OF APPLICANT County of Riverside 2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER B-94-UC-06-0506 5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER Sam Hicks Park Improvements 1.TM018 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS Categorically Excluded 8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER City of Temecula (909) 694-6480 10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project will use CDBG funds to renovate and expand the existing Sam Hicks Park from .83 acres to 2.31 total acres. The proposed improvements will include improvements to the existing monument, removal of architectural barriers for handicapped accessibility, tot lot improvements, construction of a restroom and snack bar facility, a rose garden, gazebo bandstand, trellised courtyard, additional picnic facilities, parking, lighting, landscaping and irrigation. Project will eliminate a slum and blighting condition as identified in the Redevelopmerit Plan. ELIGIBILITY: 570.201 (c) BENEFIT: 570.208(b)(1) 11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S) City-wide presumed benefit 12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Project will assist the City of Temecula in complying with ADA requirements. Project will also enhance recreational opportunities for handicapped residents in the City. 13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $) (List component activities using names CDBG OTHER of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source SUMMARY, Form HUD-7067.] Benefit Benefit (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Public Facilities & Improvements 149.521 Totals S149,521 S $ 15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds (Sum of Columns b and c) $ 149.521 EXHIBIT C FILE: 1.TM019 Page I SUPPLRMRNTAL AGRRRMRNT Sponsor: ci~3F of Temecula AddresS: 43174 Business Park Drive. T~mecula, CA 92590 Project Title: Handic~ped Access Ra~ Project Location: city-wide Description: CDBG funds will be used to design and construct 22 handicapped ramps in existing sidewalks at specifically identified sites throughout the City. This project will remove architectural barriers for handicapped citizens and will enable the City to conform with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Project Budget: 1) ArChitect/Engineer Design Costs 2) Administration Costs 3) Planning Costs 4) Acquisition Costs 5) Construction Costs 6) Relocation Costs 7) Equipment Costs 8) Other Costs 9) Operation/Maintenance 10) Contingency TOTAL Cost CDBG Approved 30.000 30.000 EXHIBIT C FILE: 1.TM019 Page 2 ~ ~table Implementation Schedule Milestone Prepare Plan, Specifications and Bid Documents AdVertise for Bid Award Contract Notice to Proceed Construction Start Date lo/94 11/94 1/95 2/9S 3/95 Completion Date 11/94 12/94 6/30/95 EXHIBIT C FILE: 1.TM019 Page 3 U,Se DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT S~Y PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY FROM TO 4. X Original (each year) Revision, Date July 1. 1994 June 30, 1995 Amendment, Date 1. NAME OF APPLICANT Co-nty of Riverside 2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER' B-94-UC-06-0506 5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS Handicapped Access Ramp 1.TM019 Categorically Excluded Project 8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER City of Temecula (909) 694-6411 10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CDBG funds will be used to design and construct 22 handicapped ramps in existing sidewalks at specifically identified sites throughout the City. This project will remove architectural barriers for handicapped citizens and will enable the City to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ELIGIBILITY: 570.201 (k) BENEFIT: 570.208 (a)(2) 11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S) City-wide 12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Project will assist the City of Temecula in complying with ADA requirements. 13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $) (List component activities using names CDBG OTHER of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source SUMMARY. Form MUD-7067.) Benefit Benefit (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Removal of A~chitectural Barriers 30,000 14. Totals S30.000 $ ~ 15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds (Sum of Columns b and c) S 30,000 EXHIBIT D FILE: 0.104 Page i SUPPLRMRNTAI. AGRRk~4RNT S~'.sor: Alternatives to Domestic Violence. Inc. Address: P.O. Box 910, Riverside, CA 92502 Project Title: Alternatives to Domestic Violence Location: Riverside County Description: This agency serves battered spouses who are victims of domestic violence. CDBG funds will be utilized to offset costs associated with the operation and administration of the agency's toll free crisis line, three regional outreach centers which provide advocacy and counseling services, emergency food, clothing and shelter as well as community education presentations. Respond to 13,000 emergency calls on the 24 hour crisis line, provide emergency shelter to approximately 85 battered women and 115 children and provide 750 victims with advocacy services. This project serves limited clientele; therefore, the attached document for Direct Benefits needs to be filled out and submitted to the County of Riverside EDA on a monthly basis. Should there be no services rendered, submit a form indicating NO SERVICE. Note: This project has been funded by: City of City of City of City of City of City of County of Riverside $50,000 City of Banning 5,000 Beaumont 3,000 Desert Hot Springs 2,000 Indio 4,000 Lake Elsinore 7,000 Perris 5,519 Temecula 10,000 and the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency will directly administer the project on behalf of the identified cities. Project Budget: Cost CDBG Approved 1) Administration Costs 2) Planning Costs 3) Equipment Costs 4) Other Costs 5) Operation/Maintenance 86,519 10o000 6) Contingency TOTAL S 86.519 10.000' ,l E: This project is being administered on behalf of the City of Temecula by the County of Riverside. See Countywide Sponsor's Agreement between the County of Riverside and Alternatives to Domestic Violence governing the expenditure of these 20th year CDBG funds (File# 0,104). EXHIBIT E FILE: Page i Sponsor: SUPpLk~T~NT~L AGRR~RNT Assistance League of Temecula Valley 0.108 Address: P.O. Box 1212. Murrieta. CA 92590 Project Title: Operation School Bell Location: 39105. Avenida La Cresta, Murrieta, CA 92562 Description: The Assistance League of Temecula Valley operates the Operation School Bell program which provides proper school clothing to needy youth from qualified households attending school in Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore. CDBG funds will- be used to purchase enough clothing for approximately 500 children. This project serves limited clientele; therefore, the attached document for Direct Benefits needs to be filled out and submitted to the County of Riverside EDA on a monthly basis. Should there be no services rendered, submit a form indicating NO SERVICE. Note: This project has been funded by: City of Lake Elsinore $5,000 City of Murrieta $3,000 City of Temecula $7,250 and the County of Riverside EDA with directly administer the project. Project Budget: Cost CDBG A~proved 1) Administration Costs 2) Planning Co~ts 3) Acquisition Costs 4) Construction Costs 5) Equipment Costs 6) Other Costs 15,250 7.250 7) Operation/Maintenance 8) Contingency TOTAL S 15.250 S 7,250. *NOTE: This project is being administered on behalf of the City of Temecula by the County of Riverside. See Countywide Sponsor's Agreement between the County of Riverside and the Assistance League of Temecula Valley governing the expenditure of these 20th year CDBG funds (File# 0.108). Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest EXHIBIT CI , page 1 of 4 S ,0.611 Conflict of interest. (a) A~plicability. (~) (2) In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by recipients, and by subrecipients (including those specified at S 570.204(c)), the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A 110, respectivelyF shall apply. In all cases not governed by 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110, the provisions of this section shall apply. Such cases include the acquisition and disposition of real property and the provision of assistance by the recipient, by its subrecipients, or to individuals, businesses and other private entities under eligible activities which authorize such assistance (e.g., rehabilitation, preservation, and other improvements of private properties or facilities pursuant to S 570.202, or grants, loans and other assistance to businesses, individuals and other private entities pursuant to § 570.203, ~ 570.204 or ~ 570.455). (b) Conflicts prohibited. Except for the use of CDBG funds to pay salaries and other related administrative or personnel costs, the general rule is that no persons described in paragraph (c) of this section who exercise or have exercised anu functions or responsibilities with respect to CDBG activities assisted under t part or who are in a position to participate in a decision making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from a CDBG assisted activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during their tenure or for one year thereafter. For the UDAG program, the above restrictions shall apply to all activities that are a part of the UDAG project, and shall cover any such interest or benefit during, or at any time after, such person's tenure. (c) Persons =overed. The conflict of interest provisions of paragraph (b) of this section apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected official or appointed official of the recipient, or of any designated public agencies, or subrecipients which are receiving funds under this part. (d) Exceptions: threshold requirements. Upon the written request of the recipient, HUDmay grant an exception to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section on a case-by-case basis when it determines that such an exception will serve to further the purposes of the Act and the effective and efficient administration of the recipient's program or project. An exception may be considered only after the recipient has provided the following: (i) A disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by an assurance that there has been public disclosure of the conflict and a description of how the public disclosure was made; and Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest EXHIBIT CI, page 2 of 4 (e) An opinion of the recipient's attorney that the interest for which the exception is sought would not Violate State or local law. Factors to'be considered for exceptions. In determining whether to grant a requested exception after the recipient has satisfactorily met the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, MIID shall consider the cumulative effect of the following factors, where applicable: (i) Whether the exception would provide a significant cost benefit or an essential degree of expertise to the program or project which would otherwise not be available; (2) Whether an opportunity was provided for open competitive bidding or negotiation; (3) Whether the person affected is a member of a group or class of low or moderate income persons intended to be the beneficiaries of the assisted activity, and the exception will permit such person t2 receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being m available or provided to the group or class; (4) Whether the affected person has withdrawn from his or her functions or responsibilities, or the decision making process with respect to the specific assisted activity in question; (5) (6) Whether the interest or benefit was present before the affected person was in a position as described in paragraph (b) of this section; Wh~ther undue hardship will result either to the recipient or the person affected when weighed against the public interest served by avoiding the prohibited conflict; and (7) Any other relevant considerations. Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest Exhibit CI, page 3 of 4 Community Dvlpmt. Block Grant Policy Manual I.D. #A-11 (pg. 1 of 2) TOPIC: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: October 1989 This Conflict of Interest Code is written to comply with Federal Regulations (24 CFR Part 85). These Regulations. "Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments" require that grantees and sub-grantees will maintain a written code of standards of conduct governing the performance of their employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts. .1~ ,NO employee, officer or agent of the grantee shall participate in the se~_ction, in the award or in the administration of a contract supported by Federal Funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. 2) Such a conflict will arise when: i) The employee, officer or agent; ii) Any member Of the immediate family; iii) His/Her partners, or; iv) An organization which employs, or is about to employ any of the above has a financial or other interest in the firm's selection for award. 3) The grantee's or sub-grantee's officers, employees or agents will neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to sub-agreements except as noted in Section 4. 4) A grantee's or sub-grantee's officers, employees or agents will be presumed to have a financial interest in a business if their financial interest exceeds the following: i) Any business entity in which the official has a direct or indirect investment worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more. Any real property in which the official has a direct or indirect interest worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more. Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest Exhibit CI, page 4 of 4 TOPIC: DATE: iii) iv) v) 5) Community Dvlpmt. Block Grant Policy Manual I.D.#A-11 (pg. 2 of 2) CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY October 1989 Any source of income, other than gifts and other than loans by a commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value provided to, received by or promised to the official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. Any business entity in which the official is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management. Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift ~r gifts aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in va' provided to, received by, or promised'to the official within 12 mont_~ prior to the time when the decision is made. For purposes of Section 4, indirect investment or interest means any investment or interest owned by the spouse or dependent child of an official, by an agent on behalf of an official, or by a business entity or trust in which the official, the official's agents, spouse, and dependent children own directly, indirectly, or beneficially a 10-percent interest or more. ITEM 11 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT; FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER City Council/City Manager Anthony EImo, Chief Building Official~ September 13, 1994 Approval of Contract Award for Plan Review Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an award of contract to Esgil Corporation, Vandorpe Chou Associates, Ray Grage and Associates and Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, to provide building plan review services on an as needed basis, to the Building and Safety Department. DISCUSSION: On April 12, 1994, the Building and Safety Department advertised a Request for Proposals for outside consultant firms to perform complete building plan review services. The City Clerk's office received responses from six (6) firms. Four (4) firms are being recommended to provide building plan check services for the City for fiscal year '94-'95. The four (4) firms include the Esgil Corporation and Vandorpe Chou Associates who have provided high quality and very responsive service to date. Two (2) local firms are also being recommended to provide the City with building plan check services. Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates and Ray Grage and Associates have both assembled staff to enable them to provide this service. The local firms themselves are inexperienced in the area of building plan review but the staff they have assembled have the necessary qualifications and experience to perform this work. Building and Safety staff will be closely evaluating the service being provided by these four (4) firms over the next twelve (12) months. Staff is recommending that the City enter into a one (1) year agreement with Esgil Corporation, Vandorpe Chou Associates, Ray Grage Associates and Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, to provide building plan review services on an as needed basis. Staff collects seventy-five percent (75%) of the established building permit fee for covering the costs of doing plan review. Typically consulting firms are compensated at a percentage of the building permit fee collected by the City. The following is a list of the six (6) firms whose proposals were received along with their respective compensation proposal. Compensation rates are based upon a percentage of the plan review fees collected by the City. V:\TONY~AGENDA~PLNCHCK.RNW 9/7/94 tda Agenda Report September13,1994 Page 2 Esgil Corporation 9320 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92123 Vandorpe Chou Associates, Inc. 295 N. Rampart St Orange, CA 92668 RBF and Associates 28765 Single Oak Dr Suite 250 Temecula, CA 92590 Ray Grage and Associates 110 N. Main St Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Melad & Associates 8907 Warner Ave., Suite 161 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 B.S.I. Consultants, Inc. 16880 West Bernardo Ct., Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92127-1616 52% of the building permit fee collected by the City 49% of the building permit fee collected by the City 50% of the building permit fee collected by the City 52% of the building permit fee collected by the City 53% of the building permit fee collected by the City 52% of the building permit fee collected by the City FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for plan review services has been incorporated into the budget for fiscal year '94-'95 in the amount of $63,000in Account No. 001-999-162-42- 5248, "Consulting Services." No additional funds are being requested. V:\TONY%AGENDA~PLNCHCK.RNW 9/1/94 tda PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 13 day of Sentember by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and EsQil Cornoration , an individual ("Consultant"). 1994, The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: Sen/ices. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $ Exhibit B for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000.00. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. 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 prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 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. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, 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 Consultant's acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. -1 - v:%Tony~Agenda\Agr05-95.Esgil 12. Entire AGreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. 13. Liability. 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. Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant. Consultant shall secure workers' compensation insurance. Upon request of Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the Consultant shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums. 14. Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to, City Business Licenses. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: Es~lil Corporation By Ron Robe~s, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk -3- v:~TonyLa, genda\AgrOS-95.Esgil EXHIBIT "A" TASKS TO BE PERFORMED PLAN CHECKING Provide a complete plan check service to the City of Temecula including analysis for compliance with the City's adopted uniform codes as follows: Building code requirement including: Requirements based upon type of occupancy; Requirements based upon type of construction; Engineering regulations including seismic loads; Detailed regulations of construction; Fire resistive standards for fire protection; Fire and life safety requirements; Accessibility for the physically handicapped. National Electrical Code requirements Uniform Plumbing Code requirements Title 24 energy conservation compliance City's amendments to the uniform codes Repetitive plan checks Review site plan Review soils reports Review foundation plans for conformance with soils report EXHIBIT "A" v:~Tony%Agenda%AgrOS-95,Esgil ESGIL CORPORATION'S FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROPOSED SERVICES IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA RFP DATED APRIL 12, 1994 COMPLETE PLAN REVIEW: Esgil Corporation's fee shall be 52% of the Permit Fee calculated per Section 304 or the latest published edition of the Uniform Building Code for each building plan reviewed. The construction valuation shall be based on the most recent valuation multiplier published by the International Conference of Building Officials in Building Standards, or on the architects estimated construction cost, or on the Building Official's cost estimate. Notwithstanding the above, the minimum contractor fee for a plan review shall be one hundred ddllars ($100.00). Plan review fee for repetitive identical buildings shall be 52% of the permit fee as noted above for the first, or basic building, and 10% of the permit fee as noted above for each repetitive building, The single fee includes all rechecks and there are no additional charges for preliminary plan review conferences at our office, expedited processing, reviewing plans that are eventually found to be incomplete or for the pick-up and delivery of plans or for meetings with the Building Official at his/her request, PARTIAL PLAN REVIEW: Partial plan reviews are discouraged due to the need to coordinate all disciplines in a plan review, however, the fees for partial plan review when requested are: 1. Basic minimum for any plan review: 35% of UBC Building Permit fee 2. Structural only 6% additional 3. Fire-Life 6% additional 4. U.P.C. 1% additional 5. N.E.C. 1% additional 6. U.M.C. 1% additional 7. Title 24 Energy and Sound Control 1% additional B. Title 24 Disabled Access 1% additional Total: 52% of UBC fee PLAN REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS: Revisions to previously approved plans will be at Esgil Corporation's published hourly rates shown on the "Labor Rates Schedule," enclosed. We use our preferred rate schedule in Temecula. FAtHI, BIT B ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (6191 560-1468 LABOR RNEES SCHKuULg* (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1993) CLASSIFICATION RATE Division Manager $157.50 Supervising Structural Engineer 148.43 Structural Engineer, S.E. 129.88 Civil, Electrical, R.C.E. 115.50 Mechanical Engineer, M.E. 115.50 Electrical Engineer, E.E. 115.50 Energy Plans Examiner, C.B.C.I 115.50 I.C.B.O. Plans Examiner 98.70 Supervising Building inspector 105.00 Building inspector 89.25 Permit Specialist 80.85 Word'Processing 55.65 Clerical Support 37.80 Corporate Attorney 280.35 PREFERRRn RAT5 $'1!8.65 112.00 98.00 87.15 87.15 87.15 87.15 74.55 78.75 67.20 60.90 42.00 28.35 210.00 NOTES: *Hourly Regular Rates apply where jurisdictions only utilize Esgil Corporation's services occasionally. Regular Rates will be increased 100% for expert witness instances, based on an average estimate of one hour of preparation for each hour of testimony. Preferred rates apply to the following: Clients where Esgil Corporation, by contract, performs all multiple residential, industrial and commercial plan checking or provides all of the Building Inspection Services or provides staff on other than a short term intermittent basis. 3. The percentage increase stated in certain existing contracts need not be applied to the hourly rates. The rates do not include expenses resulting from transportation, meals, lodging and similar costs when Esgil Corporation is providing services outside the greater San Diego County area. Esgil staff normal work days are Monday thru Friday. Field inspection or office work on Saturdays, Sundays or City holidays, will be performed only at the specific request of the Building Official. Billings for work performed on Saturdays, Sundays or City holidays shall be at 1-1/2 times the rates shown above and a minimum of 4 hours if the person worked 4 hours or less and a minimum of 8 hours if the person worked more than 4 hours. (Rates are revised each January and July; maximum 5% increase when rates are revised) s93 S93 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 13 day of September by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and VandorDe Chou and Associates , an individual ("Consultam"). 1994, The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". Performance. Consultam shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultam monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $ Exhibit B for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; orovided that the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Agreement; but in no event more than 910,000.00. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. 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 prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant, e 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. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, 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 Consultant's acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. - 1 - v:~Tony\Agenda~Ag~OS-95 .Vandorpe 10. 11. 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. Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1994 , and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 1995 . 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. Consultam 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 seo. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: a. City: Attention: City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 b. Consultant: Vandorpe Chou and Associates 295 N. Rampart St. Orange CA 92668 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. -2- v:\Tony\Agenda~AgrOS-95.Vandorpe 12. Entire AQreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. 13. Liability. 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. Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant. Consultant shall secure workers' compensation insurance. Upon request of Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the Consultant shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums. 14. License~. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to, City Business Licenses. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: VandorDe Chou and Associates By Ron Roberrs, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk -3- v:\Tony~Agenda~AgrOS-95 .Vandome EXHIBIT "A" TASKS TO BE PERFORMED PLAN CHECKING Provide a complete plan check service to the City of Temecula including analysis for compliance with the City's adopted uniform codes as follows: Building code requirement including: Requirements based upon type of occupancy; Requirements based upon type of construction; Engineering regulations including seismic loads; Detailed regulations of construction; Fire resistive standards for fire protection; Fire and life safety requirements; Accessibility for the physically handicapped. National Electrical Code requirements Uniform Plumbing Code requirements Title 24 energy conservation compliance City's amendments to the uniform codes Repetitive plan checks Review site plan Review soils reports Review foundation plans for conformance with soils report EXHIBIT "A' v:\Tony%Agenda%AgrO5-95.Vandorpe KxHXBIT B PROPOSED FEES Individual building plans: Rechecks: Partial plan checks: Preliminary Plan Check: Repetitive plans: Revisions: Deliver: VanDorpe Chou Associates proposes to provide cede consulting in accordance with the following fees: BUILDING PLAN CHECK 65 % of the plan check fee collected by the City. Re, checks are included in the basic fee. Partial plan checks are individually negotiated. Generally, structural plan check only is 40 percent of the basic fee, energy plan check only is 15 percent of the basic fee. Other partial plan checks would be similarly charged. Them is no charge for preliminary plan check; it is included in our plan check fee. 15 % of the fee charged for the first building type. Revisions to previously checked plans are performed on an hourly basis at a rote of $50.00 per hour. Pick-up and delivery costs are included in our fee, Some jurisdictions send plans to us by United Parcel Service. ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL PLAN CHECK Plan checks are performed at 75 percent of the electrical and mechanical permit fees or on an hourly basis at a rate of $50.00 per hour. ADDITIONAL WORK Any additional work not included in the basic services listed above will be performed at an hourly rate of $50.00 per hour. CrTy OF TEMECULA PROPOSED FEES-I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 13 day of Sentember by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Ray GraDe and Associates , an individual ("Consultant"). 1994, The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. PRiyment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $ Exhibit B for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; prqvided that the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000.00. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. Ownershin 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 prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 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. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, 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 Consultant's acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. -1 * v:%Tony%Agenda\AgrOS-95.RayGrage 10. 11. 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 Consultam in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultam 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. Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1. 1994 , and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 1995 . 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 Consultam, 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; see. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: a. City: Attention: City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 b. Consultant: Ray Grage and Associates 110 N. Main St. Lake Elsinore CA 92530 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. -2- v:\Tony~Agenda~AgrOS-95.RayGrage 12. Entire Aoreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned heroin or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. 13. Liability. 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. Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant. Consultant shall secure workers' compensation insurance. Upon request of Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the Consultam shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums. 14. Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to, City Business Licenses. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: Ray Graoe and Associates By Ron Roberts, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk -3- v:~Tony~Agenda\AgrOS-95.RayGrage EXItlRIT B Fee Propo Our fee for providing Stnictural plan Checking Services to the City of Temecula, as described in our Service Proposal on page 2, will be fifty-two percent (52%) of the building permit fee as established in Table No. 3-A "Building Permit Fees" in the 1991 Uniform Building Code (Appendix B). The budding valuation wffi be based on the City of Temecula Building Valuation Data (Appendix C). Building plans that have been revised or changed from the original submittal will be required to be resubmitted to the City of Temecula. The extent of the revisions, and the amount of time involved~correcting the revisions, will be discussed and mutnally agreed upon by the building director of the City of Temecula and Ray Grage and Associates. At the request of the Building Director of the City of Temeeula, Ray Grage and Associates will be willing to meet with clients to discuss corrections or revisions. Services other than those shown in Services Proposal, that may be requested by the City of Temecula, wffi be bffied per attached rate schedule. Rate Schedule Principal Engineer ................................... $95.00 Per Hour Principal Architect ................................... $95.00 Per Hour Engineer ......................................... $65.00 Per Hour Architect ......................................... $65.00 Per Hour Plan Checker ...................................... $50.00 Per Hour Building Inspector ................................... $50.00 Per Hour Clerical ......................................... $27.00 Per Hour Travel ........................................... $.27 Per Mile Outside Consulting Services .............................. Cost Plus 15 % Printing and Copies ................................... Cost Plus 15 % Items not listed axe to be negotiated PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 13 day of September by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and R B F and Associates , an individual ("Consultant"). 1994, The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $ Exhibit B for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%} of the Agreement; but in no event more than 910,000.00. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. 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 prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 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. e Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, 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 Consultant's acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. - 1 - v:~Tony\Agenda~Agr05-95.RBF 10. 11. Status of Consultant. Consultam 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. Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1994 , and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 1995 . Dq~ault. 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 Consultam 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 seo. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: a. City: Attention: City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 b. Consultant: RBF and Associates 28765 Single Oak Dr #250 Temecula CA 92590 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. -2- v:~Tony\Agenda~AgrOS-95.RBF 12. Entire Aqreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. 13. Liability. 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. Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant. Consultant shall secure workers' compensation insurance. Upon request of Consultant, the City shall add Consultam to the City's workers' compensation policy and the Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the Consultant shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums. 14. Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to, City Business Licenses. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: RBF and Associates By Ron Roberts, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk -3- v:~Tony\Agenda\Agr05-95.RBF EXIHRIT B Ft~ PROPOSAL FOR STRUCTURAL PLAN CHH~KING SERVICES CITY OF TEMECULA BIJH.r~ING AND SAFETY J.N. 400670 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates is prepared to undertake the activities outlined in the "Scope of Services" according to the following proposed method of compensation or as otherwise negotiated with the Chief Building Official and/or City Manager. For the performance of services as outlines, RBF proposes to base the professional fees for the Building and Safety Plan Checking services on fifty percent (50%) of the Building Permit Fee collected by the Building Department. This will assure the City that no costs will be incurred for the operation of contract Building Official services. For the performance of other Consultant Services described in the proposal, RBF pwpeses to bill based on the aUached Hourly Rate Schedule. This proposal is for the exclusive benefit of the City of Temecula and represents a proposal for Scope of Services at the mutually agreed upon compensation. ROBERT BEIN, WII.IIAM FROST & ASSOCIATP_;S EXItlBIT B ROBERT BI~N, WII JJ~[ FROST & ASSOCIATES HOURLY RATE SCB F:DULE IULY 1, 1994 - KINE 30, 1996 CITY OF TEMECUILA Classification Fee Rate Building Chief Building Official Structural Engineer Plan Checker Engineer Plan Examiner Senior Inspector Building Technician Building Inspector Permit Specialist $110 $98 $85 $63 $75 $50 $60 $45 · Landscape Architecture Senior Landscape Architect Assistant Landscape Architect $68 $52 Computer Services Computer Aided Design and Drafting(CADD) Computer Data Entry Computer Time $60 $38 $15 Other Word Processing $35 Consultation in connection with litigation and court appearances will be quoted separately. Blueprinting reproduction and other direct expenses will be charged at cost. The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will chaxged at 1.25 times the standard hourly rates. Sundays and holidays wffi charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates or as negotiated. The foregoing wage rates are effective through June 30, 1996. The rates may be adjusted after that date to compensate for labor adjustments and other increases in other costs. V:\TONY1CONTRACT/I~XH-B.RBF 911194 tda ITEM 12 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY · FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AOENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-1 PREPARED BY: Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security for Tract No. 21675-1 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the developer, and the surety. BACKGROUND: On February 21, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa Homes, (now Kemper Community Development Co.) 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92591 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and a cashiers check for monumentation. On June 25, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. Butterfield Financial Corporation delivered an Instrument of Credit as the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security in the amount of $28,400. The City Council authorized the release of the Material and Labor Bonds on October 8, 1991. -1- pwOS\egdmt~93%0112%21675-1 122992 On January 12, 1993 the City Council authorized the release of the Survey Monumentation security in the form of cashiers check for $3,000 as posted with the County of Riverside. The one-year warranty having been exceeded, the developer and City Staff have inspected the subject site. Any required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily completed and the Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security as posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the amount of $28,400. The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council Resolution No. 94--- at this time. The streets within the subdivision are Corte Camarillo, and portions of Rancho Vista Road end Via El Greco. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachment Location Map -2- pwO5%agdrpt%93%0112\21675-1 122992 L_. [lOT T'~F~C--AL-e ; v/C//~/rY M~P f TRACT NO. 21675-1 l,ocation Map ITEM 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-2 PREPARED BYJ~,lbert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security for Tract No. 21675-2and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the developer and the surety. BACKGROUND: On February 21, 1989, the Riverside County Board Of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa Homes, (now Kemper Community Development Co.) 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200 Temacula, CA 92591 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. On June 11, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. Butterfield Financial Corporation delivered an Instrument of Credit as the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security in the amount of $65,900. The City Council authorized the release of the Material and Labor Bonds on October 8, 1991. -1- pwO5\aOdrpt~94\O913\tr216752.ecc 0822 On January 12, 1993, the City Council authorized the release of the Survey Monumentation bond in the amount of $10,500. The one-year warranty period having been exceeded, the developer and City Staff have inspected the subject site. Any required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily completed, and the Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security as posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the amount of $65,900. The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council Resolution Nd. 9~__ at this time. The streets within the subdivision are Corte San Leandro, Corte Pacheco, Corte Mallorca, Corte Madera, and portions of Via El Greco and Rancho Vista Road. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachment Location Map -2- pwO5%agdrpt%94\O913\tr216752.ecc 0822 / NO ~C4LE TRACT NO. 21675-2 Location Map ITEM 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: DATE: Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-3 PREPARED BY:~'~ Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security for Tract No. 21675-3 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the developer and the surety. BACKGROUND: On June 13, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa Homes, (now Kernper Community Devlopment Co.) 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92591 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. On June 11, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period.Butterfield Financial Corporation delivered an Instrument of Credit as the Faithful Performance improvement Warranty security in the amount of $78,700. The City Council authorized the release of the Material and Labor Bonds on October 8, 1991. %egdrpt\94%0913%tr216753 .fnl On January 12, 1993 the City Council authorized the release of the Survey Monumentation bond in the amount of 810,300. The one-year warranty period having been exceeded, the developer and City Staff have inspected the subject site. Any required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily completed, and the Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security as posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the amount of $78,700. The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council Resolution No. 94-__ at this time. The streets within the subdivision are Corte Sonora and portions of Paseo Goleta, Via El Greco, Rancho Vista Road, and Via Lomas Vista. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachment Location Map ~egdrpt~94\0913~tr216753.fnl t~, 'I ~ ~! ~o~ j~o VICINITY MAP r NO ~C~LE TRACT NO. 21675-3 Location Map ITEM 15 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-4 ~'AI K. Permit Engineer PREPARED BY: bert Crisp, RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security for Tract No. 21675-4and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the developer and the surety. BACKGROUND: On June 13, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa Homes, (now Kemper Community Development Co.) 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92591 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. On June 11, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. Butterfield Financial Corporation delivered an Instrument of Credit as the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security in the amount of ~37,400. The City Council authorized the release of the Material and Labor Bonds on October 8, 1991. %agdept%94%0913%tr216754.fnl On January 12, 1993 the City Council authorized the release of the Survey Monumentation Bond in the amount of $12,500. The one-year warranty period having been exceeded, the developer and City Staff have inspected the subject site. Any required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily completed, and the Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty security as posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the amount of $37,400. The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council Resolution No~ 94-_ at this time. The streets within the sudivision are Corte Montiel and Corte Tunas. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachment Location Map %egdrpt%94\0913%tr216754.fnl L_ ~OT ~ 0 V/C/N/ P NO ,~C,~LE TRACT NO. 21675-4 Location Map ITEM 16 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER l CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (Within Tracts No. 21675-1,-2, -3, & -4). PREPARED BY: 0u~Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94--- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS NO.21675-1,-2, -3, AND 4). BACKGROUND: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Tracts No. 21675-1 and -2, on February 21, 1989, and Tracts No. 21675-3 and -4, on June 13, 1989, and entered into subdivision agreements for the improvement of streets and drainage, sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation with: Mesa Homes (Now Kemper Community Development Co.) 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92591 The developer has improved, to City standards, the public improvements in accord with the subdivision agreements. The City Council previously accepted the public improvements, and released the Labor and Material and the Survey monumentation Bonds. The Public Works Department recommends release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty securities as all required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily completed. r:%agdrpt\94%0809\tr22715 .acc Under provisions of the Streets and Highways Code (Section 1806), public streets offered by the subdivider must be accepted by City Council resolution in order to be included in the public-street maintained system. The streets so affected ere Corte Camarillo, Corte San Leandro, Corte Pacheco, Corte Mallorca, Corte Madera, Corte Sonora, Corte Montiel, Corte Tunes, Via El Greco, and a portion of Rancho Vista Road, Paseo Goleta, and Via Lomas Vista. Inasmuch as certain state funds are earmarked for maintenance of these publicly-maintained streets, the process will make these streets eligible for those funds. FISCAL IMPACT: These streets will be integrated into the City's Pavement Management System and will receive periodic surface and/or structural maintenance efforts. The new pavement condition of these streets should necessitate only limited surface or structural treatments for 7 to 10 years. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 94- with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive. cc: Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent r:%agdrpt%94\O809\tr22715 .aco R~-~OLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACC~G CERTAIN STRF.~-TS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS NO. 21675-1, -2, -3 AND -4) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Wnl~I?.AS, Mesa Homes (Now Kernper Community Development Co.) offered for dedication to the County of Riverside certain streets within Tracts No. 21675-1, -2, -3, and -4 for public street and public utility purposes, and said County of Riverside accepted said offers of dedication by Board of Supervisors lielion on February 21, 1989 erract No. 21675-1, and -2), and June 13, 1989 (Tract No. 21675-3, and -4). ~, The City of Temecula became successors-in-interest to the County of Riverside upon incorporation, effective December 1, 1989. WRRREAS, Mesa Homes (Now Kernper Community Development Co.) has improved to City standards, public improvements within the several streets offered for dedication within Tracts No. 21675-1, -2, -3, and -4, the legal descriptions of which are set forth in Exhibit 'A' and are depicted in Exhibit "B" . WHEREAS, the City desires to accept into the City-maintained street system the public improvements within all or portions of the public streets offered to and accepted by the County of Riverside as depicted in Exhibit "B" ; NOW, THF-REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. That the City of Temeeula accept into the City-maintained street system those streets or portions of public streets offered to and accepted by the County of Riverside described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. Section 2. The City Clerk shall cerdfy the adoption of this resolution and accept the streets and portions thereof, offered to and accepted by the County of Riverside, into the City- maintained street system as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of September, 1994. Ron Roberts, Mayor r:Xagdrpt\94\OBO9Xtr22715.ace STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ee I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at e regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 94- Accepting the public streets offered to and accepted by the County of Riverside as indicated on Tracts No. 21675-1, -2, -3, and -4, and accepting subject public meets into the City- maintained street system as described below: A. Those lots described as Lots "A' through 'C" inclusive, as shown on Tract No. 21675-1,filed 23 February 1989, in Book 198 of Maps, Pgs 82-84, further described as follows: (Lot 'A') (Lot 'B') (Lot 'C") Portion of Rancho Vista Road Portion of Via B Greco Corte Camarillo B. Those lots described as Lots 'A' through "F' inclusive, as shown on Tract 21675-2, filed 23 February 1989, in Book 196 of Maps, Pgs 85-90, further described as follows: (Lot 'A") {Lot 'B") (Lot "C') (Lot 'D') (Lot 'E") (Lot "F") Portion of Rancho Vista Road Pordon of Via El Greco Corte San Leandro Corte Madera Corte Mallorca Corte Pacheco C. Those lots described as Lots "A" through 'E" inclusive, as shown on Tract No. 21675-3, filed 19 June 1989, in Book 202 of Maps, Pgs 69-74, further described as follows: (Lot 'A')' (Lot 'B') (Lot "C") (Lot 'D") (Lot 'E') Portion of Rencho Vista Road Portion of Paseo Goleta Portion of Via El Greco Corte Sonora Portion of Via Lomas Vista D. Those lots described as Lots "A' and 'B', as shown on Tract No. 216754, filed 19 June 1989, in Book 202 of Maps, Pgs 75-78, further described as follows: (Lot "A") Corte Montiel (Lot "B") Corte Tunas EXHIBIT 'B' TO RESOLUTION N0.94-__ SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE- PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW: VICINITY MiIP NO ,.,,<C,4LE ITEM 17 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL. R.~~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT 'City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 Acknowledge Completion of certain Improvements in Tract No. 26861-2 PREPARED BY: :;~fAIbert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACKNOWLEDGE completion of certain improvements in Tract No. 26861-2, AUTHORIZE the reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of private streets, ACCEPT the Faithful Performance warranty bond rider in the reduced amount, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and SUrety. BACKGROUND: On February 26, 1992, the City Council entered into subdivision agreements with: The Presley Companies 15010 Avenue of Science, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92128 for the improvement of private streets, and subdivision monumentation in Tract No. 26861-2. The bonds were posted by The American Insurance Company as follows: Bond No. 111 2716 3647 in the amount of $61,000 for the improvement of private streets. Bond No, 111 2716 9925 in the amount of $880 for subdivision monumentation. The following item has been completed by the developer in accordance with the approved plans: Private street improvements within Tract No. 26861-2 1 ~egdrpt%g4%0913%TR26861-2 0830 Public Works Staff has inspected and verified the several improvements. The Public Works Department therefore recommends recognition of the completion of the private street improvements, reduction in Faithful Performance bond amounts to the ten percent warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period. Therefore it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amount as follows: Private Streets. $54,900 The subdivider is submitting a rider to the Faithful Performanoe Warranty Bond in the following amount: Private Streets. Bond No. 111 2716 3647 $6,100 The developer was required to post a Labor and Material bond to ensure payment to suppliers end workers. This bond is maintained in effect for a period of time determined by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement after the City Council has "accepted" the required improvements. The Subdivision Monument Bond will be recommended for release following final inspection and approval of the Monuments and related work. The affected streets are private streets and will not be accepted into the City maintained street system. The private streets within this condominium subdivision are a portion of "Briarwood Place" and "Ashbury Race'. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: Location Map Warranty Rider to Faithful Performance Bond (On file) 2 %egdrpt\94%O913%TR26861-2 0830 VICIk/I';'Y' FAAP I jOT 'I'G SCALE TRACT NO. 26861-2 Location Map ITEM 18 APPROVAL R~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Tim D. Sealer, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1 (Located East of Winchester Road at Nicolas Rd.) PREPARED BY: Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development ~"~Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer - Land Development RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1 subject to the Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26232, Amendment No. 1, was approved by the City of Temecula Planning Director, Gary Thornhill, on December 22, 1993. A minor change to the Conditions of Approval was approved by the City Council of the City of Temecula on May 10, 1994. The Developer has met all of the associated Conditions of Approval. Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1 is a thirteen (13) parcel commercial subdivision of 21.48 acres located on the southerly side of Winchester Road (Hwy 79 North) at the intersection of Nicolas Road. The site currently is vacant. Surrounding land uses include vacant land and residential development. The site is zoned Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S). The established zoning on the property conforms with the land use designation on the General Plan for the City of Temecula. The following fees have been deferred for Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1: Area Drainage Fees Stephen's K-Rat Mitigation Fees Public Facilities Fee Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees Due prior to grading permit (Cond. No. 65) Due prior to grading permit (Cond. No. 8) Due prior to building permit (Cond. No. 76) Due prior to building permit (Cond. No. 37) The following bonds have been posted by "Insurance Company of the West" for Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1. Faithful Labor & Subdivision Performance Material Monument Street and Drainage $50,500.00 $25,250.00 Water N/A N/A Sewer N/A N/A, Survey Monuments ~6,500.00 FISCAL IMPACT: Nor~e. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Development Fee Checklist Project Location Map Copy of Sht. 3, Parcel Map No. 26232-1 Fees & Securities Report r.%agdrpt~94~0913~rn262321.egn skg CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Parcel MaD No, 26232-1 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. FEE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Due prior to grading permit (Cond. No. 8) Flood Control (ADP) Due prior to grading permit (Cond, No, 65) Public Facility Due prior to building permit (Cond. No, 76) Traffic Signal Mitigation Due prior to building permit (Cond. No. 37) Fire Mitigation N/A Quimby N/A r.%agdrpt%94%O913~pm262321.egn 5COT[ t~OA O ~ ~ITE VICINITY AAA? ~0 ~CAL~ ZO0~ OlllS ~TR O~g Blg~ LZ:gT CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP NO. 26232-1 IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY * Street and Drainage $ 50,500.00 $ Water 0.00 Sewer 0.00 TOTAL $ 50,500.00 $ DATE: Sept. 13, 1994 MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY * 25,250.00 0.00 · 0.00 25,250.00 Maintenance Retention $ 0.00 Monument Security $ 6,500.00 DEVELOPMENT FEES City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs Flood Control (ADP) Fee Fire Mitigation Fee Signal Mitigation Fee Road and Bridge Benefit Fee Other Development Fees $ 0.00 $ T.B.D.* $ N/A $ T.B.D.* $ N/A $ T.B.D.* SERVICE FEES Planning Fee Comprehensive TranSportation Plan Plan Check Fee Inspection Fee Monument Inspection Fee Letter of Map Revision (Lomar) Review Fees Paid To Date Balance of Fees Due 120.00 8.00 1,130.00 N/A 350.00 1,000.00 2,608.00 0.00 · T.B.D. - To Be Deten~ined ~%agdrpt%94%O913~l)rn262321.Bgn ITEM 19 APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Solicitation of Bids for the Acquisition of Street Striping Contract (Project No. PW94-17) PREPARED BY: ~3~f~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the annual street striping contract (Project No. PW94-17). BACKGROUND: The 1994-1995 program of services for the Public Works Maintenance Division includes the re-painting of street striping twice per year in order to insure visibility and refiectiveness of street striping. The contract for the re-painting and painting of street striping is large enough that the request for bid proposals must be advertised and sealed bids received in order to determine the lowest (esponsible bidder. FISCAL IMPACT: $50,000 is included in the Fiscal Year 1994-95 budget in the Public Works Maintenance Account No. 100-164-601-5410for street striping. Attachments: Exhibit "A" Scope of Work r:~agdrpt\94\Og13~pw94=lT.bid/ajp CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT: PW 94-17~FY94-95 be r/.ET STRIPING PROGRAM RATE SCHEDULE PER CYCLE Estimated Quantities: The qpantities given in the proposal and contract form are approximate, being given as a basis for the comparison of bids only, and the City does not expressly or by implication, agree that the actual amount of work will correspond therewith, but reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any class or portion of the work, or to omit any portion of the ,,work, as may be deemed advisable or necessary by the City Engineer. Reflective Centerfine and Lane Lines 4" Broken Lines, 150,000 L.F. (single traffic stripe), and shall include all solid lane lines approximately 50' from all intersections. Detail I and Detail 8, State of California Traffic Manual. 4" Solid Line 75,000L.F. (edge markings- lane delineation). Detail 24 and Details 27A and 27B, State of California Traffic Manual Two 4" Double Solid 150,000 L.F. lines w/3" Black Separation (2-way barrier stripe). Detail 21, State of California Traffic Manual UNIT PRICE TOTAL $ /LF $ $ /LF $ $ /LF $ 8" Solid Lines 25,000 L.F. Detail 38A, State of California Traffic Manual One-way barrier 75,000 L.F. Stripe (for no-passing in one direction or another). Detail 15, State of California Traffic Manual $ /LF $ $ /LF $ PROPOSAL F-2 r:\cip~projects%pw94-17~bidkg PROJECT: PW 94-17~FY94-95 STREET STRIPING PROGRAM -RATE SCHEDULE PER CYCLE Continued f. 6" white solid lane, 90,000 L.F. (Bike Lane) Figure 6-33, State of California Traffic Manual g. 6" white dashed lane, 5,000 L.F. (Bike Lane) Figure 6-33, State of California Traffic Manual h. Two-way left turn lane 125,000 L.F., Detail 31, State of California Traffic Manual Markind Removal: a. Wet Sandblasting 15,000 S.F. Blackout: a. Square Foot: 5,000 S.F. prq-Lininq: a. Including layout, assignment & spotting, 75,000 L.F. Raise Pavement Markers: a. Removals: 5,000 each. b. Placements (Reflective): 5,000 each. /LF /LF /LF $ /SF $ /SF $ /LF /EA :$ /EA $ GRAND TOTAL: PROPOSAL P-3 r:%eip%projects~ow94-17~bidkg ITEM 20 APPROVAL CITY ATJ'ORNEY FINANCE OI~/~ICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 Completion and Acceptance of the Solana Way Street Improvements, Project No. PW93-12 PREPARED BY: ~, Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the Solana Way Street Improvements, Project No. PW93-12, 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, and Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On February 8, 1994, the City Council awarded a contract for the Solana Way Street Improvements, Project No. PW93-12, to E.L Yeager Construction Company for $149,570.00. The project included installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk, pavement and storm drain facilities on both sides of Solana Way from Motor Car Parkway to Margarita Road. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction retention for this project will be released thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. r:~agd~t~94~09 13~p~,93-12.acdlh FISCAL IMPACT: The contract amount for this project was $149,570.00. Contract Change Orders No. I & 2 were approved for a total amount of $48,871.15. Contract Change Order No. 2 for $41,655.00, involved work that was necessitated by the future traffic signal at the intersection of Solana Way and Margarita Road. The total construction cost is $191,171.67. This project is a Capital Improvement Project and is being funded from the first series of bonds which have been sold for Community Facilities District 88-12and from Signal Mitigation funds (C.O. No. 2). Attachment: Notice of Completion Maintenance Bond Contractor's Affidavit r:~a~pt~94%0913~pw93-12.acdeh RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to E.L. Yeager Construction Company to perform the following work of improvement: PW93-12, Solana Way Street Improvements. 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on September 13, 1994. That upon said contract the General Accident Insurance Company of America was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of Californla, and is described as follows: PROJ£CT PW93-12. 6, The street address of said property is: YNEZ ROAD FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO WINCHESTER ROAD. Dated at Temecula, CalifOrnia, this _ day of · 1994. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this day of · 1994. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk Fonm/CI]>-001 R~v, 12-S-91 pw04~ow93-12~ompletn.not 081694 Signed and sealed this Jgth day of AuFust ,19J4. (Seal) GEMEP'jd, ~~ ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMP RICA : D. J. PICARD (Neme) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT (Tit~e) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney Douglas J. Aadland (Name) Vice President (Title) L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION C0., INC- / By: (Name) (Title) MAINTENANCE BOND IA-2 ' pwOS%cip%peojectl%,~wB3-12V~klpk6 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CALIFORNIA County of RIVERSXDE On 8/19/94 before me, HA,HIE COOLEY personally appeared DOUGLAS J. AADLAND ~' personally known to me - OR - [] prowled fn me on the b~sis of sat)sfactory ovidonoo to be the person(s) whose name(sl(~a;e subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to m ha~ executed the same in~~ thorized capacity(4es), and that by~,~r/tha~r signature(s) on the instrument the persorKs)T, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. I Y OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [] INDIVIDUAL /~ CORPORATE OFRCER: VICE PRESIDENT [] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED [] GENERAL [] A'FFORNEYolN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT MAINTENANCE BOND TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT 8/Z9/94 NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SGNER l REPRESENTING: NN,~msoN~s~em'n,~Es~ D.J. PICARD E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. S|GNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Reinmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · C~ Park, CA 91309-7184 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CALZ_FORNL~ ) County of OP, JUQGE On 8/19/94 before me, BEATA A. ARGUELLO, NOTARY PUBLI,C personaily appeared D.J. PICARD 2L~X personsally known to me OR proved to me on the bas..is of satisfactory evidence to be the person.~ whose name(s) is/ere subscribed to the within insbument and acknowledged to me that he/shc/th.y executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity~es'f, and that by his/t'~r/thc!r signature(~on the insi~ument the personS, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(p)' acted, executed the instrument. ORANGE CQUNTy WITNESS my hand and offidal seal. of Not~a~-y'~ OPTIONAL SECTION caPacITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER: Though statute does not require the Notary to fill in the data below, doing so may prove Invaluable to persons relying on the document, INDIVIDUAL ~ CORPORATE OFFICER(S) Titles __ PARTNER(S) __ LIMITED __ GENERAL xxxx A'FI'ORNEY-IN-FACT __ TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (name of pcGor~(s) u, entity) GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATFACHED TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT: TITLE OF TYPE OF DOCUMENT: ~ZNTENk~CF. BOND NUMBER OF PAGES: 02 DATE OF DOCUMENT: 8/19/94 SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE: CD - 7(a~ POwer of Attorney GA 0032797 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Pennsylvania corl)oration having its pdncipal office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania does hereby make, constitute and appoint (~- J- Gzanger, Jr., Robert. J. cl Hanna, Toct M. Rohm, D. J. 9icard, a11 of the City of Ariahelm, State of CaZifornia ........... each individually if there be more than one named, its true and lawful Attorney-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver as surety for and on its behalf, and as its act and deed any and all bonds and undermkinSs of suretyship, and to bind the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA hereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and 'undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were sig~ed by an Executive Offic~er of the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and sealed and attested by one other of such officers, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that ~ said Attomey(s)-in-Fact may do in pursuance hereof;, provided that no bond or uncleraking of suretyship executed under this authority shall exceed in the amount the sum of: Fifty Million ............................. ................................................ Dollars ($50,000,000) ......................... This power of attorney is 8rar~ed under and by authodty of Subsection 5.1(b) of Article V of the by-laws of GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA which became effemve Febman/20, 1992 and which provisions are in full force and effect, readin8 as follows: This power of attorney is signed and seaBed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution adolxed by the board of directors of GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, at a meeting held on the 20th day of February, 1992, at which a quorum was IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA has causC-d these presents to be signed by Dennir-c Perler, its Vice President, and its corl3o~ate seal to be hereto affixed, this 31 day of January 19 94 Commonweaith of Pennsylvania Philadelphia County On this 31 day of January GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Dennis S. Perier, Vice President · 19 94 , personally appeared Dennis S. Perler to me known to be the Vice President of the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and acknowledged that he executed and artested the foregoing ~vtfmew,,N2. d affixed the seal of said corporation thereto and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said Comp.~" lilt fOl~o~ate seal and his signature were duly affixed pursuant to the by-I and the resolution of t.he board of directors of said I USA EDUNG. Notary PuDjic : i OF :' I~ ! City of I~mla~etphia. Ph~ia. Count~ · '. :' ~ for the ea d~ of Pt~nsyIvama , ] n'~ ~/ rmi~.:' ~ Secretary of the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, do hereby certi6/that the above and orego, %ru. : r. copy of. of ..o ey executed by ENERA ACC,DE .NS NCE COMPANY AMER.CA. w,..h ,, still in full r,51'de,IM6"~ffect, and that Article V, S~bsec-'lion 5.1(b) of the by-laws of the Company and the resolution set forth above are still in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Company this ]. 9TB day of AUGUST ,19 94 . James E. Ca~oll, A~iJ~.ant 5ecrm-~ This Power of A~orney may not be used to execute any bond with an inception date after January 31, 1996 5B-0025 ].92 This document is primed on a red backEround For verificaiion a~ the authentic~W o~ this Power of Anorney you may call, 1-800-288-2360 and ask for the Power of Anornev supervisor. Please refer to the Power of Artorne~ number, the above named individual(s1 and details of the bond to which the power is artached. in Pennsylvania. Dial 215-625-3081. 5B-0027 3.92 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW93-12 $OLANA WAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS Thisistocertifythat E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION CO., I,I~ereinafterthe"undersigned") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the undersigned or by any of the undersigned's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of its contract with the City of Temecule with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as P!!OJEC]' NO. PW93-12, SOI.ANA WAY STRM: i IMPROVEliPqiTS situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: PROJECT NO. PW93-12 - SOLANA I~AY STREET IMPROVEMENTS INSERT TITLE OF WORK HERE 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 construction project. 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 eftacted 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 Temecula 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. Dated: 8/18/94 ::-':Z~,.. ~:~, / DouGi,As J. AADLAND. VICE PRESIDENT Print Name and Title RELEASE R-1 pwOS~cip%;~rojectl~ow93-12%bklpkg CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ,~..~ State of CALIFORNIA COUnty Of RIVERSIDE On 8/i8/94 OATE personally appeared ~ personally known to me before me, HANIE COOLEY DOUGLAS J. AADLAND - OR - [] prorod to me on tho b'~ds of =atisfactory 6vidonao to be the person(s} whose narne(,s-)-~afe- subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that ~s~ executed the same in ~~ authorized capacity(4et), and that by signature(syon the instrument the person(z); or the entity upon behalf of which the person(,r~Facted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL 'Fnough the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [] INDIVIDUAL ]~CORPORATE OFFICER . VICE PRESIDENT ~m_E(S) [] PARTHER(S) [] UMITED [] GENERAL [] AI'rORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: DESCRIPTION OF AI'rACHED DOCUMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT & FINAL RELEASE TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT 8/Z8/94 NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. NONE SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ¢1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION * 8236 Reinmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Cartoga Pie'f., CA 91309-7184 ITEM 2 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ~R~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 Construction of an Interim Traffic Signal at Winchester (Hwy. 79N) and Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-11 PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize payment to the State of California for an encroachment permit fee in the amount of $6,720. BACKGROUND: Caltrans was contacted regarding the encroachment permit fee for the proposed~signal project. After further discussions with Caltrans, the encroachment permit fee was reduced from $10,500 to $6,720 due to a re-calculation of the required amount of work hours estimated to perform the various inspection tasks. FISCAL IMPACT: The total project cost has been reduced by $3,780 from $81,804.20to $78,024.20. r:%egdq~t~94%0809~pwS3-11 .e2 ITEM 22 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAE~LEY.~ crrY ATrOP, NEY FINANCE OFFI CITY MANAG CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer September 13, 1994 "No Parking" Zone on Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to 160 Feet North of Avertida Alvarado 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' ZONE ON DIAZ ROAD FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO 160 FEET NORTH OF AVENIDA ALVARADO BACKGROUND: The Traffic Division has received several requests from the public and business community to create a protected left ~urn lane to increase safety on Diaz Road and to facilitate traffic flow. This portion of Diaz Road is 37 feet wide, partially improved and lies west of Murrieta Creek between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road. The roadway between Rancho California Road and Avenida Alvarado is currently striped for one (1) 14 foot wide northbound lane and one (1) 23 foot wide southbound lane. The east side of this roadway is not improved and does not facilitate parking due to insufficient roadway width. Currently, parking is permitted on the west side of the roadway. Staff has witnessed vehicles stopping in the northbound lanes waiting to turn left with other northbound vehicles passing on the dirt shoulder. Any cars parked adjacent to existing driveways limit sight distance for exiting vehicles. On July 28, 1994 the Public/Traffic Safety Commission supported the staff recommendation to establish a "No Parking" zone and install a protected left turn lane on Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to Avenida Alvarado. FISCAL IMPACT: 8" White solid line 4" White solid edgeline 10 Arrow legends Double yellow Left turn lane "No Parking" Signs 250' @ $.95/1.f. = e 23.75 5,860' @ $.55/I.f. = 322.30 10 @ ~7.00 -- 70.00 850' @ $.125/I.f. = 106.25 5,650' @ $.12/I.f. -- 678.00 18 @ $125ea. = 2,250.00 TOTAL $3,450.00 Funds are available in the Public Works Department Striping/Stenciling Account No. 100-164-602-5410 and Signs 100-164o601-5244. Attachments: Resolution No. 94- RESOLUTION NO. 94- A ]~F-qOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLLqF!ING "NO PARKING" ZONE ON DIAZ ROAD FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO 160 FEET NORTH OF AVENIDA ALVARADO 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" zone is hereby established in the City of Temecula on Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to 160 feet north of Avenida Alvarado. 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 13th day of September, 1994. Ron Roberrs, Mayor ArrEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] r:Xsgd~tX94\0913Xdiazaopr.qn/ajp ITEM 23 MlqMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBjeCT: Honorable Mayor Ron Roberrs Mayor Pro Tern Jeff Stone Councilmember Pat Birdsall Councilmember Sal MunoZ Councilmember Ron Parks Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning'q:;?/ September 7, 1994. Urban Core Projects The Urban Core Projects (The Regional Center and Campos Verdes Specific Plans) have been scheduled for the September 13, 1994 City Council Meeting. Due W the complexity of these projects, they were forwarded to you, under separate cover, on September 2, 1994. Please remin all documents until after a final decision on the projects has been made. As always, should you have questions regarding these projects, please do not hesitate to'call me. CITY ATTOR~'~RO~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning DATE: September 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center) and Change of Zone No. 5589 Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoslce, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 340; TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 340 INCLUDING A NEW MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND DETERMINING NO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF CHANGING THE CIRCULATION MITIGATION MEASURES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5589, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 (REGIONAL CENTER) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- ~A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 263 PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CORE, 810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE~ INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ AND WINCHESTER ROADS. BACKGROUND Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 were approved unanimously by the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 18, 1994. The Specific Plan is proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 810,000 square feet of Office\Institutional with possible Multi- Family Residential and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial. The Specific Plan is accompanied by Change of Zone 5589 which is a proposal to change the zoning on the property from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP {Specific Plan). DISCUSSION Specific Plan 263 is located in an area which has a General Plan Overlay designation of Village Center. Under the General Plan, the intent of the Village Center Overlay is to develop centers which will help to provide a sense of place, as well as, a focal point for activity. These Village Centers are intended to contain a concentration and mixture of compatible uses including retail, housing, and institutional. Each Village Center should have design guidelines and development standards. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the General Plan Overlay designation of Village Center. The applicant has provided both language and illustratives that will facilitate implementation of the Village Center concept. The applicant has worked with the Public Works staff on the timing and funding of both on- site and off-site traffic improvements. The Public Works staff has conditioned the project appropriately. Environmental Impact Report 340 was prepared for this project and certified by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations for Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and Libraries, as well as, a Mitigation Monitoring Program were adopted at the same time. Subsequent to this adoption, the apl01icant met with staff to discuss circulation improvements. As a result of this discussion, some mitigation measures have changed. As a result, the applicant has prepared an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report 340 to set forth these different mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Program was also changed accordingly. FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments:~ 1. Ordinance No. 94- - Page 4 2. Ordinance No. 94- - Page 7 3. Resolution No. 94-__ - Page 10 4. Resolution No. 94~ - Page 14 5. Conditions of Approval - Page 17 6. Village Center Concept - Page 28 7. Planning Commission Staff Report, July 18, 1994 - Page 29 8. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, July 18, 1994 - Page 30 9. Addendure to FEIR 340 Containing Mitigation Monitoring Report - Page 31 10. Regional Center Specific Plan/EIR - Page 32 11. Campos Verdes and Regional Center, Composite Land Use Plan - Page 33 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 94- R:'~STAFFR.PT~63SP, CC 9/7194 k~b 4 ATTA~.NT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF T~. un'xr COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TIi~IE~, CAt .IPORNIA, A_MRNI)ING TifF. OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SArB CITY IN TFIR. CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5589, CHANGING Tm~. ZONE PROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THY. SOUTI~AST CORNER OF ~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCI:IF. STER ROAD Tlq'F. CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planrung Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is mended by plac'mg in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 5589 and in the above rifle, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. This Ordinance shah be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shah 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 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. R:~STAFFRFI~263SP.CC 9r7/9~. k~ 5 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED ,his 13th day of September, 1994. RON ROBERTS MAYOR A'rr~.'.ST: June S. Greel~, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALr~ORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TP__,NIECIIA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Cnllfornia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its fast 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: COUNCILNIEMBERS COUNCILMEVlBERS COUNCILNn~vIBERS JUNE S. CITY CL~ CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5589 EXHIBIT - A CITY COUNCIL DATE - SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 ZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.CC 9/1/94 ktb ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 94- 7 A~rAC~ NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 94_ AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TFFF. CITY OF TElVlECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELO~ STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 (REGIONAL CENTER) LOCATw AT 'rH~: SOUTHI~AST CORNER OF · . ~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCH ~:~TER ROAD ~ CITY COUNCII. OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The official zoning map of the City of Temecula, entitled "Temecula/Rancho California Area" as adopted pursuant to Section 34 of Ordinance No. 90-04, iS amended as shown which map is made a pan of this ordinance. Section 2. The City of Temecula hereby adopts those Land Use standards set forth in that certain document entitled "Temecula Regional Center Draft Specific Plan/EIR" dated February 1, 1994 on f~e in the office of the City Clerk. Section 3. 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 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1994. ATi't~ST: RON ROBERTS MAYOR June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CAI ,rFORNIA 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 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 of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCMERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCMERS JUNE S. GRI:.I:~K CITY' CY ,~.RK A'I'FACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION N0.94- R:',STAFFRPT~63SP.CC 9r'//94 kJb 10 ATTACHMEANT NO. 3 I~FsOLUTION NO. 94.- A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TWE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SPECWIC PLAN 263 PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CORE, 810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE\ INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE MULTI-FAlU'H .Y RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETArL COMMI~.RCIAL LOCATED AT ~ SOUTI~.AST CORNER OF ~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ 'lAND WINCI~.STER ROADS. W'~EREAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 263 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItF, REAS, the Planning Commission considered said Specific Plan on July 18, 1994 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WItY, REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Specific Plan; W1TEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings pertaining to said Specific Plan on September 13, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Specific Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Specific Plan; NOW, TFIER.EFORE, TFIE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERIVIINE AND ORDER AS FOLIOWS: Section 1. Findin2s. The City Council in approving the proposed Specific Plan, makes the following findings: '. 1. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City's General Plan. General Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public Institutional, Specific Plan Overhy, and Village Center Overhy. 2. Specific Plan 263 is compatible with surrounding land uses of Commercial to the north (Costco) and west (palm plan). 3. Specific Plan 263 will not have an adverse effe~"t on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the axea. Environmental Impact Report 340 was p~-pared for the Specific Plan, and was oertified by the City Council July 13, 1993. An Addendure to FEIR 340 along with a new Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared which wffi be adopted for this project. No immediate impacts to the environment wffi result from the. adoption. of the Specific plan Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council on ~uly 13; 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries. :4. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan_ The key objective in the General Plan that relates to this Specific Plan calls for the development of a Village Center with mixed uses, pedestrian oriented design, and linkages to surrounding projects. In addition, the Village Center is intended to be a community focal point with high quality site and building design which provides for the incorporation of transit facilities. 5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Section 2. Environmental Comnliance. Previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 340 analyzed the significant impacts of Specific Plaz} No. 263 and proposed mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Since the circulation mitigation measures have changed, an Addendum to this FEIR has been prepared which determined no additional impacts as a result of these changes. With this Addendum, a new Mitigation Monitoring Program will be adopted. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Specific Plan No. 263 which is attached as Atlachment No. 10, located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment No. 5, attached hereto. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1994. RON ROBERTS MAYOR ATf~ST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMF_,C~) I H EREBY 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: CITY COUNCu,MEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCII,MEMBIERS: /UNE S. GI~h"K CITY CI.RRK R:\STAFFRFVa63SP.CC 9/7/9~ k~ ~ 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF Tn'F~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING Tnv, ADDENDUM TO FI~XR NO. 340; TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO ln~lR NO. 340 INCLUDING A NEW MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND DETERMINING NO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF CHANGING ~ CIRCULATION MITIGATION MI~,ASURES LOCATED AT Tn'E SOUTheAST CORNER OF ~ INT~atSECTION OF :yNF, Z ROAD AND WINCheSTER ROAD WItF~REAS, KRDC fried a request for an Addendum to l~'t~tt< No. 340 in accordance with Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, which the City has adopted by reference; ~, said Addendum application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public heating pertaining to said Addendure on September 13, 1994, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Addendum; and NOW, 'rHFREFORE, THF~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findines. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. The City Council in appmving the proposed Addendum, makes the foilowing findings, to wit: : 1. The Addendum was prepared since the proposed project does not change any of the impacts identified in F~i K No. 340. 2. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines ca/ling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. 3. Only minor technical changes or additions axe necessax~ to make FEIR No. 340 adequate under CEQA. 4. The changes to the ~ made by the Addendure do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby adopts the Addendure for FEIR No.340 and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No.263 and Change of Zone No. 5589 which provisions are set forth in that cel~ain document entitled "Addendure ]~R g2 Regional Center Specific Plan," on fie in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cextify the adoption of thi.~ Resolution. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1994. A',t-rt~,.ST: RON ROBERTS MAYOR June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALmORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I FfEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of September, 1994 by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CO~C~ERS: CO~CILM]EMBERS: CO~CILMEMBERS: JUNE S. GRI~3~K CITY Ct,RRK ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:',STAFFP. P'L'~63SP.CC 9FII94 klb 17 · CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center) Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 810,O00square feet of OfficerInstitutional with possible Multi-Family Residential, and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan). Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-046and 047, 921-090-005,006 and 007 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Conditions The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 263, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Spedific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 340 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 10. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. 11. Prior to the City Council hearing, Planning Area 3 shall be changed to Business Park and the appropriate zoning and development standards shall be established for Business Park designation. R:~TAFFRPT~63Sp. CC 9/7/94 12. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps. 13. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within Each Planning Area within the Specific Plan, a detailed design manual for each Planning Area shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 14. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8 '~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. 15. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 16. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. 17. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implement The Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 18. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for residential units thc projoot, the project applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement the with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan. (Amended by Planning CommissiOn on July 18, 1994) 19. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. 20. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. 21. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. R:\STAFFRFI'~63SP.CC 9/'//94 kl~ I 9 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. GENERAL CONDITIONS 22. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the proiect site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided a~' required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utilir_y provider. 23. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, 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 permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. 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; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. 25. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. R:~STA~RPT~263SP.CC 9/7/94 klb 26. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of :.~;' for each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 19, 1994) CIRCULATION 27. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-O1. 28. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to office and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. 29. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. 30. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. Accesses shown from Winchester Road to the site are conditional upon Caltrans' approval. Approval for accesses not currenth.~ shown on the City's Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans will be required prior to subsequent discretionary approvals or any permits being issued by the City. 31. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 32. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with t~,e construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 33. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. 34. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy: 35. Winchester Road parkway improvements, adjacent to Phase One, including sidewalks, landscaping, and street lights shall be completed by the Developer. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the project's accesses from Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Road, as required, including the associated street improvements, based"on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications. Dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road overpass at Interstate 15 (I-15) and the interchange ramps along with associated additional right-of-way necessary for the widening and improvements to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange. The Developer, the City, and CFD 88-12 shall enter into an agreement that provides for the reimbursement of acquisition cost of the required right-of-way. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 SF. The Developer shall support the Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12 supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the 1-15 overpass), in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Secondary Highway with 88 fool full width right-of-way, and including the traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit Developer shall bond for the improvements to Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way with a reimbursement agreement. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for full street improvements to Overland Drive, from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Major Highway with 100 foot full width right-of-way with a reimbursement agreement. R:~STAFFRF~263SP.CC 9/7194 klb 22 36° The Developer is responsible to bond for pr~=r and constru~ ~he traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works at the following intersections: (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal} Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road Drainage 37. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be previded in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 38. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 39. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrendy with the initial site development within that phase. 40. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 41. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the offsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 42. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 43. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 44. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of slow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. Water and Sewer 45. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 23 46. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 47. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 48. Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan development. Grading 49. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development unless approved by the Director of Public Works for street purposes. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) 50. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impac~ Report (EIR) document. 51. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to a!~proval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 52. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 53. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: · Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. · Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. · Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 54. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 55. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 56. The site shall be watered during grading operations to contro~ dust. % 57° Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 58. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 59. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 60. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 61. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that Oewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (i.e. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 62. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific PI an, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 63. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Regional Center Specific Plan was originally presented to staff as a mixed-use commercial development combining retail, office, hotel, ~nstitutional, and regional mall facilities. However, the possibility exists that multi-family residential development could occur within Planning Area 1. In the event that residential development is approved, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides additional conditions for the Temecula Regional Center, as follows: General Requirements 64. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall satisfy the park land dedication requirements in accordance with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). Upon determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, the City of Temecula shall have the final decision of requiring the developer to dedicate land for public park purposes, or pay the equivalent "in-lieu" fee. 65. Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial/industrial development and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by a private property owner's association. 66. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space in residential areas shall be maintained by the individual property owner or an established property owner's association. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) 67. Class II bike lanes shall be designed in conformity with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 68. The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications, 69. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 70. Construction of..all proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and City Maintenance Superintendent, Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program, Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 71. All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for dedication on the final map. 72. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff. 73. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 26 Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 74. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 75, Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the TCSD maintenance program. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT R:\STAFFRFfX263SP,CC 9/7194 kib 28 T0 I cjecj6cJ,9,e:~7'/ P. e2 ~ IL~_~IOI~L p!annin~ ~ 1 L ' Nannln~ Area-1 Descriptive Su-,mar7 Pisnhing Area 1, as cl=piacd in Pigurc 12A, co,,d~s of 71.~/groas acres, dc~otocl prlmarm/t~ mlx~ci uses including retail, office, hotel, institutional, ~ ~qd~atial uses. T!z commezciaL residents, whi!~ m.qints;nlng cs~npatl'b'flity with a rcsideatial en~ A ~ of 300 multi-family dwelling units shah be pcnnil/ed in Planning Ar, a 1. These dlV~-ll;n~S I~ay citbe. r commercial m 1) ~ of Uses It is the intent of the mixed us~ dcvelopnznt in planning Area I of tt~ T~a Regional Ccnlef to allow for a mixlm'e of c~mmadal/officcfmstimdonal and resi~ntiiI uses. TI~ mixed use development is cksign~d to encourage active sU~t fxont~g~s and a com/ortabl6, hnman-scal~! ~nvi~nment that creates a fully functioning shopping strut complex (i.e., a "Mah Strc~"). This Main Sm:ct will be integrmai into ttz ovaall mixed use clcvdopmcnt in Planning Azez I and will bc connectai by both strecU and pe. xl~triau walkways to the planned retail cl~vclolmment in pJ.nnin3 Ar, a 2. Street will be an easy and quick walk away from offices and w. sidcnccs in ttz Tanecuh Regional Center, allowing both works and residents to take advanla~ of the convcnienl, locally availablc shopping oppommific& A conceptual Dlu~advc siz plan dcpiaing Main Strict concell in planning Area 1 is shown in Fi~rc 12B. A dora;led view of tins Main Strcct is illustrated in Figurc 12C. Wtdlc x~tai] developn~nt may be the ,ndm~y land use in Phnn;ng ~ 1, it iS envisioned that this pI-n-inl~ arcs wi/1 also include additional empl~ uppommifi~ such as offices and personal sexyice shops and busin~,ses. In~hnional and hoWl uses may be inKgrated physically into mixed us~ structnms or constmct~l as scpazns buildings. Rcsidentisl rises may be integrated into the s~n~- structu~ as non-residential Residential uses and antties should consflints not morn than 30% of the gnxmd floor of any of ~ buildings, In ar~as which do not dir~tly face onto the sln.JFping frccstanding xP,,sid~ntial buildings may bs consh-ucted, It is also antlclpatfl that some fme-sumcling x~ja,mtial s~acmrcs will also bc crgctcd in Planning Area L m-31 2) In planning for mixed use development, consideration shall be given to joint use of parking, common areas, landscaping, specific types of uses, housing types and sizes of units, and overall architectural design. Planning Area 1 development is proposed as a logical extension of the central commercial core activity in Planning Area 2, and a transition between Planning Area 2 and the adjacent residential property to the east. Institutional uses to be encouraged within Planning Area 1 include local, state or federal level services (i.e., postal service, economic development, social service, library, museum, etc.), if there is a need or demand for such uses. Buildin~ Scale and Planning Area Desi,~n Development in Planning Area 1 should not resemble a typical suburban shopping center or strip commercial plaza. The retail and office uses in Planning Area 1 may be arranged in a "U"-shaped configuration around a public green similar to traditional public greens, or in a linear fashion to form a "Main Street" with shops and offices oriented directly onto the street. Internal roadway cimulation (which may be implemented by a perimeter ring road or other similar roadway configuration) will be provided around the Main Street area to facilitate traffic flow in and through Planning Area I. The internal roadway system will distribute traffic to and from principal access points on the site Pedestrian connection to adjacent Temecula Regional Center uses and to nearby pedesuqan s ---parallel parking (optional) -- 4 - lane capacity (typ.) Conceptual Internal Roadway III-35 3) rather than on nearby arterial streets. This ring road may also connect Planning Area 1 with Planning Area 2. Limited on-street parking may be provided on portions of the internal roadway system, but in areas where the roadways cwss parking areas, no on-street parking shall be allowed. The primary internal access roadway system will most likely be four lanes in width. The Main Street, on the other hand, will be limited to two through lanes (one in each direction) in order to foster a pedestrian scale. Individual buildings within Plab. ning Area 1: may range in height up to 120 feet, provided that building setbacks and configurations for all structures in excess of 50 feet in height shall be determined by the City during Development Plan Review to ensure that adequate light. access and air is available to adjacent structures. Typically, buildings should maintain :a pedestrian scale adjacent to the shopping street. For example, the portion(s) of a building that abuts a public street may be two or three stories in height. Additional building stories could progressively step back as the building height and number of stories increases. Not only will such architectural design permit light and air access to surrounding areas and ensure a pedestrian scale near ground level, but the massiveness of the building will be substantially reduced. Separate building entrances shall be required for commercial/office/institutional and residential uses when occupying the same structure; provided that this provision does not preclude internal connections between residential and non-residential uses. Intensification In order for the concept of a "Main Street" to truly function, development of a certain density and intensity is necessary. Greater intensification of land use in this planning area provides the opportunity for innovative architectural design and landscaping. The higher concentrations of people will also increase the feasibility of mass transit to serve the site. Residential uses will be limited to free-standing buildings containing single family attached or multi-family homes or vertically integrated buildings containing residential units over office and/or commercial uses. Because of the increased residential density in this area, it is important that recreational amenities be provided for residents. Freestanding residential structures, in particular, should contain recreational facilities such as spas, swimming pools, basketball courts, and weight room. These facilities may be provided within buildings or, ff provided outside, may be arranged in interior cormyards or in walled-in enclosures in interior parking lots. Special consideration should be given to locating facilities with respect to the noise, activity, and light that they will generate. 111-36 3Uq-e3-1994 lIB: 14 FRI:]E *P/B Pl./q,H~l,~ TO 1~-JEg~59464"~ P,I]3 fnmcs~ldingmuld'f"rrn~lY i ~ commada]/o~cc, rmstimdon=l i~ uses (typ) with opdonal i . :Frees~ain~ asidenUad Builah,~ & Vert~.-.my Iutegnt~ B,iidings (RestdenUal Over Commercial/Office Uses) with Recresfionsl Facilities 4) ., Pm-~dn~ Desira Lim}tr, d cn-sm:ct parking may be l=oddcd in l~-,~;,~g Ar, a 1, p~d~y Mong ~ : "Mn;n S~L" ~ p~g ~ m ~ f~ ~le ~mn;nS ~,~ ~d ~ '~on-~" ~ ~m~~m~c~~~n~ ~ f~ long~ ~ n ho~ ~ ~o, ~g l~ ~o~d ~ ~ h ~ ~m d ~d~ p~h ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~vel~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~p ~d ~-~, not ~ 1~ (~ ~ 1~). ~ ~ p~ lore ~ ~mn~ for ~ong ~" ~g. ~ ~n3 f~lifi~ ~d n~ ~ ~ do~hsn~ ~ ImsZ~ of ~ pzo~ V~ e~ of pang for ~ wi~o~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~o~ ]~t-~g ~m ~ ~ o~ ~ ~o~ ~velop~t ~ avoid pinion of ~in~ lo~ ~ ~m~on, ~l~ly ~ ~g ~ ~o~d ~ .~ for n~. Incentives for Innovalive Desin Up to 300 mukl-fnm;ly dw~11ings ca~ be ~ in this p:lnn.;n~ area I0 lan:lvjdc ho~dng ,~vl~ornmides for employ_~s__ of the various businesses Within the TezDea~a R~iona] Center Specific Plan. Convertely, the planned comnndal uses will enable y:q;--~-- x~sidents to do their shopping by foot. The mixtur~ of r~sidential and non-x~sidenfial land uses a:~ deaign~l to deermiss ths traffle gcnP,,_,'at~l by project &vdoinncnt m-37 6) The pedestrian scale of the project will be enhanced by pleas, courtyards, sidewalk cares, public g-parks, pedestrian easements, and overall project landscaping. Pedestrian linkages will be provided between uses within Planning Area 1 and between Planning Area 1 and the larger retail uses in Planning Area 2. Retail and service commercial uses could predominate on the first floor of the buildings, with offices and/or residential uses concentrated on the upper floors or behind the commercial uses. Verrically-integrated buildings offer the opportunity to provide affordable housing. Pedestrian-Oriented Desitrn The small size of Pl~nnlng Area 1 will encourage pedestrian movement between uses, while de-emphasizing automobile use. Retail uses are encouraged on street level to provided streetscape contiguity and visual interest for pedestrians. Continuous expanses of blank walls or sharp unbroken vertical surfaces create an uncomfortable atmosphere for the pedestrian. The mixed use area should incorporate the following elements of good pedestrian-oriented design: Pedestrian Circulation: Link interior parking areas and lots to city streets, city- wide open spaces (e.g., plazas, g-parks, pedestrian mails, etc.) and the City's trail system to facilitate travel by wig, biking, or other non-mot0rized means. Building Facades: The design of building facades, particularly those facades that face public streets, should be architecturally interesting and in scale with the pedestrian. Storefront windows are encouraged in retail shops and, in most cases, should begin within 18" tO 24" Of the pavement. Typically, storefront windows help to entice customers into stores, stimulate visual interest, create "defensible space" by enhancing public views of store interiors and streets, and establish a predictable rhythm for passers-by. The scale and width of each storefront should be limited to establish an intimate scale that is more conducive to the pedestrian and cyclist than to the automobile. In general, storefront widths should relate to a human scale. Where storefronts must be large to accommodate specific uses, the building facades could be articulated with windows, insets, pillars, column. s, arcades or other decorative architectural features to maintain the overall intimacy of the shopping street. Signage: A coordinated signage plan for development can facilitate pedestrian and vehicular movement throughout the planning area, without "visually assaulting" the senses. Signage should be designed at a scale that is not overpowering from the pedestrian's perspective. For exaxnple, small signs with a unique texture, shape, or interesting features can be more effective than large, massive, or glaring signs. This Temecula Regional Center Zoning Ordinance 111-38 7) 8) contains comprehensive signage criteria for uses within Planning Area 1 (see Section I/I.C. 1. in this Specific Plan). Streetscape Design: To encourage human activity and movement, streets should be designed with the pedestrian in mind. Continuity in landscape design, placement of street furniture, sitting areas, covered arcades for shelter against the sun and inclement weather, lighting, and paving patterns all contribute to creating a rich, functional, and aesthetically pleasing environment for pedestrians. Pedestrian Plazas: All areas of'Planning Area 1, and the Main Street in particular, should be designed with pedestrian gathering spots and should include plazas and pocket parks for resting, eating, conversing, and people watching. Pedestrian plazas that are effectively placed within retail and office districts can b'e pleasant spaces for resting or having lunch between shopping trips or errands. Placement of pedestrian plazas must be carefully planned to assure their most effective use. For this reason, consideration must be given to the location of plazas relative to the pedestrian circulation patterns, sunfight conditions, wind paRems, and the selection of building and landscape materials. Organization of Activities: The most important element in creating viable pedestrian spaces has little to do with the actual physical design of the space; if a space is to be conducive to pedestrian activity, there must be opportunities for pedestrian events and activities. Therefore, efforts to planning and organizing festivals, events, special sidewalk sales, entertainment, and cultural displays should be made to help create desized pedestrian activity. Private marketing efforts should be encouraged to promote these types of community events. SiEnaEe This Specific Plan includes a comprehensive signage program for the mixed use development. The program includes retail commercial entry monumentalion, building identification signage, marquee signage, and directional signage. Although the signage criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance in this Specific Plan includes maximum permitted sign sizes, the individual sign that identifies a given use should be consistent with the scale and mass of the building on which it is located or which it identifies. Specific signage materials should be uniform throughout each individual development within Planning Area I. Transit Alternatives/Options One of the primary objectives of establishing mixed use development within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is the creation of a density threshold and a mixture of uses that is capable of supporting transit alternatives to the automobile. Bus turnouts shall be provided at appropriate locations within Planning Area 1, subject to approval by the City III-39 ,,R.Iq-ff~-1994 12:19 P,,:I3H ~ PU:It4II,~ TO 19e96946477 P.~2 of Temecuh and. if nece~. the Riverside Transit Age~y. Aaaition,T ~ran,;t conidor right-of-way adjammt to W'mche~u:r Road on th~ westam edge of the plmming allow space for developm,~t of ~ rn,~ ~rnndt syslem (e.g., light rail, era.) should ~uch 9) Vill,-e Center/Mn~n Strut Development Area b. The Vm.~o~ Center/Main 5u~ concept shall ~ply to ~ 10 to 15 ~ ~ ~ U~ ~opmmt S~ Plea.~. tufa to Zone Ordinance No... 1) in Section KLC of this Specific Plau. In complianc~ with the goa]s and policies of the City's General Plan, VHlage Centt~ Overlay and V~nd Use Element ~ 5 - Poficics 53 through 5.10, it is impommt tn create a qua/iv/environment which e~abai.he~ a sense of plac~ thwugh c~eful consideration and integration of the following deign elexnents: b) · c) Nan~w streets and driveways with pedestrian pase~ and wide sidewalks. d) Fe. atu~s such as pnseo~ arm. a.-~. phza.s, courtyards, ~ua~s, galleries ~nd oredoor ca~es to encourage gathering. e) f) Cra~.hedng places such as pavilions, paxis and ~m~ Festivals, merit, st:P~t vendor, outdoor mnrl~t5 and other ~ events should be Incorporation of fou~tsln~ and w~t~r bo~es. · g) Uniqu~ archit~mmd and landscape schitecttwal them~ for identity. · h) C_~r~ful parking oxi~ntnfion. IH-40 iuH:L P.82 Friday June 3, 19~6 12~*10~m:Page 3j ~J4-e3-199d 11:B9 ~ TBJa PL~H41H~ TO 1~agG94~d?? P,K3 2) 3) 4) 7) 8) · It iS i,n~Ortnnt tO no~c thnt DOt nil t3sg$ a]lov/~i i9 Planning Area I ar~ necessarily expected to occur. For this reason, some of the above design feamRr~ ,~y not be appropzimc nor cconomic~y female. For thin l~as(311, only the con_Px~3t of a 'Main Sueet* is discussca in. &-pth above, Additional options for possible developat in l:q~--;-g Az~ I ale discuslied in Secliou W. Design Guide~, in this Specific plnn_ Access into Planning Area I will be pzovided from Margadta Road, Apricot Avenue antl WinctP_sU~ Road. corlidor illlx) pm, nnning ~ 1. ~ m~w~:x' x:a,o~,-'~ would lmmvide right-un'n-ouly ~ into thl, IFaxed Ug Planning Azea (see Rgu~ 12A). This ~ shall comply with the cuu~nt Memorandum of Undtramnding (MOLD between the City d Temecula and Caltrn-~ as to the location and spacing of m~or access points along W'mchestcr Roa& Special madway land._~nps tre~-n,=mts, as those depicted in Figures 14, lg, and I -nndscape .A_rchitectll~ (3gide, liDe8 (See. I'V'.E..) _~hnll be piovided along Winchestea' Road, Ma~adta Road and Apricot Avenue. Major Entry Monumentafion as depicted in Eguxe 7,3, Landscape Archit:ctnra] Guide, lines, shall be provided at the inta'sections of Winchester Road and Margax~ta Roa~, and Margarita Road and Aln'icot Avenue, and along MaC, m-ira Road and W'mchester Road. Minor Entry Monum~ntation, as depicted in Figu~ :25, Landsca~ An:hitccUnl Cmldcl~nes, shall be provided along Win~hes~r Road, lVI~r~aita Road mud Apricot Avenuc. Ple~.se gfer to 3cc. IV. for Spccific Design Guide-lines and other x~l,,,.d design Please x~fe~ to Sec. IH,A. fo~ the following Dcvelopmcnt pi,,~ and Standants that axe1~ site-wide: m-~l - Specific Land Use Plaa I'if_A_?. - Circ,,hfion Flan Tff-A,3 - Drainage Plan IILA.4 - Wa~r and Sewer Plans tIT &_5 -Pmjcct phn~ing r!T A.6 - Grading Plan : TIT_~.7 - T~ndscaping PlaU fit &.8 - Malnten~nre Plan 11141 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, JULY 18, 1994 R:~STAFFP, Z~63SP.CC 9r7/94 Idb 29 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING * CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1994 Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center) Change of Zone No. 5589 Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske. RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94-__ recommending approval for Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: KRDC Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: T & B Planning Consultants PROPOSAL: Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 810,000 square feet of Office/Institutional with possible Multi-Family Residential and an additional 298,000square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan No. 263). LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: Southeast corner of the intersection of Ynez and Winchester Roads R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: North: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) South: M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial) East: A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) SP (Specific Plan No. 263) R:~,STAFFRFr~63SP.I~C5 7115194 vgw GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: CC (Community Commercial) O (Professional Office) BP (Business Park) P (Public/Institutional) Specific Plan Overlay Village Center Overlay EXISTING LAND USE: VacBnt SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS North: South: East: West: 'Commercial Development (Costco) vacant vacant Commercial Development (Palm Plaza) Plannine Area 1 Total Area Possible Residential Retail/Office Building Area 72 Acres 300 Units 810,000 Square Feet Plannine Area 2 Total Area Commercial Retail Building Area 97.8 Acres 1,555,000 Square Feet Planninq Area 3 Total Area Retail/Office Building Area 5.5 Acres 118,000 Square Feet BACKGROUND Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 were continued from the May 23, 1994 and June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. At the May 23 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to provide more detailed information on the Village Center concept proposed for Planning Area 1. At the June 6 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested a continuance to the July 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to enable them to meet with staff to discuss the conditions of approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project proposal is a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on 201.3 acres. The project site is located along the south side of Winchester Road between Ynez and Margarita Roads. The City's General Plan designates the site as Specific Plan and Village Center overlay areas. The underlying land use designations of the General Plan consist of Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park and Public Institutional. The Specific Plan document contains the zoning, development standards and architectural guidelines for the project site. The proposed zoning and development standards contained within the Specific Plan document will govern development for this site over the City's Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. ANALYSIS Villaoe Center Concept Planning Area 1 located within the Regional Center Specific Plan has a General Plan Overlay designation of Village Center. Under the General Plan, the intent of the Village Center Overlay is to develop centers which will help to provide a sense of place, as well as, focal points for community activity. These Village Centers are intended to contain a concentration and mixture of compatible uses including retail, housing, and institutional. Additionally, each Village Center should have design guidelines and development standards. While the applicant has provided language relative to the Regional Center's Village Center, this language has been deemed inadequate by staff. At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to provide stronger language in the Specific Plan which would ensure the development of a Village Center in Planning Area 1. In addition, staff has requested the applicant provide design guidelines and development standards in the Specific Plan. Pursuant to the Commission's direction at the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has provided new language relative to the Village Center Concept, as well as, a number of illustratives (reference Attachment 3). Both the language and illustratives will be included in the Final Specific Plan. Circulation At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested the Commission provide direction on the timing and funding of both on-site and off-site improvements. The Public Works Department proposes the following: That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain regional improvements for the project implementation responsibility for regional facilities. That this Specific Plan be required to support either supplemental bond sales or district restructuring and supplemental bond sales which provide for certain regional facilities listed in Attachment "A" to the Mitigation Monitoring Program (refer to Attachment No. 5). That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain facilities within and adjacent to the project as detailed in the Conditions of Approval. The timing for these facility requirements may be further defined through the conditioning of subsequent development applications and the requisite phasing application. A typical section be added to the Specific Plan for the primary onsite circulation road(s). Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) The provision for a 37 foot Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road was discussed at the May 23, 1994Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated he would provide this 37 foot LDZ. The Final Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will contain an exhibit that illustrates this LDZ. School Mitioation The Temecula Unified School District is requesting the developer sign a mitigation agreement with the District prior to Specific Plan approval. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 340 certified for the site on July 13, 1993 states that "the project applicant shall enter into a binding agreement with the Temecula Unified School District to insure the provision of adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy." Staff has conditioned the Specific Plan to comply wi{h the mitigation proposed in the previously certified EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL DE'I'ERMINATION Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared for the project and certified by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration for Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and Libraries and a Mitigation Monitoring Program were adopted at that time. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan designations of Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public\Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay. Upon adoption by the City Council, Change of Zone 5589 which proposes to change the zoning on the site from Rural Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP) will render the Specific Plan consistent with the zoning on the site. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to better define the Village Center Concept, Subsequent to this meeting, the applicant has provided staff with new language and illustratives which better defines the Village Center Concept. This new language and the illustratives will be provided in the Final Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Commission also provided information to the Public Works staff on the timing and funding of both on-site and off-site traffic improvements. FINDINGS Specific Plan 263 Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City's General Plan, General Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay. R:\STAFFRPTX263SP.FC5 7/15/94 vg~v 4 Specific Plan 263 is compatible with surrounding land uses of Commercial to the north (Costco) and west (Palm Plaza). Specific Plan 263 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area. Environmental Impact Report 340 was prepared for the Specific Plan, and was certified by the City Council July 13, 1993. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adoplied by the City Council on July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. The key objective in the General Plan that relates to this Specific Plan calls for the development of a Village Center with mixed uses, pedestrian oriented design, and linkages to surrounding projects. In addition, the Village Center is intended to be a community focal point with high quality site and building design which provides for the incorporation of transit facilities. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Chanae of Zone 5589 Change of Zone 5589 will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as determined in Environmental Impact Report 340 prepared for the project. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP). Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council on July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries. Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. General Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public\Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay. Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal. Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed potential access points to the site will be from Ynez and Margarita Roads. Additional internal access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in conformance with City of Temecula standards. 6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 7 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11 Revised "Village Center Concept" Language - Blue Page 22 Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan - Blue Page 23 Attachment "A", Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340 - Blue Page 24 Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, April 18, 1994 - Blue Page 25 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATTACHIMI~,NT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF Tn~. CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT CONIMI~RCIAL CORE, 810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE MULTI-FAMII .Y RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE F~.I~.T OF RETAIL COiVI1WF~RCIAL; APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5589 TO CHANGE ~ ZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R- R) AND HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM (A-2-20) TO SPECIFIC PLAN (SP). ~ PROJECT IS LOCATED AT TtIE SOUTWEAST CORNER OF TI~F~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ AND '~qNCHFSTER ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910- 130'046 AND 047, 921-090'005, 006 AND 007. WtrFREAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 263 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on July 18, 1994 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WIrEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said application; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. FindingS. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following fmdings: A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes the following findings, to wit: Specific Plan 263 1. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City's General Plan. General Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Offace, Business Park, Public Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay. 2. Specific Plan 263 is compatible with surrounding land uses of Commercial to the north (Costco) and west (Palm Plaza). 3. Specific Plan 263 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area. Environmental Impact Report 340 was prepared for the Specific Plan, and was certified by the City Council July 13,. 1993. No immediate impacts to the environment wffi result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from funam development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council on July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries. 4. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs conhined in the General Plan. The key objective in the General Plan that relates to this Specific Plan calls for the development of a Village Center with mixed uses, pedestrian oriented design, and linkages to surrounding projects. In addition, the Village Center is intended to be a community focal point with high quality site and building design which provides for the incorporation of transit facilities. 5. Said fmdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Change of Zone 5589 1. Change of Zone 5589 will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as determined in Environmental Impact Report 340 prepared for the project. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP). Impacts from funare development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council on July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality,-Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circutation and Uthra~es. 2. Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. General Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, PublicXlnstitutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay. 3. Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. 4. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal. 5. Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed potential access points to the site will be from Ynez and Margarita Roads. Additional internal access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in conformance with City of Temecula standards. 6. Said fmdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and heroin incorporated by reference. B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 340 analyzed the significant impacts of Specific Plan No. 263 and proposed mitigation m~sures to reduce these impacts. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Specific Plan No. 263 located southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 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 18th day of July 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPTX263Sp. PC5 7115/94 vgw 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 11 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center) Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 810,000square feet of Office\Institutional with possible Multi-Family Residential, and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 {Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan). Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-046and 047,921-090-005,006 and 007 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Conditions The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 263, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or p. rocedures not covered bythe Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 340 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. Prior to the City Council hearing, Planning Area 3 shall be changed to Business Park and the appropriate zoning and development standards shall be established for Business Park designation. R:\STAFFRFFX263SP,PC5 7115194 vgw 12 The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within each Planning Area within the Specific Plan, a detailed design manual for each Planning Area shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental ImpaCt Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval.. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8 ~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 10. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. 11. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the project, the project applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement the with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan. 13. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. 14. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. 15. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. R:\STAFFR~T\263SP.PC5 7115194 vF 13 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. GENERAL CONDITIONS 16. All u~ility systems such as electric, inclu'ding those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 17. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, 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 permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. 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. 19. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 20. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of any subsequent development application. R:\STAFFRPT~263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 14 29. 30. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the project's accesses from Overland Drive, Ynez Road, end Winchester Road, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications. Dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road overpass at Interstate 15 (I-15) and the interchange ramps along with associated additional right-of-way necessary for the widening and improvements to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange. A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along ,Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 SF. The Developer shall support the Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12 supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the I-15 overpass), in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan ctassifying Overland Drive as a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way, and including the traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit Developer shall bond for the improvements to Margarita Road, from Solaria Way to Winchester Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way with a reimbursement agreement. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for full street improvements to Overland Drive, from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Major Highway with 1 O0 foot full width right-of-way with a reimbursement agreement. The Developer is responsible to bond for prior and construct the traffic signals at the intersections listed below, The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works at the following intersections: Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal) Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7115194 vgw 16 Drainage 31. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 32. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 33. Drain~3ge facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 34. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 35. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the offsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 36. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 37. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site, 38. 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 enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. Water and Sewer 39. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied atthe subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 40. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 41. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD, 42. Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan development. Grading 43. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 44. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 45. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 46. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 47. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: · Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. · Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. · Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7115194 vF 1 B 48. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 49. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 50. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 51. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 52. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 53. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 54. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 55. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 56. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 57. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRPT\26.?,Sp. PC5 7/15194 vgw 19 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Regional Center Specific Plan was originally presented to staff as a mixed-use commercial development combining retail, office, hotel, institutional, and regional mall facilities. However, the possibility exists that multi-family residential development could occur within Planning Area 1. In the event that residential development is approved, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides additional conditions for the Temecula Regional Center, as follows: General Requirements 58. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall satisfy the park land dedication requirements in accordance with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). Upon determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, the City of Temecula shall have the final decision of requiring the developer to dedicate land for public park purposes, or pay the equivalent "in-lieu" fee. 59. Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial/industrial development and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by a private property owner's association. 60. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual property owner or an established property owner's association. 61. Class II bike lanes shall be designed in conformity with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 62. The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 63. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 64. Construction of all proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 65. All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for dedication on the final map. 66. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff. 67. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas. R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 20 Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 68. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 69. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the TCSD maintenance program. ~:\STAFFRPT\263SP. I~C5 7/15/94 vgw 21 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 REVISED "VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT" LANGUAGE R:\STAFFPJ>T\263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vg~v 22 10:13 Fal]q ~ R2~4'IIN5 TO 19896946477 P. 82 ~ RF, CIO~ CKlvrk:x planning ~ 1 Plmmim, Ares 1 a, Descriptive Summary p1,,,{qg Area 1. as dcpiotcd in Figzue 12A, co~,i-~s of 71.97 gross m=es. d:vot~l pr;m,r;ty to mixed uses including zr. iai], office, hotel, institutional, and re~Mential uses. Thc comrnexcial, of Fxce~ 8rid inb~t~iollal de~e~oplne~t W~Fnin ~ p]snning a_r~a m4]l $~ th~ ~ of area FesideUts, W]li~ nm~intn{ning CompaU'bilit~ WiTh a l~s~lcl]rial C~ViR III]IeDL A ~ of ~ multi-family dwelfing units shall be pcrmitIed in Planning A~a 1. These dwellings may either 1) Ivfixture of Uses It is the intent of the mixed use development in Planning Arcs I of tl~ Temccula Regional Cente~ to allow for a mixm of commcrcial/officefmstitu~onal and residential uses. The nixed use devalopnEnt is designed to elmcourage active sln~et frontages nnd a comfortable, human-scaled environment that creates a fully functioning shopping street colnp]cx (i.e., a "Riain StllCt"]. This ]vinin Stllct will bc integrated into the OVCfai] mixed use &veloprnent in Planning Area I and wiI1 be connected by both st]'eets am:i pede. Striall walkways to th~ planned ~ d~vclopEtlellt in Plallllhlg A,w.a 2. ~ ~ Street will be an e, Ey and quick walk away from offices and residences in th~ Tem~ula P,~gional Centex, allowing both workers and residents to take advantage of the convenient. locally available shopping opportunities. A conceptual illustrative site plan d~picting th~ ~ Stl~.~t COnCept in planning Area 1 ig showll in Figure 12B. A delailed view of Main Str~A is illustratM in Figuz 12C. V/hilt xetail development may be the p~mn~y land us~ in plnnning Area l, it is envisioned that this p|nnnln_a 8fe, a wi~ also include additional employment opporhmifies such as offices and personal service shops and businesses. Instltational and hotel uses rnny be integrated physically into mixed use structures or constnscted as ~ buildings. Residential uses may be integrated into the ~m~ slnmtum ns non-midential usr~. Residential uses and entries should COnstitute not more than 30% of the ground floor of any of these buildings. In an:as which do not dLr~tly face onto the shopping strips), fr~standing residential buildings may be constructed. It is also anticipated that some free-standing residential structures wffi also be erected in Planning Area 1. HI-31 2) In planning for mixed use development, consideration shall be given to joint use of parking, common areas, landscaping, specific types of uses, housing types Pedestrian connection to adjacent and sizes of units, and overall Temecula Regional Center uses and architectural design. to nearby pedestrian syste ' Planning Area 1 development is ~_A[ '~l I., proposed as a logical extension of the central commercial core activity in Planning Area 2, and a transition between Planning Area 2 and the adjacent residential property to the east. . Institutional uses to be -- I encouraged within Planning Area 1 ' i I 1 include local, state or federal level services (i.e., postal service, economic _ development, social service, library, museum, etc.), if there is a need or demand for such uses. Buildin~ Scale and Planning Area Design Development in Planning Area 1 should not resemble a typical suburban shopping center or strip commercial plaza. The retail and office uses in Planning Area 1 may be arranged in a "U"-shaped configuration around a public green similar to traditional public greens, or in a linear fashion to form a "Main Street" with shops and offices oriented directly onto the street. Intemat roadway circulation (which may be implemented by a perimeter ring road or other similar roadway configuration) will be provided around the Main Street area to facilitate traffic flow in and through Planning Area 1. The internal roadway system will distribute traffic to and from principal access points on the site --parallel parking (optional) 4 - lane capacity (typ.) Conceptual Internal Roadway III-35 3) rather than on nearby arterial streets. This ring road may also connect Planning Area 1 with Planning Area 2. Limited on-street parking may be provided on portions of the internal roadway system, but in areas where the roadways cross parking areas, no on-street parking shall be allowed. The primary internal access roadway system will most likely be four lanes in width. The Main Street, on the other hand, will be limited to two through lanes (one in each direction) in order to foster a pedestrian scale. Individual buildings within Planning Area 1 may range in height up to 120 feet, provided that building setbacks and configurations for all structures in excess of 50 feet in height shall be determined by the City during Development Plan Review to ensure that adequate light access and air is available to adjacent structures. Typically, buildings should maintain a pedestrian scale adjacent to the shopping street. For example, the portion(s) of a building that abuts a public street may be two or three stories in height. Additional building stories could progressively step back as the building height and number of stories increases. Not only will such architectural design permit light and air access to surrounding areas and ensure a pedestrian scale near ground level, but the massiveness of the building will be substantially reduced. Separate building entrances shall be required for commerciaFoffice/institutionai and residential uses when occupying the same structure; provided that this provision does not preclude internal connections between residential and non-residential uses. Intensification In order for the concept of a "Main Street" to truly function, development of a certain density and intensity is necessary. Greater intensification of land use in this planning area provides the opportunity for innovative architectural design and landscaping. The higher concentrations of people will also increase the feasibility of mass transit to serve the site. Residential uses will be limited to free-standing buildings containing single family attached or multi-family homes or vertically integrated buildings containing residential units over office and/or commercial uses. Because of the increased residential density in this area, it is important that recreational amenities be provided for residents. Freestanding residential structures, in particular, should contain recreational facilities such as spas, swimming pools, basketball courts, and weight rooms. These facilities may be provided within buildings or, if provided outside, may be arranged in interior courtyards or in walled-in enclosures in interior parking lots. Special consideration should be given to locating facilities with respect to the noise, activity, and light that they will generate. Ili-36 4) fi~-cstandingmttld-fsmITy with parking l~reestanding Residential BaHcllngs & Vertically Integral~ ]~ildings (]tesideDfla] Over Comnterrinl_/Ol~ce Uses) ldth Rl~l~,mflongl Facilities Pnddnl~ Desiim IJmlte~i on-stl~el parld-S may be provided ~ P~g ~ 1, p~d,~y ~g ~ ~ f~ long~ ~ n ho~ ~ ~o. ~g 1~ s~ ~ p~ ~ ~ ~ of ~vid~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~l~ ~m ~ ~ ~ of ~ for ~ong ~ ~n~ The parking facilities should not be the dominsnt visual imsLJe of Ihe project. Vns~ expanses of paving for paxking, without the visual relief of landscaping, are highly discouraged. Joint-parking azrangements between co~,,~-~zial, offSee, and institutionnl I/Se.q at~ ~}ul"aged [0 mlnimiT.~ the number of paxking spaces z~luired to serve the d~velopmcnt and avoid pro]ifgration of parking lots. In ndai~on, completely scparate paticing m'cas should be .provided for n~siclences. Incentives for Innovative Design Up to 300 mulfi-fnm;ly dwellings can be exected h this plnnn;ng area to provide housing upyollunities for employees of the various businesses within the Temecula Regionnl Center Specific Plan. Conversely, the planned conmm~al uses will enable F~uject residents to do their shopping by foot. The milDJl~ Of IP..~idel~a] ned non-residential land uses aze dcsignr, d to decrease the Inffic genent~ by project development. m-37 6) The pedestrian scale of the project will be enhanced by plazas, courtyards, sidewalk cafes, public mini-parks, pedestrian easements, and overall project landscaping. Pedestrian linkages will be provided between uses within Planning Area 1 and between Planning Area 1 and the larger retail uses in Planning Area 2. Retail and service commercial uses could predominate on the first floor of the buildings, with offices and/or residential uses concentrated on the upper floors or behind the commercial uses. Vertically-integrated buildings offer the opportunity to provide affordable housing. Pedestrian-Oriented Design The small size of Planning Area 1 will encourage pedestrian movement between uses, while de-emphasizing automobile use. Retail uses are encouraged on street level to provided streetscape contiguity and visual interest for pedestrians. Continuous expanses of blank walls or sharp unbroken vertical surfaces create an uncomfortable atmosphere for the pedestrian. The mixed use area should incorporate the following elements of good pedestrian-oriented design: Pedestrian Circulation: Link interior parking areas and lots to city streets, city- wide open spaces (e.g., plazas, mini-parks, pedestrian malls, etc.) and the City's trail system to facilitate travel by walking, biking, or other non-motorized means. Building Facades: The design of building facades, particularly those facades that face public streets, should be architecturally interesting and in Scale with the pedestrian. Storefront windows are encouraged in retail shops and, in most cases, should begin within 18" to 24" of the pavement. Typically, storefront windows help to entice customers into stores, stimulate visual interest, create "defensible space" by enhancing public views of store interiors and streets, and establish a predictable rhythm for passers-by. The scale and width of each storefront should be limited to establish an intimate scale that is more conducive to the pedestrian and cyclis~ than to the automobile. In general, storefront widths should relate to a human scale. Where storefronts must be large to accommodate specific uses, the building facades could be articulated with windows, insets, pillars, colunms, arcades or other decorative architectural features to maintain the overall intimacy of the shopping street. Signage: A coordinated signage plan for development can facilitate pedestrian and vehicular movement throughout the planning area, without "visually assaulting" the senses. Signage should be designed at a scale that is not overpowering from the pedestrian's perspective. For example, small signs with a unique texture, shape, or interesting features can be more effective than large, massive, or glaring signs. This Temecula Regional Center Zoning Ordinance 111-38 7) 8) contains comprehensive signage criteria for uses within Planning Area 1 (see Section III.C.1. in this Specific Plan). Streetscape Design: To encourage human activity and movement, streets should be designed with the pedestrian in mind. Continuity in landscape design, placement of street furniture, sitting areas, covered arcades for shelter against the sun and inclement weather, lighting, and paving patterns all contribute to creating a rich, functional, and aesthetically pleasing environment for pedestrians. Pedestrian Plazas: All areas of Planning Area 1, and the Main Street in particular, should be designed with pedestrian gathering spots and should include plazas and pocket parks for resting, eating, conversing, and people watching. Pedestrian plazas that are effectively placed within retail and office districts can be pleasant spaces for resting or having lunch between shopping trips or errands. Placement of pedestrian plazas must be carefully planned to assure their most effective use. For this reason, consideration must be given to the location of plazas relative to the pedestrian circulation patterns, sunlight conditions, wind patterns, and the selection of building and landscape materials. Organization of Activities: The most important element in creating viable pedestrian spaces has little to do with the actual physical design of the space; if a space is to be conducive to pedestrian activity, there must be opportunities for pedestrian events and activities. Therefore, efforts to planning and organizing festivals, events, special sidewalk sales, entertainment, and cultural displays should be made to help create desired pedestrian activity. Private marketing efforts should be encouraged to promote these types of community events. Signage This Specific Plan includes a comprehensive signage program for the mixed use development. The program includes retail commemial entry monumentation, building identification signage, marquee signage, and directional signage. Although the signage criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance in this Specific Plan includes maximum permitted sign sizes, the individual sign that identifies a given use should be consistent with the scale and mass of the building on which it is located or which it identifies. Specific signage materials should be uniform throughout each individual development within Planning Area 1. Transit Alternatives/Options One of the primary objectives of establishing mixed use development within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is the creation of a density threshold and a mixture of uses that is capable of supporting transit alternatives to the automobile. Bus turnouts shall be provided at appropriate locations within Planning Area 1, subject to approval by the City III-39 ~Friday June 3, 199~ 1:22ps -- Page 2I J~ ~-19~ 1~:19 FROM o[ Temecula and, if necessary, the Riv~ide- Trnneil: Agi~'y. Adc[itioBa] Wansit coniclor right-of-way adjacent to Winchester Road on the western edge of tl~ planning area will allow space fcr development of a mass U'ansit sysw-m (e.g., figt~ rail, el=.) should such a s~s~cm cvc~ 10c ~onstn~cd. 9) . ViI!-~ Centcr/l~nln Street Dcvclopment Arcs The Village Centex/Main Street concept shall spply to between 10 to 15 ac~s withi. Planning Area l. Blocks within the Main Street area shall be defined by a public st~t grid system- The reminder of the planning area could be developed in a oonventionsl fashion tRffr, uas~ to matet demand if a contln,,tlon of tiffs concclX is dcte. rn~incd to be l-qnd Use Devdopment Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. c. : Planning Simahrds in Section ]H.C of this Specific Plan. 1) In compliance with th~ goals and policies of ltz City's General Plan, Villag~ Center Overlay and Land Us~ Element Goal 5 - Policies 5.5 through 5.10, it is impoxunt to crcate a quality environment which establishes a sense of place thtough cal~ftfl consideration and integration of th~ following dcsign ekaents: b) Pedestrian c) Narrow struts and driveways with pedestrian paseos and wide sick:walks. d) Fcatums such as pascos, arcades, plazas, courtyaK!s, sqm, galldes and ommtoor cafes to encourage gathe. dng. Gathering places such as pavilions. parks and bandstand~ Festivals, cntw~i,~- meat, sUcct vendors. outdoor markets and other spccial events should be cncouragcd. ~ Incorporation of fotlDtgin{ and wstex bodies. g) Uniquc architectural and landscape architectural themes for identity. h) C. ar~ful parlclng orientation. HIJA) iFri~ay June 3, 1~94 12:101:m -- Page 3~ 3UN--8:1-1994 11:89 FR0rl Tg,B Pl_~l~IN[i TO l'~r-J69,:16,f'fi P.83 2) 3) 7) S) It is i.mponant to not~ that not aH uses allowed in Planning Area I are neo~ssmily expected to occur. For thl, t~son. some of the above design f,~h,,'CS may not he ~paup, iatc nor cconomically feasible. Foz this reason, only the concept of a ~%tmin Street' is discussc4i in dcpd3 above. Additional options for lxnsible clevelol~ent in plnnnln~ Area I axe discussed in Section IV. Design Guidelines, in thll Specific PhiL. Acc~s into Planning Area 1 will be [n-c,~ic!~d from Margatita Road, Apricot Avcnu~ nna Winchesw~ Road. One (1) minor e~try ~oe~in~ is p.~uposed through lhe ViFmc. hest~ Road ll'ans~:~nficm coHidor into plnnning ~ 1. ~ minor Ci~)g~in~ would pmvicle ril~t-tnr~-oniy acc~s into t.i~ lvF_umd Us~ Phnnin~ Ax~a (~ Figure I~A). This prolmsal shall ~omply with · e cu.~:nt M~r~n of U~r~/n8 (MOU) be~'w~n ~ CRy of Tem~ula and Caltrans as to the location and spacing of mln,x access points along Winchester Road, Special roadway landscape tre~t~-ats. as those depicted in Figures 14, lg, and 20, w -.nch:ap~ Amhitecnm:Guidclincs (Sec. IV.E,) ~ be paovided along W~mchest~r Road, Mnrgnrits Rind and Apricot Avenue. Major F~try Monumentallon as depict~l in Figure 23, Landscape Architr. cUn'al G-uicl~ines, Shrill be pmvidexl at the intersections of Winchester Road and Maxgarita Road, and Margarita Road and Apricot Avenue, and along Margntita Road and W'mchester Road. Minor Entry Monumentation, as depicted in Figur~ 25, Landscape An:hit~ctural Guidelines, shall be provided along Winehearer Road. Mm'garita Road and Apricot Avenue. Please refer to Sec. IV. for Specific Dcsign C-uid~lincs and other mlsled design criteria, Please refer to Sec. Ill.A. for the following Development Plans and Stand,~ds that apply sit~-wid~: rnA. l - Specific Land Use Plan ITI'.A.2 - Ciwulation Plan IXA,3 - Drainage Plan HLA.4 - Water and Sewer Plans m A.s -Pmject Pinsin H~: m ~.6 - Grading Hart m-&7 - ~-dscaping Plan m-A.8 - Maintenance Plan 11141 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM PHASING PLAN ADDENDUM EIR CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 EIR NO. 348 DRAFT RECEIVED dAN 0 8 ]995 gift OF TEMECULA il Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula~ CA 92590 (714) 694-6400 Prepared By: Douglas Wood & Associates 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan F'mdings of the traffic analysis indicate that, at projected build-out of the three Kemper/'Bedford projects substantial roadway improvements will be needed in the study area. It is important to recognize that principal roadway improvements which comprise the planned City of Temecula Circulation Element will be needed in the future whether or not the proposed projects are implemented. Although these new and improved roadway facilities would be serving the immediate access needs of these proposed projects and other numerous planned development projects within the study area, most of the improvements would also play an important role in serving the general circulation needs of the Temecula commercial core area which straddles the 1-15 corridor. Some of the improvements (e.g. Winchester Road - S.R. 79 widening and 1-15/W'inchester Road interchange reconstruction) would even serve future regional circulation needs. The intent of the "conceptual circulation system phasing plan" developed in this study is to present a logical implementation sequence for the construction of needed area-wide roadway improvements which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the proposed Kernper/Bedford projects. It should be noted that project build-out (assumed Year 2000) roadway needs have essentially been based on full development (build-out) of all land uses within the immediate study area. The market driven implementation rate of major development projects in the area will have very strong influence on the timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development projects are implemented, they will require acetry. Many of the phased roadway improvements suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local access needs and at the same time work towards completing the ultimate area-wide circulation network. In some cases, the phased improvement is over-designed for the anticipated local development access needs but considers ultimate needs and the desire to minimize future construction impacts related to phased widenings (e.g., initially building two lanes and the widening to four lanes at the later date). The assessment of financing/implementation respons~ilities for area-wide roadway improvements should consider that the key elements of the planned cixculation system (including the Overland overpass, Data Street overpass, and Winchester' Interchange improvements) will be needed even if proposed Kernper/Bedford development projects are not implemented. Since it ls more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long-ten (5 to 10 years) development than short-term (1 to 5 years) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs for implementation periods beyond 5 years could vary significantly from the conceptual plan presented in this study. It is also important to consider that many of the roadway improvements identified would involve a multi-jurisdiction/agency review and coordination proce,~ which could impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein. 9 Anticipated Project Development Phasing - Project phasing assumed ha this analysis is based on the Project Phasing Plan presented in the individual Specific Plan documents. Sue to changing market strategies, these phasing plans have been developed as a 'guideline' only for City review and monitoring. Future market demands may dictate varying approaches to phasing which could alter the currently expected rate and/or sequence of project implementation. Project Phasing Plan assumptions are illustrated ha Figures 4, 11, and 18 for the Temecula Regional center, Winchester Hills, and Camps Verdes projects respectively. A more detailed breakdown of project phasing assumptions including anticipated development status and corresponding trip generation (both incremental and cumulative) by six analysis time periods is presented for each Kernper/Bedford project in Tables 1 through 3. Anticipated Background Development - In order to analyze roadway system implementation phasing needs, it was nece~ary to make general assumptions regarding the rate and location of other area development. For the purposes of this aases,sment it was assumed that other area development would build-out at a constant rate over the next eight years and in a manner which would evenly distribute the new development throughout the study area. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing - Results of the circulation system phasing assessment are presented in Figures 5 through 10 (Teme~ula Regional Center), Figures 12 through 17 (V/inchester Hills), and Figures 19 through 24 (Campos Verdes). It should be noted that the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan is identical for each of the three projects. The individual phasing plans differ only in terms of the specific project development status and the corresponding cumulative project trip generation given for each implementation period. Our approach in preparing the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan included planning level asse,~sments which focused on the immediate access needs of each project as well as capacity of key congestion ~0ottle necks" such as the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection and Winchester Road/I-15 interchange. The proposed roadway improvement implementation sequence has been formulated to provide incremental stages of relief to these congestion prone areas. Additionally, Assessment District 161 and Comanunity Facilities District 88-12 have been considered in the development of the Phasing Plan. It is important to recognize that the Conceptual Circulation system Phasing Plan presented herein does not imply that the individual Kernper/Bedford projects would be respons~le for implementing the roadway improvement needs identified in the Conceptual Phasing Plan. At the same time, it also need~ to be recognized that the rate at which projects in the study area are permitted to develop should be correlated to the circulation systems' ability to adequately aciommodate the traffic which these projects will generate. ! g [ I 12 I l I 10 I I A~ part of our roadway phasing assessment, we have identified a number of improvements which are currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the development of the individual Kemper/Betlford projects. This does not suggest that the identified improvement,' but rather the timely implementation of the identified improvement would influence the status of traffic congestion in the area. The resulting congestion levels could influence the City's ability to ~ue building permits. Temecula Regional Center (Refer to Figure 5 through 10) Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period: Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. Ynez Road widening from project boundary south to Rancho California Road. Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. New signal installations on Winchester Road to Margafita Road, Nicolas Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Projected 1994 to 1995 Implementation Period: Extension of Overland Drive [rom Jefferson Avenue to Margafita Road. Four-lane w~dening of M~rgafita Road from Solana Way to WiOchester Road. New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and Marga~ta Road. New signal installations on Winchester Road at Temecula Regional Center access roads. On-site circulation system improvements/access connections. Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period WSnchester Road interchange ramp improvements. Two-lane interim Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Projected 1996 to 1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and Sate Street. new signal installation on Margafita Road at Date Street Two-lane extension of General Keamey Road easterly to Nicolas Road. · Projected 1998 to 1999 Implementation Period: Date Street overpass improvements. 11 Projected 1999 to 2000 Implementation Period: Winchester Road widening between 1-15 and Ynez Road. Jack,son Avenue widening from the Temecula City limit to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Winchester Hills (Refer to Figures 12 through 17) Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period: Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Mun'ieta Hot Springs Road. · Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solaria Way to Winchester Road. Four-lane extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment On-site loop street and connector street improvements ~s depicted in Figure 12. Widening of Jefferson Avenue Erom Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road. New signal installation on Winchester Road at Margarita and Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersections. Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period: Two-lane interim improvement of Date Street west of Ynez Road. Four-lane improvement of Date Street from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. Widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Six-lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Figure 14. Four-lane on-site and two-lane interim off-site ·improvement of Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. On-site loop street and connector street improvements as illustrated in Figure 14. Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margarita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector Street, and Date Street/Ynez Road intersections. New signal installations at Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road/Project Connector Street intersections. Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements. 12 Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange 9vetpass widening. Date Street widening from Lincoln to Margarita Road. New signal installations on Date Street at Ynez Road, Lincoln and Margarita Road intersections. New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Canter Drive and the Project Connector Street intersections. Projected 1998-1999 Implementation Period: Construction of the Date Street overpass and installation of new signals on Date Street at Madison Avenue and the Business Park access street. New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Business Park access street. ' ' Projected 199%2000 Implementation Period: Widening of Jackson Avenue between the City limit and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Campos Verdes Projected 1993-1994 ImplemEntation Period: Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. Four-lane improvement of General keamey Road from the new Margarita Road alignment to the easterly project limits. Solana Way widening between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road. Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solana .Way. Projected 1994-~995 Implementation Period: Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and Margarita. New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and General Kearney Road. Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchang~ ramp improvements. New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes access mad. 13 Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. Two-lane General Kearney Road extension from easterly project limits to Nicolas Road. Projected 1998-2000 Implementation Period: (No system improvements assessed to be critical to the development of Campos Verdes. Recommended Mitigation Measures The formulation of recommended mitigation measures for the three Kcmper,tBedford urban core projects has been based on a number factors including: 1. Findings of the original traffic impact studies prepared for the projects; 2. Findings of the project-related traffic utilization analysis of planned area roadway system capacity; and 3. Findings of the conceptual circulation system phasing analysis. Asse..~sments of area roadway capacity utilization reveal that cumulative project traffic impacts are wide-spread but vary significantly in terms of magnitude. Furthermore this analysis also reveals that project trips are comprised of a combination of new trips and diverted trips. New trips consist of those project trips which would clearly be added to roadway network such as those vehicle trips which would have one end of the trip within the project and one end outside of the study area. Diverted trips de.scribe those project-related trips on area roadways which result from the interaction of land uses within the projects and other local area land uses (both existing and planned). With diverted tripS, the associated traffic impacts can not be defined as the responsibility of the projects under study since the opposite end of these trips, in effect, is being generated by other area land uses. At best the impacts of these trips could be assessed as the responsibility of the land use which is closest to the location where the impact occurs. It would not be equitable for the Kernper/Bedford projects to a~sume full respons~ility for the impact of these diverted trips since elimination of the Kemper/Bedford projects would not eliminate the land uses which are generating the opposite ends of the~e trips. Without the Kernper/Bedford projects these trips would essentially be redistributed to interact with other local or regional development. .. 14 In terms of the dispersion of project related traffic impacts (e.g. roadway capacity utilization), it is not practical to assess wide.spread roadway implementation cost responsibilities when "fair share' assessments represent very small portions of the cost to implement individual roadway improvements. The approach taken in this assessment is one which recogvS--'.~ the cumulative impacts over a widespread area and concentrates an equivalent mitigation effort in a strategic and more effective manner. Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kernper/Bedford projects are summarized below: .1. 50 percent implementation responsibility for Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murrieta City limits to Murrieta Hot Spring~ Road. · winchester Hills is assessed 90 percent of the mitigation. Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of the Mitigation. 2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation responsibility for the Date Street overpass. · Winchester HilLs is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation. 28 percent implementation resl:~nsibility for the Winchester Road interchange overpass widening and currently planned ramp widenings. Winchester Hills is assessed 17 percent of the mitigation. Temecula Regional Center is assessed 80 percent of the mitigation. Campos Verdes is assessed 3 percent of the mitigation. 5 percent implementation responsibility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road). Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation. Campos Verdes is assessed 40 percent of the mitigation. 15 percent implementation responsibility for the Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to Rancho California Road. Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. 16.6 percent implementation responsibility for the Winchester' Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 90 percent of the mitigation. Winchester HilLs is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. E i E I I I g 15 25 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane MargaHta Road improvement from Solana Way to Winchester Road. Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 65 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester I-Iills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. Campos Vetdes is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation. 15 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 35 percent of the mitigation.. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. 25 percent of the implementation respon~ility for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement from its present terminus at Equity Drive to the Temecula/Murrieta City limits. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation. Winchester Hills ls assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation. 10. 16.6 percent of the implementation responsibility for the six-lane Date Street improvement from the 1-15 overpass structure to Margafita Road. Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation. 11.13 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane Date Street improvement from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation. 12. 25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane improvement of Overland Drive from Ynez Road to Margafita Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester Hills is asse,s,sed with 10 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Vetdes is assessed with I0 percent of the mitigation. 13. 30 percent of the implementation responsibility for four-lane improvements responsibility for four-lane improvement of General Kearney Road from Margafita Road to the easterly Campos Verdes project boundary. · Teme. eula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Verdes is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. 14. 15 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane improvement of General Kearney Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 85 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. 16 15. 10 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Solana Way from Ynez Road to Margarita Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation. Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Verdes is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation. 16. 5 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Date Street to Canyon Drive. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. 17. Signal system implementation responsibilities would be as indication below. a) ~~~percentresp~nsibi~ityf~r~n~sitesignalswithintheWinchesterH~~lspr~jectinc~uding: · Date Street signals at Business Park Acc, e:~ Street, Ynez Road, Lincoln, and Margarita Road; Ynez Road signals at Business Park Am Street, and Loop Road Connector Street (near Equity Drive); and Margarita Road signal at southerly Loop Road Connector Street. b) 100 percent responsibility for Temecula Regional Center project perimeter access signals including: · Winchester Road signal at westerly Regional Center Access Road; Overland Drive signal at Regional Center Access Road; and Existing regional modification cosks at Palm Plaza Am and Costco Center Access. c) 100 percent respons~ility for Campos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at General Kearney Road and Campos Verdes Access Street. d) 50 percent responsibility for signals located at the following intersections: · Margarita Road/Winchester Road; Margafita Road/Overland Drive; and Ynez Road/Overland Drive. ~) 25 percent responsibility for the signal installations at: · Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and · Margafita Road/Solana Way. 17 It is important to note that the implementation responsibilities detailed herein do not take into account Kemper/Bedforcls contributions toward Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 88-12 which together address many of the improvements included in the refined recommended mitigation measures. Kemper/Bedford should be given credit where appropriate for assessments involving the project properties and roadway improvements included in the 161 and 88-12 districts. Credits should also be considered for right-of-way dedications involving the recommended street improvemenu. In addition to the above listed mitigation measures, the individual Kemper/Bedford projects would be respons~le for implementing all on-Site project street improvements which have not already been discussed. IndMdual project mitigation would also include preparation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs which meet the requirements of the City's 'soon to be adopted" TDM ordinance. Please not that the Winchester Hills project, as part of its' mitigation program, has reserved an easement along the 1-15 property frontage for a potential future collector-distributor road/interchange system involving Date Street. 18 m, ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT "A", MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR NO. 340 R:\STAFFRPT\263SP,PC5 71151o,4 v~w 24 ATrACI1MENT "A" Mitigation Monitoring Program EIR No. 340, Specific Plan No. 263 The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan has been assigned by the Traffic Engineer the following percentage utilization of a percentage implementation responsib'dity for the off-site circulation improvements noted below. This implementation responsibility for the provision of off-site roadway improvements is intended to mitigate the project's portion of cumulative traffic impacts. These improvements and the project's implementation responsib'~ity are listed below: Improvement 1. Construction of Jackson Avenue from the TemeculaIMurrieta City Limits to Muraleta Hot Springs Road 2. Winchester Road interchange overpass widening and curren~y planned ramp widenings 3. Ove~and Drive overpass improvement (lefferson Avenue to Ynez Road) 4. Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to Rancho California Road Implementation Responsibility Assigned to Temecula Regional Center 5.00% 22.40% 3.00% 10.50% 5. Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road 6. Four-lane Margarita Road improvement from Solana Way to Winchester Road 7. Four-lane Margarita Road improvement from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road 8. Four-lane Ynez Road improvement from its present terminus at Equity Drive to the TemeculaIMurrieta City limits 9. Four-lane Overland Drive improvement from Ynez Road to Margarita Road 10 Four-lane improvement of General Kearny Road from Margarita Road to the easterly Campos Verdes project bounda~ 11 General Keamy from easterly project limit to Nicolas Road 16.94% 16.25 % 5.25 % 5.130% 20.00% 9.00% 12.75% Improvement 12 Widening of Solana Way from Ynez Road to Margarita Road 13 Widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Date Street to Canyon Drive 14 Proje~ perimeter access signals on Winchester Road, Overland Drive, the Palm PbT~ access and Costco Center access Implementation Responsibility Assigned to Temecula Regional Center 4.50% 1.50% 100.00% 15 Signals'at the intersections of: Margarita Road/Winchester Road, Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Ynez Road/Overland Drive 50.OO%* 16 Signals at the intersections of Jackson 25.O0%* Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road/Solana Road This percentage implementation responsibility relates to all three Urban Core projects. Specific percentage responsibility by project is not available. R:',~',STAFFRPT~d3PP.ME,M 6/2/94 vgw 79 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LE: I I ER, APRIL 18, 1994 R:\STAFFRPTX263SP.i~C5 7/15/94 vgw 25 Apri118,1994 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Patbcia B. Novotney, Ed.D. BOARD OF EDUCATION Barbara Tooke, APR 2 I/994 Steve Jiannino City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Conditions Dear Mr. Jiannino: The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific Plan presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994. · School Facilities Mitigation Agreement The proposed development includes the potential for 300 multi-family residential units, generating approximately 192 students, as follows: # of students Elementary School: 84 Middle School: 57 High School: 51 Total 192 This number is lower than the number of 240 students included in the February 1,1994 Draft Temecula Regional Center EIR. Prior to Specific Plan approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program. Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School District information as indicated in the attachment. If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340, Dave Gallaher Director of Facilities Development CC: Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Lettie Boggs, Coordinator of Facilities Planning Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc. (I'ACCOM%TRCSpECP,LANI 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 April 18, 1994 T.R.C. Specific Plan Conditions Section V D.5 (TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/18/94) SCHOOLS a. Existino ConditiOns The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The District currently operates six elementary (grades K-E) schools, two middle (grades 6-9} schools and two high (grades 9-12) schools. The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed. b. Project Iml~acts/General Plan Relationship The Temecula Valley UnZfied School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation. · Attached Dweilinc~ Units: Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit; Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit Detached Dwellinn Units: Grades K-5 - 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit; Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit The proposed 300 multi-family residential units located within the "mixed-use" commercial area on-site could potentially gener~ approximately 192 students (utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned above). As no school facilities are proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 192 students generated by the Temecula Regional Center would require a~commodation off-site. As previously mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated by this project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted. It should be noted that the 300 multi-family residential units are intended to be located over commercial and office uses as residential flats. Generally, this type of housing does not attract as many families with school aged children as is reflected in the student generation data from other types of attached dwelling units. The estimated 192 students associates with the project portray a "worst-case" scenario. It is anticipated that the number of students generated by the project may be lower than the 192 total. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP The Ternecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorpurated City of Temecula. The City General Plan adopted in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts. c. General Plan Iml~lementation Procram In accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District, prior to Specific Plan approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms: 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of school fees Dedication of land and/or facilities Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District Levying of a special tax Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District d. Level of Si(~nificance After Miti~tation Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an ~nsignificant level. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JULY !8, 1994 R:%STAFFRPT~63SP.CC 9t'7/94 klb ~0 Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:17 P.M. 7:29 P.M. The meeting was reconvened 9. Specific Plan No. 263 and Chance of Zone No. 5589 Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot Commercial Core, 810,000 square feet of Office/institutional and Mixed Use Residential with 298,000 square feet of retail with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zone from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Located south of Winchester Road between Ynez and Margarita Roads, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report stating the proposed project had been continued from the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Fahey stated that Condition No. 58 of the Conditions of Approval should more clearly state that it applied specifically to residential development in the Specific Plan. Planner Ubnoske stated the primary issue for the Regional Center is the Village Center Concept which was carried over from the May 23, 1994 meeting, Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:30 P,M. Dennis Chiniaeff, representative for Kernper Community Development Company, 27555 Ynez Road, inquired as to the conditions which allow some community development to occur which interest both the City and Kernper. Mr. Chiniaeff also said the conditions should be balanced in terms of property improvements and area improvements. He also questioned whether Condition No. 12 of the Conditions of Approval applied to the residential portions of the proposed project. Mr. Chiniaeff asked about Condition No. 18 and the Developer Fee for commercial, office and residential; his understanding is that these were Facilities fees. Director Thornhill stated that Condition No, 12 relating to School District fees does apply to the residential portion of the project. Assistant City Attorney, Greg Diaz added legal comments relating to the School Mitigation issue and the impact fee both of which have not been resolved by the City Council and is under State Law. Dennis Chiniaeff asked about the payment of $10,000.00 for Community Facility Fees and whether the fee could be prepaid. Assistant City Attorney Diaz stated that the $10,000.00 fee could not be prepaid. Condition No. 20 to be changed from "of any subsequent development application" to "for each subsequent development application." Mr. Chiniaeff, the applicant, inquired about Condition No. 28, Bullet No. 3 regarding the infrastructure being in place prior to issuance of occupancy permits and the dedication of the right-of-way for the construction of Winchester Road. Mr. Chiniaeff stated that the Right-of-Way was intended to be purchased under CFD 88-12. He requested that a provision be made stating that the acquisition cost be reimbursed for the required right-of-way. Condition No. 30 states "the developer is responsible to bond and construct traffic signals..." The word prior should be struck from the condition. Condition No. 43 should include "unless approved by the Director of Public Works for street purposes." Commissioner Hoagland asked about Condition No. 30 and the method of reimbursement when improving property other than own and that the improvements are also part of Campos Verdes. Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works stated that the Right-of-Way reimbursement money went to the City for expended funds. Planning Director Thornhill stated that Condition No. 60 should read "...open space in residential areas shall be maintained..." It was moved by CommiSsioner Hoagiand, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-__ recommending approval of Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5589 based on Staff's recommendations subject to the Conditions of Approval including modifications to Condition No(s) 12, 20, 28, 30, 43, 58, and 60 as discussed, seconded by Commissioner Fahey. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Hoagland moved to re-order the remaining Agenda items so that Item 10 follow the Planning Director's Report and other Commission business, PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director ThOrnhill stated that the Johnson Ranch hearing needed to be reschedulec "~e to noticing. PLAI~, elNG COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINL,'q None 10. Specific Plan No. 1, C,-. ~noe of Zone No. 56 Reoort No. 348 Environmental linDact Specific Plan proposing 308 :-,W residential units, 12 acres of Commercial, approximately 13~ ~s of Office/Commercial/Church/ Detention, 10.8 acres of Park E - q.7 acre Elementary School Site with an accompanying Change of Z u~_ * changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 Agricul'L 'al, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Commissioners and Fahey excused tl .~ inselves from the meeting at 7:55 P.M. conflict of interest. Senior PI Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff red t and stated that the pro' originally heard at the June 6, 1994 Planning 'oremission me Planner Ubnoske stated that the opening of Sandc, ';ng Way and/or Street needed to be discussed by the Commission. AT'I'ACHMENT NO. 9 ADDENDUM TO FEIR 340 CONTAINING MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT .T+e ~,~ 44 2-3 -~ ADDENDUM EIR #2 TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 EIR NO. 340 Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temeculs, CA 92590 (714) 694-6400 Prepared By: Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 September, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Purpose A. Background .......................................... 1 B. Purpose ............................................. C. Sxlmmary Analysis ..................................... 3 II. Environmental Analysis ....................................... 3 At~chme~s A. Planning Commission Recommended Circulation Conditions of Approval B. Mitigation Monitoring Program ADDENDUM EIR TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE A. Backmound The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 340) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between June 21, 1991 and August 4, 1991. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecuia) shall consuit with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. In February, 1993, an Addendum to the Draft EIR for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was prepared. The purpose of this first Addendum EIR was three-fold: 1) to respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan; 2) incorporate subsequently-prepared technical analyses (in the areas of traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the concerns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently-prepared techn/cal studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. In July, 1993, the City of Temecula considered and approved a development application for a proposed Wal-Mart Store (Plot Plan 243) within the 201.2 acre Temecula Regional Center site. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 340) was certified as complete by the City of Temecula at that time. The certified Final EIR imposed certain mitigation measures on the Wal-Mart proposal which were intended to respond to and mitigate impacts associated with that project. At that time, it was decided to delay consideration of the remainder of the Temecula Regional Center to a future date. In the course of reviewing the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City staff focussed on certain mitigation measures identified in the Temecula Regional Center Final EIR with the intent of identifying those mitigations that have already been accomplished through developor participation in Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12 and to maximi~e the benefit to the City of other mitigation requirements. This second Addend,,m to the Final EIR analyzes the mitigation requirements for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as contained in the Planning Commission's Recommended Conditions of Approval as compared to the mitigations specified in the 1 Fins] EIR including the changes analyzed in fwst Addendum to the Draft EIR. The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to be an Addendnm to the Temecula Regional Center Final EIR in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines which states: (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an Addendure to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project revisions, changes in circumstances surrounding the project, or additional project impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming feasible or available); (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. This Addendum EIR in combination with the previously-certffied Final EIR, which includes the Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared first Addendum to the Draft EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments and technical reports, constitute the revised Fina| EIR for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. This Addendum to the Temecula Regional Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and City Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. More specffically, the City has relied on Section 15064(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared Addendure EIR which comprised the previously-certified Final EIR, and this Addendure to the Final EIR to reflect their own independent judgemerit 2 to the extent of their ability. In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendure to the Final EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, to evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects. The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for development. Snmma.ry Allal.y~$ Based upon the analyses and discussions contained in Section II., Environmental Analysis of this Addendure to the Final EIR, the currently-proposed traffic and circulation-related Conditions of Approval relates to and conforms with similar mitigation requirements and implementation responsibilities contained within the Temecula Regional Center Mitigation Monitoring Program. These Conditions of Approval refine and assist in the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and the first Addendure to the Draft EIR identified various roadways, intersections, freeway interchanges and other traffic control devices to be impacted, either directly or cumulatively, by the Temecula Regional Center project. The extent of implementation responsibility of the Temecula Regional Center project to mitigate these project-related impacts was assigned through analyses contained in the first Addendure to the Draft EIR (pages 18 through 20 of the text and in more detail on pages 10 through 18 of Attachment C of the first Addendum). In considering the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan in light of the analyses and changas noted above, the City Staff analyzed the current status of roadway and intersection improvements which have been completed or are committed to under Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12 against the mitigation responsibility requirements previously assigned to the Temecula Regional Center project. As a result of all of these above considerations, the City Staff has formulated and the Planning Commission has recommended a total of ten Conditions of Approval related to circulation. (A complete listing of these circulation-related Conditions is included as Attachment A to this Addendum.) These Conditions of Approval require a variety of traffic plans, reports and physical circulation improvements which are either attributed partially or solely to the Temecula Regional Center project. These Conditions are intended to mitigate impacts generated by or otherwise associated with the Temecula Regional Center project. 3 Provided below is a summarized listing of these recommended circulation- related Conditions of Approval followed by an indication of the related Final EIR mitigation measure (as listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, a copy of which is included as Attachment B to this Addendure.) Also noted below is the respective Responsible Monitoring Party and the milestone in the development process at which point the Condition would be implemented (pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program and/or recommended Conditions of Approval). CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" per Ordinance No. 93-01 (see recon~mended Conditions of Approval included as Attachment A). Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 27 (see Mitigation Monitoring Program included as Attachment B) requires preparation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan prior to any subsequent development applications in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. Responsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Development Plans or the issuance of Building Permits. This conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for inclusion of a Plan as a condition with "any subsequent Development Application". CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Adequate primary and secondary access will be provided for each development phase. Related MitiEation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developer be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other off-site improvements. Responsible Monitorin2 Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms with the requirement within the Condition of Approval for review of access plans at the time of submittal of individual development applications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City General Plan, City ordinances and standards. All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans approvals. 4 Related Mitigation Measure: While no mitigation measures in the Final EIR relate directly to these Conditions, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies prepared for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan assume conformance with City General Plan requirements, City standards and ordinances and Caltrans requirements in effect at the time of project development. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters and any associated rights-of-way within the Specific Plan, the location and number of which are subject to approval by the City of Temecula and the Riverside Transportation Department. Related Miti2ation Measure: Mitigation Measure 27 requires "promotion of future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which would require special transit-oriented design features". Responsible Monitorin2 Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: All improvements have been or will be Conditions based on project traffic studies and phasing plans from Section III.A.7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the project must be approved by the Planning Commission. All on- and off-site circulation improvements must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Related Mitigation Measure: While no Mitigation Measures in the Final EIR relate directly to this Condition, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies prepared for the Temeeula Regional Center Specific Plan assume development of roadway improvements pursuant to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Traffic reports analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan shall identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 29 requires preparation of Supplemental Traffic Analyses prior to approval of any individual projects (i.e. plot plan applications, etc.). Resnonsible Monitorin2 Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Development Plans. This 5 conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with subsequent development applications. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the Developer prior to the issuance of occupancy permits (unless otherwise noted): - Winchester Read parkway improvements adjacent to Phase One of the project including sidewalks, landscaping and street lights. - Bonding for traffic signals and any associated street improvements at the project accesses from Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Read prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. Signals wffi be installed in accordance with subsequent traffic signal warrant analyses. - Dedication of all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Read overpass at Interstate 15 and interchange ramps and additional right-of- way necessm7 for widening of Winchester Read from Ynez Road to the interchange. The developer, the City and CFD 88-12 shall enter into a reimbursement agreement for costs of right-of-way acquisition. - Execution of a reimbursement agreement between the City and the Developer to reimburse the City for the cost of the existing improvements along Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Read. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developer be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other off-site improvements. Mitigation Measure 25 requires that the property owner/developer be a principal participant in the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12 and the Winchester Assessment District 161. Resnonsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Miti2ation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms to the requirement within the Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with subsequent development applications and provision of improvements prior to issuance of any Occupancy Permits, Final Subdivision Map recordation, or the issuance of Grading Permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the Developer prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 square feet: - Support the Community Facilities District 88-12 Supplemental Bond Sales necessexy for the construction of Overland Drive, from Ynez Read to Jefferson 6 Avenue (including the 1-15 overpass) in sccordance with the City General Plan which will include traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive with Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road. - Bonding for improvements to Margarita Read from Solana Way to Winchester Road in accordance with the City General Plan prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permits. - Bonding for full street improvements to Overland Drive from Margarita Read to Ynez Read in accordance with the City General Plan prior to Final Subdivision Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permits. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the Developer be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. Mitigation Measure 25 requires that the property owner/developer be a principal participant in the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12 and the Winchester Assessment District 161. Resnonsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms to the requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits and completion of these improvements prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 square feet. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for and construct traffic signals at the following intersections. The Developor shall analyze traffic signal warrants and install the signals accordingly: -Margarita Read at Winchester Read (upgrade existing signal) -Margarita Read at North General Kearny Read Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developor be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. Resnonsible Monitorin~ Party: City of Temecula, Pubhc Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of the Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. Bonding of improvements occur prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits which is consistent 'with the intent of the Mitigation Measure. CONCLUSION: Based upon the analyses contained within this Addendam to the Final EIR, the proposed .circulation-related Conditions of Approval refine and assist in the implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained within the certified Final Environmental Impact Report. 7 A~'rACHMENT A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL D AFT Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center) Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 810,000square feet of Office\Institutional with possible Multi-Family Residential, and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan). Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130o046and 047,921-090-005,006 and 007 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Conditions The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 263, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 340 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. Prior to the City Council hearing, Planning Area 3 shall be changed to Business Park and the appropriate zoning and development standards shall be established for Business Park designation. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within each Planning Area within the Specific Plan, a detailed design manual for each Planning Area shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 10. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. 11. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City o,'Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implemem: the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the project, the project applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement the with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan. 13. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. 14. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. 15. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. 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. GENERAL CONDITIONS 16. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 17. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, 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 permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. 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 82.00 per square foot, not to exceed 810,000. 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. 19. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 20. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval cf ~' for each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) CIRCULATION 21. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 22. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Departmerit of Public Works. Access to office and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. 23. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. 24. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. Accesses shown from Winchester Road to the site are conditional upon Caltrans' approval. Approval for accesses not currently shown on the City's Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans will be required prior to subsequent discretionary approvals or any permits being issued by the Ci~/.-. 25. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within The Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 26. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 27. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. 28. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy: 29. Winchester Road parkway improvements, adjacent to Phase One, including sidewalks, landscaping, and street lights shall be completed by the Developer. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the project's accesses from Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Road, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent develol~ment applioations. Dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road overpass at Interstate 15 (I-15) and the interchange ramps atong with associated additional right-of-way necessary forthe widening and improvements to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange. The Developer, the City, and CFD 88-12 shall enter into an agreement that provides for the reimbursement of acquisition cost of the required right-of-way. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursementsshall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 SF. The Developer shall support the Community Facilit;es District (CFD) 88-12 supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the I-15 overpass), in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way, and including the traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit Developer shall bond for the improvements to Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way with a reimbursement agreement. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for full street improvements to Overland Drive, from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Major Highway with 100 foot full width right-of-way with a reimbursement agreement. 30. Drainage 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38, Water 39. The Developer is responsible to bond for F, ricr and construct the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works at the following intersections: (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal) Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCL'),,as applicable. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and affsite drainage facility improvements and the offsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 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 enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. and Sewer Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. R:~STA~63SP.PC~ 911194 vru 17 40. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the mas~er water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 41. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 42. Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or appro~/al of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Ran development. Grading 43. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development unless approved by the Director of Public Works for street purposes. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) 44. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the c~nditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 45. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 47. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: · Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent eFosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. · Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. · Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 48. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible. or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 49. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 50. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 51. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 52. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 53. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports sl',:~ll be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 54. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 55. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 56. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 57. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Regional Center Specific Plan was originally presented to staff as a mixed-use commercial development combining retail, office, hotel, institutional, and regional mall facilities. However, the possibility exists that multi-family residential development could occur within Ranning Area 1. In the event that residential development is approved, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides additional conditions for the Temecula Regional Center, as follows: General Requirements 58. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall satisfy the park land dedication requirements in accordance with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). Upon determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, the City of Temecula shall have the final decision of requiring the developer to dedicate land for public park purposes, or pay the equivalent "in-~ieu" fee, 59. Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial/industrial development and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by a private property owner's association. 60° All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual property owner or an established property owner's association. 61. Class II bike lanes shall be designed in conformity with the Ci~y's Park and Recreation Master Plan and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 62. ' The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 63. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 64. Construction of all proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 65. All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for dedication on the final map. 66. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff. 67. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas. R:~STAFPP. PT~263Sp. PC5 9/1/94 vgw 20 ATTACHMENT B MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM F! WINCHESTER HILLS ,C COMPOSITE LAND USE PLAN CAMPOS VERDES I'EMECULA REGIONAL CENTER KCDC Inc 2755s Ynez Roall Suite 2~2 Temecuta CA g2591 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER ATTACHMENT NO. 11 CAMPO$ VERDES AND REGIONAL CENTER COMPOSITE LAND USE PLAN R:~STAFFIL~T~263SP.CC 9r'//~ IrJb 3~ ITEM 24 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBIECT: Honorable Mayor Ron Roberrs Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Stone Councilmember Pat Bird~n Councilmember Sal Munoz Councilmember Ron Parks Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning'~;~'~ September 7, 1994 Urban Core Projects The Urban Core Projects (The Regional Center and Campos Verdes Specific Plans) have been scheduled for the September 13, 1994 City Council Meeting. Due to the complexity of these projects, they were forwarded to you, under separate cover, on September 2, 1994. Please retain all documents until after a final decision on the projects has been made. As always, should you have questions regarding these projects, please do not hesitate to'call me. 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 September 13, 1994 Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes), Environmental Impact Report 348, and Change of Zone No, 5617 Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.348 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND THE ADDENDA TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I |CAMPOS VERDES) LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-.__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES) PROPOSING 308 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL\OFFICE~CHURCH USES, A 5.8 ACRE DETENTION BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND 13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. BACKGROUND Specific Plan No. 1, Change of Zone 5617, and Environmental Impact Report 348 were approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 18, 1994. The Specific Plan is proposing 308 single family residential units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways. The Change of Zone proposes to change the existing R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan). Environmental Impact Report 348 has been prepared for the project and discusses the potential impacts of the project. DISCUSSION Specific Plan No, 1 has a General Plan designation of Specific Plan Overlay. The underlying land use designations are Community Commercial, Professional Office, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, and Open Space\Recreation. The Specific Plan, as originally submitted, contained multi-family residential. As a result of public controversy, the applicant chose to remove this designation, This resulted in the need for a General Plan Amendment to remove the High Density Residential land use designation. Additional issues relative to this Specific Plan were the size of the lots adjacent to the Meadowview development and the extension of Sanderling Way and Starling Street, R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 kl.b 2 The applicant proposes to create lots approximately one acre in size adjacent to the Meadowview development located to the east of the project (reference Exhibit ). This will serve to mitigate any potential land use incompatibilities. With respect to the extensions of Sanderling Way and Starling Street, the Planning Department received approximately 154 "Referendum Ballots" from the Roripaugh Homeowner's Association expressing their opinions on the extension of these streets. Of the 154 ballots receive(l, 130 homeowners were opposed to the streets being opened, but if one street needed to be opened for public safety reasons, 90 homeowners favored opening Starling Street and 40 favored opening Starling Way. The Planning Commission recommended that both Sanderling Way and Starling Street be opened. They felt this was necessary for improved emergency response time to the Roripaugh development, as well as to improve local traffic circulation and discourage an increase in the number of Average Daily Trips on Winchester Road (reference Exhibit ). The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project proposed mitigation measures which will reduce all impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these impacts. Three Addendures to the original Environmental Impact Report have been prepared for this project. The first addendure analyzed new technical information on traffic\circulation and drainage\flooding which resulted in additional mitigation measures. The second addendure analyzed the impacts of the revision in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan which reduced the density of the project. And, lastly, the third addendure analyzed proposed new mitigation measures for traffic and circulation improvements. FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 94-__ - Page 4 2. Ordinance No. 94-__ - Page 7 3. Resolution No. 94-__ - Page 10 4. Resolution No. 94-__ - Page 13 5. Conditions of Approval - Page 17 6. Meadowview Buffer Exhibit - Page 28 7. Extension of Sanderling Way and Starling Street Exhibit - Page 29 8. Planning Commission Staff Report, July 18, 1994- Page 30 9. Planning Commission Minutes, July 18, 1994 - Page 31 10. Campos Verdes Specific Plan/EIR - Page 32 11. Campos Verdes Technical Appendices - Page 33 12. Campos Verdes First Addendure EIR - Page 34 13. Campos Verdes Second Addendum EIR - Page 35 14. Campos Verdes Third Addendure Containing Mitigation Monitoring Report - Page 36 15. Campos Verdes FEIR Response to Comments - Page 37 16. Campos Verdes Findings, Facts and Statement of Overriding Consideration - Page 38 R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TFr~ CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECWIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES) LOCATED SOUTH OF WINC~WSTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNLA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOIJ~)WS: Section 1. The official zoning map of the City of Temecula, enfified "TemeculaJRancho California Area" as adopted pursuant to Section 34 of Ordinance No. 90-04, is amended as shown which map is made a part of this ordinance. Section 2. The City of Temecula hereby adopts those Land Use Standards herein contained in that certain document entitled "Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1/EIR 348" dated March 5, 1993 on f~e with the office of the City Clerk. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shah certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shah publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shah 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. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 5 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1994. ATf/~ST: RON ROBERTS MAYOR hne 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 fn'st 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: COUNCH ,MEMBERS COUNCH ,MEMBERS COUNCH ,MEMBERS JUNE S. CITY C~ R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 6 A'I'rACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 94-__ R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THR. CITY COUNCIL OF THY~ CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AIVIENDING THF~ OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN TFIY~ CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 CHANGING THE ZONING PROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP '(SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHF~TER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF T1TF. CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALWORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby appmved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be mended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is mended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 5617 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thixty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shah 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 shah 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. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 8 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 13th day of September, 1994. RON ROBERTS MAYOR A'ITI:~ST: June S. Greek, City Clerk STATE OF CAI,FFORNIA 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 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 of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCI/_NIEMBERS COUNCIIJVlIEMBERS JUNE S. GP~.h"K CITY C~ ,FRK R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 9 ../ \ CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 CITY COUNCIL DATE - SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 ZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN R:\STAFFRPT\ISP,CC 9/1/94 ktb ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 94-__ R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTWYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.348 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEM~.NTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND THE ADDENDA TO THE ENVIRONIVIV~NTAL IMPACT RF~PORT NO. 348 ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCm~STER ROAD 'AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. WItEREAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report No. 348 and its three Addenda in accordance with the Riverside County, City of Temecula and State CEQA Guidelines; WHER.EAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItEREAS, the City Council considered said ~ and the three addenda on September 13, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to comment on the environmental documents and testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the City Council hearing, pursuant to this resolution the City Council Certified said EIR, Adopted its three Addenda, Adopted the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program; NOW, TffEREFORE, TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findinzs. That the City of Temecuh City Council in Certifying the proposed Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and adopting its Addenda, makes the following findings as set forth in that certain document entitled" Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348 (State Clearing House Number 89020139) for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1," which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby certifies FEIR No. 348, adopts its three Addenda, adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 1 and Chance of Zone 5617, located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 11 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1994. RON ROBERTS MAYOR June S. Greel~, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CAI.IFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEIVIECULA) 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 ---, 1994 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNC]IAIEMBERS JUNE S. GRF. I=K CITY CT.RRK R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 94-,__ R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF TIt'F. CITY COUNCIl. OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SPECWIC PLAN NO. 1 (CA1VIPOS VERDES) PROPOSING 308 SINGLE FA.MILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES OF · COMMI~RCIAL\OFFICE\CHURCH USES, A 5.8 ACRE DETENTION BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND 13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCltli',qTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. Wlc!EREAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County I-and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; Wh'F. REAS, said Specific Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Specific Plan on July 18, 1994 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Specific Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings pertaining to said Specific Plan on September 13, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Specific Plan; WItEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Specific Plan; NOW, TItF. REFORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TE1VIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findiw, s. The City Council in approving the proposed Specific Plan, makes the following findings: 1. Specific Plan No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan upon adoption of a City initiated General Plan Amendment, and upon Council certification of Environmental Impact Report 348. 2. Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which axe R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 14 residential and commercial. The Specific Plan pwvides for 1/2 acre lots adjacent to the Meadowview development which provides for an adequate transition. 3. Specific Plan No. 1 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area. Environmental Impact Report 348 was prepared for the Specific Plan. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. 4. Specific Plan No. 1 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. 5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 348 and its subsequent Addenda analyzed the significant impacts of Specific Plan No. 1 and proposed mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Specific Plan No. 1 which is attached as Attachment No. 10, located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road at subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment No. 10, attached hereto. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 15 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 13th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: RON ROBERTS MAYOR June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CAI ,II~ORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF 'rF_iIvlECULA) 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: CITY COUNCI~ERS: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE S. GpIu, I~:K CITY CT,I=-RK R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 17 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes) Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a.10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways Assessor's Parcel No,: ApproVal Date: Expiration Date: 921-090-001 through 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046, 911-170o004and 910-170-005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- Eight Dollars (9928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar (9850.00) fee, in comoliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) 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 California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Conditions The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hoid harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 18 10. 11. 12. 13. Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campas Verdes, is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City Council. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of devi~lopment that permits are being issued for. Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shall be completed. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within the site, a detailed design manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8 '~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. Thc dcvclopcr shall providc pcdcstrian acccss to thc Commcrcial sitc (Planning Arca 4) from thc rcsidcntial arca to thc cast (Planning Arca 5). (Deleted by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 19 14. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. 15. Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to reflect all current conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16, Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan, 17. if any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. 18. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. 19. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. 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. GENERAL CONDITIONS 20. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 21. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 20 22. Prior to issuance of building permits for the non ro~idcntial (commercial and officcs) various phases of development, 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 permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of rife 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 provisibns 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. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18. 1994) 23. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 24. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval cf sn;' for each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) CIRCULATION 25. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 26. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential, office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. 27. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. 28. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements, R=\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 917194 kLb 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Running Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. The traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the 2O0th 235th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy for the 2OOth 235th EDU. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Road, from Solana Way to southerly project boundary. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. The cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of- way or as required by the Director of Public Works. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 22 35. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following intersections: Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal) Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes 36. Sanderling Way and Starling Street shall be extended to accommodate through traffic into the Roripaugh Hills development. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Drainage 37. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 38. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 39. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 40. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 41. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the onsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 42. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 43. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 44. 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 enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 kl.b 23 Water and Sewer 45. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 46. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 47. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 48. Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan development. Grading 49. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 50. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR} document. 51. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 52. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 53. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: · Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 917194 ktb 24 · Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. · Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. · Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. · Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 54. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as dtherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 55. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 56. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 57. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 58. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, ai~d a daily time schedule of operations. 59. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 60. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee masntenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 61. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewaterin9 of the site is ne:'~=sary during construction, necessary permits (i.e. in compliance with NPDES pe m~t) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 25 Phasing 62. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 63. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecul~ Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for Campos Verdes Specific Plan: General Requirements 64. All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 65. Construction of the public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. 66. The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site, landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 67. All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City "in- fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. 68. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA). 69. Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9& ktb 26 70. All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and established Home Owner's Association (HOA). Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 71. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located in Planning Area I and the detention basin in Planning Area 2. 72. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi- purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9. 73. All parks, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map. 74. Landscape construction drawings for all project areas (project areas may consist of slopes, streetscape, medians, turf areas, recreational trails, and parks) identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services prior to recordation of the final map, Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 75. The Park shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 78th residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2) years of map recordation for the first phased lots, whichever comes first. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 76. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of ASsessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 77. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the maintenance program. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 27 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT R:\STAFFRPT\ISP,CC 9/7/9~ ktb 28 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ampos Verdes g~ CASE NO. - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 CITY COUNCIL DATE - SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/1/94 ktb ATTACHMENT NO. 7 EXTENSION OF SANDERLING WAY AND STARLING STREET EXHIBIT R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9A ktb 29 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, JULY 18, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 30 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1994 Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes) Environmental Impact Report No. 348 Change of Zone No. 56~17 Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske RECOMMENDATION: 1. RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94- certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348 for Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 5617 and; APPLICATION INFORMATION RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94- approving Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 5617, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT: KRDC, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: T&B Planning Consultants PROPOSAL: A Specific Plan consisting of: 308 single-family residential units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways with an accompanying Change of Zone request from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan No. 1 ). Environmental Impact Report No. 348 has been prepared for the project and discusses the potential impacts of the project. LOCATION: South of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road EXISTING ZONING: R-R (Rural Residential), A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) R:\STAFFRPT~ISP.PC5 7115194 vg, w SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and R- R (Rural Residential) A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) SP (Specific Plan No. 164, Roripaugh Hills) A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size), R-R (Rural Residential) PROPOSED ZONING: SP (Specific Plan No. 1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial) O (Professional Office) H (High Density, 13-20 du/ac) M (Medium Density, 7-12 du/ac) LM (Low Medium Density, 3-6 du/ac) OS (Open Space/Recreation) Specific Plan Overlay EXISTING LAND USE: VBcBnt SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Winchester Road, Vacant South: Vacant East: Residential West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Gross Acreage: Single-Family Residential 132.9 Acres 308 Units Commercial\Office\Church 19.8 Acres Detention Basin 5.8 Acres Park 10.8 Acres Elementary School On-Site Roadways 10.7 Acres 13.0 Acres BACKGROUND Specific Plan No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5617, and Environmental Impact Report No. 348 were continued from the May 23, 1994 and June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project proposes a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on 132.9 acres. The project site is located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road. The General Plan designates the area as a Specific Plan overlay area. The underlying land use designations of the General Plan consist of Community Commercial, Professional Office, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Medium Density, and Open Space/Recreation. The Specific Plan document contains the zoning design standards for each area. The proposed zoning and development standards contained within the Specific Plan document will govern development for this site over the City's Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan was amended for the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The Plan now being proposed for the site is shown in Table 1. LAND USE DESIGNATION RESIDENTIAl- TABLE 1 PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY PLANNING DENSITY DWELLING AREA (DU/AC) UNITS ACRES Low 9 1.1 18 16.0 (.5 to 2 DU/AC) Low Medium 3 6.3 76 12.0 (3 to 6 DU/AC) 5 5.2 86 16.5 6 5.9 72 12.3 8 3.5 56 15.9 SUBTOTAL 4.2 308 72.7 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial 4 12.0 Commercial/Office/Church 2 13.7 and Detention~ Elementary School 7 10.7 Park 1 10.8 Roads 13.0 SUBTOTAL 60.2 PROJECT TOTAL 2.3 308 132.9 ~ Approximately 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office uses adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.9 acres shall include a landscaped detention basin. No park credits will be given for the detention basin by the City. ANALYSIS Circulation At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting it was the consensus of the Commission to recommend the extension of either Sanderling Way, Starling Street or both. Staff has received approximately 154 "Referendum Ballots" from the Roripaugh Homeowner's Association expressing their opinions on the potential extension of Sanderling Way and Starling Street. Of the 154 ballots received, 130 homeowners were opposed to the streets being opened, but if one street needed to be opened for public safety reasons, 90 homeowners favored opening Starling Street and forty (40) favored opening Sanderling Way. Of these 40 homeowners, 17 live on Starling Street. Of the total number of homeowners responding, 22 were opposed to any street being opened and 2 favored the streets being opened. It is staff's opinion that at least one street should be opened to provide for a better emergency response time to the Roripaugh development, as well as improve local traffic circulation and discourage an increase in the number of Average Daily Trips on WinChester Road. Staff supports the opening of Starling Street. Landscape Develooment Zone (LDZ) The provision' for a 37 foot Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road was discussed at the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated he would provide this 37 foot LDZ. The Final Campos Verdes Specific Plan will contain an exhibit that illustrates this LDZ. Traffic Improvements At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission, staff requested Commission direction on a number of traffic improvements. The Public Works Department proposes the following: That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain regional improvements for the project implementation responsibility for regional facilities. That this Specific Plan be required to support either supplemental bond sales or district restructuring and supplemental bond sales which provide for certain regional facilities listed in the EIR. That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain facilities within and adjacent to the project as detailed in the Conditions of Approval. The timing for ,these facility requirements may be further defined through the conditioning of subsequent development applications and the requisite phasing application. A typical section be added to the Specific Plan for the primary onsite circulation road(s). School Mitiqation The Temecula Unified School District is requesting the developer sign a mitigation agreement with the District prior to Specific Plan approval. The mitigation proposed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for the project states, "the project applicant shall enter into a binding agreement with the Temecula Unified School District to insure the provision of adequate facilities prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior to recordation of the final map for residential projects." This continues to be an issue with the School District. Staff has conditioned the Specific Plan to comply with the R:\STAFFRPT\ISP, PC5 7115194 vgw 4 mitigation proposed in the EIR prepared for the project. General Plan Consistency Staff has discussed the need for a General Plan Amendment with the applicant. Staff will proceed with initiating this amendment. The City Attorney has recommended a condition of approval that states that approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan is contingent upon the General Plan Amendment being approved by the City Council, and the Environmental Impact Report being certified by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 348 was prepared by the applicant'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 Final EIR that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the EIR, two addenda were prepared for the project. The first addendure analyzed new technical information on traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding which resulted in additional mitigation measures which were incorporated into the Final EIR. The second addendure analyzed the impacts of the revision in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan which resulted from the public hearing process and reduced the density and intensity of the project. These two addenda did not raise important new issues about the significance of the impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348 which includes the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As a result of changes to the conditions of approval, the Mitigation Monitoring Program will need to be updated prior to the city Council approval. A condition of approval has been added which will ensure that the Mitigation Monitoring Program accurately reflects the new conditions of approval. GENERAL PLAN\ZONING CONSISTENCY As a result of public controversy, the applicant has removed all multiple family residential from the project. This has resulted in an inconsistency with the City's General Plan. The City will initiate a General Plan Amendment to bring the Specific Plan into conformance with the General Plan. The Specific Plan's approval is contingent upon the approval of both the General Plan Amendment and the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Change of Zone No. 5617 proposes to change the zoning on the site from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to S-P (Specific Plan). Upon City Council adoption of this Change of Zone, the project will be consistent with the zoning on the site. R:\STAFFRPT%1SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgv/ S SUMMARY\CONCLUSIONS The Campos Verdes Specific Plan has been revised to address resident, staff, and Commission concerns relative to the project. Concerns relative to buffering have been addressed through the following: the elimination of all high density residential on the site and the creation of a forty (40) foot buffer between the project and the Meadowview development. This reduction in overall density has resulted in the need for an Addendum to the EIR which has been prepared. Impacts associated with the revised Specific Plan are less or the same as those associated with the original project. FINDINGS Specific Plan No. 1 Specifi~ Plan No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan upon adoption of a City initiated General Plan Amendment, and upon Council certification of Environmental Impact Report 348. Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which are residential and commercial. The Specific Plan provides for 1\2 acre lots adjacent to the Meadowview development which provides for an adequate transition. m Specific Plan No. 1 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area. Environmental Impact Report 348 was prepared for the Specific Plan. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. Specific Plan No. 1 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. Said findings are .supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Chancle of Zone 5617 Change of Zone 5617 will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as determined in Environmental Impact Report 348 prepared for the project. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP). Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. 2. Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. R:\STAFFRFI~ISP.PC5 7115194 vg~ 6 Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal. Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed potential access points to the site will be from Winchester and Margarita Roads. Additional internal access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in conformance with City of Temecula standards. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Environmental Impact Report Reference Attachment No. 9. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 8 2. PC Resolution No. 94- * Blue Page 13 3. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 16 4. Exhibits - Blue Page 27 A. Figure IV - 26A - Meadowview Buffer Exhibit 5. Revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan - Summary of Changes - Blue Page 28 6. First Addendum to EIR - Blue Page 29 7. Second Addendum to EIR - Blue Page 30 8. Responses to Public Comments - Blue Page 31 9. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - Blue Page 32 10. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 33 11. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan - Blue Page 34 12. Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, April 18, 1994 - Blue Page 35 13. Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, June 29, 1994- Blue Page 36 14. Meadowview Letter of Support - Blue Page 37 R:\STAFFIL~T\ISP.PC~ 7115194 vg~' 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRjrf\ISP.PC5 7115/94 vgw 8 ATTACItlVI~.NT NO, 1 PC RESOLUTION NO, 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFW.. CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMM!;'.NDING APPROVAL OF SPECIlq'IC PLAN NO. 1 PROPOSING 308 SINGLE-FAMrI.Y RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES OF CO1VIM~RCIAL\OFFICE\CHURCH USES, A 5.8 ACRE DETENTION. BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE ELEMF. NTARY SCHOOL, 13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, DEVELOPMF. NT PLANS AND STANDARDS, PLANNING AREA DEVI~.LOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ZONING ORDINANCE; APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 TO CHANGE THE ZONING PROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (]~.AVY AGRICULTURAL, 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN); PROJECT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCFrFSTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. WHEREAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 5617 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on July 18, 1994 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said applications; NOW, THEREFORE, TH'F. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TENIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes the foBowing fmdings, to wit: Specific Plan No. 1 1. Specific Plan No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan upon adoption of a City initiated General Plan Amendment, and upon Council certification of Environmental Impact Report 348. R:\STAFFIL~T\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 9 2. Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which are residential and commercial. The Specific Plan provides for I\2 acre lots adjacent to the Meadowview development which provides for a consistent transition. 3. Specific Plan No. 1 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area. Environmental Impact Report 348 was prepared for the Specific Plan. No immediate impacts to the environment wffi result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less-than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. 4. Specific Plan No. 1 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementatioia programs contained in the General Plan. 5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Change of Zone 5617 1. Change of Zone 5617 will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as determined in Environmental Impact Report 348 prepared for the project. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP). Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the foliowing: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. 3. Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. 4. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. l~ndscaping, parking and lot coverage requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal. 5. Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed potential access points to the site will be from Winchester and Margarita Roads. Additional internal access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in conformance with City of Temecula standards. 6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. R:XSTAFFRFF~lSP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 'l 0 B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the said applications which indicated that them would be potentially signifmant impacts with the development of the project. Consequen~y, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. Env'~ronmental Impact Report No. 348 was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the signifxcance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the final k"TR that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities and Service for which Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been included within the fmal ELR. Subsequent to preparation of the EIR two addenda were prepared for the project. The first, analyzed new technical infoi~nation on traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding which resulted in additional mitigation measures which were incorporated into the FEIR. The second addendure was prepared to analyze the impacts of the a revision in the specific plan Land Use Plan which resulted from the public hearing process and reduced the density and intensity of the project. These two addenda did not raise important new issues about the significance of the impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348 which includes the Draft EIR , the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Staff Report and any associated attachments, and finds that it has been completed in compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA). Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone 5617 located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road. A. Attachment No. 3, attached hereto. R:\$TAFFRPTXISp.!aC5 7115194 vgw ~[ 1 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994. STEVEN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I HRREBY 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 18th day of July 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI411L SECRETLY ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF TI:IF, PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ~ FINAL FANVIRONMENTAL INIPACT REPORT NO. 348 ALONG WITH ITS TWO SUBSEQUENT ADDENDA, ADOPTING HNDINGS OF FACT AND STATEI~.NTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING ~ MrEiGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHF~STER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-090-001 THROUGH 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046, 911- 170-004 AND 910-170-00S. WHEREAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report No. 348 in accordance with the City of Temecula and State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said EIR on July 18, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing~ the Planning Commission recommended Certification of the said EIR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program; NOW, THEREFORE, TFrE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission in recommending Certification of the proposed Ft!l~, makes the following fmdings, to wit: A. Attachment 9 of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends certification of l. FAu No. 348 and its subsequent addenda, adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 1, located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-090-001 through 004, 921-090-017,910-130-046, 911-170- 004 and 910-170-005. R:\STAFFRIq~ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 14 Section 3. PASSED, AlPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I FfEREBY CERTWY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of July, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:~STAFFRPT',ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 15 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115/'~4 vgw 16 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes) Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential units, 19.B acres of commercial\office\churchuses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and jl 3.0 acres of on-site roadways Assessor's Parcel No.: Appro~/al Date: Expiration Date: 921-090-001 through 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046, 911-170-004and 910-170-005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- Eight Dollars (9928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar (9850.00) fee, in comDliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) 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 California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Conditions The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered bythe Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. R:%STAFFP, PT~ISP.I~C5 7115194 vgw 17 10. 11. 12. 13. 1~. Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campos Verdes, is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City Council. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of ~levelopment permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shall be completed. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within the site, a detailed design manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval, The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8'/2" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal, The developer shall provide pedestrian access to the Commercial site (Planning Area 4) from the residential area to the east (Planning Area 5). The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. R:~STAFFRFr',ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 18 '" 15, Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to reflect all current conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16. Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan.. 17. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. 18. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. 19. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. 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. GENERAL CONDITIONS 20. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility prorider. 21. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits for the non residential (commercial and offices) phases of development, 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 permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. 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 riglit to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any ~raffic 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. 23. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 24. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of any subsequent development application. CIRCULATION 25. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 26. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential, office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works, 27. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. 28. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. 29. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. R:\STAFFRPTXlSP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 20 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application, A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformante with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures, Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Repor.ts and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. The traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the 200th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy for the 200th EDU. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for reconstruction of the existing.two lanes on Margarita Road, from Solana Way to southerly project boundary, Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. The cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of- way, Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following intersections: Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal) R;\STAFFRIq~ISP, PC, S 7115194 vgw Drainage 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Water 44. 45. Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. Drainabe facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the onsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology' and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 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 enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. and Sewer Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. R:\STAFFRFI~lSP. PC5 7115/c~4 vgw 22 46. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 47, Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan development. Grading 48. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 49. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 50. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 51. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, 52. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: · Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. · Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. · Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 23 53. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 54. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works, 55. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 56. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 57. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time scheddle of operations. 58. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 59. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 60. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 61. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 62. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for Campos Verdes Specific Plan: R:~STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 24 General Requirements 63. All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 64. Construction of the public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. 65. The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site, landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the'TCSD. 66. All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City "in- fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. 67. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA). 68. Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 69. All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and established Home Ownar's Association (HOA). Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 70. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located in Planning Area 1 and the detention basin in Planning Area 2. 71. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi- purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9. 72. All parks, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map. 73. Landscape construction drawings for all project areas (project areas may consist of slopes, streetscape, medians, turf areas, recreational trails, and parks) identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services prior to recordation of the final map. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 74, The Park shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 78th residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2) years of map recordation for the first phased lots, whichever Comes first. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 75, Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 76. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the maintenance program. R:~STAFFIL~T\iSP.PC5 7115194 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT'xlSp. PC5 7/15194 vg~v 27 CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARYB:X~81att~ CASE NO. - SP NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES), EIR NO. 348, CZ NO. 5617 EXHIBIT - A FIGURE IV - 26A MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 REVISED CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY OF CHANGES I T & B Planning Consultants · ~ Santa Ana · San Diego May 18, 1994 RECEIVED MAY 19 199zl ............ JN 168-044 Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Planning Department CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: 'CHANGES TO CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT Dear Ms. Ubnoske: I am providing you this letter to facilitate review of the latest draft version of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan (updated May 2, 1994) by City staff and the Planning Commission. Many changes to the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan document have occurred since the previous draft was prepared in March 1993. A sununary of the key changes follows: I. LAND USE PLAN CHANGES Figure III-1 on page HI-3 has been revised to reflect the new Land Use Plan. This exhibit was formerly in black & white and is now in full color. Residential Densities. The land use categories in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan have been modified. Previously, the Specific Plan proposed medium low density (3.0 du/ac), medium density (5.2 du/ac), and very high density (17.0 du/ac) residential uses. These categories have been replaced by low density (0.5 - 2.0 du/ac) and low medium density (3.0 - 6.0 du/ac) residential uses. Total Residences. The number of residences on-site has been reduced from 850 du at an average residential density of 9.9 du/ac to 308 du at an average density of 4.2 du/ac (a reduction of 542 dwellings). Meadowview Buffer. All lots which abut the Meadowview development shall have a minimum permitted lot size of 20,000 square feet in response to input and concerns expressed by Meadowview residents. Additionally, a minimum six foot (6') high solid wall shall be erected on the property boundary between the residential lots in Planning Area 9 and the adjacent forty foot (40') wide open space/paseo buffer. Open Space/Paseo Buffer. A forty foot (40') wide buffer will be created between the on-site residential uses in Planning Area 9 and the adjoining off-site Meadowview development. An eight foot (8') wide minimum multi-purpose trail · I ~ Debbie Ubnoske CITY OF TEMECULA Page 2 will meander through the entire length of the paseo. The paseo area and multi- purpose trail will be maintained by the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Commercial/Office Uses. The commercial/office uses in Planning Area 2, located next to the comer of Margarita Road/North General Kearny Road, have been increased from 4.6 acres to 7.8 acres. In addition, all or portions of the commercial/office site may be developed with church/religious uses. Commercial Center. The commercial center at the intersection of Winchester Road/Margarita Road (e.g., Planning Area 4) has been reduced in size from 13.5 acres to 12.0 acres. Primary access to the commercial center will still be provided from Campos Verdes Lane, with right-in/right-out only access available from Margarita Road. Elementary School Site. A 10.7 acre (gross) elementary school site is proposed adjacent to North General Kearny Road (in Planning Area 7). The school site shall be a minimum of 10.0 usable acres in size. The following text has been inserted on page Ili-57 of the Specific Plan: "If the project developer and the Temecula Unified School District do not elect this option, then the total number of dwelling units permitted in Planning Area 7 shall not exceed 64 single family homes with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet." Park Site. The park site in Planning Area 1 has been reduced in size from 13.5 acres to 10.8 acres. This reduction has been made because the number of dwellings planned in Campos Verdes has been reduced from 850 du (March 1993) to 308 du (May 1994). The developer is requesting to receive full park credits from the City for 4.0 acres of parkland and 75% credit for the remaining 3.5 acres of parkland in Planning Area 1. The remaining 3.3 acres in Planning Area 1 shall be used for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any park credits for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses. IL CIRCULATION PLAN CHANGES The locations of both Campos Verdes Lane and Caminn Campos Verdes have remained unchanged. However, the entire network of interior streets within the project site has been revised to accommodate the proposed changes in the Land Use Plan. The proposed extensions of Sandealing Way and Starling Street into the Campos Verdes project from the adjacent Roripaugh Estates development have been deleted from the proposed Circulation Plan at the request of Roripaugh Estates residents. No vehicular connection is planned between Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates. DebbieUbnoske · ICITY OF TEMECULA .,,~ Page 3 OPEN SPACFJRECREATION AND LANDSCAPING PLAN CHANGES Section III.A.6 of the Specific Plan on page I11-31 has been expanded from "Landscaping Plan" (March 1993) to "Open Space/Recreation and Landscaping Plan" (May 1994). In addition to discussing landscape requirements, this section now also discusses City park requirements. Besides the park site in Planning Area 1, a 2.0-acre open space/paseo buffer is planned in Planning Area 9 as a buffer to-the existing Meadowview development. A 5.9-acre detention basin is planned in Planning Area 2 next to the commercial/office uses. "The detention basin, although it will serve a detention function during winter storms, will contain a turfed-covered bottom that will be suitable for passive recreational activities and impromptu ball games for much of the year. The sides of the basin will be planted with turf and trees" (see p. 111-31). Additionally, the following text has been inserted on page III-31 of the Specific Plan: "KCDC's proposal to provide park land in Campos Verdes in excess of the 4.0 acres required by TCSD standards will prove mutually beneficial for both the TCSD and KCDC. The TCSD will receive an additional 3.5 acres of developed park (suitable for both active and passive purposes), plus 5. 9 acres of landscape detention basin and a 2.0-acre landscaped buffer paseo containing a multi-purpose trail. In return, TCSD will: 1) accept ownership and maintenance responsibility for the detention basin and landscape buffer paseo in Campos Verdes, and 2) allocate KCDC 75% park credit for the 3. 5 acres of developed park land that KCDC is providing in Campos Verdes in excess of TCSD requirements which shall be counted toward the park and recreation requirements of other projects within the City of Temecula that KCDC is developing." IV. PROJECT PHASING PLANS The Development Phasing Plan for Campos Verdes, as depicted in Table II on page Ili-36, has been revised to reflect the new Land Use Plan. The park site is planned for constraction in Phase I and will be completed prior to issuance of the 781h building permit for the project or within two (2) years of Map Recordation for the first phase lots. Phasing of the elementary school site will ultimately be decided by the School District. The detention basin in Planning Area 2 is planned for development in Phase II, but may be developed earlier or later depending upon the phasing of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The commercial/office and commercial uses will be constructed in Phase II. Debbie Ubnoske CITY OF TEMECULA May 18, 1994 Page 5 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter or the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Sincerely, T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark T. Hickner Project -Manager cc: Dennis Chiniaeff Barry Bumell ATTACHMENT NO. 6 FIRST ADDENDUM TO EIR UNDER SEPARATE CO VER ATTACHMENT NO. 7 SECOND ADDENDUM TO EIR R:\STAFFRPT~ISP. PC5 7/15/94 vg~ ~0 ADDENDUM EIR CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PlAN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 EIR NO. 348 Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (714) 694-6400 Prepared By: Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 June, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Purpose A. Background .......................................... 1 B. Purpose ............................................. 1 C. Snmmary Analysis ..................................... 3 II. Project Description A. Objectives ............................................ 5 B. "'Revised" Project Plan ................................... 5 C. "Original" Project Plan ............. ..................... 9 D. Comparative Analysis .................................. 12 III. Envirdnmental Analysis B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. Seismic Safety ....................................... 14 Slopes and Erosion .................................... 17 Wind Erosion and Blowsand ............................. 19 Flooding ............................................ 20 Noise .............................................. 22 Climate and Air Quality ................................ 24 Water Quality ........................................ 26 Toxic Substances ..................................... 27 Agriculture ......................................... 28 Open Space and Conservation ............................ 29 W~dlife/Vegetation .................................... 30 Energy Resources ..................................... 32 Scenic Highways ...................................... 33 Cultural and Scientific Resources ......................... 34 Circulation .......................................... 36 Utilities and Services .................................. 42 Light and Glare ...................................... 44 Disaster Preparedness .................................. 45 Mandatory CEQA Topics A. Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................. 46 B. Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................. 46 C. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ....................... 46 D. Growth Inducing Impacts, the Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity, and Irreversible/ Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented ............... 47 Attachments A - Supplemental Traffic Analysis B - Correspondence from the Temecula Valley Unified School District LIST OF FIGURES "Revised" Project Land Use Plan ................................ 7 "Original" Project Land Use Plan .............................. 10 LIST OF TABLES 1. Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Mitigations ................... 3 2. "Revised" Project Land Use Summaxy ............................ 6 3. Development Phasing Plan .................................... 9 4. "Orig~nn!" Project Land Use Summary ........................... 11 5. Land Use Comparative Summary .............................. 13 6. Air Quality Analysis ........................................ 25 7. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 38 8. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 39 9. Comparison of Traffic Impacts ................................ 40 10. Utility Agencies ........................................... 42 11. Public Services and Utilities Comparison of Impacts ................ 43 ADDENDUM CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE A. Back2round The Campos Verdes Specific Plan Dryaft. Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CF, QA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. In February, 1993, an Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan was prepared. The purpose of this fwst Addendure EIR was three-fold: 1) to respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; 2) incorporate subsequently-prepared technical analyses (in the areas of traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the concerns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently-prepared technical studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. Purpose Most recently, revisions were made to the land use plan for the proposed Carnpos Verdes Specific Plan which reduce the number of proposed dwelling units and changes the size of other proposed on-site land uses. It is the intent of this Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report to identify and discuss the revisions made to the C3mpos Verdes Specific Plan (see Section II., Project Description) followed by an analysis of the changes in project impacts and provision of any additional mitigation measures (see Section III., Environmental Analysis). Technical analyses specifically prepared in response to these project revisions (in the area of traffic) are referred to within the text of Section III and are included in their entirely as Attachments to this Addendure to the Draft EIR. The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to be an Addendure to the Campos Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines which states: (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an Addendum to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 c~lling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project revisions, changes in circumstances surrounding the project, or additional project impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming feasible or available); (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA;and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. (b) An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. (c) The derision-making body shall consider the Addendure with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. This Addendure EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared Addendure EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments and technical reports constitute the Final EIR for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This Addendum to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the C3]ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as ~mended, and City Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. More specffically, the City has relied on Section 15084(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared Addendure EIR, and this Addendum to the Draft EIR to reflect their own independent judgemerit to the extent of their ability. In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendum to the Draft EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecul~, as Lead Agency, to evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects. The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for development. 2 C. SnmmarV Allsl,VJi~$ The following tabular summary lists the environmental issues discussed within both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and this Addendure to the Draft EIR. This summary table indicates which environmental issues experienced a change in project-related impacts and/or the provision of additional mitigation measures beyond those contained in the Draft EIR as a result of the revisions made to the proposed project land use plan, as discussed in Section II of this Addendum. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Environmental Issue Chsnges in Proiect Impacts Additional MitiaationMeasures A. Seismic Safety* decreased no B. Slopes and Erosion unchanged no C. Wind Erosion and Blowsand unchanged no D. Flooding decreased no E. Noise* decreased no F. Climate and Air Quality* decreased no G. Water Quality decreased no H. Toxic Substances unchanged no I. Agriculture* unchanged 'no J. Open Space and Conservation unchanged no K. Wildlife/Vegetation* decreased no L. Energy Resources decreased no M. Scenic Highways decreased no N. Cultural and Scientific Resources unchanged no O. Circulation* decreased no P. Utilities and Services* decreased no Q. Light and Glare decreased no R. Disaster Preparedness decreased no * Significant Impacts Remain; Statement of Overriding Considerations Required As shown above, project related impacts in the areas of Seismic Safety, Flooding, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Scenic Highways, Circulation, Utilities and Services, Light and Glare and Disaster Preparedness have been reduced as a consequence of revisions made to the Cnrnpos Verdes Specific Plan. The nature and extent of the changes in project impacts and additional mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section III, Environmental Analysis of this Addendure to the Draft EIR. None of the net changes in project impacts noted above result in the creation of new mitigation measures or unavoidable adverse environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the Campos Verdes Draft 3 Environmental Impact Report. SignificAnt impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" CAmpos Verdes Specific Plan remain in the areas of Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, WiJdlifeNegetation, Circulation and Utilities and Services libraries). 4 ' H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A, Objectives The basic objective of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan is to provide single family detached residential housing accompanied by on-site commercial, institutional. and recreational uses. In conformance with the Cnllfornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Addendure to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Addendum EIR) has been prepared to facilitate an objective assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with approval and implementation of the revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The project involves the following proposed discretionary actions by the City of Temeculsz 1) Approval of the Campos Verdes Specffic Plan; 2) Certffication of the Campos Verdes Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 89020139); 3) Approval of a change of zoning to Specific Plan (SP); and 4) Approval of the CAmpos Verdes Mitigation Monitoring Program. It is the intent of this Section II to provide a detailed discussion of the recently- revised Cnmpos Verdes Specffic Plan (to be referred to as the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan or the "Revised" project plan). This discussion contains the same level of detail as found in the Project Description within the Draft EIR. As indicated in Section I., Introduction and Purpose, these revisions to the proposed project occurred subsequent to the circulation of the Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan Draft EIR. This Section next provides a summary of the Original Specific Plan discussed and analyzed in the Draft EIR (to be referred to as the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan or the "Original" project plan). In order to maintain the adequacy of the Draft EIR and to facilitate the evaluation of the impacts of these revisions, a comparative analysis of the "Revised" and "Original" project plans is also provided in this Section. B. "Revised" Project Plnn The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is illustrated in Figure 1, "Revised" Project Land Use Plan and delineated in Table 2, "Revised" Project Land Use Summary. The "Revised" project plan involves a maximum total of 308 dwelling units on 72.7 acres (a net density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre) with 19.8 acres of commercial/office/church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre Elementary School and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways. 5 TABLE 2 "REVISED" PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY Land Use Designation Residential Low (.5 to 2 DU/AC) Low Medium (3 to 6 DU/AC) Subtotal Non- Residential Commercial Commercial/ Office/Church and Detention Basin x Elementary School Park 2 Roads Subtotal PROJECT TOTAL Notes p)anning Area 9 3 5 6 8 Density Dwelling (DU/AC) Units Acres 1.1 18 16.0 6.3 76 12.0 5.2 86 16.5 5.9 72 12.3 3.5 56 15.9 4.2 308 72.7 4 2 12.0 13.7 7 10.7 2.3 308 10.8 13.0 60.2 132.9 Approximately 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office uses adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.9 acres shall include a landscaped detention basin. No park credits will be given for the detention basin by the City. 2 The developer shall receive full park credits from the City for 7.5 acres of parkland within Planning Area 1. The remaining 3.3 acres in Planning Area i shall be used for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any park credits for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses. 6 The proposed land uses within the Specific Plan include: Low DensiW Residential: Approximately 18 dwelling units will be developed on 16 acres at a density of 1.1 dwelling units per acre. Those single family detached homes will be located in Planning Area 9 adjacent to the off-site residential uses. Low Medium Density Residential: The remaining residential development within the CArnpos Verdes Specific Plan wffi be developed within a density range of 3.5 to 6.3 dwelling units per acre. Planning Areas 3, 5, 6 and 8 contain a total of 290 residential dwelling units on a total of 56.7 acres. Commercial/Office and Detention Basin: Planning Area 4 will be developed with 12.0 acres of commercial property along Margarita and Winchester Reads. Planning Area 2 (13.7 acres total) will be developed with a detention basin on 5.9 acres; commercial/office uses will be constructed on 7.8 acres of the parcel, adjacent to North General Kearny Read. The developer shall not receive any park credit for the detention basin facility in Planning Area 2. Park: A 10.8 acre park is planned along North General Kearny Road in Planning Area 1. It is anticipated that this park will contain softball/soccer fields, on-site parking, tot lots, picnic area, etc. A total of 7.5 acres will count fully toward City park requirements. A portion of the park (3.3 acres) will be used for drainage/detention purposes to help protect adjacent land uses from flooding during a 100-year storm. The 3.3 acres of drainage- and detention-related uses will not count toward City requirements for park credits. Elementary School: A 10.7 acre elementary school site shall be provided in Planning Area 7. This elementary school will be utilized by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. This site may be used as credit against School Mitigation Fees which may otherwise be required. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of 64 single family dwellings may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots. Roads: Roadways totalling 13.0 acres will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project. Project-wide development standards have been prepared to manage implementation of general or unique conditions in each Planning Area. These general standards are hsted in Section III.A. 1., Specific Land Use Plan of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Specific information regarding the Planning Areas can be found in Section III.D., Planning Area Development Standards and Section III.C., Zoning Ordinance within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be developed over a five year period in accordance with the Development Phasing Plan delineated in Table 3 below. 8 TABT,E 3 DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN Phase Use Planning Acres Area Units Phase I Years 1 and 2 - Park - Elementary School ' - Low Medium Residential - Low Medium Residential - Low Medium Residential I 10.8 0 7 10.7 0 3 12.0 76 5 16.5 86 6 12.3 72 Subtotal 62.3 234 Phase H Years 3 to 5 - Low Residential 9 16.0 - Low Medi,,m Residential 8 15.9 - Commercial/Office/ Church and Drainage 2 - Commercial 18 56 2 13.7 0 4 12.0 0 Subtotal 57.6 74 Project 13.0 Roadways PROJECT 132.9 TOTAL 308 Notes x Phasing of the elementary school will ultimately be determined by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The District may elect to build the school in Phase II, ff ever. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of 64 single fam{ly dwelling may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots. 2 The detention basin in Planning Area 2 may be developed earlier depending upon the phasing of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. "Ori2inaF Project Plan The "Original" Compos Verdes Specific Plan involved a maximum total of 850 dwelling units on 86.0 acres (a net density of 9.9 dwelling units per acre) as ~ustrated in Figure 2. As noted in Table 4, "Original" Project Land Use Summary, residential densities range from Medium Low Density (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre on 21.0 acres); Medium Density (5 to 8 dwelling units per acre on 27.1 acres); and Very High Density (8 to 17 dwelling units per acre on 37.9 acres). In addition, a total of 18.1 acres of commercial/office/church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 13.5 acre park and 9.5 acres of on-site roadways were also proposed. 9 lO TABLF, 4 "ORIGINAL" PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY Land Use Plsnning Area Designation Residential Medium Low 7 (2 to 5 DU/AC) Medium (5 to 6 8 DU/AC) Very High (8 5 to 17 DU/AC) 3 Subtotal Non- Residential Commercial 4 Commercial/ 2 Office/Church and Detention Basin ~ Park 2 1 Roads Subtotal PROJECT TOTAL Notes Density Dwelling (DU/AC) Units Acres 3.0 65 21.0 5.2 141 27.1 17.0 267 15.7 17.0 377 22.2 9.9 850 86.0 13.5 10.4 6.4 850 13.5 9.5 46.9 132.9 ~ Approximately 4.6 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office uses adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.8 acres shall include a landscaped detention basin. No park credits will be given for the detention basin by the City. 2 The developer shall receive full park credits from the City for 10.7 acres of parkland within Planning Area 1. The remaining 2.8 acres in Planning Area I shall be used for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any park credits for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses. 11 Comparative Analysis Provided below is both a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the "Revised" and "Orj~nsP' project plans (eac~h of which is individually discussed in Sections II.B. and II.C., respectively of this Addendure to the Draft EIR) and summarized in Table 5, Land Use Comparative Summary. As previously noted, revisions to the project land use plan occurred subsequent to the public circulation of the Compos Verdes Specific Plan Draft EIR. The following list represents the primary elements of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan which have changed sinco circulation of the Draft EIR. These revisions are currently reflected within the "Revised" Project Plan. 1. The proposed maximum dwelling unit total for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan has be~n reduced from 850 to 308, a reduction of 63.7%. The gross project density has been reduced to 2.3 dwelling units per gross acre from 6.4 dwelling units per gross acre. The net density of the project has also been reduced from 9.9 to 4.2 dwelling units per net acre. Net density relates to the number of proposed dwelling units within actual developed acreage. A reduced total of 72.7. acres is devoted to residential land uses in the "Revised" project land use plan as compared to 86.0 acres of residential uses in the "Original" project land use plan. 2. Within the overall dwelling unit total, the densities of proposed residential uses have been reduced. The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan contains housing within the Low Density (0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre) and Low Medium Density Residential (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) categories. The "Original""project plan provided housing within the Low Medium Density (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) and Very High Density (8 to 17 dwelling units per acre) residential density categories. The "Revised" project plan eliminates all housing within these two higher residential density categories. In so doing, all attached housing has been eliminated from the project proposal. 3. The amount of commercial/office/church land use has been expanded to a total of 19.8 acres from 18.1 acres in the "Original" project plan. An additional 3.2 acres of commercial/office/church use was added to Planning Area 2 while 1.5 acres of commercial use was taken from Planning Area 4, a net increase of 1.7 acres. 4. The park proposed in Planning Area 1 has been reduced to 10.8 acres in the "Revised" project plan from 13.5 acres in the "Original" project plan. A total of 7.5 acres (rather than the original proposal of 10.7 acres) wffi be applied toward City park requirements. The portions of Planning Areas 2 and 4 contain areas which will serve as a retention basin or will provide drainage/detention functions. These drainage and detention-related uses apply to areas for which no park credit is being requested. 5. A 10.7 acre Elementary School site has been added to the "Revised" project land use plan within Planning Area 7 (see Figure 1 "Revised" Project Land Use Plan). Within the "Original" project land use plan, ten acres was identified within Land Use Development Standard 18 on page III-8 of the Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan (January, 1993) as a "potential elementary school site". At that time, it was stipulated that if 12 the option of constructing a school was not pursued by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, a maximum of 64 dwelling units would be constructed at this location. This stipulation of conversion to residential use of this area remains within the "Revised" Specific Plan. The additional environmental impacts assodated with these project revisions are discussed in detail in the following Section III., Environmental Analysis. TABLE 5 LAND USE COMPARATIVE SUMMARY Land Use Designation Residential "Revised" Land Use Plan Acres Dwelling Units "Original" LandUse Plan Acres Dwelling Units Low Density 16.0 18 (0.2 DU/AC) Low Medium 56.7 290 21.0 65 Density (2 to 5 DU/AC) Medium 27.1 141 Density (5 to 8 DU/AC) Very High 37.9 644 Density (8 to 17 DU/AC) Subtotal 72.7 308 86.0 850 Commerdal 12.0 13.5 Commercial/ Office/Church and Detention Basin 13.7 10.4 Park 10.8 13.5 Elementary School 10.7 Reads 13.0 9.5 PROJECT 132.9 308 132.9 TOTAL 850 13 IH. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ~he following environmental analysis is intended to identify and discuss the changes ~n project impacts and propose any additions and/or revisions to recommended mitigation measures resulting from the revisions made to the Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan (as discussed in Section II, Project Description of this Addendure to the Draft EIR). This analysis wffi identify the net changes from those impact assessments and mitigation measures contained in the previously-circulated Cnmpos Verdes Draft Environmental Impact Report. This section analyzes these project revisions in terms of the s~me environmental topics discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Each analysis begins with a summary of "Existing Conditions" and the "Previously-Identffied Project Impacts" as discussed in the Draft EIR. Following these summaries is an "Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts" resulting from the revisions to the project land use plan. Each analysis concludes with a listing of any "Revised Mitigation Measures". Any "revised" mitigation measures have been included in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring ProgrRm for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Both the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrRrn will be the subject of consideration and certification by the City of Temecula concurrent with final action on the C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan. SEISMIC SAFETY Existing Conditions The site lies within a region of generally high seismicity as does all of Southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience ground motion from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The dominant structural feature in the area is the northwest-striking Elsinore Fault Zone. This fault zone coinrides with the dominant northwest-southwest structural and regional tectonic patterns displayed by other fault systems including the San Andteas and San Jacinto Fault Zone. A magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring on the Elsinore Fault (Wildomar Branch) near the site could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.70g at the site. The duration of strong motion is expected to exceed 30 seconds. No known active faults project toward or extend through the site. The site is not located within a designated State of California Alqnist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Groundwater was encountered on the south-central and southeast section of the project at a depth as shallow as 23 feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater does not extend into the relatively shallow alluvium, but is limited to within the late Pleistocene Age sedimentary bedrock. Based on the type of soils and depth to groundwater, any liquefaction that might occur on-site is likely to be confined to the relatively thin zones of deep saturated soils. Therefore, any minor liquefaction 14 occurring on-site is not considered significant. The proposed project lies within a rlam inundation area and may be subject to seismically induced flooding from a dam failure at Skinner Reservoir. The project site is located approximately six miles downstream of Skinner Reservoir within close proximity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Skinner Reservoir is utili~.ed for domestic water storage, not for flood control purposes. According to the Dam Break and Floodway Inundation Study for Domenigoni Valley Reservoir West Dam and Skinner Reservoir Dnm~ Riverside County (prepared by the Office of Hydrological Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, Cal State University, Sacramento, dated September 15, 1993), the project site wffi not be inundated due to a breach of the Domenigoni Valley Reservoir West Dam. Previously-Identified Project Impacts The Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar Fault alignment which is located approximately I mile southwest of the project. As previously mentioned, this fault zone is presently included within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The project design has reflected State and local regulations with respect to the Wildomar Fault. It is possible that during a Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake along the F. lsinore Fault Zone (Wildomar Branch) the site will experience a maximum peak ground acceleration in bedrock of 0.70g. 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. A portion of the Campos Verdes site lies within a dam inundation area and may be subject to seismically induced flooding from a failure of Skinner Dam This is an unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. Analysis of Changes ill Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798 persons based upon a factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit) as compared to the "Original" Spocific Plan (2,201 new residents). This decrease of 1,403 project residents (63.7% of the previous total) results in fewer persons being exposed to potential seismic safety hazards as a result of ground shaking expected to occur on the project site as well as seismically-induced flooding due to failure of Skinner Dam. The extent of impacts of the project upon existing seismic conditions wffi remain unchanged from those associated with the "Original" project plan. 15 4. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 16 B. SLOPES AND EROSION Edsting Conditions Topography across the site consists of low rollin~ hills and associated southwest- trending drainages with a madmum relief of about 100 feet. The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province east of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Peninsular Ranges extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin through Baja California, and are characterized by large Mesozoic Age intrusive rock masses flRnked by volcanic metasedimentary and sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges have a general northwest-trending structural gain that includes such geologic features as faults, bedding and foliation trends, and geologic contacts. Site elevations range from between approximately 1,168 feet and 1,069 feet. The site is underlain by bedrock materials of the Pauba Formation and alluvium which are locally manfled by topsoil. Arti~dai fill exists in the perimeter of the northwest portion of the site. Previously-Idenfffied Project Impacts The CRmpos Verdes Specific Plan is considered feasible for the proposed residential and commercial development, provided that the generalized recommendations found in the "Geotechnical Investigation," included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR, and future geotechnical investigations are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed project. Development of the Campos Verdes project will require alteration of the existing natural landform. Complete removal of all alluvial, topsoff, and loose compressible low strength older alluvium and/or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fffis. So~s removed during the excavation procedures may be utilized as compacted fill, provided they have been stripped of organics and other deleterious materials. Cut and fill slopes will be designed and are anticipated to be stable at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope. Slopes of greater height as well as the final design of all cut and fill slopes will require approval during grading plan review. The geotechnicai reports indicates that 35 feet of fill slopes and 38 feet of cut slopes are proposed. According to the Project Engineer, the proposed grading plan results in 2,616,743 cubic yards of cut and 376,123 cubic yards of fffi. With appropriate permits, the balance of earthwork will be relocated to the Temecula Regional Center proposed to the west of Campos Verdes. Due to the content of on-site soils, slope erosion is a significant concern with regard to surficial stability. To alleviate this impact, it is recommended that slopes be properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes be planted with erosion resistant vegetation or other protective devices immediately after grading. 17 Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The geotecbnica] feasibility of development of the "Revised" Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan, given adherence to current and future geotechnical recommendations, remains unchanged. The "Revised" project plan maintains the same nmount of area (132.9 acres) being disrupted by grading as the "Ori~nal" project plan. Development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in a similar total of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards of material being moved as that associated with the "Original" project plan with the balance of earthwork being relocated, if necessary, to the Temecula Regional Center site to the west. The potential for erosion-related impacts remain unchanged within the "Revised" project plan given adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those centained in the Draft EIR. 18 C. WIND EROSION AND BLOWSAND Existing Conditions The project is not located within the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Area designated within the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. ** Previously-Identified Project Impacts Although the project site Hes outside the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Areas designated by the County of Riverside, construction activities (primarily site preparation and grading) will generate fugitive dust. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compfiation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soft disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month grading cycle completing 25% of the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, an average of .05 tons (109 pounds) per day of particulate emissions will be released during grading of the project site. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to involve a similar amount of landform alteration as the "Original" Specific Plan. A similar amount of area (132.9 acres) and earth being moved (2.6 million cubic yards) is associated with the "Revised" project plan as was expected with the "Original" Specific Plan. Little change in Wind and Blowsand impacts is therefore anticipated. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft I~.IR. 19 D. FLOODING E~dsting Conditions The majority of the project area is located within the Santa Gertrudis Valley, to the north of the confluence of the Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. An existing 100- year floodplain occupies the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of an "un-named dry wash" which traverses the site. This wash discharges through an existing 10 foot x 5 foot RCB under Margarita Read. The total area tributary to the basin outlet at Margarita Read is approximately 1,650 acres. Off-site to the southwest, the site discharges under Ynez Read through an existing double 10 foot X 5 foot Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) under Ynez Read, located approximately 1,200 feet north of Solana Way. This RCB is presently able to convey the estimated existing 1,250 cubic feet per second of storm water but any additional development upstream even without the Campes Verdes project will exceed the RCB capacity. Portions of the Campes Verdes site drains toward the empty lot of the proposed Temecula Regional Center, Specific Plan No. 263. The runoff travels via overland flow to the existing double 7 foot X 5 foot RCB at Palm Plaza. A small portion of runoff generated on the west slope of the ridge adjacent to Winchester Road currently drains to an existing 24 inch CMP culvert under Winchester Road. It is then conveyed through a cut channel to Santa Gertrudis Creek. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District. The project site is also located within the Temecula Valley Area of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, and there are drainage fees of $1,970 per acre associated with developments within the site. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan would result in short-term and long- term hydrologic impacts. The development and construction phase of the proposed project would potentially create short-term downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading. The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces on-site that will increase the existing 100 year storm runoff from 1,055 cubic feet per second to approximately 1,567 cubic feet per second at Margarita Road. The developed on-site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be adequately conveyed by the proposed drainage system. The proposed drainage system incorporates a park/detention basin along the southern project boundary (Planning Area 1) in order to reduce the flow rate experienced by the Ynez Read double box drainage facility to 1,250 cubic feet per second. 2O According to the project engineer, the proposed detention basin will be designed to convey the 5 year storm runoff directly through the proposed park/retention basin site allowing full use of the remaining park areas. During storms greater than the 5 year event, stormwater retention will impact the proposed on-site recreational park area. Drainage facilities from the project site ultimately discharge downstream into the Murrieta Creek and without the proposed Campos Vetdes retention basin would increase the existing 100 year storm of 1,250 cubic feet per second to approximately 1,890 cubic feet per second. This increased flow rate would contribute to cumulative increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in areas with undersized facilities. The cumulative drainage impacts in the Rancho California area are currently being addressed by RCFC & WCD's design studies for improvement of the Murrieta Creek Channel. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves a similar amount of area being disrupted during project construction as compared to the "Original" project plan. As such, similar, short-term potential downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed so~s during project grading is expected to occur. The amount of impervious surfaces created by development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to be reduced as compared to the "Original" project plan as a consequence of the significant (63.7%) reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units. Although an additional 3.5 acres of on-site roadways are proposed as part of the "Revised" Specific Plan, as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan, this increase in the amount of impervious roadway surface will be negated by the decrease in the total number of dwelling units (and associated impervious surfaces, i.e. roofs, driveways, etc.) proposed. This reduction of 541 dwelling units results in the reduction of approximately 1,084,000 square feet of impervious surfaces (assuming 2,000 square feet of roofs, driveways, patios, etc. per dwelling unit). The increase of 3.5 acres of on-site roads creates 152,460 square feet of additional impervious surface. Therefore, the "Revised" Specific Plan results in a net decrease of 931,540 square feet of impervious surfaces as compared the the "Original" Project plan. Levels of storm runoff from the "Revised" Specific Plan is therefore expected to be reduced as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan. In either case, the proposed drainage system is expected to be capable of handling any increases in storm flows from the developed Campos Verdes site. Since the "Revised" Specific Plan wffi generate fewer project residents (a decrease of 1,403 residents) fewer persons will be exposed to potential flooding hazards. , Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 21 E. NOISE F,~4sting Conditions Data provided in the Draft EIR indicates that a major noise corridor exists along Interstate 15. Noise levels directly adjacent to Interstate 15 exceed 70 CNEL. Other roadways in the vidnity have low levels of traffic and corresponding low levels of noise. In the vidnlty of the project site, the 65 CNEL contour extends approximately 73 feet beyond the centerllne of Winchester Road and remains within the right-of-way of Margarita Road. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Constructior~ 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. Noise levels for equipment which might be used for the excavation and construction of the proposed project range from approximately 65 to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance. The proposed development ofC~mpos Verdes will generate traffic, and as a result will alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. Due to future development which has already been approved there wffi be an increase in traffic in surrounding areas with or without the proposed project. The noise levels will increase substantially over existing noise levels for sensitive land uses along some of the streets in the vicinity of the project. These increases are primarily due to other projects planned in the area. The substantial increases are generally due to the relatively low amount of traffic currently in the area. A maximum change of 12.8 dB exists along Margarita Road (between B Street and Winchester Road) which will have a noise exposure just less than 70 CNEL at the edge of the roadway right-of-way off-site. Areas along 1-15, Diaz Road, Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, Margarita Road, Nicolas Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road and Solana Way will also experience noise increases greater than 3 dB. Those roadways that have noise increases greater than 3 dB and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL are considered significant impacts if existing residential developments are adjacent to the roadways. Such roadways include Margarita Road, Winchester Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicholas Road. For planned residential areas that are not yet developed, roadway noise can be mitigated by the developor at the time of construction. The future noise increase levels due solely to the project are all less than 3 dB except for along Margarita Road between B Street and Winchester Road. However, this segment of Margarita Road is currently undeveloped, and therefore will not experience signfficant noise impacts due to the project. Therefore, the project will contribute only slightly to noise increases in the area. However, the impact of cumulative development upon this roadway segment results in an increase of 12.8 dB over the existing noise levels. This increase is considered a signfficant off-site noise impact. 22 Limited portions of the project site proposed for residential use may experience traffic noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Specifically, residential lots along General Kearny and Margarita Road may experience noise levels over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Residential areas along Winchester Read and proposed commercial/office uses adjacent to Margarita Read will experience noise within acceptable levels. While the proposed project represents an incremental contribution to this ultimate noise impact condition, cumulative noise increases- are largely a result of increased traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional (or cumulative) noise impacts are considered a significant impact to off-site areas surrounding these roadways for which a Statement of Overriding Conditions has been prepared. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts Since the "Proposed" Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan involves the sRme Rmount of area being subjected to landform alteration (132.9 acres), short-term noise impacts related to project grading is expected to remain unchanged from levels associated with the "Original" project plan. The significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units will result in a similar decrease in short-term noise impacts associated with construction of structures on the project site. As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis included as Attachment A to this Addendum to the Draft EIR, a total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips are associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction from the total number of vehicle trips (16,184 trips) associated with the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This reduction will result in reduced on- and off-site noise impacts. As such, mitigation measures (barriers, setbacks, etc.) to be provided in response to these impacts may also be reduced. The extent of these measures will be determined through acoustical studies prepared prior to grading permit or tract map approval. However, as previously noted, significant future noise impacts are the result of increased traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional (or cumulative) noise impacts assedated with the "Revised" Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan remain as a significant impact to off-site areas and will stiff require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 23 F. CLrMATE AND AIR QUALITY Conditions The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The climate of the basin is classified as Mediterranean, characterized by a pattern of cool, wet winters and warm, dry snmmers. State standards for oxidnnts and particulates are exceeded at the Perris Ambient Air Monitoring Station, while State and Federal Standards of lead and sulfur oxides were not exceeded at this station. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted b~ construction equipment and dust wffi be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month grading cycle completing 25% of the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, an average of .05 tons per day of particuiate emissions will be released during grading of the project site in one grading phase. Another short term impact will be from the exporting of dirt from Campos Verdes project site to Temecula Regional Center project site during grading. A total of 2.3 million cubic yards of dirt will be exported during a 6 month grading cycle (26 weeks assuming a 5 day work week). It should be noted that this estimate of amount of fffi exported may vary signfficantly as final grading plans are developed. These emissions are not considered significant due to the fact that they do not reach significant impact thresholds established by SCAQMD. The main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the residential combustion of natural gas for space heating and the use of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the commercial use of natural gas and electricity. Total long-term poHutant generation (due to motor vehicles, power plant emissions and natural gas emissions) is considered "significant" by the "Air Quality Handbook". Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to involve a similar amount of landform alteration as the "Original" Specific Plan. A similar amount of area (132.9 acres) and earth being moved (2.6 million cubic yards) is associated with the "Revised" project plan as was expected with the "Original" Specific Plan. Little in the way of changes to these short-term air quality impacts is therefore anticipated. As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis included as Attachment A to this Addendum to the Draft EIR, a total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips is associated with the "Revised" CRmpos Verdes Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction from the total number of vehicle trips (16,184 trips) associated with the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This results in a reduced amount of pollutants generated by motor vehicIe emissions from the proposed project. The reduction of 542 dwelling units from the "Original" to the "Revised" Specific Plans also results in a 63.7% decrease in stationary source emissions resulting from electricity and natural gas use. Provided below is the result of an analysis of the total air po!!utant emissions associated with the "Revised" project plan. These calculations utilize the s~me pollutant generation factors as used in the air quality analyses of the "Original" project plan within the .Draft EIR. TABLE 6 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS (lbs/day) Pollutant Motor Electrical Natural Total SCAQMD Vehicle Emissions Gas Threshold of Emissions Emissions Significance CO 1,167.0 2.8 1.8 1,171.6 550 NOx 226.9 16.0 0.1 243.0 100 SOx 45.4 1.7 47.1 150 Particulates 54.2 0.5 0.1 54.8 150 ROG 92.7 0.1 0.5 93.3 75 Pollutant generation associated with the "Revised" Cs~mpos Verdes Specific Plan exceed SCAQMD thresholds of signfficance in the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases. In spite of these reductions, air quality impacts associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan remains as a significant impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been preparecL Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 25 G. WATER QU~,LFFY E~sting Conditions The project lies entirely within the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater area This groundwater area, the largest in the entire San Diego Region, covers a surface area of about 60,000 acres. The groundwater aquifers are recharged by underflow from the Lancaster Basin to the east and by surface flows from Warm Springs, Murrieta, Santa Gertrudis and Temecula Creeks and by direct precipitation within the valley area. The Murrieta-Temecula Basin is considered to be in an overdraft condition as evidenced by a long-term decline in water levels. Much of the basin is overlain by a relatively impervious layer which restricts recharge of the underlying sediments. According to the "Geotechnicai Investigation", on-site groundwater was encountered at depths of about 23 feet and 27 feet. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Construction of the Csmpos Verdes project will alter the composition of surface runoff by grading the site surfaces, by construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. As discussed in detail within Section III.D., Flooding, the "Revised" Specific Plan results in a net reduction of approximately 93 1,540 square feet of impervious surface as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan. Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor mounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, off and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use, wilt contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in Murrieta Creek. Analysis of Cbanges in Project Impacts The amount of impervious surfaces created by development of the "Revised" Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to be reduced as compared to the "Original" project plan as a consequence of the significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units. The amount ofpollutants entering the storm drain system and potentially into groundwater supplies will be similarly reduced due to this reduction in dwelling units and the generation of fewer project residents. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 26 H. TOXIC SUBSTANCES ., E~ating Conditions The subject property has been a site of prior agricultural activities, however, no hazardous waste materials were noted on-site. There are about 1,200 facilities that generate hazardous waste within the jurisdictional review of the County of Riverside Health Department. Approximately 25,000 tons of hazardous waste are being generated in Riverside County each year. Most hazardous waste generated in the County is either shipped to off-site locations with a significant and growing portion disposed of out of state or managed on-site by the generator. Previously-Identified Project Impacts The Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation indicates that the presence of hazardous material within a majority of the subject property is i~nlil~ely. However, due to the past agricultural use of the site, there remains the potential for near surface soil contamination due to residues from prior pesticide use. Additionally, located in the northwest area of the site is a fffi area. While no hazardous materials were observed within the fffi area, there remains an inherent uncertainty as to the subsurface fffi contents. Development of the site may include small quantity generators. Small quantity generators are businesses that produce less than 1,000 kilograms Of hazardous waste per month (13.2 tons per year). A large majority of the 1,200 hazardous waste generators under the County's jurisdiction are small quantity generators. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The potential for near surface soil contamination due to residues from pesticide use assodated with prior agricultural activities on-site will remain uncbsnged from the "Original" to the "Revised" project pins. The increase in the nmount of on-site commercial uses from 18.1 to 19.8 acres may result in an increased potential for the establishment of small quantity toxic substance generators. However, given adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR, the levels of impacts related to toxic substances are anticipated to remain unchanged. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 27 I. AGRICULTURE Existing Conditions The primary crops grown on the Csmpos Verdes site are pasture crops including barley and oats. The project site contains Class I and Class II soils which are considered "Prime". The site is designated as "Local Important Farmland" on the Riverside County Agricultural Resources Map. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Implementation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan wffi remove an estimated 132.9 acres of pasture crops, contributing to the decline of such uses in Riverside County. Project implementation will result in urban development on "Local Important Farmland" per the County Agricultural Resources Map. In addition, development will occur on soils that are classffied as "Prime" (soil capabffity Classes I and II) per the Soft Survey. Western Riverside Area. According to the Csliforula Department of Conservation, the loss of any prime agricultural land is considered a significant environmental impact. Due to the relatively small acreage of agricultural use which will be impacted, the commitment of the project site to non-agricultural uses will not adversely affect the agricultural productivity ofthe area. However, construction of various projects in the area will continue and possibly accelerate the trend toward development of agricultural lands in Riverside County. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts Development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in the removal of 132.9 acres of land which contain soils classified as "Prime" per the Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area. This impact is identical to Agriculture-related impacts associated with the "Original" Specific Plan. This loss of prime agricultural land remains as a significant impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. Negligible impacts off-site agricultural land uses due to project development are stffi anticipated to result. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft F. IR. 28 J. OPEN SPACE ANDCONSERVA~ON Edging Conditions The project site is currently used for dryland farming, primarily for barley. The northern portion of the site is zoned R-R (Rural Residential) while the southern portion is zoned A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture). The CAmpos Verdes project site is located in an area which supports many approved and proposed Specific Plans. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Project apprbval will ultimately result in the development of the land uses proposed by the Campos Verdes project. Development of the site with the uses proposed will preclude future use of the site for dryland agriculture and will eliminate the open space and rural atmosphere currently present on-site. Project approval would also result in the placement of on-site zoning and General Plan designations of "Specific Plan". Little in the way of land use conflicts with adjacent land uses are anticipated to result as a consequence of development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts No changes in Open Space and Conservation (land use) impacts related to development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan are anticipated. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 29 K. Wn,DLIFE/VEGETATION ' E~ting Conditions One naturalized biotic community, introduced grassland, is represented on-site. This comm.nlty derives its name from the predominance Of introduced grass and herb spedes which have replaced native vegetation as the result of grazing and other past disturbances. It is a commnnlty which is widespread in Southern California today, particularly in the Western Riverside County area Due to their altered conditions, large, open expanses of introduced grassland pasture and dryland farmed areas generally suppert a limited abundance and diversity of wildlife and dryland farmed area. Several ground-nesting birds and burrowing mammals were observed on-site. Other species typical of grassland foraging habitat were observed on-site as well. The site is located within the geographical range of one species designated as "Endangered" by the U.S. Fish and W~dllfe Service, the Stephen's kangaroo rat. Based on field observations, the site is not believed to contain any habitat areas suitable for the Stephen's kangaroo rat. The site provides habitat for a number of wildJife species, however, none of these species are rare or endangered. The area is considered to be a fairly important raptor wintering area. This determination was made as a result of the area being a location where raptorial birds (hawks, vultures, eagles, owls and falcons) concentrate due to a high abundance of roosting sites, a good supply of prey species (small mammals and birds) and suitable hunting habitat (generally open brushland and grassland). Previously-Identified Project Impacts Construction activities will result in the removal.of physical habitats through cut, fffi and other grading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utilities, fuel modification and flood control. The fwst order impacts of habitat loss will be the direct loss of vegetation and the destruction of less mobile wildlife forms. The impacts of vegetation loss through direct removal will, in turn, have potential effects on wi]dllfe. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either be destroyed or displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they will crowd and disrupt local populations. Although increased competition and predation will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels, either displaced or local wildlife will be lost. Causal factors generated during human activities resulting from the construction and inhabitation of urban land uses may be collectively termed "harassment". Harassment is defined as those activities of man and his domestic animals which increase the physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction in wi]clllfe populations. The most common form of harassment expected to accompany development of the site include excessive construction-related noise, background noise, 3O light and glare and the introduction of feral cats, dogs and children which are unnatural predators and competitors for wildlife. Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to urban development is not considered to be an impact of high significance, nor does it contain the habitat for rare and endangered species and the loss of habitat wffi not be significantly adverse. Impacts to streambeds (or 'q~lue-l/ne streams") on-site, regardless of whether they contain riparian vegetation or sensitive faunal species, will be governed by the California Department of Fish and Game (1601-1603 permit) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permit) and their respective streambed alteration permit processes. As a result, the required amount of replacement habitat shall be provided either on- or off-site. Based upon these findings, it is cenduded that the proposed project will not in and of itself result in significant adverse impacts. Although not significant in itself, the loss of introduced grassland habitat will contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on a regional basis. These impacts which are considered significant include an overall reduction in the native biotic resources of the region and the loss of secondary foraging habitat for migratory populations of birds of prey which are winter visitors to the region. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan maintains the same amount of area being disrupted by grading as the "Original" project plan. Therefore, the direct impacts associated to on-site wildlife and vegetation resources with development of the "Revised" project plan will be similar to those associated with the "Original" project plan. The loss of on-site grassland habitat on a significant impact to off-site areas. These cumulative (or regional) wildlife impacts remain as a significant impact to off- site areas for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared The reduction of 542 dwelling units will result in a reduction in indirect impacts (such as "harassment") of project development upon adjacent floral and faunal resources. No rare or endangered plants or animal species are expected to be impacted by either the "Revised" or "Original" project plans. 5 Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 31 L. ENERGY RESOURCES ~zisting Conditions In its existing vacant condition, the project site consumes 1/ttle or no energy, except that needed in assodation with agricultural use. Previously-Identified Project Trapacts Development of the Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan will increase energy consumption for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and air conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous home appliances, energy required to produce the construction materials and all other material aspects of the project. Natural gas demand for the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is estimated at 4,745,368 cubic feet (c.f.) per month. On-site electricity demand for the "Original" Specific Plan is estimated at 8,375,385 kilowatts (kwh) per year. Although project development will increase the consumption of electrical and natural gas resources the estimated project usage is not considered to be a significant impact. Analysis of Cbs~nges in Project Impacts Based upon similar usage factors as applied to energy calculations for the "Original" Specific Plan, the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is estimated to utilize 2,781,578 cubic feet per month of natural gas and 5,079,483 kilowatts per year of electricity. These totals represent a 41.4% reduction in natural gas usage and a 39.4% reduction in electricity use. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 32 M. SCENIC HIGHWAYS Existing Conditions Interstate 215 is considered both an Ehgible County Scenic Highway and an Eligible State Scenic Highway. State Route 79 (Winchester Road) is also considered an Eligible County Scenic Highway. Several policies apply to uses proposed along these roadway corridors. Previously-Identified Project Impacts The "Original" Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan containa Commercial and Very High Density Residential (17 dwelling units per acre) land uses along its perimeter with State HighWay 79. The "Original" Specific Plan contains a 24 foot Landscape Development Zone and a 25 foot transportation corridor easement along State Highway 79. The project site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas which warrant preservation. Recreational trails or other public recreation facilities are not considered compatible with the noise levels and traffic volumes associated with Winchester Road. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves the snme mount of area being subject to landform alteration (132.9 acres) as is involved with the "Original" Specific Plan. Short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the "Revised" project plan is expected to remain unchanged from those associated with the "Original" project plan. The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the elimination of higher density residential uses from the "Revised" project plan will result in an incremental reduction in long- term project-related aesthetic and scenic highway impacts. Landscape Development Zones and required setbacks are included in the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 33 N. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES Existing Conditions Archaeology A review of the archaeological site records showed no archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, one site (RIV - 1730) is recorded immediately south of the project, near the 1-15 - Winchester Road intersection. The site, however, has been previously mitigated and is no longer in existence. An on-site archaeological field survey, conducted in November, 1988, concluded that no cultural resources were found on the project site. Pal~ntology The project site is primarily composed of recent alluvium with exposures of the Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation is exposed mainly along stream channels, g~,llies and in road cuts. Recent grading monitoring has produced large numbers of fossil vertebrate animals from this formation within the Rancho California and Murrieta area. The earliest recorded fossils were exposed northeast of the Ynez Road and Winchester Road intersection. Over 75 different taxa have been collected from the Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation has contained large numbers of significant vertebrate fossils within the Temecula area contributing to the understanding the Pleistocene paleontology of Southern California and possibly even North America. No paleontological resources were noted during on-site surveys conducted in November, 1988. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Archaeology The absence of any significant archaeological sites or resources on-site eliminates any potential negative impacts that would be incurred as a result of development. Paleontology Project development could expose fossils through grading and other development activities, but at the same time, can destroy these same remains. Considering its past history of fossil discovery, the Pauba Formation is considered to have a Moderate to High paleontological sensitivity. The recent alluvium found on-site is considered to have a low paleontologic sensitivity. However, the recent alluvium over the project site could be a thin veneer and grading could expose the underlying Pauba Formation. Proper mitigation measures are required to reduce the adverse impact of development and protect the paleontological resources of the project area. In response to Draft EIR comments received from the San Bernardino County Museum, an updated Paleontological Assessment (dated December 7, 1992) was performed on the Campos Verdes site by the firm of ElVIW Paleo Associates. The complete text of this Assessment is included as Attachment 1 to the Response to comments pa~,lrage within the Gampos Verdes Final EIR. This revised Paleontological Assessment includes: 1) an assessment of existing paleontelogic resources unearthed at the site. This assessment was based upon the original field surveys (performed in November, 1988) and new ~nflinp resulting from the site's recent use as a borrow areas; 2) given this additional information concernl.~ existl.E resources, an assessment of potential project impacts; and 3) an updated Mitigation Program in response to the proposed Mitigation Program contained withi. the San Bernaraino County Museum letter. Updated mitigation measures are reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project. This Paleontelogical Assessment provides the City of Temecula with an updated assessment of paleontological resources, the result of which are included in the Responses to Comments package within the Campos Vetdes Final EIR. Analysis of Changes in Project XmpaCts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves the same amount of area being subject to landform alteration (132.9 acres) as is involved with the "Original" Spedtic Plan As such, potential impacts to cultural and scientific resources associated with the "Revised" Specific Plan will remain unchanged from those assodated with the "Original" project plan. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 35 O. CH1CULATION E~i~ing Conditions The Campos Verdes project site lies a~acent to and is immediately served by Winchester and Margarita Roads to the north and west of the site, respectively, within the City of Temecula. The southern pertion of the project site is divided by General Kearny Road. The review of 1990/1991 traffic vol-mes and roadway capacities in the project area indicate that all existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a Level of Service C or better except for the following: Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Level of Service D); Ynez Road between the Town Center Drive and Solaria Way (Level of Service D); and Winchester Road between Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 (Level of Service D). Signalized intersection analyses indicated that all but the following intersections currently operate at Service Level "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours: Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak hours); Winchester Road/Ynez Road (Borderline Level of Service C/D during PM peak hour); Rancho C~Jifornia Roadf 1.15 l~mps (Level of Service D during AM peak hour and Level of Service D/E during PM peak hour); and Rancho Cslifornia Road/Ynez Road (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak hours). Previously-Identified Project Impacts Approximately 16,184 vehicle trips would be generated da~y as a result of development of the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Morning peak hour trip generation is estimated to be 997 trips while evening peak hour generation for the project is estimated to be approximately 1,179 vehicle trips. Volume capacity comparisons were made for all roadways which would provide primary access to the Campos Verdes project. Findings of the existing plus project roadway service level analyzes that all of the assumed roadway segments would operate at Level of Service "B" or better. Traffic forecasts were developed to assess the cumulative traffic impacts of the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan and other major development projects. Msjor intersections expected to provide direct access to the Campos Verdes project along Margarita Road are projected to operate at Service Level "B" or better during peak periods in year 2000 development conditions with the project both with and without development of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center. The Margarita Road/General Kearny Road intersection would operate at a Level of Service "B" with the Csmpos Verdes project but without the Regional Center. The five intersections along General Kearny Road would operate at a Level of Service "A" during peak periods at ultimate project development. 36 Intersections along C-mpos Verdes Loop Read within the interior of the project site would also operate at Level of Service "C" or better (using two-way stop sign controls on the minor streets). All off-site roadway segments and intersections in the area would operate at Level of Service "C" or better in the year 2000 assuming the Carnpes Verdes project is not developed with the exception of the five roadway segments and seven intersections. Additional intersection capacity utilization calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at Service Level "D" or worse with the project: The analyses indicate that with additional intersections improvements, peak hour service levels could be maintained or improved to Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The following discussion of changes in project impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campes Verdes Specific Plan are based upon additional analyses performed by the traffic engineer, W~bur Smith Associates. The results of their analyses are included as Attachment "A" to this Addendure to the Draft EIR. In addition to the project revisions previously noted within this Addendure EIR, these additional analyses reflect the closure of Starling Street and Sanderling Way through the project site. These analyses identify the percentage roadway utilization contributions of the "Revised" Specific Plan as well as the project's percentage implementation responsibility for off-site circulation improvements. Table 7, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campes Verdes Specific Plan and Table 8, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan, provide summaries of the vehicle trip generation totals associated with the "Revised" and "Original" project plans, respectively. A comparison of the two tables indicates that the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan generates a total of 12,268 vehicle trips per day, a reduction of approximately 24.2% from the total vehicle trips (16,184) associated with the "Original" Specffic Plan. The reduction in morning peak hour trips is less (12.2% for the AM Peak Hour and 22.7% for the PM Peak Hour) due to the trip generation characteristics of the newly-proposed elementary school. It should be noted, however, that most of the morning peak hour trips generated by the school would be internal to the project and therefore the resulting reduction in off-site trips during morning peak hour could in fact approach the 24% percent level expected for the daily period. According to the Traffic Engineer, the reduction in the intensity of proposed land uses within the "Revised" Carnpos Verdes Specific Plan and the resultant reductions in project traffic as noted above will more than compensate for the closure of Starling Street and Sanderling Way. 37 TABI,E 7 VEmCI ,E TRlP GENERATION 'REVISED' CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN Planniug Area/ Land Use Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Area 2/ Commercial Office 1,560 125 125 Area 3/Single Family Residential Area 4/ Neighborho~xl Retail Center 760 59 55 7,200 360 518 Area 5/Single 860 67 63 Family Residential Area 6/Single 720 56 53 Family Residential Area 7/ 428 150 43 Elementary School Area 8/Single Family Residential Area 9/Single Family Residential Project Total 560 44 41 180 14 13 12,268 875 911 Trip distribution for the "Revised" project proposal would not vary significantly from that associated with 'the "Original" project proposal. In the assessment of off-site impacts of the "Revised" project proposal, it is assumed that General Kearny Read will not be extended to the east to Nicolas Read. 38 TABLF.. 8 VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION "ORIGINAL" CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PlAN Planning Area/ Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Area 2/ 1,860 145 146 Commercial Office Area 3/Multi 2,495 168 177 Family Residential Area 4/ 8,000 409 574 Neighborho~od Retail Center Area 5/Multi 1,769 122 134 Family Residential Area 6/Single 1,410 110 103 Family Residential Area 7/Single 650 43 45 Family Residential Project Total 16,184 997 1,179 The Traffic Engineer has evaluated the implications of the "Revised" project land use plan (which results in 24.2% fewer vehicle trips) on off-site traffic impacts and associated mitigation needs. The analysis focuses on those off-site roadway segments and intersections which were projected in the Traffic Analysis for the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan to operate at Level of Service "D" or worse (for roadway segments) or Level of Service "E" or worse (for intersections). All other roadway links and intersection would continue to operate at Levels of Service "C" and "D" or better, respectively. Table 9, Comparison of Traffic Impacts lists the off-site roadway segments and intersections which were originally projected to operate at Levels of Service "D" and "E", respectively. This table also lists the Levels of Service on these roadway segments and intersections resulting from development of the "Revised" project plan. 39 TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS Roadway Segment Winchester Road (between 1-15 and Ynez Rd.) Ynez Road (between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek) Jefferson Avenue (between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek) Date Street (between Jefferson Ave. and Jackson Ave.) Washington Avenue (between Cherry St. and Date St.) Intersections Ynez Road/Winchester Road (without improvements) (with improvements) Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road (without improvements) (with improvements) "Original" Project Level of Service "Revised" Project Level of Service F F D D D D D D D D AM/PM Peak Hour Level of Service AM/PM Peak Hour Level of Service D/E D/E D/D D/D F/D F/I) D/D D/D As noted above, the "Revised" project plan results in the Levels of Service on the roadway segments and intersections noted above which remain unchanged from those associated with the "Original" project plan. Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service on the majority of these roadway segments were not affected since these roadways are distant from the project and project-related traffic on these links represent a small portion of the total project traffic on these roadways. 4O Revisions to the proposed project land use will result in lower project-related traffic volumes on all on-site roadways, however, this reduction is small relative to the cumulative development year 2000 traffic projections. No modifications are suggested to the previously-identified recommended improvements. A comparison of intersection service levels with previously recommended improvements is also presented in Table 9, above. In response to the City's request to provide general guidelines regarding implementation schedule needs for area roadway improvements, the following improvements have been recommended: a) Widen General Kearny Road to its ultimate cross-section between Margarita Read and Camlno Carapos Verdes prior to occupation of Planning Areas 3 and 7 of Csmpos Verdes Phase I; b) Install an interim signal on Margarita Road at Solana Way prior to 50% occupation of Campos Verdes Phase I; and c) Complete construction of Margarita Read as a 4-lane Arterial section prior to occupation of Planning Areas 2 and 4 of Csmpos Verdes Phase II. These guidelines should be reviewed in more detail at the time that building permits are processed for the project. Readway Capacity Utilization values (fair share implementation responsibility assessments) identified in the earlier Traffic Studies for other area roadway improvements should be factored by 75.8% to adjust for the reduction in Campos Verdes trip generation as noted above. In spite of these measures, the level of impacts related to circulation and traffic is considered to represent a sig~ifl. cant adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 41 p. UTILITIES AND SERVICES 1. F.x~ing Conditions The proposed project is serviced by the utility agencies noted in Table 10, Utility Agencies. TABI.i~. 10 UTILITY AGENCIES Service Water Sewer Fire Polic~ Schools Parks and Recreation Natural Gas Electricity Solid Waste Libraries Health Services Agency Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Fire Department City of Temecula, Police Department Temecula Valley Unified School District City of Temecula Southern California Gas Company Southern California Edison Company County of Riverside, Waste Management Department and private haulers Riverside City/County Public Library Private' Hospitals Previously-IdentLr, ed Project Impacts Development of the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan wffi result in an incremental increase in demand upon all affected public utilities and services. Table 11, Public Services and Utilities, Comparisons of Impacts, indicates the extent of these increased demands. 42 TABI.E 11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTII.ITIES, COMPARISONS OF IMPACTS Service Water Sewer Fire Police Schools ~ Parks and Recreation 2 Natural Gas Electricity Solid waste Libraries Health Services 2 "Original" Specific Plan 1,530,000 gallons 816,000 gallons 2,201 new residents 5.1 sworn officers .72 civRian personnel 1.7 patrol cars 593 students 11 acres 4,745,368 cubic ft/month 8,375,3875 kwh/yr. 3,854 tons½year 2,201 new residents 2,201 new residents Based upon recent student generation factors Valley Unified School District "Revised" Specific Plan 285,240 gallons 151,800 gallons 798 new residents 1.8 sworn officers .26 civilian personnel .6 patrol cars 271 students 3.9 acres 2,781,578 cubic ft./month 5,079,483 kwh/yr. 1,396 tons/yr. 798 new residents 798 new residents provided by the Temecula Based on the City Standard of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population With the exception of the schools and parks factors noted above, the same generation factors used in the Draft EIR as applied to the "Original" project plan were utilized in the above table. Impacts to certain services (fwe, libraries, health services) relate directly to the number of project residents, the respective totals of which are noted above. In spite of these decreases, impacts to libraries still remain as a significant adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts As noted in Table 11, Public Services and Utilities, Comparison of Impacts, all affected public service and utility agencies experience a reduction in project-related impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan as compared to the "Original" project plan. In spite of these decreases, a significant impact to library services remain and will still require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 43 Q. LIGHT AND GLARE Exdsting Conditions The project site is currently vacant and emits an insignificant ~mount of light and glare. The proposed project is located within the 30 mile Specinl Lighting Area of the Mr. Palomar Observatory. Previously-Identified Project Impacts The development of 850 residential ~nits and 23.9 acres of commercial and commercial/office space within the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in the placement and installation of street lighting as required by the City of Temecula. Additionally, entry monumentation and signage as well as parking lot lighting may also require ~umination. Due to the project's location relative to the Observatory, the on-site lighting requirements, as well as potential light and glare caused as a result of reflections off buildings utilizing reflective materials, could potentially result in a condition known as "skyglow", which interferes with the use of the telescope at the observatory. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the illumination of higher density residential uses from the "Revised" project plan wffi result in an incremental reduction in light and glare impacts. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. · R. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS F~ating Conditions Earthquakes, floods and wildland fires are natural occurrences which cannot be prevented. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster, the County Office of Disaster Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the various agencies to assure preparedness and recovery of such an event. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Potential impacts to the "Original" Campos Verdes Center Specific Plan such as seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire services ar discussed in their respective sections of the Draft EIR. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798 persons) as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan (2,207 new residents). This decrease of 1,403 project residents (63.7% of the previous total) results in fewer residents being exposed to potential seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire hazards. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 45 IV. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS Cumulative linDact Analvsls The Cumulative Impact Analysis as contained on pages V-160 through V-169 of the Cnrn.uos Verdes Draf~ EIR would remain unchsn~ed with implementation of the "Revised" C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan. S,,mmarv of Unavoidable Adverse Ironacts As noted in Section I.C., Summary Analysis on pages 3 and 4 of this Addendure to the Draft EIR, signi~nt impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan remain in the following impact areas: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and'Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife/Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities and Services (libraries) for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. Project revisions as reflected within the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specffic Plan have resulted in significant reductions in impacts in the impact areas of flooding, fire services, sheriff services, schools and utilities. The project-related impacts in these areas were considered significant in the Campes Verdes Draft EIR but with implementation of the "Revised" Cempos Verdes Specific Plan, they have been reduced to a non-significant level. None of the net changes in project impacts noted result in the creation of new unavoidable adverse environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the C~mpos Verdes Draft EIR. Alternatives to the Prooosed Project This d/scussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project as contained on pages V-173 through V-195 of the Campos Verdes Draft EIR presents several alternatives to the proposed project. The range of alternatives selected would still apply to the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The quantified comparisons of impact of each alternative with the "Original" Specific Plan as contained in the Draft EIR have been revised and are reflected in the Findings of Fact which wffi become part of the Final EIR. It should be acknowledged that the Reduced Density Alternatives No. i and 2 within the Draft EIR were rejected in favor of the previous proposal, referred to herein as the "Original" Compes Verdes Specffic Plan. Adoption of the "Revised" Specific Plan is occurring with the recognition that some of the reasons for rejection of these two alternatives may be applicable to the currently proposed (or "Revised") project plan. Although the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan eliminates the higher density residential uses, this land use is eliminated with the recognition that the resultant reduction of impacts is a viable trade-off to the loss of these affordable housing opportunities. In addition, an available stock of similar housing is available elsewhere within the City of Temecula and adjoining areas. 46 Growth Inducinff TroDacts. the Relationship Between Local Short- Tern Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of Lonff-Term Productivit~r. and Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Enertrv Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented The discussion of growth inducing impacts, long-term productivity, and irretrievable commitments of resources as contained on pages V-196 through V-198 of the Draft EIR would remain unchanged with implementation of the "Revised" CampOe Verdes Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNERS 3600 LIME STREET * SUITE 22o · RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 · (909) 274'0566 · FAX (909) 274'9220 April 30, 1994 Mr. Barry Burnell Principal Turrini & Brink 3242 Halladay Street, Suite 100 Santa Ana, California 92705 Re: Campos Verdes S.P. No. 1/EIR Addendum Dear Barry, RECEIVED MAY 2 1994 CrTYOF'rBdECULA ENGINEERING 0EPAR I TM!~V/' Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has carefully reviewed the recently proposed modifications to the Campos Verdes land use plan. The proposed land use modifications essentially involve the following: 1) All 644 multi-family residential dwelling units have been eliminated; 2) Single family residential dwelling units have increased from 206 to 308; 3) Both the commercial office and commercial retail center have been reduced in size; and 4) An elementary school has been added to the project. A copy of the revised land use plan is attached as Exhibit A. These recent changes in the on-site circulation plan have precipitated the need to prepare the following addendure material which supplements the current traffic study document. The following sections discussed the most significant implications which these changes have on the findings of the earlier study. ALBANY. NY · ATLANTA. GA , CAIRO. EGYPT · CHARLESTON. SC · COLUMBIA. SC · COLUMBUS. OH · DES MOINES. IA * FALLS CHURCH. VA HONG KONG, HOUSTON. TX · KNOXVILLE. TN · LEXINGTON. KY · LONDON. ENGLAND * LOS ANGELES. CA , MIAMI. FL · NEENAH. Wt NEW HAVEN. CT · OAKLAND. CA · ORLANDO. FL · PRTSBURGH. PA · PORTSMOUTH. NH · PROVIDENCE. RI · RALEIGH. NC , RICHMOND. VA RIVERSIDE. CA * ROSELLE. IL, SAN FRANCISCO. CA · SAN JOSE. CA * SINGAPORE · TAMPA. FL · TORONTO. CANADA * WASHINGTON. DC EMPLOYEE'OWNED COMPANY Mr. Barry Burnell Campos Verdes Modifications April 30, 1994 Page 2 Project Trip Generation Presented in Tables A-1 a and A-1 b are summaries of the previous and currently proposed project trip generation respectively. A comparison of the two indicates that the current land use plan would generate 3,916 fewer tips per day, a reduction of approximately 24 percent. The reduction in morning peak hour trips is somewhat less due to the trip generation characteristics of the elementary school. It should be noted however that most of the morning peak hour trips generated by the school would be internal to the project and therefor the resulting reduction in off-site trips during morning peak hour would in fact approach the 2a, percent level expected for the daily period. Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the modified project land use would not vary significantly from that for the previous proposal. in the assessment of off-site impact implications of the current proposal it is assumed that General Kearny Rd. will not be extended to the east to Nicolas Rd. Analysis of Traffic Impacts WSA has evaluated the implications of the currently proposed project land use (which results in approximately 24 percent fewer vehicle trips) on off-site traffic impacts and associated mitigation needs. Given the de-intensification proposed for the project, the analysis focuses only on those off-site roadway segments and intersections which were projected in the previous study to operate at Level of Service D or worse (for roadways) or Level of Service E or worse (for intersections). All other roadway links and intersections would continue to operate at Level of Service C or better. Off-site roadway segments projected in the earlier traffic study to operate at Level of Service D or worse for year 2000 conditions with the project include: · Winchester Rd. between l-15and Ynez Rd. (LOS F-V/C = 1.11); · Ynez Rd. between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek (LOS D - V/C = 0.82); Mr. Barry Burnell Campos Verdes Modifications April 30, 1994 Page 3 Jefferson Ave. between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek (LOS D - V/C = 0.90); · Date St. between Jefferson Ave. and Jackson Ave. (LOS D - V/C = 0.81 to 0.84); and · WashingtOn Ave. between Cherry St. and Date St. (LOS D ~ V/C = 0.90). With the currently proposed project land use, level of service would remain the same on all roadway segments, On the Winchester Road segment however, the projected V/C ratio would drop from 1.11 to 1.09. Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service on the majority of these roadway segments were not affected since these roadways are distant from the project and project-related traffic on these links represents such a small portion of the total projected traffic. Most of these roadway links are projected to serve less than 200 project trips per day and a reduction of 48 trips or less per day has little affect on the volume to capacity ratio. Off-site intersections projected in the earlier study to operate at Level of Service E or worse for year 2000 conditions with the project include: · Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.- A.M. ICU = 90, LOS D P.M. ICU = 94, LOS E · Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd.- A.M. ICU = 109, LOS F P.M. ICU --- 89, LOS D With the currently proposed land use, the reduction in peak hour traffic at the two critical intersections would result in the following Intersection Capacity Utilization and level of service values: · Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.- A.M. ICU = 89, LOS D P.M. ICU = 93, LOS E · Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd,~ A.M. ICU = 10g, LOS F P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D Mr. Barry Burnell Campos Verdes Modifications April 30, 1994 Page 4 While a reduction in the ICU value was attained at the Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd. intersection, .it was not sufficient to improve the level of service. The reduction in project traffic at the Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd. intersection ranged from approximately 9 vehicles during the morning peak hour to approximately 20 vehicles du~ing the evening peak hour. This reduction in total traffic was not sufficient to reduce the ICU value or improve the level of service. Recommended Improvements Revisions to the proposed project land use will result in lower project-related traffic volumes on all on-site and off-site roadways however the reduction is small relative to the cumulative development year 2000 traffic projections. No modifications are suggested to the previously identified recommended improvements. A comparison of critical intersection service levels with previously recommended improvements is presented below. With 0rioinal Proiect With Current Proiect · Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd. A.M. ICU = 85, LOS D P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D A.M. ICU = 84, LOS D P.M. ICU = 88, LOS D · Jefferson Ave. & A.M. ICU = 85, LOS D Winchester Rd. .P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D A.M. ICU = 84, LOS D P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D Roadway Implementation Issues In response to the City's request to provide general guidelines regarding implementation schedule needs for area roadway improvements WSA has developed the following recommendations: Widen General Kearny Rd. to its ultimate cross-section between Margarita Rd. and Camino Campos Verdes prior to occupation of Planning Area 3 and 7 portion of Campos Verdes Phase I. · Install interim signal on Margarita Road at Solana Way prior to 50 percent occupation of Campos Verdes Phase I. Mr. Berry Burnell Campos Verdes Modifications April 30, 1994 Page 5 · Complete construction of Margarita Road 4-lane Arterial section prior to occupation of Planning Area 2 and 4 portions of Campos Verdes Phase II. These guidelines should be reviewed in more detailed at the time that building permits are processed for the project. Please note tF~e following levels of project impact on Margarita Rd. and General Kearny Rd. are expressed as the percent of the maximum daily traffic capacity (utilized by Campos Verdes traffic): Margarita Rd. Solana Way to General Kearny Road - 6 to 8 percent General Kearny Road to Winchester Road - 10 to 17 percent · General Kearny Rd. Eastern project boundary to Margarita Rd. - 1 to 14 percent Roadway Capacity Utilization values (fair share implementation responsibility assessments) identified in the earlier study documents for other area roadway improvements should be factored by 76 percent to adjust 'for the reduction in Campos Verdes trip generation. Wilbur Smith Associates trusts that this addendure analysis will assist City of Temecula staff in their ongoing review of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have questions regarding this material. Sincerely yours, Wilbur Smith Associates Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENT B CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE TEMECULA V~kT,T,EY UNWIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Pathtie B. Novomey, Ed.D. RECEIVED APR 2 11S 4 Ans'd .......... BOARD O= EDUCATIOh April 18, 1994 (supplements February 28, 1994 and March 8, 1994 comments/ Steve Jia~nino City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: . Campo$ Verdes Specific Plan Conditions Dear Mr. Jiannino: The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific Plan as presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994: · Elementary School Site We understand that the developer has included an 11.1 acre school site in an Alternative Land Use Plan. The District is in favor of this site, which could become a part of the mitigation agreement. (ref 3/7/94 dwg.) Although the site will need formal State Department of Education (SDE) approvals, many of the SDE areas of concern (airport proximity, flood plain, dam inundation) are not issues with the proposed site. The District will require good pedestrian, bus and parent vehicle access to this site. · School Facilities Mitigation Agreement The number of new dwelling units is being determined for this development. Through new housing student generation data, we have determined the following generation rates in the Temecuta Valley Unified School District: # of students per dwelling unit Elementary School: ,39 Middle SchooL: ,24 High School: ,25 Total .88 The number of new students is determined by multiplying the new dweiiin9 units by these facto, s, which for a 306-unit single-family development would be 119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students. Prior to Specific Plan approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program. Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School District information as indicated in the attachments. If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340. Director of Facilities Development ' cc: Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc. 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Ternecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 \pril 18, 1994 C, ampos Verdes Specific Plan Conditions Section V {TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/19/94) SCHOOLS a. Existing2 Conditions The proposed project lies within the Temecuia Valley Unified School District FFVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5) schools, two middle (grades 6-8} schools and two high (gcades 9-12) schools. · The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation. · Attached Dwellinn Units: Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit; Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit · Detached Dwellinq Units: Grades K-5 - 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit; Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit The proposed 306 single-family residential units located in Campos Verdes will generate approximately 269 students (119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned above). Because a single elementary site, and no middle or high school site is proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 119 elementary students could be accommodated on-site, but the middle and high school students would require accommodation off-site, As previously mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated by th~s prolect wifi place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP The Campos Verdes project lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. The City General Plan adopted in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts. c. General Plan Implementation Proqram In accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District, prior to Specific Ran approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms: 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of school fees Dedication of land and/or facilities Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District Levying of a special tax Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District d. Level of SiGnificance After Mitioation Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an ~nsignificant level. m.¢:,_ "¢:"r OC) >- .¢: ,,,h- _~w,, x L.W CAMPOS VERDES .× ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN 2/2 / ~ ~ MEDIUM OBNSITY \ / / MEDIUM i ~' j' _~ P,A, 6 12,6 AC MEADOWVIEW VERDES P.A, 6 -'- ,-~ P.A,; \ F.Aa MULTI-FAMILY ~ . SCHOOL" 17.4 AC ATTACHMENT NO. 8 RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS UNDER SEPARATE COVER ATTACHMENT NO. 9 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vg, w ~2 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE1MENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING TSE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 (STATE Ct,EARINGHOUSE NUMBER 89020139) FOR ~ CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 The City of Temecula (the "City") hereby certifies the CAmpos Verdes Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report,. State Clearinghouse Number 89020139, which consists of the Draft EIR, a Response to Comments package and an Addendum EIR (collectively referred to as the "Final EIR" or "FEIR"), and fmds that it has been completed in comphance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pubhc Resource Cede Section 21000, et seq.) CCEQA") and that the City of Temecula has received, reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, all hearings, and submissions of testimony from officials and Departments of the City, the Applicant, the public 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 Code as follows: BACKGROUND The Campos Verdes Specific Plan (the "proposed project") was originally submitted to the County of Riverside for screencheck review on May 3, 1989 as a portion of the "Rancho California Commerce Center Comprehensive General Plan Amendment 179 and Zone Change 5181 and 5188." The Rancho California Commerce Center consisted of 1,049 acres generally situated adjacent to and east of Interstate 15 which at the time was in the unincorporated area of Rancho California, within Riverside County. The 1,049 acre site was situated on both sides of Winchester Read with the portion of the project south of Winchester Read located on the east side of Ynez Road. The project involved a Comprehensive General Plan Amendment (#179) to the Rancho Vffiages Policy Plan, two Zone ChRn~es (5181 and 5188), and the filing of two subdivision maps (Tentative Tract 23336 and Conceptual Plot Plan) in order to conform with and accommodate the land uses that were proposed. Land uses proposed by the Rancho California Commerce Center included three Villages as described below: Camnos Verdes - This v~lage encompassed 135 acres located immediately south of Winchester Read and adjacent to and east of the proposed Regional Center. This development area was proposed to contain a range of residential densities totaling a maximum of 1,225 dwelling units as well as 10 acres of neighborhood commercial uses. Winchester Hills - This village encompassed 72 1 acres located east of Interstate 15 and north of Winchester Road. This area was proposed for a 646 acre Business Park and 75 acres of Rotaft Service/Commercial uses which were intended to generally serve the needs of employees worldng within or customers utilizing the proposed Business Park. Remional Center - This area encompassed 193 acres located immediately south of Winchester Road and east of Ynez Road. The majority of this area was proposed for a regional shopping center containing a regional mall, a 500 room hotel and specialty retail, office, limited residential and retail land uses. The Regional Center was, at that time, intended to provide both local and regional commercial opportunities to future on-site residents as well as persons residing outside the subject property. Subsequently, the Rancho California Commerce Center was split into four separate projects which included: the Campos Verdes Spocific Plan (the "proposed project") located east of Margarita Road and north of General Kearny Road; the Winchester Hills Specific Plan located east of and adjacent to Interstate 15, extending east to Margarita Road on the north side of Winchester Road; Winchester Meadows located north of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road; and the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan located between Ynez Road and the proposed alignment of Margarita Road and south of Santa Gertrudis Creek. A revised Notice of Preparation for the Campos Verdes project was prepared in February, 1990 by the County of Riverside. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan currently encompasses 230,8 acres and proposes 77.56 acres of mixed Retail/Office/Hotel use, 300 dwelling units proposed as residential fiats over office space, and 97.8 acres of Retail Commercial core use. The Winchester Hffis Specific Plan encompasses 571.6 acres and proposes 1,948 dwelling units, 10.0 acres of schools, 29.8 acres of parks, and 137.1 acres of commercial/office/business park uses. No project applications have been submitted for Winchester Meadows. Kemper Real Estate Management Company (the "Applicant") proposes the 132.9 acre C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan No. I as a master planned mixed use development. The current development proposal involves a total of 308 dwelling units, 10.8 acres of park, 19.8 acres of commercial/office/church uses, a 10.7 acre elementary school, a 5.8 acre detention basin and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways is proposed. In order to accommodate the proposed land uses, a zone change is also required. On December 1, 1989 the City of Temecula was incorporated, approximately seven months after the original applications for the proposed project were fried with the County of Riverside. The unincorporated area in which the proposed project is located became part of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. As a result of the City's incorporation, the application for a General Plan Amendment and associated approvals through the County of Riverside were no longer applicable. 2 These three projects, Campos Verdes, Winchester Hills and Temecula Regional Center are being processed concurrently through the City of Temeculs~ These three projects, in total, are referred to as the "Urban Core" projects. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT An Initial Study for Campos Verdes was prepared by the County of Riverside on March 12, 1990, which identified potential environmental impacts attributable to the proposed project. These potential impacts include: Landform and Topography; Historical Land Use; Geology and Seismicity; Hydrology; Flooding and Drainage; Open Space and Conservation; Climate and Air Quality; So~s and Agriculture; Noise; Hazardous Materials and Wastes; Archaeological/Cultural Resources; Biology; Public Facilities and Services (water and sewer, fire/police service, solid waste, utilities, parks and recreation, schools, airports, libraries, health services); Circulation and Traffic; Energy Conservation; Scenic Environment; Trails; Fiscal Impacts; Growth Inducing Impacts; and, Cumulative Impacts. In addition, the Initial Study identified the necessity to analyze Project Alternatives and provide a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As a result of the Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required. The Initial Study was processed through the County of Riverside until June 1990, when it was forwarded to the City of Temecula for processing as a result of the City's incorporation. A Special Preliminary Development Review Committee Meeting was held by the City of Temecula in December, 1990 for the proposed project. The FEIR analyzed both project and cumulative effects on the potential environmental impacts identified by the Initial Study. The FEIR developed and identified a variety of mitigation measures to minimize, reduce, avoid or compensate for the potential adverse effects of the proposed project. The FEIR also discussed a number of potential alternatives to the proposed project, including: 1~ the "No Project" Alternative; 2) the Existing Zoning Alternative; 3) the Reduced Density Alternative No. 1; 4) the Reduced Density Alternative No. 2; 5) the Increased Office/Commercial Alternative; 6) the Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative; and 7) Alternate Project Sites. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992 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 parties. Responses to the comments received regarding the proposed project and the Draft EIR were prepared, and then reviewed and revised by City staff. This Response to Comments package is included in the FEIR. 3 SECTION 1 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The FEIR identffied and discussed significant effects which will occur as a result of the proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the FEIR, these effects can be mitigated to levels of insignificance except for unavoidable significant impacts in the areas of noise, climate and air quality, and agriculture; as identffied in Section 3 of these findings. Having reduced the effects of the proposed project by adopting the 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. Construction of the proposed project will provide a variety of housing types and styles as well as on-site commercial, office, church and elementary school uses. 2. The proposed project provides complimentary land uses (commercial, office, church, elementary school and residential) within a single mixed use project thereby reducing traffic, noise and air quality impacts associated with automobile trips headed for sjrniJar destinations at a further distance. 3. Construction of the proposed project will provide commercial and office uses that will accommodate a share of the projected community and regional work force by creating long-term employment opportunities thereby enhancing the jobs/housing balance for the area. Additional short-term construction-related jobs will also be created. 4. The proposed on-site commercial and office land uses will serve residents of the project site and those residing in adjacent areas. 5. The proposed project provides a variety of recreational amenities including a 10.8 acre pubhc park, a landscaped flood control detention basin, and Class II bicycle lanes which wffi serve residents of the project site and those residing in adjacent areas. 6. Provision of traffic mitigation measures will provide overall mitigation to address the circulation impacts which are directly attributable to the proposed project and which are indirectly attributable to the proposed project's incremental contribution to cumulative traffic impacts and will therefore benefit the region by adding capacity to critical intersections and roadways. The proposed project 5 implements the City's Master Plan of Highways. 7. Drainage fadlities (i.e. a detention basin) will be constructed on-site to better contain and direct the flow of stormwater runoff through and downstream of the project site. This facility will minimize flooding hazards both on-site and downstream of the project. 8. The proposed project will provide funding for various regional infrastructure elements through the City's Mitigation Fee ProgrAm. 9. Approval of a Specific Plan provides the necessary master planning to insure provision of necessary infrastructure, desired amenities and common landscape and design elements which would not be possible if the property were developed using a "piecemeal" approach. SECTION 2 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE All FEIR 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 Campes Verdes Specific Plan. 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 thdse effects are not considered significant or they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. The mitigation measures referred to below are contained within the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings. Slooes nnd Erosion Potential Impact: Development of the site will require alteration of the existing landform. Approximately 2,616,743 cubic yards of cut and 376,123 cubic yards of fffi will be required. With appropriate permits, the balance of the earthwork will be relocated on the adjacent Temecula Regional Center site. Cut and fffi slopes are anticipated to be stable at ratios of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter to heights often feet. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 15 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Potential Impact: Slope erosion on-site is a signfficant concern regarding surficial stability. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 16 and 17 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impact. 7 Potential Imnact: The development and construction phase of the project will potentially create short-term impacts related to erosion and sedimentation of Santa Gertrudis Creek due to creation of exposed soils during project grading. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 19 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Potential Impact: The development phase of the project will create impermeable on- site surfaces, 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 contribute to cumulative increased flow rates downstream primar~y to Murrieta Creek and the potential for flooding in downstream areas containing undersized facilities. When channel improvements are completed, on-site flood hazards associated with the 100-year floodplain adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek will be eliminated. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the Ft~IR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 18, 20 and 21 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Wind Erosion and Blowsand Potential Imnact: Although the project site lies outside the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Areas designated by the Riverside County General Plan, construction activities (primarily site preparation and grading) wffi generate fugitive dust. An average of .05 tons per day of particulate emissions is estimated to occur. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 6 within the Mitigation Monitoring Progreta will mitigate the identified impact. Water Qualitw Potential Imnact: Project development will alter the composition of surface runoffby grading the site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking 8 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 rimoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the increased degradation of water quality downstream. Findinn: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 22 and 23 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts: Toxic Substances Potential Impact: The presence of hazardous material within the majority of the project site is unlikely, however, due to the past agriculture use of the site, there remains the potential for near surface soft contamination due to residues from prior pesticide use. Also present within the site are several fill areas. Although no hazardous materials were observed within these fffis, there remains the inherent uncertainty as to the subsurface fill contents. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 24 and 25 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Potential Impact: Project development could potentially produce small quantity generators of hazardous waste. Small quantity generators are businesses that produce less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month (such as drycleaners, photo and c~mera stores, or stores dealing with paints or solvents). However, the exact businesses to be included on-site are currently unknown. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 26 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Ooen Soace and Conservation Potential Impact: Project development wffi preclude future use of the site for pasture crops and dryland agriculture as well as eliminate open space and the rural atmosphere currently present on-site. However, the project is designed to minimize 9 land use conflicts with existing and surrounding land uses as well as the conflicts between on-site residential and office/commercial uses through extensive use of Landscape Development Zones. Findin2s: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 17 on page II-15 of the Draft EIR will mitigate the identified impact. EneraN Resources Potential Imnact: Project development will increase consumption of energy for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and air conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous home appliances, and energy required to produce the construction materials and all other material aspects of the project. On-site natural gas demand is estimated to be 2,781,528 cubic feet per month. On-site electricity consumption is estimated to be 5,079,483 kilowatt hours (kwh) per year. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 27 and 28 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Scenic Highways Potential Imnact: Planning Areas 4 and 5 of the proposed project are adjacent to Winchester Road, an Eligible Scenic Highway. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 29 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Cultural and Scientific Resources Potential Imnact: Possible adverse impact to the Pauba Formation, of moderate to high paleontological sensitivity, may occur as a result of project development. No archaeological sites have been observed with project boundaries, however, potential impacts to unknown cultural resources may occur. 10 Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 30 and 31 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Water And Sewer Service Potential Imnact: Project development will increase the demand on water service in the area. The total average day demand for the project is estimated at .816 million gallons daily. The project will require on-site water lines connecting to existing Rancho CAlifornia Water District (RCWD) facilities in order to provide water service to the site. ! The project is estimated to generate .151 million gallons per day of sewage. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 32 and 33 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Potential Impact: No reclaimed water lines or facilities in the project area currently exist. EMWD will 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 FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 33 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Fire Service Potential Imnact: 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 additional residential and commercial development. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 34 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. 11 Sheriff Services Potential Impact: The increase in population as a result of project development will increase criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts and vandalism. As the population and use of an area increases, additional manpower needs are required to meet the increased demand. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above fretting is made in that Mitigation Measure 35 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impacts. School Potential Imnact: The proposed project will generate an estimated 271 students requiring accommodation and increasing demand within off-site Temecula Valley Unified School District facilities. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 36 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. Utilities Potential Imnact: Project development will place additional demand on existing electrical supphes. The project is estimated to utilize 5,079,483 kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity per year. The demand for natural gas will also increase with project development. The project is estimated to consume 2,781,578 cubic feet of natural gas per month. These demand projections do not exceed the service capabilities of the respective utility agencies. While the proposed project wffi place additional demand upon phone service, the phone company has indicated that these demands are well within the service parameters of the General Telephone Company. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 38 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. 12 Parks and Recreation Potential Impact: The proposed project will increase demand for park and recreational facilities. The Quimby Act requirements established by the Temecula Community Service District will be satisfied by the proposed 10.8 acre park/detention basin on- site. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignfficant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 37 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Solid Waste Potential Imnact: Project development will increase the amount of solid waste generated on-site, which in turn will increase the demand upon waste haulers serving the area and will incrementally reduce the lifespan of the affected landfill. The project is anticipated to generate 1,396 tons of solid waste per year. This increase in sohd waste will incrementally shorten the lifespan of the Double Butte Landfill. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 39 through 41 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Health Services Potential Imnact: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of project development. As no' adverse impacts are anticipated, no mitigation measures are proposed. Light and Glare Potential Impact: Project development will result in the installation of street lights as required by the City of Temecula. Entry monumentation and signage may also require illumination. These lighting requirements could result in a condition known as "skyglow," which interferes with the use of the telescope at the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. 13 Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 42 and 43 within the ' Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact. Disaster Preparedness Potential Imnact: Potential impacts associated with the proposed project relative to seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind and blowsand, flooding and fire services are discussed in their respective sections of the Draft EIR. Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the FEIR to an insignificant level. Facts: The' above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures throughout the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts. 14 SECTION 8 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The City has determined that certain environmental effects (both project- related and cumulative) cannot be feasibly or objectively mitigated to a level of insignffi~nce although the FEIR contains 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 1) 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. PROJECT-RElATED EFFECTS Seismic Safety Potential Imnact: The site will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar fault alignment running parallel to the western project boundary. Additionally, it is possible that a 7.0 earthquake along the Elsinore fault zone could create peak ground acceleration on-site of 0.63g with a maximum repeatable acceleration of 0.41g. The site may experience secondary impacts related to a seismic event which include possible liquefaction impacts and possible inundation due to the failure of Skinner Dam. Findings: This impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of insigm~cance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce, to the extent feasible, the adverse environmental effects. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm will partially mitigate the identified impacts. Noisel Potential Impact: Construction noise represents a short-term impact on Ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment can reach high levels. Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR 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 environmental effect. 15 Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation Measure 4 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the identified impact. Potential Impact: Areas along General Kearny Road and Margarita Road may experience noise levels over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Future noise increases due to the project are less than 3 dBa except along an undeveloped portion of Margarita Road. The cumulative noise impacts are considered significant adverse environmental impacts. Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR 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 environmental effect. Facts: The above fLucling is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation Measure 5 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the identified impact. Climate and Air Quality Potential Imnact: An estimated .05 tons of particulate emissions will be released per day as a result of dust generated by construction equipment and winds during the grading phase and site preparation. Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR 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 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) and that Mitigation Measure 6 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the identified impacts. Potential Imnact: The project wffi generate long-term impacts which include mobile emissions resulting from the estimated 12,268 daily vehicle trips, as well as stationary emissions resulting from the estimated 5,079,483 kwh of electricity consumed yearly and the 2,781,578 cubic feet of natural gas consumed monthly. The pollutant generation associated with the proposed project is considered "significant" by the SCAQMD Handbook for Preparing EIR's. Findings: The impacts identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project wffi reduce, to the extent feasible, the 16 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) and that Mitigation Measure 7 within the Mitigation Monitoring ProgTAm will partially mitigate the identified impacts. A~n~iculture Potential Imnact: Project development will remove from production existing pasture crops and dry farmland, as well as resulting in the permanent loss of future agriculture productivity on "Prime Farmland" which is considered a significant adverse impact. Development of the proposed urban uses could hasten the conversion of other agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land value. However, much of the surrounding land is also being processed for urban development in accordance with the City of Temecula, General Plan. Therefore, long- term agricultural use is not envisioned for the project area and no long-term land use conflicts are anticipated as a result of project development. Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR 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 1). No mitigation measures are proposed. Wildlife and Vegetation Potential Imnact: Construction activities will remove physical habitats through cut and fill as well as other grading operations resulting in the direct loss of habitat and the less mobfie 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 wildlife 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 urban development will reduce areawide dryland farming foraging habitat for raptors (birds). Findings: This impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce to the extent feasible the adverse environmental effects. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 8 and 9 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the identified impacts. 17 Circulation and Traffic Potential Impact: The project will generate an estimated 12,268 vehicle trips per day and 85,876 vehicle miles travelled daily. Without mitigation, service levels "D" and ~F' within the Cumulative Development Scennrio (including the project) could be expected along segments of Winchester Road, Date Street, Jefferson Avenue, Washington Avenue and Ynez Road. The Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis indicates that two intersections CYnez Road/Winchester Road and Jefferson AvenueAVinchester Road) within the Cumulative Development Scenario (including the project) would operate at a Levels of Service "D", "E" or "F" during the morning or evening peak hours. Additional roadway improvements will result in all affected intersections operating at Level of Service "D" or better. Findings: This impact as identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce, to the extent feasible, the adverse environmental effects. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 10 through 13 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the identified impacts. Libraries Potential Ironact: The generation of approximately 798 residents as a result of project development will increase overall community demand for library services. Findings: This impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of insignfficance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into_the proposed project design wffi reduce to the extent feasible the adverse environmental effects. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measure 14 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program measure will partially mitigate the identified impact. 16 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. Development of the proposed project will add 72.7 acres containing 308 low and medium density residential use, 19.8 acres of commercial/office/church uses, 10.8 acres of parks, a 5.9 acre detention basin, a 10.7 acre elementary school and 13.0 acres of roads to the area. As the proposed project is located in an area undergoing rapid urbAni zation and is generally Surrounded by future urban uses, significant growth-inducing impacts are difficult to foresee. With the exception of minor extensions, the necessary public utility infrastructure is in place. Street improvements will be required to accommodate projected traffic volumes and utilities that require extension. The growth in the area represented by the proposed project and surrounding projects (Winchester Hffis and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans) is occurring in accordance with the City of Temecula, Draft General Plan. Several land development proposals have been prepared for vacant adjacent properties, therefore, the proposed project is not considered growth-inducing to these surrounding areas. Growth in an area generally begins with the expansion of residential uses which ultimately creates the need for commercial and retail facilities as well as employment needs. The proposed project will provide residents of the City of Temecula with commercial and office uses which, in turn, will reduce vehicle miles travelled in order to find similar services. 19 SECTION 5 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the proposed project described in the FEIR were considered. The alternatives discussed in the FEIR constitute a reasonable range of potential options necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The FEIR identified the "No Project" and "Existing Zoning' alternatives as the environmentally superior alternatives; however, the City did not select these alternatives but approved the proposed project with the FEIR mitigation measures which will 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 1) to substantiate the City's decision to reject the environmentally preferred alternatives because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project. Alternative 1 - The "No Project" Alternative Description of Alternative: The FEIR describes the "No Project" alternative as a continuation of existing undeveloped conditions supporting passive open space uses on the project site. Comnarison of Effects: The "No Project" alternative would eliminate the environmental effects of the proposed project identified in Sections 2 and 3 herein. However, the "No Project" alternative would also not provide the beneficial effects that are associated with the proposed project. The "No Project" alternative would not provide a range of housing opportunities and proposed commercial, office and recreational uses in conformance with the City of Temecula, Draft General Plan. The "No Project" alternative would eliminate employment opport,mities that would enhance the jobs/housing balance of the Temecula/Rancho California area. In addition, otlier project benefits lost with the "No Project" alternative include provision of a 10.8 acre park site and improving the on-site and adjacent roadways. The participation in the contributing of funds or facilities for public services would also be lost with the "No Project" alternative. Finding: The "No Project" alternative is not feasible as this alternative fails to meet project the objectives identified in the FEIR or to provide any of the benefits set forth herein. Facts: The above finding is made in that it has been determined that it is uneconomical to maintain the property in its current natural state over the long-term. This rationale is based on the site's location in relation within a developing urban area. Pressure to develop the land for higher economic uses will continue. Therefore, the "No Project" alternative may postpone rather than preclude use of the property for more intensive land uses. 2O Alternative 2 - l~,x~'ing Zoning Alternative Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 2 represents development of the proposed project site pursuant to the existing R-R (Rural Residential) zoning designation which provides two dwelling units per acre, and the A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture) zoning designation which pexmits one dwelling unit per 20 acres resulting in a total of 79 rural residential units or lots. This alternative would not require a Change of Zone. Comnarison of Effects: Alternative 2 is identified as being an environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to the proposed project, although several would be incrementally reduced significantly in scope. Grading would be reduced due to the reduced residential densities proposed. However, grading could occur without a Master Grading Plan due to uncoordinated construction occurring o~ different parcels. Fewer project residents and structures would be exposed to regional seismic hazards. Anticipated runoff generated by this Alternative is significantly reduced due to the absence of large concrete pads for commercial areas and parking lots. This Alternative would reduce vehicular trips by 93.5% which would significantly reduce impacts to the area-wide circulation system. However, some conflict may occur locally between urban traffic flows found in the area of farm equipment traffic serving the site. The 93.5% reduction in vehicle trips wffi also reduce both on- and off-site noise impacts. However, most of the projected noise impacts in the area are due to other development projects already planned or approved in the area. The 93.5% reduction in vehicle trips will also reduce air quality impacts. Alternative 2 reduces impacts to open space and would allow future use of portions of the site for agriculture. This Alternative would not preclude future agricultural use of "Prime" soils on-site, therefore, no significant adverse agricultural impact would occur. Biological impacts would be decreased with this Alternative. Any additional areas preserved within this Alternative are composed of species not considered to be of biological significance. Impacts associated with historic and prehistoric resources will be reduced due to reduction of grading. Public utilities and services impacts related to fire/police protection, natural gas, electricity, solid waste, and water and sewer would be reduced. The lower residential densities proposed by this Alternative could be accommodated by individual septic tsnks and on-site wells rather than facilities provided by the Rancho Cslifornia Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District. Alternative 2 would result in incrementally decreased impacts to school and park facilities as compared to the proposed project. This Alternative would also result in the reduced ~mount of park and school mitigation fees as compared to the fees collected from the proposed project. Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and Alternative 2, 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, will substantially lessen the environmental effects of the proposed project. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1). Alternative 2 was rejected 21 in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative eliminates provision of a range of residential dwelling unit types, commercial, and office land uses in an area experien~dnff increasing demand for such uses. Alternative 2 eliminates the improvement of on-site and adjacent roadways. Although Alternative 2 allows agriculture uses on-site, due to the availability of public services in the area, given the high cost of irrigation water, limited prime soil distribution, and economic factors associated with development, long-term agriculture use is not considered feasible for the subject property. Alternative 3 - Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 3 proposes 389 dwelling units. Commercial, commercial/office, and park/detention basin uses associated with this Alternative are identical to those associated with the project proposal. Comnarison of Effects: Impacts of Alternative 3 associated with Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation, WildlifeNegetation, Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources, would be incrementally increased as compared to impacts associated with the currently proposed project. This Alternative would increase daily vehicular trips by 26.3%. The 26.3% increase in traffic would increase on- and off-site noise generation. As with Alternative 2, most of the projected noise impacts in the area are due to other development projects in the ares. Vehicular emissions relative to air quality would be increased by approximately 26.3%; these emissions are stffi considered a signfficant impact by the SCAQMD. Alternative 3 would also incrementally increase the impacts associated with water and sewer services, energy consumption and solid waste generation. Impacts to police and fire protection would also be incrementally increased as compared to the proposed project. Impacts to school facilities would be increased as a result of the addition of 81 dwelling units proposed by Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would be required to provide 5.03 acres to satisfy the Quimby Act requixement for park acreage. The 10.8 acre park/detention' basin proposed by this Alternative adequately meets this requirement. Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and Alternative 3, 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, will substantially lessen the environmental effects of the proposed project. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 3 was rejected in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not selected because impacts associated with traffic, noise, sir quality, water, sewer, solid waste generation and other public services will be increased. No significant 22 environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced with this Alternative. Alternative 4- Commercial/Industrial Alternative Desorintion of Alternative: Alternative 4 proposes 615 dwelling units resulting in an addition of 307 dwelling units as compared to the proposed project. Commercial, commercial/office and park/detention basin uses associated with this Alternative are identical to those associated with the project proposal. Comnarison of Effects: The impacts associated with Alternative 4 could be potentially increased as compared to the proposed project in the following areas: Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation, W~dlifeNeg~tation, Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. The daily vehicular trips associated with this Alternative are anticipated to increase approximately 99.6% as compared to the proposed project. As the traffic would be increased by 99.6% with this Alternative, the on- and off-site noise associated with traffic generation will be incrementally increased. Cumulative noise impacts are due to other development projects in the area. Additionally, the 99.6% increase in traffic will incrementally increase the impacts to air quality associated with vehicular emissions. SCAQMD considers the air quality impacts associated with this Alternative to be significant. Impacts associated with water and sewer demand, sohd waste, fire and police protection, schools, electricity and natural gas are also increased as compared to the proposed project. This Alternative is required to provide 7.9 acres of parks to satisfy Quimby Act requirements. The 10.8 acre park/detention basin proposed by this Alternative satisfies this requirement. Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and Alternative 4, 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, will substantially lessen the environmental effects of the proposed project. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 4 was rejected in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not selected because impacts assodated with traffic, noise, air quality, water, sewer, solid waste generation and other public services wffi be increased. No significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced with this Alternative. Alternative 5 - Residential/Commercial Alternative Description of Alternative: Alternative 5 proposes an additional 22.2 acres of Office/Commercial use. Acreage totals associated with proposed Park and Detention Bssin uses are slm~lar to those associated with the proposed project. This results in the provision of 473 dwe11ing units, an increase of 165 dwelling units as compared to the proposed project. Comparison of Effects: Impacts of Alternative 5 associated with Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation, WfldJ~eNegetation, .Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources, would be incrementally greater than those associated with the carrently proposed project. This Alternative would increase daily vehicular trips by 53.6% as compared to the proposed project. The 53.6% increase in traffic would significantly increase on- and off-site noise generation, however, the replacement of residential units with office/commercial uses proposed by this Alternative adjacent to North General Kearny and Margarita Reads would expose fewer residents to noise levels exceeding 65 CNEL. As with other Alternatives; most of the projected noise impacts in the area are due to other development projects in the ares. Vehicular emissions relative to air quality would be increased. These emissions are considered a significant impact by the SCAQMD. Alternative 5 would increase the impacts associated with water and sewer services, energy consumption and solid waste generation. Impacts to police and fire protection would be greater than with the proposed project. Impacts to school facilities would increase as a result of the increase in dwelling units proposed by this Alternative. Alternative 5 would be required to provide 6.12 acres to satisfy the Qnimby Act requirement for park acreage. The 10.8 acres of park use proposed by this Alternative adequately meets this requirement. Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and Alternative 5, 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, will substantially lessen the environmental effects of the proposed project. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 5 was rejected in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not selected because several of the environmental impacts will be increased, including impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, water, sewer, solid waste generation and other public services impacts. No significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced with this Alternative. Alternative 6 - Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 6 eliminates 10.4 acres of Office/Commercial use and replaces it with medium density residential use. However, the overall dwelling unit count for this Alternative totals 651, an increase of 343 dwelling nnits as compared to the project proposal. 24 Comparison of Effects: The impacts associated with Alternative 6 would be increased as compared to the proposed project in the following areas: Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation, W~dlife/ Vegetation, Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. The da/ly vehicular trips associated with this Alternative are anticipated to increase by approximately 6.8% as compared to the proposed project. As the traffic would be increased by 6.8% with this Alternative, the on- and off-site noise associated with traffic generation will, thereby, be increased. Cumulative noise impacts are due to other development projects in the area. Additionally, the 6.8% increase in traffic will increase the impacts to air quality associated with vehicular emissions. SCAQMD considers the air quality impacts associated with this Alternative to be significant. Impacts associated with water and sewer service demand, sohd waste, fire and police protection, ~chools, electricity and natural gas services are also incrementally increased as compared to the proposed project. This Alternative requires provision of 8.4 acres of parks; the 10.8 acre park associated with this Alternative satisfies this requirement. Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and Alternative 6, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed project, as described in Section 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental effects of the proposed project. Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 6 was rejected in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. Several of the environmental impacts are increased as compared to the proposed project. In addition, the number of employment opportunities associated with this Alternative is decreased as compared to the proposed project due to the reduction of on-site commercial/office uses. Alternative 7- Alternative Sites Description of Alternative: Development of the proposed project in areas located north and east of the proposed project was given consideration prior to selection of the current project site. A candidate site within the applicaut's ownership which would physically accommodate the proposed project is the Paloma del Sol (Vail Meadows Specific Plan). Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and Alternative 7, 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, will substantially lessen the environmental effects of the proposed project. 25 Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 7 was rejected in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not selected as development in the areas considered was determined infeasible due to the fact that the higher density residential uses associated with the proposed project would be less compatible with surrounding land uses at the Paloma del Sol alternate site. In addition, the proposed project site's current location provides affordable housing opportunities for employees of the proposed adjacent projects including the Industrial Park within Winchester Hffis and Regional Commercial uses within the Temecula Regional Center. None of the alternate sites can provide this type of contiguous access to future employment opportnnlties. In so doing, automobile trips destined for places of employment are reduced in length which reduces air quality, noise and traffic impacts. In addition, the proposed project at its proposed location provides a '~ifffer" or "infffi" development between proposed high intensity commercial uses to the west and existing residential uses to the east. 26 SECTION 6 FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when a public agency is matting the findings required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1), cedified as Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the public agency shall 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 that the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm, which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings, 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 effects. 27 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 signfficaut environmental effects thereef as identified in the FEIR. 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 identified 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). Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the overriding concorns set forth in the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section 1). 28 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM z8 :agVcl 5rlBd /.98~P1~089 Z:Z :laZ .j t98E:PI~889 8T :66 PEET/E:8/96 abed -- ,Z90£995089, iiiojj .. leZt:Ot 9~t '£ ~nr Xep!jjJ 1~0 ~gVd L96EI~<;989 6T :66 ~9 :]gV~ 9fi9(~ L96~I~,SOB~J ~:6 :WE 1~66T/Z:8/96 E9 ]gvcl 9118(I L98El, li089 E8 :cI 1~6G'E/Z:8/g8 ~(. ¥mmd -- #ygO('e~.SOe~m moJ~l -- mild~t):Im I'(~l, '~ ~inp Xep~jnr4].~ z Oz =" z S8 ]9~d 91'18(~ -'98E:I~I~5889 E:B :ST 1~66T/~0/98 I~ e6ed -- ,ZgO£~'g;O99, I~oJ:l -- mcl*/O:*/~'661, 'Z aunt Aepsjnql~ Z .=_ o Z ATTACHMENT NO. 11 CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM PHASING PLAN DRAFT RECEIVED JAN 0 8 1993 CITY OF TENIECULA ADDENDUM E]R CAMPOB VERDEB BPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 EIR NO. 348 !! l ! Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (714) 694.6400 Prepared By: Douglas Wood & Assodates 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan Findings of the traffic analysis indicate that, at projected bufid-out of the three Kernper/Bedford projects substantial roadway improvements will be needed in the study area. It is important to recognize that principal roadway improvements which comprise the planned City of Temecula Circulation Element will be needed in the future whether or not the proposed projects are implemented. Although these new and improved roadway facilities would be serving the immediate acce~ ne..exls of these proposed projects and other numerou~ planned development projects within the study area, most of the improvements would also play an important role in serving the general circulation needs of the Temecula commercial core area which straddles the 1-15 corridor. Some of the improvements (e.g. Winchester Road - S.R. 79 widening and 1-15f~Vinchester Road interchange reconstruction) w?uld even serve future regional circulation needs. The intent of the "conceptual circulation system phasing plan' developed in this study is to present a logical implementation sequence for the construction of needed area-wide roadway improvements which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the proposed Kernper/Bedford projects. It should be noted that project build-out (assumed Year 2000) roadway needs have essentially been based on full development (build-out) of all land uses within the immediate study area. ' The market driven implementation rate of major development projects in the area will have very strong influence on the timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development projects are implemented, they will require access. Many of the phased roadway improvements suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local access needs and at the same time work towards completing the ultimate area-wide circulation network. In some cases, the phased improvement is over-designed for the anticipated local development access needs but considers ultimate needs and the desire to mivlmiTe future construction impacts related to phased widening (e.g., initially building two lanes and the widening to four lanes at the later date). The assec~sment of financing/implementation respons~ilities for area-wide roadway impwvements should consider that the key elements of the planned circulation system (including the 0vedarid overpass, Data Street overpa.~, and Winchester Interchange improvements) will be needed even if proposexi Kernper/Bedford development projects are not implemented. Sinco it is more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long-term (5 to 10 years) development than short-term (1 to 5 years) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs for implementation periods beyond 5 years could vary significantly from the conceptual plan presented in this study. It is also important to consider that many of the roadway improvements identified would involve a multi-jurisdiction/agency review and coordination process which could impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein. 9 Anticipated Project Development Phasing - Project phasing assumed in this analysis is based on the Proiect Phasing Plan presented in the individual Specific Plan documents. Sue to changing market strategies, these phasing plans have been developed as a 'guideline' only for City review and monitoring. Future market demands may dictate varying approaches to phasing which could alter the currently expected rate and/or sequence of project implementation. Project Phasing Plan assumptions are illustrated in Figures 4, 11, and 18 for the Temecula Regional c~nter, Winchester HilLs, and Camps Verdes projects respectively. A more detailed breakdown of project phasing assumptions including anticipated development status and corresponding trip generation (both incremental and cumulative) by six analysis time periods is presented for each Kernper/Bedford project in Tables 1 through 3. Anticipated Background Development - In order to analyze roadway system implementation phasing needs, it was n~?.asary to make general assumptions regarding the rate and location of other area development. For the purposes of this assessment it was assumed that other area development would build-out at a constant rate over the next eight years and in a manner which would evenly distribute the new development throughout the study area. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing - Results of the circulation system phasing as.sessment are presented in Figur~ 5 through 10 Cfem~ula Regional Center), Figures 12 through 17 (Winchester Hills), and Figures 19 through 24 (Campo~ Verdes). It should be noted that the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan is identical for each of the three projects. The individual phasing plans differ only in tern~ of the specific project development status and the corresponding cumulative project trip generation given for each implementation period. Our approach in preparing the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan included planning level asse,~ments which focused on the immediate access needs of each project as well as capacity of key congestion "bottle necks" such as the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection and Winchester Road/L15 interchange. The proposed roadway impWvement implementation sequence has been formulated to provide incremental stages of relief to these congestion prone areas. Additionally, Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 88-12 have been considered in the development of the Phasing Plan. It is important to recognize that the Conceptual Circulation systems Phasing Plan prnsented herein does not imply that the individual Kernper/Bedford projects would be respons~le for implementing the roadway improvement neexts identified in the Conceptual Phasing Plan. At the same time, it also needs to be recognized that the rate at which projects in the study area are permitted to develop should be correlated to the circulation systems' ability to adequately accommodate the traffic which these projects w~'ll generate. ! g I [ I I I I I_ l I I 10 1 ! I I As pan of our roadway phasing assessment, we have identified a number of improvements which are currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the development of the individual Kernper/Bedford projects. This does not suggest that the identified improvement,' but rather the timely implementation of the identi~ed improvement would influence the status of traffic congestion in the area. The resulting congestion levels could influence the City's ability to issue building permits. Temecula Regional Center (Refer to Figure 5 through 10) Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period: Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solann Way to Winchester Road. ~nez Road widening from project boundavj south to Rancho California Road. Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. New signal installations on Winchester Road to Margarita Road, Nicolas Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Projected 1994 to 1995 Implementation Period: Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solaria Way to Wir~chester Road. New signal installations on Overland DHve at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and Margarita Road. New signal installations on Winchester Road at Temecula Regional Center access roads. On-site circulation system improvements/access connections. Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements. Two-lane interim Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Projected 1996 to 1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and Sate Street. new signal installation on Margarita Road at Date Street. Two-lane extension of General Kearney Road easterly to Nicolas Road. · Projected 1998 to 1999 Implementation Period: Date Street overpass improvements. 11 I I ! I I ! I I ] I I ] I I I I ] Projected 1999 to 2000 Implementation Period: Winchester Road widening between 1-15 and Ynez Road. Jackson Avenue widening from the Temecula City limit to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Winchester Hills [Refer to Figures 12 through 17) Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period: · Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. ' Twoqane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. :Four-lane extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment On-site loop street and connector street improvements as depicted in Figure 12. Widening of Jefferson Avenue from Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road. New signal installation on Winchester Road at Margarita and Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersections. Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period: Two-lane interim improvement of Date Street west of Ynez Road. Four-lane improvement of Date Street from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. Widening of Margarita Road from Solaria Way to Winchester Road. Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Six-lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Figure 1~1. Four-lane on-site and two-lane interim off.site improvement of Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue to Mun'ieta Hot Springs Road. On-site loop street and connector street improvements as illustrated in Figure 14. Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margafita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector Street, and Date Street/Ynez Road intersections. New signal installations at Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road/Project Connector Street intersections. Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements. 12 Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange 9verpass widening. Date Street widening from Lincoln to Margarita Road. New signal installations on Date Street at Ynez Road, Lincoln and Margarita Road intersections. New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and the Project Connector Street intersections. Projected 1998-1999 Implementation Period: Construction of the Date Street overpass and installation of new signals on Date Street at Madison Avenue and the Business Park access street, New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Business Park act. e~ street, · Projected 1999-2000 Implementation Period: Widening of Jackson Avenue between the City limit and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Campos Verdes Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period: Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Sotana Way to Winchester Road. Four-lane improvement of Oeneral kearney Road from the new Margarita Road alignment to the easterly project limits. Solana Way widening between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road. Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solana .Way. Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period: Four-lane v~dening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and Margarita. New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and General Kearney Road. Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchang~ ramp improvements. New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes road. 13 Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. Two-lane C~neral Kearney Road enension from easterly project limits to Nicolas Road. Projected 1998-2000 Implementation Period: (No system improvements asser,~d to be critical to the development of Campos Vetdes. Recommended Mitigation Measures The formulation of recommended mitigation measures for the three Kernper/Bedford urban core projects has been based on a number factors including: 1. Findings of the original traffic impact studies prepared for the projects; 2. Findings of the project-related traffic utilization analysis of planned area roadway system capacity; and Findings of the conceptual circulation system phasing analysis. Assessments of area roadway capacity utilization reveal that cumulative project traffic impacts are wide-spread but vary significantly in terms of magnitude. Furthermore this analysis also reveals that project trips are comprised of a combination of new trips and diverted trips. New trips consist of those project trips which would clearly be added to roadway network such as those vehicle trips which would have one end of the trip within the project and one end outside of the study area. Diverted trips des. scribe those project-related trips on area roadways which result from the interaction of land uses within the projects and other local area land uses (both existing and planned). With diverted trips, the associated traffic impacts can not be defined as the respons~ility of the projects under study since the opposite end of these trips, in effect, is being generated by other area land uses. At best the impacts of these trips could be assessed as the responsibility of the land use which is closest to the location where the impact occurs. It would not be equitable for the Kernper/Bedford projects to assume full respons~ility for the impact of these diverted trips since elimination of the Kernper/Bedford projects would not eliminate the land uses which are generating the opposite ends of these trips. Without the Kemper/Be. dford projects these trips would essentially be redistn'buted to interact with other local or regional development 14 In terms of the dispersion of project related traffic impacts (e.g. roadway capacity ut;liT~tion), it is not practical to assess widespread roadway implementation cost respons~ilities when 'fair share' assessments represent very small portions of the cost to implement indMdual roadway improvements. The approach taken in this assessment is one which recognizes the cumulative impacts over a widespread area and concentrates an equivalent mitigation effort in a strategic and more effective malL~er. Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kemper/Baiford projects are summarized b~lo~. .1. 50 percent implementation respons~ility for Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murrieta City '.limit~ to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. · Winchester Hills is assessed 90 percent of the mitigation. · Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of the Mitigation. 2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation respons~ility for the Date Street overpass. · Winchester Hills is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation. 28 percent implementation respens~ility for the Winchester Road interchange overpass widening and currently planned ramp widenings. · Winchester Hills is assessed 17 percent of the mitigation. Temecula Regional Center is assessed 80 percent of the mitigation. Cempos Vetdes is assessed 3 percent of the mitigation. 5 percent implementation respons~ility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road). · Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Vetdes is assessed 40 percent of the mitigation. 15 percent implementation responsibility for the Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to Rancho California Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. · C, ampos Vetdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. 16.6 percent implementation respens~ility for the Wincheste! Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 90 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Vetdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. 15 I E l B l g E l E I I. [ ] II II ] I1 II II 1 t I I I I 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 25 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from Solaria Way to Winchester Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 65 percent of the mitigation. · W'mchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation · Campos Verdes is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation 15 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from Winchester Road to MufTieta Hot Springs Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 35 percent of the mitigation., · Winchester Hills is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation · Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. 25 pe;cent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement from its present terminns at Equity Drive to the Teme~ula/Murrieta City limits. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation. 16.6 percent of the implementation responsibility for the six-lane Date Street improvement from the 1-15 overpass structure to Margarita Road. · Winchester Hills is messed with 100 percent of the mitigation. 13 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane Date Street improvement from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation. 25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane improvement of Overland Drive from Ynez Road to Margarita Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Verdes is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation. 30 percent of the implementation respons~ility for four-lane improvements respons~ility for four-lane improvement of General Keamey Road from Margarita Road to the easterly Campos Verdes project boundary. · Temecula Regional Center is messed with 30 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Verd~ is nss~ssed with 70 percent of the mitigation. 15 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane improvement of General Kearney Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 85 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. 16 15. 10 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Solana Way 'from Ynez Road to Margarita Road. · Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester I--h'lis is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation. · Campos Vetdes is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation. 16. 5 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Date Street to Canyon Drive. · .Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation. · Winchester Hills is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. 17. Signa.! system implementation responsibilities would be as indication below. a) ~rcentresponsibi~ityf~r~n.sitesignaiswithintheWinchesterH/ils~r~jectinc~uding: · Date Street signais at Business Park Access Street, ¥nez Road, Lincoln, and Margarita Road; · Ynez Road signals at Business Park Access Street, and Loop Road Connector Street (near Equity Drive); and · Margarita Road siEnal at southerly Loop Road Connector Street. b) 100 percent responsibility for Temecula Regional Center project perimeter access signals including: Winchester Road signal at westerly Regional Center Access Road; · Overland Drive signal at Regional Center Access Road; and · Existing regional modification costs at Palm Plaza Access and Costco Canter Access. c) 100 percent responsibility for Campos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at General Kearney Road and Campos Vetdes Access Street d) 50 percent respons~ility for signals located at 'the following intersections: · Margarita Road/Winchester Road; · Margarita Road/Overland Drive; and Ynez Road/Overland Drive. ~:) 25 percent responsibility for the signal installations at: · Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and · Margarita Road/Solana Way. I ! [ I I [ I [ I I [ I[ [ 17 I i It is important to note that the implementation responsibilities detailed herein do not take into account Kemper/Bedfords contn'butions toward Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 88-12 which together address many of the improvements included in the refined recommended mitigation measures. Kempor/Bedford should be given credit where appropriate for assessments involving the project properties and madway improvements included in the 161 and 88-12 districts. Credits should also be considered for right-of-way dedications involving the recommended street improvements. In addition to :the above listed mitigation measures, the individual Kemper/Bedford pwjects would be responsible for implementing all on-site project street improvements which have not already been discu,~sed. Individual project mitigation would also include preparation of Transportation Demand Management CYDM') Programs which meet the requirements of the City's 'soon to be adopted* TDM ordinance. Plehse not that the Winchester Hills project, as part of its' mitigation program, has rc~erved an easement along the 1-15 property frontage for a potential future collector-distn'butor road/'mterchange system involving Date Street. 18 I I I I I ] I ! I I 1 I I_ ATTACHMENT NO. 12 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Lb, I ER, APRIL 18, 1994 R:~STAFFRPT~lSP.PC5 7115194 vgw 35 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Patncia B. Novotney, Ed.D. BOARD OF EDUCATION April 18, 1994 (supplements February 28, 1994 and March 8, 1994 comments) Steve Jiannino City of Temecula Ranning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Campo$ Verdes Specific Plan Conditions Dear Mr. Jiannino: The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific Plan as presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994: · Elementary School Site We understand that the developer has included an 11.1 acre school site in an Ahernative Land Use Plan. The District is in favor of this site, which could become a part of the mitigation agreement. (ref 3/7/94 dwg.) Although The site will need formal State Department of Education (SDE) approvals, many of the SDE areas of concern (airport proximity, flood plain, dam inundation) are not issues with the proposed site. The District will require good pedestrian, bus and parent vehicle access to this site. · School Facilities Mitigation Agreement The number of new dwelling units is being determined for this development. Through new housing student generation data, we have determined the following generation rates in the Ternecula Valley Unified School District: # of students per dweUing unit Elementary School: .39 Middle School: .24 High School: .2--5 Total .88 The number of new students is determined by multiplying the new dweliin9 units by th~e factors, which for a 306-unit single-family development would be 119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students. Prior to Specific Ran approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program. Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School District information as indicated in the attachments. If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340. Director of Facilities Development cc: Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc. 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 April 18, 1994 Campoe Verdes Specific Plan Conditions Section V D.5 rTVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/18/94) SCHOOLS a. Existing7 Conditions The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5) schools, two middle (grades 6-8) schoois and two high (grades 9-12) schools. The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed. b. Proiect Impacts/General Plan Relationship The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation. · Attached Dwellinq Units: Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit; Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit · Detached Dwellinq Units: Grades K-5 - 0.38; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit; Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit The proposed 306 single-family residential units located in Campos Verdes will generate approximately 269 students (11 ~, elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned ~bove). Because a single e4ementary site, and no middle or high school site is proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 119 elementary students could be accommodated on-site, but the middle and high school students would require accommodation off-site. As previously mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated by [h~s project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP The Campos Verdes project lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. The City General Plan adopted in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts. c. Genera/Plan Implementation Proorarn in accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District, prior to Specific Plan approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms: 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of school fees Dedication of land and/or facilities Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District Levying of a special tax Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District d. Level of Si~Tnificance After Mitigation Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an _ insignificant level. ATTACHMENT NO. 13 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Lb I I ER, JUNE 29, 1994 R:~,STAFFILtq'XISP. PCS 7115/94 vg~' 36 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Paffic~a B. Novomey, Ed.D. June 29, 1994 Gary Thornhill & Steve Jiannino '- City of Temecuia Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Campos Vetdes Specific Plan Schod Facilities Mit~qatlon Agreement BOARD OF EDUCATION Ro$18 Van0emaak Dear Mr. Thornhill & Jiannino: The Temecuta Valley Unified School District is in discussions with Kemper to establish a school facilities mitigation agreement to address the project's impacts. The agreement will involve a combination of statutory school fees and dedication of the graded and improved Campos Verdes elementary school site to the District, specific details to be determined by Kernper and the District. Our expectation is that the agreement be signed prior to final certification of the EIR and final Specific Plan approvals. If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340. Sincerely,//~/- Director of Facilities Development cc: Patricia B. Novomey, Ed!D., Superintendent John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc. 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 A'i'I'ACHMENT NO. 14 MEADOWVIEW L~- I I ER OF SUPPORT ADDENDUM EIR #3 CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PlAN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 EIR NO. 348 Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (714) 694-6400 Prepared By: Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (7!4) 644-7977 September, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Purpose A. Background .......................................... 1 B. Purpose ............................................. 1 C. Summary Analysis ..................................... 3 II. Environmental Analysis .................................. , .....3 Attach ment s A. Planning Commission Recommended Circulation Conditions of Approval B. Mitigation Monitoring Program ADDENDUM EIR CAMPS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE A. Back2round The Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.ssq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. In February, 1993, an Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan was prepared. The purpose of this first Addendum EIR was three-fold: 1) to respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Csm!~os Verdes Specffic Plan; 2) incorporate subsequently-prepared technical analyses (in the areas of traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the concorns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently-prepared technical studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. Subsequently, in June 1994, a second Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes Specffic Plan was prepared. The purpose of this second Addendure to the Draft Environmental Impact Report was to identify and discuss the revisions made to the Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan which involved a signfficant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units and changes in the amount of other proposed on-site land uses. The resultant changes in project impacts were identified and the need for additional mitigation measures was assessed. This second Addendure concluded that environmental impacts in the areas of Seismic Safety, Flooding, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Scenic Highways, Circulation, Utilities and Services, Light and Glare and Disaster Preparedness were reduced as a consequence of revisions made to the Cnmpes Verdes Specific Plan. None of the net changes in project impacts resulted in the creation of new mitigation measures or unavoidnhle adverse environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the original Campos Verdes Draft Environmental Impact Report. In the course of reviewing the Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City staff focussed on certain mitigation measures identified in the Campos Verdes Draft EIR with the intent of identifying those mitigations that have already been accomplished through developer participation 1 in Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12 and to maxjmi~.e the benefit to the City of other mitigation requirements. This third Addendure to the Draft EIR analyzes the mitigation requirements for the Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan as contained in the planning Commisslon's Recommended Conditions of Approval as compared to the mitigations specified in the Draft EIR and the changes analyzed in first and second Addendums to the Draft EIR. The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to be an Addendure to the Campos Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15 164 of the State CEQA Guidelines which states: (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an Addendum to an EIR if'. (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project revisions, changes in circumstances surrounding the project, or additional project impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming feasible or available); (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the Addendure do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. (b) An Addendure need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. (c) The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. This Addendure EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared first and second Addendures to the Draft EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments and technical reports constitute the Final EIR for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This Addendum to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the C311fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as ~mended, and City Guidelines for 2 the Implementation of CEQA. More specifically, the City has relied on Section 15084(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared Addendure EIR, and this Addendure to the Draft EIR to reflect their own independent judgement to the extent of their ability. In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendum to the Draft EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecula~ as Lead Agency, to evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Campos Verdes Spec'ffic Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects. The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for development. Based upon the analyses and discussions contained in Section II., Environmental Analysis of this Addendure to the Draft EIR, the currently-proposed traffic and circulation-related Conditions of Approval relates to and conforms with Similar mitigation requirements and implementation responsibilities contained within the Campos Verdes Mitigation Monitoring Program. These Conditions of Approval refine and assist in the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and the first Addendure to the Draft EIR identified various roadways, intersections, freeway interchanges and other tralf~c control devices to be impacted, either directly or cumulatively, by the Campos Verdes project. The extent of implementation responsibility of the Campos Verdes project to mitigate these project- related impacts was assigned through analyses contained in the first Addendum to the Draft EIR (pages 12 and 13 of the text and in more detafi on pages 11 through 18 of Attachment C of the first Addendure). When the project was revised, the second Addendure to the Draft EIR assessed the changes in traffic-related impacts and determined that circulation impacts were reduced by approximately 24% from impact levels previously identified in the Draft EIR. This second Addendure incorporated the possible closure of two local streets, Starling Street and Sanderling Way which connect Campos Verdes with Reripangh Hills development, into its analyses. In addition, the City's recently-completed Circulation Element of the General Plan, which deleted the northeasterly extension of North General Kearny Read, was also reflected in the Traffic Analyses prepared for the second Addendure- In considering the C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan in light of the analyses and changes noted above, the City of Temecula Planning Commission, at their public 3 hearing of July 18, 1994, directed City Staff to re-establish Starling Street and Sanderling Way through the proposed project. In addition, the City Staff has recently analyzed the current status of roadway and intersection improvements which have been completed or are committed to under Assessment District No. 161 and Comnl,Jnlty Facilities District No. 88-12 against the mitigation responsibffity requirements previously assigned to the Campos Verdes project. As a result of all of these above considerations, the City Staff has formulated and the Planning Commission has recommended a total of eleven Conditions of Approval related to circulation. (A complete listing of these circulation-related Conditions is included as Attachment A to this Addendum.) These Conditions of Approval require a variety of traffic plans, reports and physical circulation improvements which are either attributed partially or solely to the Campos Verdes project. These Conditions are intended to mitigate impacts generated by or otherwise associated with the Campos Verdes project. Provided below is a summarized listing of these recommended circulation- related Conditions of Approval followed by an indication of the related Draft EIR mitigation measure (as Hsted in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, a copy of which is included as Attachment B to this Addendure.) Also noted below is the respective Responsible Monitoring Party and the milestone in the development process at which point the Condition would be implemented (pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Progrsrn and/or recommended Conditions of Approval). CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Developor must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" per Ordinance No. 93-01 (see recommended Conditions of Approval included as Attachment A) . Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 (see Mitigation Monitoring Program included as Attachment B) requires preparation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan prior to any subsequent development applications in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. Resnonsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps or the issuance of Building Permits. This conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for inclusion of a Plan as a condition with "any subsequent Development Application". CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Adequate primary and secondary access will be provided for each development phase including adequate right-of-way at entries for turning lanes. 4 Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other off-site improvements. Resnonsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms with the requirement within the Condition of Approval for review of access plans at the time of submittal of individual development applications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: All street sections shall cerrespend with ~rpical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City General Plan, City ordinances and standards. All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans requirements. Related Mitigation Measure: While no mitigation measures in the Draft EIR relate directly to these Conditions, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies prepared for the Campes Verdes Specific Plan assume cenformance with City General Plan requirements, City standards and ordinances and Caltrans requirements in effect at the time of project development. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters and any associated rights-of-way within the Specific Plan, the location and number of which are subject to approval by the City of Temecula and the Riverside Transportation Department. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 requires "promotion of future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which would require special transit-oriented design features". Resnonsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula~ Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps or the issuance of Building Permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: All improvements have been or wffi be Conditions based on project traffic studies and phasing plans from Section III.A. 7. of the Specific Plan. Any substative rephasing of the project must be approved by the Planning Commission. All on- and off-site circulation improvements must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Related Mitigation Measure: While no Mitigation Measures in the Draft EIR relate directly to this Condition, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies prepared for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan assume development of roadway improvements pursuant to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Traffic reports analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan shall identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 requires preparation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan prior to any subsequent development applications in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. Mitigation Measure 11 requires that the property owner/developer be a principal participant in Winchester Assessment District 161 and the Ynez Corridor Commnnity Facilities District 88-12. Resnonsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps or the issuance of Building or Occupancy Permits. This conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with subsequent development applications. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Traffic signals at phase one accesses along Margarita and North General Kearny Reads as required wffi be based on traffic signal warrant analyses. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and~ther off-site improvements. Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirement within the Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with subsequent development applications and provision of improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road along the entire project frontage in accordance with the Typical Readway Cross-Section of the City's General Plan and shall bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Read from Solana Way to the 6 southern project boundary. Related Miti~ration Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the Developer be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitieation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of ~he Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. These traffic improvements must be completed by the development of the 235th equivalent dwelling unit. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developor shall bond for improvements to North General Kearny Read from Margarita Reed easterly to the project limit, in accordance with the Specific Plan and City General Plan requirements or as approved by the planning Director. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developor to be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Miti~ration Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of the Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for traffic signals at the following intersections and shall construct these signals pursuant to traffic signal warrants: -Margarita Reed at Winchester Reed (upgrede existing signal) -Margarita Read at North General Kearny Read -Margarita Read at Campos Verdes Lane -North General Kearny Read at Camino Campos Verdes Related Miti2ation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. Resnonsible Monitorin2 Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department 7 Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of the Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Sanderling Way and Starling Street shall be extended to accommodate through traffic into the Roripaugh Hills development. Related Miti2ation Measure: Mitigation Measure 12 requires the dev'eloper to be responsible to on-site circulation improvements. Responsible Monitorin2 Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of the Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps, recordation of Final Subdivision Maps, or issuance of Occupancy Permits which conforms to the intent of the Condition of Approval. CONCLUSION: Based upon the analyses contained within this Addendum to the Final EIR, the proposed circulation-related Conditions of Approval refine and assist in the implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained within the Draft Environmental Impact Report. 8 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRAFT Specific Plan No. I (Campoe Verdes) Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10,8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 921-090~001 through 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046, 911-170-004 and 910-170-00S PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21162 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Conditions The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. 17 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campoe Verdes, is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City Council. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shall be completed. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentati-~e. maps. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within l:he~site, a detailed design manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shal~'be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8 ~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent p;'ojects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. The developer shall provide pedestrian access to the Commercial site (Planning Area 4) from the residential area to the east (Planning Area 5). The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. 15. Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to reflect all current conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16. Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan. 17. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the comm:tment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated heroin shall take precedence. 18. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. 19. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Appr~val 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. GENERAL CONDITIONS 20. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 21. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits for the non rcGidcntiol (oommorekal and officca} various phases of development, 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 m 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 permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. 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; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) 23. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each pi~ese. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the P~anning Director prior to approval cf c~.;- for each subsequent development applicat~en. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) CIRCULATION 25. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 26. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential, office, a~d commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. 27. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Ran, City ordinances and standards. 28. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. 29. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters Within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. R:~STAFFRPT~ISp. PC5 9/1194 v~-v 20 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application, A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded a;s required by the Department of Public Works. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. The traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the 200th 235th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy for the 200th 235th EDU. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Pormit, the Developer shall bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City'~s General Ran classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Road, from Solana Way to southerly project boundary. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. The cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of- way or as required by the Director of Public Works. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following intersections: R:~ITAI~RF~ISP. ImC$ 911194 vgw Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal) Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road Margarita Road and Campoe Verdes Lane North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes 36. Sanderling Way and Stading Street shall be extended to accommodate through traffic into the Roripaugh Hills development. (Added by Planning Commisaion on July 18, 1994) Drainage 37. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 38. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCE) to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 39. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 40. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 1 O0 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 41. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the oneire detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 42. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 43. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 44. 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 enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. Water and Sewer 45. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 46. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 47. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 48. Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan development. Grading 49. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 50. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and t~,l,'recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmennl-lmpact Report (EIR) document. 51. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion'control improvements. 52. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 53. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: · Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. · Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. · Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. · Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 54. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 55. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 56. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 57. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 58. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 59. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 60. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 61. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits lie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 62. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 63. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. R:~STAPPR/r~ISP.PC5 911/94 vgw 24 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for Campos Verdes Specific Plan: General Requirements 64. All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 65. Construction of the .public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. 66. The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site, landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 67. All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended f~r transfer to the City "in- fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessn~ents, or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for publi.:,.,park and/or recreational purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assess~'rte~eport shall also be provided with the dedication of the property, 68. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA). 69. Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 70. All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and established Home Owner's Association (HOA). Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 71. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located in Planning Area I and the detention basin in Planning Area 2. 72. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi- purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9. ATTACHMENT B MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Z Z Z Z 8 8 =' .='E Z Z Z VICINITY MAP Meadowview Community Association May 18, 1994 Planning Commission City of Temecula 43174 Bus~ness Park Drive Temecula, California 92591 Attention: Chairman Steven Ford and Planning Commission RECEIVED MAY I 8 199 Ans'd,,,.,,, ...... subject: Campos Verdes Specific Plan The Meadowview Homeowners Association has no opposition to the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan as we understand the current proposal. We believe the proposed 1/2 acre lots adjacent to Meadowview homes separated by a 40 foot buffer zone will provide adequate inter project transition. The proposed traffic pattern will reduce adverse impacts at our equestrian facility. The Meadowview Homeowners Association wishes to acknowledge Kemper's coordination with the Board of Directors and individual homeowners. Barry Burnell was very helpful in minimizing traffic impacts on the HOA by eliminating a street entrance across from our equestrian facilities. Dennis Chiniaeff gave generc. usly of his time to meet with individual homeowners along the common area boundary to hear their concerns and devise a suitable mitigation plan agreeable to both parties. Kathy ~and, President Board of Directors Meadowview Homeowners Association KH/gg cc:'. Gary Thornhill, City Council Planning Commission P.O. Box 788 · Temecula. California 92593 · (909) 676-4429 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JULY 18, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 31 The mo."-~ carried as follows: AYES: b '-- COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, NOES: 0 LL" 'MISSlONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMIt>. ~)NERS: None Commissioner Hoagland moved to re-ord~ Item 10 follow the Planning Director's PLANNING DIRECTOR'S Director Thdrnhill stated due to noticing, PLANNING C None BUSINESS None 'er, Ford g Agenda items so that ' 'd other Commission business. Johnson Ranch hearing n, -~ed to be rescheduled DISCUSSION 10. Soecific Plan No. 1, Chanae of Zone No. 5617 and Environmental linDact Report No. 348 Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential units, 12 acres of Commercial, approximately 13.7 acres of Office/Commercial/Church/ Detention, 10.8 acres of Park and 10.7 acre Elementary School Site with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Commissioners Hoagland and Fahey excused themselves from the meeting at 7:55 P.M. due to a conflict of interest. Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report and stated that the project was originally heard at the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Planner Ubnoske stated that the opening of Sanderling Way and/or Starling Street needed to be discussed by the Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer, Ford None Fahey, Hoagland ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on August 1, 1994 at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary AI'rACHMENT NO. 10 CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 917/94 ktb 32 A'R'ACHMENT NO. 11 CAMPOS VERDES TECHNICAL APPENDICES SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 kLb 33 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 12 CAMPOS VERDES FIRST ADDENDUM EIR SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 91719~ ktb 34 ATTACHMENT NO. 14 CAMPOS VERDES THIRD ADDENDUM CONTAINING MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 36 ATTACHMENT NO. 15 CAMPOS VERDES FEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/96 ktb 37 ATTACHMENT NO. 16 CAMPOS VERDES FINDINGS, FACTS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/9& kLb 38 ATTACHMENT NO. 17 CAMPO$ VERDES, VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 39 ITEM 25 APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer Shawn Nelson, Community Services Director September 13, 1994 Non-Profit Loan Program Policy RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and approve the Non-Profit Loan Program criteria with revisions as appropriate. DISCUSSION: On August 9, 1994 the City Council considered criteria for loans to non- profit organizations. During the discussion, Council asked for clarification concerning what type of non-profit organizations (i.e., charitable) are eligible for City funding. Attached for your information is a memo from Burke, Willjams and Sorensen which states that the City may loan money to any non-profit so long as there is a public purpose for the loan. In addition, discussion took place concerning the dollar limit for which it will be necessary to provide collateral. Currently, the policy includes a ~5,000 limit. The non-profit loan policy should not be confused with the Community Service Funding Request Program. The CS Funding Request Program are grants which are allocated one time for each fiscal year. The Non-Profit Loan Policy only deals with loan requests; can occur any time during the fiscal year; and provides guidelines to the Council when considering potential loan requests. Attachments: City of Temecula Non-Profit Organization Loan Program Policy Memo from Burke, Willjams and Sorensen CITY OF TEMECULA Non-Profit Organization Loan Program/Policy Purpose To establish a process and evaluation criteria for funding potential loan requests received by the City from non-profit organizations throughout the year. General Policy The City receives requests throughout the year for loans from various non-profit organizations which provide a variety of services within the community. It is the City's policy to subject such loan req~uests to a review process. Fundino Philosoohv It is intended to establish guidelines to assist the City Council in determining when it .would be appropriate to loan City funds to non-profit organizations that provide community services or facilities. Although it is the City Council's intention for non-profit organizations to be self- sufficient, the City Council may consider loan requests that provide expanded economic development benefits or substantial enhancement in the quality of life for all City residents. Eliqibility Applications for a City loan are accepted from tax exempt, non-profit organizations and individuals for the funding of special projects, community service programs end activities, or other requests deemed appropriate by the City Council. The non-profit organization must possess a valid tax exempt I.D. number. Services or facilities provided by the non-profit organization must benefit the citizens of the City of Temecula. Financial statements for a minimum of three (3) years must be included in the application to demonstrate the organization's ability to function as an effective, non- profit organization. Loans will not be approved for longer than a five (5) year period and may not exceed the useful term of the facility. Permitted Uses of Loan Funds 1. Construction of capital improvement projects. 2. Special events or major community activities. Loans in excess of $5,000 must be secured by a trust deed on real estate, or a security interest in equipment or fixed assets. Value of real estate must be verified by an appraisal completed by the City and paid for by the applicant. This fee can be paid from loan proceeds or paid by the applicant. Rates Fixed rates are calculated at Prime Rate for the life of the simple interest loan. Criteria in making a determination for a loan request, the City Council will consider the following criteria: 1. Does the loan provide local and regional economic development benefits? 2. Has the organization demonstrated the ability to manage existing financial resources in an effective manner? 3. Will the loan create a greater awareness on a regional basis of the many benefits of the City of Temecula? 4. Will the loan promote and expand the promotion of community services and recreation opportunities throughout the community? 5. How many people will benefit from the intended use of the loan proceeds? 6. What type of security for the loan is being provided by the organization? 7. What risk will the City incur if the loan is not repaid? 8. Will additional sales tax revenues be generated as a result of this loan? 9. Will local businesses benefit as a result of this loan? 10. Based on a review of the organization's financial statements and budget projections, does the organization have the ability to repay the loan? Mary Jane McLarney August 18, 1994 Page 2 I hope the above discussion provides you with the information necessary to move forward on the policy. Please feel free to contact me should amy questions remain, or if I may be of any further assistance. ,58.1 5323-14 1986 Code--Subtitle A, Ch. 1F, Part I t 1 ) .-~n.~' corporat on urganized under Act of Congress which is an instrumentality of the Unite:[ States hut only if such corporation-- It) under such .-~ct as amended and suppiemenred befor~ ]uty 18. 19~.. or ~B ) ,s described in subsection {1). t2) Curporatiuns .rganized [or the exclust~*e purpose of holding title to property, collecz. m~ ~'hich itself i~ exempt under this section. Ruie~ stmiiar to the rules of subparagraph (G) of para~p~ e 2~ I ~haiJ appb' for purposes o~ this paragraph. 48) providing for the pa.vment of life. sick. accident. or other benefits to the merebend accident. or othe~ benefit; to the membe;-s of such association or their depen~enu or dssigsste~ bencfictaries. i~ no part of the net earnings of such association inures (other than t~teuP sut~ tA) the net earnings of %~'hich are de,'oted exclusively to religious. chari~bie. Sec. 501(c) ' Income Tax-Exempt Oti-.,iz. dUonk 5323-15 I 11 ) Teachers' retirement fund uur~atioes of · purely local chariest. fA) no part of their net e~rmngs inures rother than ~mugh payment of retirement benefits) to the benefit of any pnvat~ shareholder or individual, and tO) the income consists solely of a_rnounts received fnmt public ta. xstion, amounts received from ~ssessments o~ the teaching salaries of merehere. knd incotne in respect of investmenu. .12~4A) Benevolent life insurance uso~ittio~s of n pu~ly Ioca3 character. mutual ditch or - ::,_.a,.ion companies, mutual or coup~rgtiv~ telephone companies. or like organizations; but only if · - !,t. rcent ot more of the income consists of amounts cdlected from members for the sole purpose of , B) [n the c~se of a mutual or cooperative telephOne company subparagnph (A) shall be jpplied without takinK into account any income received or accrued-- (i) from a nonmember telephone company, for the pofiormtnce of communication service~ which involve members of the mutual or cooperative telephone company, I ii~ from qualified pole rentals, liii) from the sale of display listings in a directow. furnished to the members of the liv~ f~om the prepayment of a h~n under ~ection 306A, 3C6R, or 311 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 tan in effect on jaouan/1, ~C) In the c~t~e of a mutual or cooperative electric company, subparagraph ~A) shall he ~ppiied without taking into account any income recegved or accrued-- , H from qualified pole rentals, or 4ii~ from the prepa:vment of n lt~tn under ~ection 306A. 306B. ur 311 of the Rur~I Electrification Act of 193~ tan in effect on .lanuan/|. ~ D~ For purposes oE this paragraph. the term "qualified pole rentnr' means any rental of a used b.v such company in providing telephone or electric ~en, ices to its members. and ~ ii ~ is used pursuant to t he rental to s~pport one or more wires I in addition to th~ wires .1.3~ Cemetery compames owned ~nd operated exclusively for the benefit of their members or ::~ nr~ not operated for profit; and any corpor~tton cha. rtered solely for the purpose o~ th~ disposal . ! --~rliv Incident to that purpose. nu part uf the net earnings of which inures to the penefit of any . ~e -hareholder or tndivi~uai. .14, A~ Credit unlun~ without capital stock orEamzed and operated for rnut~a.t p~rposes and t B~ Corporauons or assoctations without capital stock organized before September 1. ~nd ~pei'ated ~or motoat purposes and wttho~t profit ~or the purpose of provtciinE reserve funds I i) domestic huildin~ =nd loan associations, di~ cooperative banks without capttai stock organized and operated for mutual purposes and without profit. t iii~ mutual savings ban~ not having capital stock represented by shares. or dr) mutual savings banks described in section 591(b). ,C~ Corporations or associations organized before September 1. t9~7. and operated for mutual purposes and without profit for the pttrpose of prr..idin~ resen~ funds for associations or ~anks described in clause ti). tii). or dii'~ of subparagraph ,B~; but only if 85 percent or more of ~u~Daragraph shall not apply to any corporation or usociation entitled to exemption under ~ubparagraph (B). R..,..,.e Sec. 501(c) 5323-16 1986 Code--Subtitle A, Ch. 1F, Pan I (]SNAj insurance companies or a.'~sociations other than life (including interinsurers and reczprocaJ underwriters) if the net written premiums Ior. if greater. direct written premiums) for the taxable year do not exceed $3.~0.{300. (B) For purposes of subparagraph I.-~ ). in determining whether an)' company or usoclatm~ i~ dc.'cribed in subparas~raph I.~.L such company or assoc~atmn shall be treated as rece~vln~ during the taxahlc )'ear amounts described in subparagraph I.-I.i which are received during such )tar by all other companies or associations which are members of the same controlled group u thc insurance company or association for which the determination is being made. ICI 'For purples of suhparaeraph I BI. the germ "controlled slroup' has the meaning given such tcrm hy sectlon BJllh~(2H BN iil. i 16~ Corporations orEanized hy an asseciation subject to part iV oi this subchapter or members tht. rt,~L for the purp~je ,jr financing the ordinal' rrop ,~peratlOns o~ ~uch members or other pn,lure'r~. anti operDted in ~onjuncnon with such association. Exemptran ~hall not be demed any -ufh ,,rl,~ratmn betause it has capital stock, if the dividend rate i}f ~uch stock is fixed at not t~ F ** 5323-18 1986 Code -SubtR!e A, Ch. 1F, Part ~I) to satisfy, in whole or in part, the liability of such pers~ for. or with reapeel to, claims for compensatJon for disability or death due to pneumocomnsis under Black Lung Ac~s. iII~ to pay premiums for insurance exclusively covering such liability, iHli to pay administrative and other incidental ea~enses of such trust in connection with the operation oi the trust and the processing of claims against person under Black Lung Acts, and tIX'~ to pay accident or health benefits, for retired miners and their spouses and dependents tineluding administrative ~nd other incidental expenses of such trust In and Iii ~ no part of the assets of the trust may be used for. or diverted to, any purpose other than-- tit the purposes described in claiise 111 ~ investment Ibut only to the extent that the trustee determines that a portion of the assets is not currently needed for the purposes described in clause I i )) in qusliiied III;[~ payment Into the Black Lung Disability Trust Funcl established under sectran 9501. or Into the general fund of the United States Treasury luther than sausiaction oi any tax or other civil or criminal liability of the poison who established IB~ No deduction shall be allon'ed under this chapter for any payment described ,u bpara~ra ph I A u i R IV I from such trust. iC~ Payments described in subparagraph IAX iI~IV~ may be made from such trust durlne a taxable year only to the extent t,~at the aggregate amount uf such payments dunng such taxable 11 ) the fair market value t~f the assets of the trust. over ~lh I10 portent oi the present value of the liability described in subparagraph ( I ~ the sum of a s~milar excess determined as of the close of the last taxable year endimt be/ore the date oi the enactment of this suO~aragraph plus earnings thereon lib the aetgrexate payments described in subparaaraph IANi~B'~ made from the trust during all taxable >'ears beginrang after the date oi the enactment oi the, The determmanons under the preceding sentence shall be made by an independent actuar~ unl~cr ~ecuon 1921c, I)~AII each of which Is reasonable and which are reasonable In ~D~ For purpo,es of this paragraph: li~ The term "Black Lung Acts" means part C of title I¥ oi the Federal .%$ine Saie~v and Health Act of 1977. and any State law providing compensatmn for disability or death (if) The :erm "qualified investmenu" means-- ill public debt securities of ;he United States, lit) obligations of a State or local government which are not in beiauit ~ principal or roterest. and (III~ time or demand deposits in a bank lax defined in section .~81) or an in~ur~ credit umon ~ within the meaning of section 10If6) of the Federal Credit Union Act. U.S.C. 17.~2~6D located in the United States. 402ed) of the Black Lung Beneiiu Act fl0 U.S.C. 902ld}l. 5eC. sp ,a~ 19 Income Tax-Exempt Organizations 5323- Z 9 (iv) T'ne term "incidental ezpenses" includes legal. accounting, actinitiaL and trus:ee ~2.21 A trust cre~ted or mganizccl in the United States and established in writing by the plan ;~n~ors of multiemployer plans {A) the purpose of such trust is exclusive)y-- (i) to pay any amount described in section 4223fcl or fh) of the Empiu~ee getiremcnt Income Security Act of 1974, and establishment and operation o[ the trust and the proces~ng of chtims against the xrustl IBI no part of the assets of the trust may be used for, or diverted to, any purpose other than-- ~ i~ the purposes described in subparagraph ( .~.~, or di~ the investment in securities. obligations. or time or demand deposits described In c!ause Iii} oi pata~rnph {21 }~ ~C'~ such .trust meets tl~e requirements o( paragraphs ~Z). (3). and ~4`'~ of section ~223{hl. t~r. i[ applicable. ~ectmn 4223~cl o( the F-mployee Retirement Income S~curtty Act nux ~ paid other lhan to plans which hav~ participated in the plsn or. in the case o~ ~ ~s~ablishcd ondef ,,ection 4~31h) u~ such Acl. to plans with ~espect to which cmployer.~ have particxpated in the (und. ~23) AnS' association orgnmzed ~e~ore I~0 more than ~5 percent of 1he member., of which oft. ~24.~ A trust described in section 4,049 o[ the !~mplu~'ce Retirement Income $ecuri',y Act o~ d) ~a~ no more t~n ~5 shar~hoidcrb ot beneficiaries. t ii ~ has only t d~ss o~ stock or ~endicial anl~resL nnd ~ ii~ a governmental plan ~ w~hin the meanin~J of section Uih the United 5tares. ;my State ot political subdivision ther~o(. or an)' szency or fiv~ any organization described in paragraph tD} A corporation or trust shall in no event be treated as described in subparaZnph ~A) See. 501(c) 5323-20 1986 Code.--SubtiUe A, Ch. 1F, Part I fii} to terminate their interest in the corporation or trust by either, or both, of the foliowang alternatives, as determined by the corporation or trust: {I} by selling or exchanging their stock in the corporation or interest in the trust tsub~ect to any Federal or State securities law) to any organization described in subT~ragraph ~C'~ so long as the sale or exchange does not increase the number of shareholders or beneficiaries in such corporation or t~st above 35. or ~nl by ha~'ing their stock or interest redeemed by the corporation or trust after the shareholder or beneficiary has provided 90 da.vs notace to such corporatton or trust. t E's i ) Fur purposes of this title--- I I I a corporation ,'hich is a qualified subsidiary. shall not be treated as a separate corporation. and i fI~ all assets. liabilities. and items of income. deduction. and credit of a qualified subsldiar:,' shall be treated as assets. liabilities. and such items its the case may be~ of the corporation or trust described in subparagraph ~ For purposes of this subp~raeraph. the term "qualified subsidiary." means any i*orl~orntson if. at all times durxng the pound such corporation was in extstence. tO0 percent uf the stock of such torporarson is held by the corporation or trust described in =ubpur;a~r;zph ~A)- I iii ~ For purposes of this subtitle. if an.~' corporation which was a qualified subsidiary. rorpurar~on acquiring all of its assets rand assuming all of its liabilities ) immediatel.,z before ~uch ce>~atxon from the curporatmn or trust described in subparagraph CA) in exchange for ~F~ For purposes of subparagraph ~A). the term "re~l property" includes any personal pr,tlt. rz~' ~¥hil-h is lea~ed under. or in connection with. a ease of real property but only if the dcrl~t.d [rorn the holding oi real propert.v. l ii~ Clause l i) shall not appb' if the amount of gross income described in such clause Sec. 501(c) p,/, 1G0447, § lollfc) Income Tax--Exempt Organizations 5323-23 p3,. 92.,4tL § t(m)~ m!,,merml · peammmm fuad lee temm. bm~ players)" [Ser_ S01(d)] ,dl RELIGIOUS ~Xb APOSTOUC ORGANII.~.TIONS.'The following organlotions are referred to in ,>r ;he common benefit oi the memUers. but only if the members thereof include tat the time of filing their ricoroe of the assoclauon or corporanon for such year. Any amount so included in the gross income of a member shall be treated as a dividend received. [~. ';Ol(e)] collection. food. clinical, industrial engineerrag, laboratory., pnnting, communications, record Internal Revenue Code · Sec. 501(e)-! ;;, ......... .... ITEM 26 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 September 13, 1994 City Council Meeting Schedule - November and December 1994 RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Clerk to cancel and/or re-schedule meetings in November and December, 1994, and to perform all the appropriate posting and noticing requirements of the Government Code. BACKGROUND: In previous years the City Council has determined that certain meetings should be either cancelled or re-scheduled to a more convenient date. During the month of November, 1994, the regularly scheduled first meeting of the month falls on November 8, 1994, which is the date scheduled for the General Municipal Election. Council may wish to cancel that meeting to allow Councilmembers and candidates for City Council the opportunity to be involved in election night activities. The City Council might wish to schedule the meeting on the first Tuesday, November 1, 1994 or the third Tuesday of the month on November 15, 1994. During the month of December, the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month fall on December 27th. Since this date is between Christmas and Hanukkah and the New Years holiday it may also not be the best date to hold a meeting. The Council might wish to consider either cancelling that meeting or re-scheduling it to the third Tuesday of the month which would be December 20, 1994. JSG ITEM 27 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk August 9, 1994 Consideration of Traffic Signalization - Pala Road, La Paz and Margarita at Highway 79-South RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the need for signalization at the specified locations and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND: This matter has been placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Stone for consideration by the City Council. ITEM 28 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROV.~~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Plannsng September 13, 1994 Transient and Road Side Vending Ordinance Prepared By: RECOMMENDATION: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Direct Staff to Prepare an Ordinance Regulating Vendors in the City of Temecuta BACKGROUND: At the July 12, 1994 City Council Meeting, during City Council reports, Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Stone requested staff prepare an Ordinance to address transient and road side vending within City limits for the purpose of assisting in enforcement. This matter has been agendized to allow the City Council to provide direction to staff on the preparation of a vending ordinance. Staff proposes to use similar language as that contained in the Old Town Specific Plan to deal with this issue (see attached). FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments 1. Old Town Specific Plan language regulating vendors ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LANGUAGE REGULATING VENDORS Outdoor Vendors a. Pro'pose Outdoor vending on private property promotes public interest by contributing to an active pedestrian environment. However, reasonable regulation of outdoor vending is necessary to protect fie public health, safety, and welfare The purpose of this section is to set forth the conditions and requirements under which outdoor vendors may be perm. it~ed to operate on private property within the Specific Plan area. Definitions For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: "Stand" means a pushcar~, wagon or any other wheeled vehicle or device which may be moved without the assistance of a motor and is used for the displaying, storing or transporting of articles offered for sale by a vendor. "Vendin~," means the sale of food or merchandise from a stand operating on pr/vate property. within the Specific Plan area. Vendors License Required It shall be .unlawfu/to sell, or offer for sale, any food, beverage or merchandise on any property within the Specific Plan area without first obtairdng a Vendors License. However, existing businesses which legally operate outdoor displays of merchandise prior to the adoption of this Speciec Plan, are not required to obtain a license for a period of one year from adoption. Applications The application for a Vendors License shall be signed by the applicant and shall include: 1) The name, home, and business address'of the applicant, and the name and address of the owner, if other than the applicant, of the rending stand to be used in the operation of the vendlug business. 2) A description of the type of food, beverage, or merchandise to be sold. 3) A description and photograph (including signage and colors) of any stand to be used in. the operation of the business. Issuance and Fees Not later than 30 days after the filing of a completed application for a vendor's license, the applicant shall be not/fled of the decision on the issuance or denial of the license. 1) 2) 3) Fees shall be determined by Resolution of the City Coundl and shall be paid prior to issuance of a permit. 4) Licenses to vend within the Specific Plan area shall be reviewed and approved by the Director in coniunction with the Business License Registration Program, Building and Safety and the Engineering Depart~nent. 5) 6) There should be at least 200 square feet of useable or recognizable plaza or courtyard area for each allowed outdoor rending cart. The rending should be free of all obstructions within a six foot perimeter. Locations br vending within the Specific Plan area shall be approved by the Director. Vending locations shall be designated based on the ability of the site to safely accommodate the use by not interfering with pedestrian circulation and access or veln/de circulation or parking. The Director may require that the stand be removed from the location and stored out of public view when not in use. Vending locations may change only upon wri~en request by an applicant and approva/by the Director. All vending locations shall be on privately owned, developed, corninertial property wit. kin the Specific Plan area. Term and Renewal All licenses are valid for one year unless revoked or suspended prior to expiration. A_n application to renew a license shall be made not later than 60 days before the expiration of the current license. License fees and renewal procedures shall be established in accor- dance with the Business License Registration Program procedures outlined in the'M unidpal Code. Prohibited Conduct and Hours of Operation It shall be prohibited for any outdoor vendor to operate under any of the following conditions: 1) Operate 'between 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. of the following day unless in conjunction with a spedal event. 2) Leave any vending stand unattended. 3) Store, park, or leave any vending stand within any public right-of-way or on any undeveloped or othervise vacant property. 4) Sell food or beverages for immediate consumption unless there is a litter receptacle available nearby for public use. 5) Leave any location without first picking up, removing and disposing of all trash or refuse remaining from sales made from the stand. 6) Allow any ite~'~s relating to the operation of the vending business to be placed anywhere other than in, on or under the stand. 7) Set UP, maintain or permit fie use of any additional table, crate, carton, rack, or any other device to increase the selling or display capadty of the stand where such additional items have not been approved in the by the Director. 8) Soiltit or conduct business with persons in motor veiLides. j. Display o£ License A/1 licenses shall be displayed in a visible and conspicuous location at all times during the operation of the vending business. k. Advertising No advertising, except the posting of prices, shaill be pertained on any stand, except to identify the name of the product or the name of the vendor. 1. Denial, Suspension, and Revocation Any license may be denied, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures in the Municipal Code for any of the following causes: 1) Fraud or misrepresentation contained in me application for the license. 2) Fraud or misrepresentation made in the course of carrying on the business of vending. 3) Conduct of the licensed business in such manner as to create a public nuisance, or constitute a danger to the public health, safety, welfare, or morals. 4) Conduct which is contrary to the provisions of this section. Bed and Breakfast Establishments a. Purpose The .purpose of this Section is to provide standards for the development/operation of Bed and Breakfast estab]istunents in Old Town. ITEM 29 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Ron Roberrs, Mayor~ August 28 1994 J.F. DAVIDSON TIMELINES FOR WINCHEST~ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS After not receiving a current status report from J.F. Davidson regarding their engineering work on Winchester, Overland and Rancho California Road improvements for several months, I directed staff to contact them for an update. The next day I received an u~date without a timeline as has been the case with the other status reports. I did notice a change order submitted by Davidson for $129,002 without further explanation in the report. I contacted Mr. John canty, president and CEO of J.F. Davidson, and requested a timeline of the projects of which I received last Friday. You will notice that the Winchester Road project construction timeline has been extended from the end of this year to May of 1995 without an explanation. I find this unacceptable and hope you also feel the same way. I am asking for th~s to be put on the next council meeting agenda for discussion. c.c. city Manager City Clerk Public Works Director J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERIN,G~ Pt. ANNIN.~ SLII~'E'YIN,~ LANDSCAPE A RCffiTECIURE FACSIMILE TRANSMII'rAL FAX NO. (909) 686-5954 PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGEfS} TO: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (Including cover IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US AT (909) 686-0844 AND ASK FOR: ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW V~, MAIL ITEM 30 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY A'I'TORNEY. K..R~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT' City Council/City Manager Harwood T. Edvalson, Assistant City Manager ~ September 13, 1994 Cable Television Rate Regulation Procedures RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO REGULATE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT RATES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 93-74" BACKGROUND: FCC Regulations authorize each city to regulate the rates that the cable operator charges for cable television services and equipment. In order to engage in such rate regulation, the City must first certify with the FCC as a rate regulator and, within 120 days of such certification, adopt minimal rate regulation procedures. On September 14, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-74, adopting such minimal procedural requirements for determining maximum cable television rates. Since that time, the City has had experience with reviewing rates and implementing rate regulation. In particular, Staff has discovered that the information submitted on the FCC forms for determining maximum rates needs to be supplemented by additional information so that the City can fully determine whether the cable operator has correctly completed the form. Moreover, and as anticipated with the recent implementation of new FCC regulations, the City has received a new rate form submitted by Inland Valley during the month of August. In order to expedite the next round of rate review, it is recommended that the City Council adopt a new resolution establishing administrative procedures for reviewing rates. Very briefly, this resolution accomplishes the following: 1) The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to take all steps necessary to implement rate regulation. These steps include obtaining FCC certification as a rate regulator. 2) The Resolution establishes the minimum information the cable operator shall submit along with its rate regulation forms. In addition, the City Manager may request such additional information as he may reasonably determine is necessary to complete the rate review. 3) The City Manager is authorized to cause tO be prepared a written report reviewing the proposed rates of the cable operator and advising whether the rates comply with FCC regulations. The City Manager will then cause a public hearing to be noticed before the City Council at which time the City Manager's report will be considered along with any written or oral comments of the cable operator or any other interested parties. The City Council may then make the final rate determination by way of written resolution. 4) Because the FCC is responsible for determining maximum rates for the cable programming service tier, the City Manager is authorized to file a Form 329 with the FCC within 45 days of any increase in the rates charged for this tier of service. In this manner, the City will be insured that the FCC will review these rates with the second tier of service. 5) If the cable operator should choose to justify its rates based upon a cost-of- service showing rather than the benchmark formula, the City Manager is authorized to request the FCC to make this determination rather than the City. (Because a cost-of-service showing requires substantially more effort to review than a benchmark filing, the FCC has authorized cities to petition the FCC to review such rates in place of local review). 6) The Resolution also contains a procedure for enforcing the FCC regulations as well as any rate orders issued by the City. Briefly, it provides that if the operator fails to comply with the rate order or fails to submit information as requested; the City Manager can notify the operator of its failure to comply and require the operator to cure the default within ten days. Should the operator fail to comply, the City Manager will cause a public hearing to be held before the City Council. The City Council may in its discretion then impose fines upon the Cable Operator for its default. FISCAL ANALYSIS: The City received $170,000 in franchise fees from its only cable TV provider, Inland Valley Cablevision, during FY 1993-94. These revenues support general fund services. Aside from staff time in the City Manager's Office, the City's expenditures were approximately $600 in legal fees from Burke, Williams & Sorensen to assist with the implementation of rate regulation in the last fiscal year. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ADOFrING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURF-~ TO REGULATE CABLE T~,L~-VISION SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT RATES AND REPEALrNG I~E~OLUTION NO. 93-74 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. § 521 et. seq.~ (the '1992 Cable Act*), and the regulations of the Federal Regulations), the City has been certified to regulate the rates charged for cable television services and equipment; WHEREAS, the FCC Regulations require the City to adopt procedures for regulating the basic service tier within 120 days of being certified; WHEREAS, although the City has previously adopted rate regulation procedures pursuant to Resolution No. 93-74, it desires to adopt revised procedures; NOW, Ti~EREFORE, BE IT I~F-qOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. DEFINII1ONS 1.1 "1992 Cable Act" means the Cable Television Consumer ProtectiOn and Competition Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. § 521 et. sea_.~. 1.2 "Cable Operator" means any person or business entity operating a cable television system within the City and subject to regulation of cable television services and equipment pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act. 1.3 "FCC Regulations: mean the regulations the FCC has adopted regarding rate regulation as set forth at Ti~e 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, § 76.900 et. seq.. including any amendments thereto. 1.4 "City Manager" means the City Manager or his designee. 1.5 "FCC Rate Regulation Form: means FCC Form 393, 1200, 1205, 1215, 1220, 1225 or such similar forms as the FCC may adopt for the determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services and equipment. 1.6 "Subscriber* means any person or entity utilizing or desiring to utiliTe cable operator provided cable television services for consideration. *Subscriber* also means "customer(s)" and/or *subscribers" as those terms are used in the 1992 Cable Act and FCC Rate Regulations. 1.7 "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission. Section 2. INCORPORATION OF THE FCC RATE REGULATIONS 2.1 Incorporation of FCC REgulations. The City Council hereby incorporates by reference the FCC REgulations as part of these procedures. 2.2 Compliance with the 1992 Cable Act and FCC REgulations. These procedures shall at all times be interpreted to comply with the 1992 Cable Act as amended, and the FCC REgulations. In the event any provision of these procedures shall be invalidated for any reason or cause, any remaining portions shall be deemed s~vered and shall remain in full force and effect. Sectioh 3. CERTIFICATION 3.1 Application for Certification. The City Manager is directed to take all necessary action to secure FCC certification for the City to regulate rates charged for cable television services and equipment. Section 4. DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PERMITFED RATES FOR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES AND EOUIPMENT 4.1 Submittal of FCC Rate Regulation Forms. The City Manager is directed to take all necessary action to secure submittal by the Cable Operator of completed FCC Rate Regulation Forms. 4.2 Submittal of Additional Information with FCC Rate Regulation Form. Concurrently, with submitling the applicable FCC Ram Regulation Form establishing maximum rams for cable television service and equipment, the Cable Operator shall submit the following information: A. The name, address and telephone number of the person who prepared the FCC Rate Regulation Form or the person the Cable Operator othenvise designates to answer any questions the City may have regarding the Form. B. Channel Line-ups and rates for each tier and channel, and for equipment and installation as of (i) the initial date of regulation; (li) the date of the Rate Regulation Form (ih') September 30, 1992; (iv) April 5, 1993; (v) March 31, 1994; and (vi) July 15, 1994. C. Subscriber counts as of (i) September 30, 1992; (ii) April 5, 1993; Ctii) the initial date of regulation; (vi) March 31, 1994; (v) July 15, 1994; and (vi) the date of the FCC Rate Regulation Form. Counts should be for the basic and cable programming services tiers, and for all a h carte channels. Subscribers to bnlk rate agreements should be itemized separately. D. If any channels are shared between two or more services, identify the services involved and the approximate percentage of time each service occupied the channels. E. If any FM services have been removed from the basic or cable pwgramming service tiers since April 1, 1993, indicate which service and the date removed. F. The General Ledger and the following subsidiary records: 1. Fixed assets records, including depreciation schedules; 2. Payroll records, including depreciation schedules; 3. Selected supporting documents, including, but not limited to, (i) invoices supporting equipment purchases, (ii) building leases, (iii) capital equipment leases, and (iv) truck'maintenance contracts and invoices; depreciation; and Schedules indicating differences between book depreciation and tax 5. Schedules supporting all allocation and computations on the FCC Rate Regulation. G. Report of gross revenues for purposes of franchise fee payments for two (2) years preceding the date of FCC Rate Regulation Form. H. Copies of all bulk rate and special (e.g., senior citizens) rate agreements. I. State whether a customer may subscribe to basic tier service and purchase a pay channel or paper-view programming without purchasing an intr.~medlate tier or paying any additional fee. If answer is no, explain why. 4.3 Additional Information. The Cable Operator shall submit such additional information as the City Manager may determine is necessary to determine maximum permitted rates for cable television sexyices and equipment. The Cable Operator shall fully respond to such requests for additional information within 14 days of receipt of the request. 4.4 City' s Power to Audit Cable Operator. Pursuant to 47 CFR § 76.930, the City may conduct its own audit of the financial records of the Cable Operator to determine ff the FCC Rate Regulation Form truly and accurately reflect the actual cost of regulated equipment. 4.5 Time to Determine Rates. Pursuant to 47 CFR § 76.933, 'the City Manager may issue such orders as he determines are reasonably necessavj to extend the time to review the FCC Rate Regulation Form submitted and determine the maximum permitted rates. 4.6 Cost of Service Showing. Upon receipt of a Cost of Service Showing, the City Manager shall rake all steps necessary, including filing a potition for special relief, to cause the FCC to evaluate the cost of Service Showing. 4.7 City Manager Rste Report. The City Manager shall review the FCC Rate Regulation Form and additional information submitted by Cable Opentor, and prepare a written report to the City Council recommending whether the existing or proposed rates are within the FCC's p~udtted basic sen, ice tier charge or actual cost of equipment as deftned in 5§ 76.922 and 76.923. 4.8 Public Hearing. Prior to thairing .any detertnination whether the Cable Operator's existing or proposed rates are within the FCC's permitted basic service tier charge or actual cost of equipment as defined in 5§ ?6.922 and 76.923, the City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing, at which lime, interested parties will be given the opportunity to submit written and oral testimony. Written notice of the public and oral testimony. Written notice of the public hearing shall be provided to the Cable Operator at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. 4.9 Rate Determination. At the public heating, Cable Operator shall have the burden of pwving that its existing or proposed rates for basic service and associated equipment comply with 47 U.S.C. 543, AND 47 CFR 55 76.922 AND 76.923. If the Cable Operator does not attempt to demonstrate the reasonableness of its rates, the Council may find the Operator in default and, using the best information available, enter an order finding the Cable Operator's rates unreasonable and mandating appropriate relief, as speckfled in 47 CFR 55 76.940, 76.941 and 76.942. The City Council shall malce all rate determinations by way of written Resolution. 4.10 Submittal of FCC Form 329. The City Manager is directed to submit a FCC Form 329 within 45 days of any rate increase by the Cable Operator to insure FCC review of cable programming service rates. Section 5. REFUNDS TO SUBSCRIBERS 5.1 Refunds to Subscribers. All refunds owing by the Cable Operator to Subscribers pursuant to 'the FCC Regulations shall be paid by direct or credited to the Subscriber's bill pursuant to 47 CFR 5 76.942(d)(1) or (2) within thirty (30) days from the date of the implementation of a pwspective rate reduction. 5.2 Trust Account. If after reasonable and diligent efforts to make payments of monies refundable to Subscribers, the Operator is unable to effectuate such payments for any reason, the Operator shall establish a Trust Account and deposit to it the actual payment of monies refundable to Subscriber who cannot be located and payment effectuated. 5.3 Distributions from Trust Account. Monies from the Trust Account shall be distributed December 31 of each year to the City for government access television programming. Section 6. ENFORCEMENT 6.1 Whenever the City Manager believes there has been a material breach of these Procedures and/or the FCC Regulation, he shall notify the Cable Operator in writing to cure the breach. The City Manager shall establish a minimum lime to cul~ the breach, which in no event shall be less than ten (10) days. The notice shall specify any refund liability, ff any. The written notice to the Cable Operator shall be by certified mail or other means providing for certification of receipt. 6.2 "Upon _receiving the City Manager's notice of the breach, the Cable Operator shall investigate the alleged breach, and within the time period established in the notice, notify the City Manager in writing of the results of the investigation and its proposed action or resolution, if any. In the event the City Manager does n6t refer the matter to the City Council as pr6vided under this Resolution within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the Cable Operator's response, the Operator's proposed action or resolution shall be final. 6.3 Following a determination of the City Manager that the Cable Openmr has failed to cure a breach of these procedures and/or the FCC Regulations, the City Manager may initiate enforcement proceedings with respect to the breach. Such enforcement proceedings may be initiated by the City Manager providing the Cable Operator notice of a public hearing before the City Council. Notice shall be provided to the Cable Operator by certified mail or other means providing for certification of receipt. 6.4 The City Council shall commence the hearing no less than ten (10) days of the hearing notice. 6.5 Upon the conclusion of the heating, the City Council shall adopt a decision, which includes findings of fact and conclusions of law. 6.6 If the hearing is conducted by the City Council, upon conclusion of the hearing, City Council shall adopt a decision which induces findings of fact and conclusions of law. 6.7 The City Council my impose fines or monetary forfeitures on the Cable Operator if it fails to comply with these procedures, the FCC Regulations or a rate decision of the City Council. 6.8 Neither monetary sanctions imposed hereunder nor any order issued by the City Council related hereto shall be deemed to bar or otherwise limit the fight of the City Council to obtain judicial enforcement of the Cable Operator's obligations by means of specific performance, injunctive relief, mandate or other remedies at law or inequity, other than monetary damages. Section 7. Resolution No. 93-74 is hereby repealed. STATE OF CALmORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF TEIvlrsCULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do h~.by c~'tify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-__ was duly and reg.!~rly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a r~gular meeting thu-eof held on Lhe day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: "COUNCILMRMBERS: NOES: COUNCILM~MBERS: ABSENT: 'COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILM~MBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD AUGUST 9, 1994 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:10 P.M. at the Temecula Community Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. President Jeff Stone presiding. PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberrs, Stone ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz Also present were General Manager Ronald E. Bradley, General Counsel Peter Thorson, and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT CALENDAR Director Roberts removed Item No. 3 for discussion. It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Parks to approve Consent Calendar Items 1,2, 4 and 5. The motion carried as follows: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone 0 DIRECTORS: None 1 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz Minute~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 1. CSDMIN08/09/94 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of July 26, 1994. Amendment to the Construction Contract with Martin J. Jaska for Construction of Pala Community Park - Proiect No. PW93-03CSD RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Amendment No. 1, revising the Construction Contract with martin J. Jaska for the Construction of Pala Community Park, Project No. PW93-03CSD, by reducing the scope of work and cost associated with completing this work 08/16/94 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES CSDMINOB/O9194 AUGUST 9, 1994 to an amount not to exceed 81,714,500.00. 2.2 Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of 8171,450.00, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Award of Construction Contract for Lone Valley Wash - Channel Repair, PWO4-O6CSD RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Award a contract for the Long Valley Wash - Channel Repair, PW94-06CSD, to Trautwein Construction for 831,000.00and authorize the President to execute the contract. 4.2 Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of 83,100.00, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 4.3 Transfer 815,397.00 from TCSD Fund Balance in Service Level C and appropriate this amount to the Capital Improvement Fund. Acceptance of the Community Recreation Center - Phase II, Project NO, PW92-29B RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Accept the Community Recreation Center - Phase II, Project No. PW92-029B, as complete. 5.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond (10% of contract amount). 5.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been field to that date. Contract Chanae Order No. 2, Sports Park Slooe Repair, Project No. PW93-O6CSD Director Roberrs expressed concern regarding the amount of the change order which appeared excessive to him. Community Services Director Shawn Nelson said the engineer who prepared the design element was not aware that there would be a requirement by MWD to cap over the water lines. Director Parks explained the cost of the concrete cap over the water lines was a significant amount of the change order. 2 08/16194 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1994 Pubtic Works Director Tim Serlet explained that each project is not constructed exactly to the design of the project. It was moved by Director Roberts, seconded by Director Parks to approve staff recommendation as follows: 3.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 2 for the Sports Park Slope Repair, Project No. PW93-06CSD, for labor, material and equipment in the amount of $77,977,00. 3.2 Transfer $72,482.54from TCSD Fund Balance and appropriate this amount to the Capital Improvement Fund. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT None DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT None BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Birdsall to adjourn at 8:35 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Mu~oz absent. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District will be held on Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 8:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. ATTEST: City Clerk June S. Greek President Jeff Stone CSDMIN08109/94 3 OB/16/94 MINTUES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was calted to order on Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 8:48 P.M., at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California, President Jeffrey E. Stone presiding. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone ABSI~NT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were General Manager Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Deputy City Clerk Susan Jones. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Roberrs to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 and 2. The motion was carried as follows: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None 1. Combinine Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Chanees in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994 RECOMMENDATrON: 1.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1994. 1.2 Appropriate ~7,100to account 191-180-999-5319"Street Lighting" (Service Level A Fund). 1.3 Appropriate $4,842 to account 250-190-129-5227 "Trustee Administration Fees" (Capital Projects Fund). 1.4 Appropriate $128,864to account 250-190o129-5802"Design-Community Recreation Center" (Capital Projects Fund). CSDMIN08/23/94 I 08/29f94 2. Contract Chanoe Order No. 3, Sports Park Slope Repair, Proiect NO. PW93-06.CSD RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 3 for the Sports Park Slope Repair, Project No. PW93-06.CSD, for labor, material and equipment in the amount of $4,830,.00. 2.2 Transfer $4,830.00 from TCSD Fund Balance and appropriate this amount to the Capital Improvement Fund. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT None GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT None DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT None BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS Director Parks referred to a letter to the Editor in the Californian regarding the use of Santa Gertrudis Creek for bike paths. Director Parks asked staff to review a joint use of the Santa Gertrudis Creek, Temecula Creek and Santiago Trail easements. Director Nelson advised that a member of the City Staff will be meeting with County Supervisor Bob Buster to discuss joint use of trails. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Robarts to adjourn at 8:50 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried. The next regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on September 13, 1994, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. ATTEST: President Jeffrey E. Stone City Clerk June S. Greek CSDMIN08/23/94 O8/29/94 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD AUGUST 9, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order Tuesday, August 9, 1994, 8:35 P.M. at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT: 4 ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberts, Stone, Parks Mu~oz Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, General Counsel Peter Thorson, and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: 1.1 Approve the minutes of July 26, 1994. AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberts, Stone, Parks NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Mu~oz Chamber of Commerce Aareement Finance Director Mary Jane Henry presented the staff report. It was moved by Agency Member Roberts, seconded by Agency Member Stone to approve staff recommendation as follows: 2.1 AYES: NOES: Approve the FY 1994-95 agreement with the Chamber of Commerce to provide services and authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract. 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberts, Stone, Parks 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None RDA08/09/94 1 08/16/94 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Mu~oz EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Ron Bradley announced that on Wednesday, September 7, 1994, the representatives of Price Waterhouse will deliver and present to the Redevelopment Agency their report on the Old Town Entertainment Proposal study. Director Bradley said the direction by the Agency will most likely be to refer the report to staff for further review. Agency Member Stone asked staff to increase the advertising of that meeting. Agency Member Parks asked that the September 7, 1994 meeting be televised. Agency Member Birdsall said she feels the RDA needs to review the project while the analysis is being presented before a decision is made whether or not this issue will be placed on the ballot. Agency Member Birdsall said staff should provide a cost analysis for adding this issue to the ballot. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Stone to adjourn at 8:43 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Mu~oz absent. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency will be held on Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 8:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. AUGUST 9,1994 Chairperson Ronald J. Parks ATTEST: City Clerk June S. Greek RDA08/09/94 2 08116/94 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order on Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 8:50 P.M. at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California, Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, MuAoz, Roberts, Stone, Parks ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive .Director Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Deputy City Clerk Susan Jones. PUBLIC COMMENT Therese McLeod, 42200 Main Street, #F128, Temecula, addressed the view expressed by Councilmember Parks regarding the benefits to the community from the Zev Buffman proposal. Ms. McLeod asked the City Council to consider approving a binding vote of the project by the public. CONSENT CALENDAR Agency Member Roberts removed Item No. 2 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Stone to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was carried as follows: AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Roberts, Stone, Parks NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Combinina Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues. Expenditures end Chanoes in Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1994 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1994. RDAMINOB/23/94 08/29194 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR°S REPORT Director Bradley advised the Agency the Price Waterhouse Report on the Old Town Temecula Entertainment project will be presenting during a special meeting to be herd on Wednesday, September 7, 1994, 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. to a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, September 7, 1994, at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. Chairperson Ronald J, Parks ATTEST: City Clerk June S. Greek RDAMINOBI23/94 3 O8/29/94 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINkNCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Agency Members Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer September 13, 1994 RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Criteria RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council amend the Redevelopment Agency Loan Program for Commercial Rehabilitation (RDA Loan) criteria to allow for exceptions on a case-by-case basis to allow loans that exceed the $100,000 limit when aDpropriate. DISCUSSION: On May 11, 1993 the City Council approved, in concept, a small business loan program and established funding limits of four loans at $100,000 and five loans at $50,000 for a total pool of $650,000. (Attachment "B") On January 25, 1994 staff then brought forward to Council the recommended parameters of the RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program to comply with AB 1290. In Attachment "C" are the minutes of that meeting and a copy of the Staff Report with its attachments. Since the inception of the RDA loan program, the City has processed 10 loan applications, approved 6 applications and funded 3 of these loans for a total of $109,400. Attachment "D" summarizes the applications accepted and processed to date. As noted above, the existing loan criteria limits the maximum loan amount to $100,000. This limit was to ensure that an adequate amount of loans would be available to applicants in the program. Recently, staff received applications for loans in excess of the $1 00,000 1imit. These loans were to be used in the "Old Town" area of Temecula for rehabilitating a commercial building and financing equipment and tenant improvements for that building, consistent with the intent of the Redevelopment Agency. Although the loans for these projects exceeded the authorized amount, they would have provided rehabilitation for a distressed building in Old Town Temecula. In order to better facilitate a project such as this, we have had discussions with other redevelopment professionals and have determined that the Agency's Facade Improvement Program will be an appropriate tool for a commercial building rehabilitation project. This program is included in the Capital Improvement Program and is scheduled for implementation this fiscal year. In connection with the consideration of the above loan, questions have arisen concerning the City's process for reviewing applications. Attachment "E" includes the City's procedures for loan review, including but not limited to review of TRW reports, preparing UCC filings, recording trust deeds and so forth. It should be noted that the Health and Safety Code requires that the applicant must not have any other alternatives for loan funding in order to receive an RDA loan. Therefore, this finding is made at the time the loan is reviewed by the loan committee (bank executive and CPA). Attachments: "A" RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Application/Criteria "B" May 11,1993 Agenda Report and Minutes "C" January 25, 1994 Agenda Report and Minutes "D" RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Applicants "E" RDA Loan Procedures S n 90 f909~ 694-198~ · FAX fgO~. 5~=-1c~= TF_,NIECULA P-k'T}EVFJ~OPMENT AGENCY Small Business Loan Program For Rehabilitating Commercial Buildilags and Structures and F'mancing Manufacturing Facilities and Equipment I ELIGIBILITY 1. Business must be located within Redevelopment Project Arm. 2. Business shall be organized for profit. 3. New business ventures less than one year old must contribute at least 30% cash to the total project cost. For existing businesses, the debt/equity ratio must not exceed 4:1 (including amount of proposed loan). 4. Business must establish that it has or can obtain the necessary knowledge to operate the business profitably. 5. Business must establish the marketability of your product or service. 6. Business must demonstrate the ability to repay the loan from business cash flow. ?. Lo~n must be secured with collateral (unencumbered value or equity) equal to 100 % of loan amount. 8. Loan amount may not exceed $100,000. H PERMHTIzD USES OF LOAN FUNDS 1. Construct, expand or convert commercial buildings and structures. 2. Finance manufacturing machinery, fLxtures and capital equipment. III SECURITY Trust Deed on business or personal real estate, or security interest in equipment. Generally variable rams are tied to the Prime Rate + 2% and annual and lifetime rate caps may be made available. Rates are usually adjusted semi-annually. Fixed rates are available at Prime Rate + 2% for the life of the loan. V T~=RMS Five years amortized over the life of new equipment, but not beyond the term of property lease. Twenty years is applicable for real estate improvement. There is no prepayment penalty. VI FEES $250 plus actual costs such as UCC fees, title and appraisal, recording, etc. can be paid from loan proceeds or paid by borrower. These fees VII PROHIBITED USE 1. Raw land acquisition, speculative new construction, or real estate purchased for the purpose of resale by the Borrowers, for their own account, where the prospect of profit will result from market fluctuations. 2. Account trading in commodity futures. 3. Mineral exploration and development of ventures, such as, but not limited to, "wild card" petroleum, gas, mineral and other prospecting where profit will result from the discovery of something of value. 4. Gambling. 5. Proceeds will be used in a business located outside the City of Temecula. 6. Publications of newspapers, magazines and journals of all types. 7. To pay-off creditors who are inadequately secured, which axe past due and/or have not been properly serviced by the debtor. CITECKLIST FOR PI~ELIM]NARY APPROVAL The following items are necessary to review your loan request for approval. APPLICATION FrI~TORY OF BUSINESS USE OF LOAN PROCEEDS (land, building, equipment) CURRENT BUSINESS FINANCIAL STATEMF2f5 (within 60 days Of application) INDEPENDENTLY PREPARP. B TO INCLUDE BALANCE SF/EET, INCOME STATEMENT, AGING OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PAYABLE, SCFrF~ULE OF DEBT. PROJECTIONS OF INCOME AND EXPENSE (at least 12 months) BUSINESS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS (balance sheets and income statement) BUSI1W. SS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS fIRS only) PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMRNT (For principals with :20% or more ownership) PERSONAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS fiRS only for principals with 20% or more ownership) CREDIT REFORT/S (Obtained by City of Temecula) Include copy of PROPERTY LEASE {e.g., 3 yr, 3 yr, 10 yr, etc.) PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT As of 19 Complete this form if 1) a sole proprietorship by the proprietor; 2) a parmership by each parmer; 3) a corporation by each officer and each stockholder with 5% or more ownership; 4) any other person or entity. providing a guaranty on the loan. Narfie Residence Phone Residence Address City, State, & Zip Business Name of Applicant/Borrower ASSETS (Omit Cents) LIABILITIES (Omit Cents) Cash on hand & in hnl~ ...................................... $ Savings Accounts ................................................... N~s hyable (to Bk & Others) Mo. hymnins S Total llsbilitlcs ................................................ N~t Wo~h ........................................................ Tolal ................................................. Section 1. Source ofl~cotr~ Salsr~ ......................................................... Net Investment l~comc ....... ~ .................................. Rcal Estate bcomc .............................. . .............. Other Income (D~scribc)* ....................................... As Gusrtnlor or Co-Maker .................................. L~ltl Chims & hdj~rn~nu ................................ Provision for Fed la~ome TEt ............................. Other Special D~bt ....................................... Tertns How S~cured or (Monthly-etc.) ~ndorlzd - Type of Collat~nl Address o Type of P~pet~ Section 6, O~er Assets, Nou:s & Accounts R. cceivsblc (D~sc~bc) So~ial Security No. Social Security No. Appheam CITY OF TEM~ULA Application for ~u~,~ Loan Full Add~ss Full Sn*ec~ Address Type of Business County Bank of Business Account and Address JS~ ~ Zip Date Business Established Ts, x I.D No Tel, No. (Inc. A/C) Number of Employees/Including subsidiaries and affxha~es) At Time of Appli~tion If Loan is Approved Subsidiaries or Aff~jates (Sepzr=~c from above) Use of Proceeds: (Enter Gross DoL!ar Amounts Rounded to Nearest Hundreds) Loan Reque. sted RDA Use ONLY $ $ S L s s $ $ THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS MUST BE COMPLETED WHERE APPLICABLE. ALL QUESTIONS ANSVv'ERED ARE MADE A PART OF TIlE APPLICATION. For Guaranty Loans please provide an original and one copy (Photocopy is Acceptable) of the Application Form, and all Exhibits to the City.. 1. Submit Personal Hi.story Statement for each person e.g. owners, partners, officers, directors, major stockholders, e~. 2. Furrash a signed current personal balance sheet for each stockholder (vdth 5 % or greamr ownership), parmer, officer, and owner. Social Security number should be included on personal financial statement. Label this Exhibit B. 3. Include the statements listed below: 1, 2, 3 for the last three years; also 1, 2, 3, 4 dated within 90 days of filing the applicatiom and statementS, ifapplicable. This is Exhibit C. All information must be signed and dated. 1. Balance Sheet 2. Profit and Loss Statement 3. Reconciliation of Net Worth 4. Aging of Aecotmts Receivable and Payable 5. Earnings projections for at least one year where financial statements for the last three years axe unavailable. ('if Profit and Loss Statement is not available, explain why and substitute Federal Income Tax Forms.) 4. Provide a brief history of your company and a paragraph describing the expect~t benefits it will receive from the loan. Label it Exhibit D. 5. Provide a brief description of the educational, technical and business background for all the people listed under Management. Pleas~ mark it Exhibit E. 6. Do you have any co-signers and/or gnarantors for this loan? If so, please submit their names, addresses and personal balance sheet(s) as Exhibit F. 7. A~ you buying machinery or equipment with your loa~ money? If so, you must Include a list of the equipment and cost as quoted by the seller and his name and address. This is Exhibit G. 8. Have you or any officers of your company ever been involved in b~ptcy or insolvency proceedings? Is so, please provide the details as Exhibit H. If none, check here: []Yes []No 9. Are you or your business revolved m any pending lawsuits? If yes, provide the details m Exhibit I. If none, check hers: [ ] Yes [ ] No 10. Do you or your spouse or any member of your household, or anyone who owns, m~nages, or directs your business or their spouses or members of theix households work for the City, Agency or TemecuJa Community Services District? If su, please provide the name and address of the person and die office where employed. Label this Exhibit J. If none, check hers: [ ] Yes [ ] No i1. Does your business, its owns or majority stockholders own or have a controlling interest in other businesses? If yes, please provide theix names and die rebRiolBhlp with yottr company along with a current balance sheet an, operating statement for each. This should be Exhibit K. 12. Do you buy from, sell to, or use the services of any concern in which someone in your company has a significant financial interest? If yes, pwvide details on a separato sheet of paper labeled Exhibit L. 13. If your business is a franchise, include a copy of the franchise agreement end a copy of the FfC disclosure statement supplied to you by the Franchisor. Please include it as Exhibit M. 14. If you have been denied credit include two bank decimation letters with your application. These letlers should include the name and telephone number of the persons contacted at the banks, the amount and terms of the loall, and the reason for decline. In cities with 200,000 people or less, one letter will be sufficient. AGREEMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS Certification: I/We ce~fy: (a) I/We have not paid anyone connected with the City of Temecula for help m obtaining this loan. I/We also agree to report to the City of Temecula any city employee who offers, in remm for any type of compensation, to help get this loan approved. (b) All information in this application and die Exhibits are true and complete to the best of mytour knowledge and are subraft-,,,4 to the City of Temecula so the Temecula Redevelopment Agency can decide whether to grant a loan or participate with a lending institution in a loan to me/us. I/We agree to pay for or reimburse the Temecula Redevelopmeat Agency for the cost of any surveys, title or mortgage eXaminatiOnS, appraisals etc,, perforaled by non-City of Temecula personnel provided I/we have given my/our consent. If Applicant is a proprietor or general parmer, sign below: By: Date If Applicant is a Corporation, sign below: Corporate Name and Seal Date CONSTRUCTION LOANS ONLY 15. :include a separate exhibit (Exhibit ND die estimated cost of the project and a statement of the source of any additional 16. Provide evidence of all necessm-y governmental approvals (e.g., permits, vanantes, etc.) 17. Provide copies of prsliminary construction plans end specifications. Include them as Exhibit O. Final plans will be required prior to disbursement. EXPORT LOANS 18. Does your business presently engage in Export Trade? Check here: [ ] Yes [ ] No 19. Do you plan to begin expofling as a result of this loan? Check here: [ ] Yes [ ] No By: Attested by: Signature of President Signature of Corporate Secretary Z _z APPROVA("' CITY ATTOBN,L=-Y-,3r'~_ FINANCE OFFICER~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency David F. Dixon, Executive Director May 11, 1993 Small Business Incentive Loan Program PREPARED BY: Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer Scott F. Field, General Counsel RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency review the Small Business Incentive Loan Program and authorize the Agency to implement the program, subject to Agency approval of individual loans on a case by case basis. DISCUSSION: As part of the City's Economic Development Program the City Council and City Manager have had on-going discussions regarding a Small Business Incentive Loan Program. Following are key elements of the program for your review. Tarqet: Retocation or retention of a business with sixty (60) employees or less. SC0De: A program maximum of $1,000,000 of Redevelopment Agency tax increment proceeds with a maximum loan amount of $150,000. Such money will initially be drawn from the Redevelopment Revolving Fund. Review Committee: A review committee will be assembled and consist of three members of the banking commumty with expertise in small business lending, one member of the Council Finance Committee. City Finance Officer and the Executive Director. The committee will also assist with the preparation of the loan qualification criteria and other operational guidelines, Agenda Reoort Small BusinessIncentive Loan Program May 11, 1993 Page 2. Rate Terms: City's cost of funds plus administration and reserve funding; five year repayment, amortized over ten years. We are anticipating an initial rate of 5.5%. Security: Trust Deed on business or personal real estate, or security interest in equipment. Permitted Use: Construct, expand or convert facilities for use in the course of the commercial or industrial borrower's business. ' Acquire real property for the purpose of starting operations or economically bettering the existing operations of a small business. Purchase machinery, fixtures and equipment, Prohibited Use: Raw land acquisition, speculative new construction, or real estate purchased for the purpose of resale by the Borrowers, for their own account, where the prospect of profit will result ,from market fluctuations. Account trading in commodity futures. Mineral exploration and development of ventures, such as, but not limited to, "wild cat" petroleum, gas, mineral and other prospecting where profit will result from the discovery of something of value. Gambling. Proceeds will be used outside of Temecula. Publications of newspapers, magazines and journals of all types. To pay-off creditors who are inadequately secured which are past due and or have not been properly serviced by the debtor. Agenda Report Small BusinessIncentive Loan Program May 11, 1993 Page 3. For distribution or payment to owner*partners or shareholders of the applicant, or to replenish working capital previously used for such purposes. Leoal Authority Each redevelopmerit agency has the authority to exercise governmental functions and has the powers prescribed in Health and Safety Code sections 33000 to 33738. (Health and Safety Code section 33122.) According to Health and Safety Code section 33071. "a fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to expand the supply of low and moderate income housing, to expand employment opportunities for the jobless, underemployed, and low-income persons, and to provide an environment foi' the social, economic, and psychological growth and well- being of all citizens." Section 33125(c) states that a redevelopmerit agency may "Ira]eke and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers." In Marek v. Naoa Communitv Redevelooment Aoencv (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1070, the court further explained that: "The purposes of the Communitv Redevelooment Law include (1) the creation of physical, social, economic, and environmental conditions to remove and prevent the recurrence of blioht; (2) the creation of lobs and low-to-moderate income housing; and (3) the attraction of ~>rivate investment towards these ends. The court went on to suggest that because redevelooment aqencie$ are endowed with broad Dowers to "[m]ake and execute contracts and other instruments necessary" to complete redevelopment proiects, this should authorize contracts necessary to achieve the objectives of redevelopmont. In addition, the specific objectives of the Temecula Redevelopment Plan (Riverside County Redevelopment Project No. 1-1988): "Promote the expansion of the County's industrial basis and local employment opportunities to provide jobs to unemployed and underemployed workers in the County. Encourage investment in the project area by the private sector. Encourage the cooperation and participation of project area property owners, public agencies and community organizations in elimination of blighting conditions and the promotion of new or improved development in each of the non-contiguous portions of the project area." MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAY 11, 1993 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order on Tuesday, May 11,1993, 9:40 P.M., at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula California. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ronald J. Parks. AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: 'Birdsall, Mu~oz, Roberrs, Stone, Parks NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David Dixon, Assistant City Manager Woody Edvalson, City Attorney F. Scott Field, City Clerk June S. Greek and Recording Secretary Gall Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None AGENCY BUSINESS Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 13, 1993. It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Mu~oz to approve staff recommendation. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz Parks NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None , Roberts, Stone, Economics Research Associates (ERA Labor Force Study) Assistant City Manager Woody Edvalson presented the staff report. RDAMIN5/11/93 -t- 5117/93 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 11, 1993 Mayor Mu~oz expressed his disappointment with the staff report and Questioned Mr. Edvalson's efforts at contacting the resources the Mayor had suggested. It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Parks to approve staff recommendation. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberts, Stone, Parks NOES: I AGENCY MEMBERS: Mur~oz ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Development and Disposition AGreement - Wal Mart Department Store It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Mu~ioz to continue this Item to the meeting of June 22, 1993. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz , Roberts, Stone, Parks NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Development and Disposition AGreement - Professional HOSPital SUPPLY City Manager David Dixon presented the staff report. Agency Member Mu~oz stated that he feels that considering the investment the City is willing to make, Professional Hospital Supply should be willing to remain in Temecula for a set period of time. Agency Member Stone clarified that he is one hundred percent in support of Professional Hospital Supply remaining in the community. It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: RDAMINSI11/93 -2- 5117193 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES 4.1 MAY 11, 1993 Approve the Development and Disposition Agreement between the Agency and Professional Hospital Supply, et.al., and authorize the Agency Chairman to execute the same. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberrs, Stone, Parks NOES: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None it was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to extend the meeting to 11:00 P.M. Loan to Quicksilver Enterprise, InC. Agency Member Birdsall stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest. City Manager David Dixon presented the staff report. It was moved by Agency Member Mu~oz, seconded by Agency Member Stone to approve staff recommendation as follows: 5.1 Approve a $60,000 loan to Quicksilver Enterprises, Inc., and authorize the Agency President to execute the attached Agreement in substantially the form presented, subject to approval of the Agency Executive Director and General Counsel as to the final form of the Agreement. The motion carried as follows: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: None AGENCY MEMBERS: None AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall AYES:' 4. NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: I Mu~oz, Roberrs, Stone, Parks RDAMINS/11/93 Low Interest Loan/Business Incentive Prooram City Manager David Dixon presented the staff report. Dan Atwood, Toyota of Temecula, 26631 Ynez Road, Temecula, expressed his support REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 11, 1993 of the loan program. Mr. Atwood advised that he is currently on the Board of the Chamber of Commerce and can see the need for this program in the community. Agency Member Birdsall stated that she would be in favor of a interest only payment for the first year of the loan to allow the businesses to re-establish themselves. Agency Member Stone stated that he supports the program and suggested that the maximum loan amount be lowered from $150,000 to $100,000. Agency Member Mu~oz stated that he also is in support of the program and the comments made by Agency Member Stone. It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to approve staff recommendation with specific direction regarding the maximum loan amounts to be awarded, allowing no more than four loans with a maximum of $100,000 and five loans with a maximum amount of $50,000. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: NOES: Birdsall, Mu~oz , Roberts, Stone, Parks 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS Agency Meml~er BirdSall and Agency Member Stone volunteered to participate on the loan review committee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Stone to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency will be held on RDAMINS/11/93 -4- 5117/93 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 11, 1993 Tuesday, May 25, 1993, 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Ronald J. Parks, Chairperson June S. Greek, City Clerk RDAMIN5/11/93 -6- 5117~93 Attachment "C' FINANCE OFFIdk~<I ~7~ CITY MANAGER ~~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Agency Members Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer January 25, 1994 RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members 1) Adopt Resolution No. 94- program, and establishing a commercial rehabilitation loan 2) Approve loan requests per Attachment A. DISCUSSION: On May 11, 1993, the City Council approved in concept a small business loan incentive program. In accordance with AB 1290, staff is recommending that the Agency establish a Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program to comply with the new law. Parameters of the program are included on the sample application attached. To date, the City has received six loan applications. Currently, staff is recommending approval of the loans listed on Attachment A. The loans have been reviewed by a committee consisting of a local bank official and a CPA. Based on their recommendations, and comments, staff completed the loan files and reviewed them with the council's ad hoc loan committee, Jeff Stone and Pat Birdsall. The terms of the loans are tied to the useful life of the asset financed. The existing RDA judgment provides for an interest rate of Prime plus 2%. Attachments: Attachment A Sample Application Sample Promissory Note Sample Loan and Security Agreement RESOLUTION NO. RDA94- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMKNT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A SMALL BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM FOR R~P, ABILITATING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND FINANCING MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND EQUIP1V[ENT VfFIEREAS, pursuant to Section 33344.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, the Temecula Re. development Agency may establish a program under which it loans funds to owners or tenants for the purpose of rehabilitating commercial buildings or structures within the Project Area; WttEREAS, pursuant to Section 33344.6 of the California Health and Safety Code, the Agency may assist with the financing of manufacturing facilities and capital equipment pursuant to an agreement that provides for the development and rehabilitation of property that will be used for industrial or manufacturing purposes; NOW THEREFORE, the Re. development Agency of the City of Temecula resolves as follows: Section 1. The small business loan program for rehabilitating commercial buildings and structures and financing manufacturing facilities and equipment is hereby established. Loans shall be reviewed and considered by the Temecula Re, development Loan Committee. The Committee shall be appointed by the Agency, an consist of two Agency Members, one representative from a local commercial banIcing institution and one certified public accountant. The Loan Committee shall meet pursuant to the California Brown Act (Government Code § 54950, el. seq.). Section 2. In considering of whether to recommend loan applications for approval, the Committee shall apply the loan criteria set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 3. All loans shall be approved by the Re. development Agency of the City of Temecula. Prior to the approval of any loan for the purpose of financing manufacturing facilities and equipment, a public hearing shall be conducted. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided at least 10 days in advance of public hearing by posting notice at the locations established by City Council Resolution, and by publishing notice in the newspaper established by City Council Resolution for public notices. Section 4. No loan may be made at an interest rate less than that established pursuant to Stipulated Judgment in the case entitled Dawes v. City of Temecula and Temecula Re. development Agency, Riverside Superior Court Case No. 194468MF (consolidated with Case No. 194948). 5Xresos.rda\009 1 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~ o o 0 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. 93-__ was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , 1993, by the following roll call vote: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILNIEAIBERS: COUNCILIVIEMBERS: COUNCILMF-MBERS: June,S. Greek, City Clerk PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Re, development Agency of the City of Temecula on the ... day of ,1994. ATTEST: Ronald H. Roberrs, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] Ternecul a Re, development Aeencv Minutes EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None given. GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS None given. January25. 1994 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Agency Member Mufioz, seconded by Agency Member Roberrs to adiourn at 11:15 PM to a meeting on February 8, 1994, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Ronald J. Parks, Chairperson ATTEST: June S. Greek,City Clerk/Agency Secretary MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD JANUARY 25,1994 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 11:15 PM. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Roberrs, Stone, Parks AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 None Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. MinUtes It was moved by Agency Member Mu~oz, seconded by Agency Member Stone to approve the minutes of January 11, 1994. The motion was unanimously carried. RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Prooram Finance Officer Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report. It was moved by Agency Member Mu~oz, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 94-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A SMALL BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM FOR REHABILITATING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND FINANCING MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 2.2 Approve loan requests per Attachment A. The motion was unanimously carried. I~,~EVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF Temecula, California LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT By and Between REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA and a Dated ,19 PROYECT AREA 1988-1 Exhibit No. 1 PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY A SECURITY INTEREST IN PERSONAL PROPERTY $ TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ,19 On ,19__ or before, for value received, ("Borrower") promises to pay to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, ("Holder") or order, at Temecula, California or such other place as may be designated in writing by Holder to Borrower, the principal sum of $ with interest on the unpaid principal balance from , 19__, until paid at the rate of __ percent (_%) per annum, all payable as follows: Principal and interest under this note shall be paid in lawful money of the United States. Whether or not a suit is filed, borrower agrees to pay all reasonable attorneys fees, cost of collection, costs, and expenses incurred by Holder in connection with the enforcement or collection of this Note. Borrower further agrees to pay all costs of suit in the sum adjudged as attorneys fees in any action to enforce payment of this Note or any part of it. This Note is secured by a security interest in personal property identified as for which Form UCC-1 's have been filed with the California Secretary of State's Office. Borrower waives notice and presentment. By The "Project Area' is located in the City of Temecula, California (the "City"), the exact boundaries of which are specifically described in City of Temecula Ordinances 91-11 and 91-15; which ordinances are incorporated herein by this reference. 1.4 The Premises The "Premises" consist of a commercial business site occupied by Borrower located at , Temecula, California which is [owned/leased] by Borrower. 1.5 Parties to the Agreement A. The Agency The Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, exercising governmental functions and powers, and organized and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Section 33000, et seq., Health and Safety Code; hereafter "Act"). The principal office of the Agency is located at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. B. The Borrower Borrower is a organized and existing under the laws of the State of __ The mailing address of Borrower for purposes of this Agreement is: 1.6 Prohibition Against Change in Ownership of Borrower The qualifications and identity of Borrower is of particular concern to the City and the Agency. It is because of those qualifications and identity that the Agency has entered into this Agreement with Borrower. Therefore, no voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of Borrower shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement except as expressly set forth herein. Borrower shall not a~sign all or any part of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Agency, which consent the Agency shall not unreasonably withhold, provided the Agency determines that the successor is similarly qualified and has specifically agreed in writing to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. All of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Borrowe~ and the permitted successors and assigns of the Borrower. Whenever the term "Borrower" is used herein, such term shall include any other lawful successors in interest of Borrower. LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT THIS AGR~=F-M1~NT is entered into and dated as of , 19 __ by and between the ]~F~DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA (the "Agency") and __ , a ("Borrower"). Agency and Borrower agree as follows: RECITALS A. ' Borrower operates a Area 1988-1; business located in Redevelopment B. It is in the best interest of Agency and Redevelopment Area 1988-1 to ensure the vitality of Borrower as a functioning business in the Redevelopment area; C. Agency desires to lend Borrower the sum of dollars ($. ) for on the condition that Borrower provide adequate security for repayment of said sum; D. Borrower has unencumbered assets, fixtures and/or inventory worth __ dollars ($. ). Borrower is willing to pledge said assets, fixtures and/or inventory as security for Agency's loan. I. SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT i. 1 Purpose of the Agreement The Purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the Re. development Plan (the "Plan") for the 1988-1 Redevelopmerit Project Area (the "Project") by providing for the rexlevel- opment of certain property, hereafter described, located in the Project Area and preservation of an existing business located in the Redevelopmerit Area, in accordance with the Plato 1.2 The Redevelopment Plan The Redevelopment Plan was approved by Ordinance No. 658 of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County on July 12, 1988, prior to incorporation of the City of Temecula. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 91-11, which became effective May 9, 1992, and City Ordinance No. 91-15, which became effective April 9, 1991, the City approved the Plan. Said ordinances had the effect of adopting the Plan and transferring jurisdiction to the Agency, as of July 1, 1991. 1.3 The Project Area 3.3 Warranties Borrower warrants: Said , provided as collateral, axe free of set-off, counterclaim, defense, allowance, adjustment, dispute, objection, or complaint for any reason whatsoever; are free of any prior or subsequent assignment, claim, lien, or security interest other than that of Agency; are not subject to any bankruptcy, moratorium, or insolvency proceeding. Borrower further waxrants that: no financing statement or other security interest covering collateral or in any manner affecting or concerning collateral is or will be on file in any public office except in favor of Agency and Borrower will defend collateral, and Agency's security interest therein against all other claims and demands. Unless Agency is otherwise notified in writing, there are no express or implied warranties to others in connection with collateral. All financial or credit statements, collateral schedules, collateral statements, invoices, packing lists, documents of title, letters of credit, negotiable and other instruments for the payment of money, and any other writings submitted to or relied upon by Agency prior or subsequent to the execution of this Agreement are and will be true, correct, complete, valid and genuine. Borrower has authority and obtained all approvals and consents necessary to incur its obligations and pledge this security and to enter into this Agreement. 3.4 Maintenance of Collateral Borrower hereby agrees: that it shall maintain individual, accurate, and complete records of collateral, and upon demand give Agency such information as requested concerning Borrower's business and permit Agency to inspect and copy records thereof; indemnify and save Agency harmless from all liability therefore; keep collateral and the proceeds of any collection separate from Borrower's other property; account fully for and properly delix~er to Agency the proceeds of all collections as and when received and in such manner as Agency may direct from time to time; to keep collateral free from all levies, encumbrances, and other security interests; comply with all laws, statutes, and regulations, pertaining to it; pay when due all taxes, charges, and other impositions on and promptly, duly, observe and perform any contract or agreement pertaining to collateral; execute, file, record, and obtain such statements, notices and agreements and take such action and obtain such certificates and documents in accordance with all applicable laws, statutes, and regulations as necessary to perfect, evidence, preserve, and continue Agency's security interest and collateral. Borrower will not, without Agency's prior written consent: a) Exchange, sell, or dispose of collateral or Borrower's rights therein, or make any compromise, adjustment, amendment, modification, setfiement, substitution, or termination, of or in connection with it; 1.7 Contract Documents The Contract Documents which are part of this Agreement, and each of which is incorporated herein by this reference, are as follows: Exhibit No. 1 Exhibit No. 2 Extfibit No. 3 Exhibit No. 4 Promissory Note Property description/Asset list for Collateral Documents of Title Regarding Collateral Limitations on Use, of Loan Proceeds II. LOAN AGREEMENT 2.1 Loan Transaction Agency shall lend Borrower the sum of $ Said sum shall bear interest at the rate of the Bank of America Prime Rate prevailing on the date of execution of this accrued rate plus 2% per annum. Principal and accrued interest shall be payable [monthly/daily/quarterly] beginning Borrower may, without penalty, prepay all or any part of said obligation. Said obligation shall be documented by a Promissory Note, executed by Borrower, in substantially the form of Exhibit 1. 2.2 Security Agency's loan to Borrower shall be secured by a security interest upon Terms of said security shall be as provided for in the Security Agreement provided hereinafter. III. SECURITY AGREEMENT 3.1 Security Interest A. A Security Interest pursuant to the California Uniform Commercial Code is hereby created and provided for Agency in and attaches to the ("Collateral") described at paragraph 3.2 below to secure payment and performance of Borrower's obligations as described in Section II above. 3.2 Collateral The collateral referred to in 3.1 above shall consist of , a detailed description and list of collateral is set forth in Exhibit No. 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3.9 Protection of Collateral Borrower wi//keep the Collateral in good order and repair and will not waste or destroy the Collateral or any part of it. Borrower will not use the Collateral in violation of any statute or ordinance and Agency will have the right to examine and inspect the Collateral at any reasonable time. 3.10 Ta~es and Assessments Borrower will pay promptly when due all taxes and assessments on the Collateral, or any part of the Collateral, or for its use and operation. 3.11 Location and Identification Borrower will keep the Collateral separate and identifiable and at the address shown above, and will not remove the Collateral from that address without Agency's written consent, for as long as this Security Agreement remains in effect. 3.12 Security Interest in Proceeds and Accessions Borrower grants to the Securext Party a security interest in and to all proceeds, increases, substitutions, replacements, additions, and accessions to the Collateral and to any part of the Collateral. 3.13 Decrease in Value of Collateral Borrower shall, if in Agency's judgment the Collateral has materially decreased in value of if Agency shall at any time deem that Borrower is financially unstable, either provide enough additional Collateral to satisfy Agency or reduce the total indebtedness by an amount sufficient to satisfy Agency. 3.14 . Reimbursement of Expenses At its option Agency may discharge taxes, Hens, interest, or perform or cause to be performed for and on behalf of Borrower any actions and conditions, obligations, or covenants that the Debtor has failed or refused to perform, and may pay for the repair, maintenance, and preservation of the Collater, ft. The Agency may enter the premises where the Collateral or any part of it is located and cause to be performed as agent and on the account of the Borrower any acts that Agency may deem necessary for the proper repair or maintenance of the Collateral or any part of it. Any and all sums expended by Agency under this paragraph, including but not limited to, attorneys' fees, court costs, Agency's fees, or commissions, or any other costs or expenses, shall bear interest from the date of payment at the same annual rate as the principal sum payable hereunder and shall be payable at the place designated in the Borrower's note and shall be secured by this Security Agreement. b) Assign, sell, transfer, or cream a security interest in any account, contract fight concerning collateral, now or hereafter existing, to or for anyone other than Agency; or c) Permit anything to be done that may impair or fail to do anything necessary or advisable to preserve the value of collateral and the security insurance coverage and proceeds intended for Agency. 3.5 Title Except for the .security interest granted by this Security Agreement, the Borrower has, or on acquisition will have, full title to the Collateral free from any lien, security interest, encumbrance, or claim, and the Borrower will, at the Borrower's cost and expense, defend any action that may affect Agency's security interest in, or the Borrower's title to, the Collateral. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 are true and correct copies of documents of title for collateral reflecting full ti~e to collateral in Borrower. Borrower warrants that the title reflected in said documents is true and accurate. 3.6 Financing Statement No financing statement covering the Collateral or any part of it or any proceeds other than the financing statement executed in conjunction with this Security Agreement is on file in any public office. At the Agency's request, the Borrower will join in executing all necessary financing statements in forms satisfactory to the Secured Party and will further execute all other instruments deemed necessary by the Secured Party. [If collateral is fixtures, add: The Agency will file the financing statement in the real estate records in the office where the mortgage on the real property described in this Security Agreement is filed or recorded.] 3.7 Sale. Lease. or Disposition of Collateral The Borrower will not, :without the written consent of Agency, sell, contract to sell, lease, encumber, or dispose of the Collateral or any interest in it until this Security Agreement and all debts secured by it have been fully satisfied. 3.8 Insurance Until final termination of this Security Agreement, Borrower will, at its own cost and expense, insure the Collateral with companies acceptable to Agency against the casualties and in the amounts that Agency shall reasonably require with a loss payable clause in favor of Borrower and Agency as their interests may appear. Agency shall be named as additional insured on any such policy. Agency is authorized to collect sums that may become due under any of the insurance policies and apply them to the obligations secured by this Security Agreement. A duplicate copy of each such policy shall be delivered by Borrower to Agency. in this Agreement at least five days before the time of the sale of disposition. Expenses of retaking, holding, preparing of sale, selling, or the like shall include Agency's reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses. 3.20 General Provisions Agency is not required to make presentment, demand, or protest, or to give notice and need not take action to preserve or enforce any fights against prior parties, account debtors or others in connection with any obligation or evidence of indebtedness held as collateral or in connection with Borrower's obligations, and Borrower waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the giving and receipt of all demands and notices whatsoever. Agency, in its own or Borrower's name and at any time without notice may: a) Enter into any extensions, reorganization, deposit, merger, consolidation, or other agreement pertaining to, or deposit, surrender, accept, hold, or apply other property in exchange for, the Collateral; b) Ensure, process and preserve the Collateral; c) Transfer the Collateral to its own or any nominee's name; d) Make any compromise or settlement, and take any action it deems advisable and exercise all rights, powers, and remedies of an owner, with respect to the Collateral; and e) Make any payment and perform any agreement undertaken by Borrower and expend such sums and incur such expense, including reasonable attorneys fees and legal expenses, as Agency reasonably deems advisable, and upon demand Borrower will pay the same to bank together with any deficiency or balance on Borrower's obligations remaining after any sale or other disposition of the Collateral by Agency. Acceptance of partial or delinquent payments or failure to exercise any right, power, or remedy shall not waive any obligation of Borrower or modify this Security Agreement. Agency, its successors and assigns, have all rights, powers and remedies herein and as provided by law, including those of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code, and may exercise the same and effect any set-off and proceed against the Collateral or other security for Borrower's obligations at any time notwithstanding any cessation of Borrower's liability or running of any statute of limitations, which Borrower hereby waives to the fullest extent permitted by law. When required, proceeds of collections on the Collateral received by Borrower shall be directly paid to Agency upon receipt by Borrower and shall be applied by Agency to the outstanding loan balance. 3.15 Change of Residence or Place of Business Borrower will promptly notify Agency of any change of the Borrower' s chief place of business, or place where records concerning the collateral are kept. 3.16 Attorney-in-Fact Borrower appoints Agency as Borrower's attorney-in-fact to do any and every act that the Borrower is obligated by this Security Agreement to do, and to exercise all rights of Borrower in the Collateral and to make collections and to execute any and all papers and instruments and to do all other things necessary to preserve and protect the Collateral and to make collections and to protect Agency's security interest in the Collateral. 3.17 Time of Performance and Waiver In performing any act under this Security Agreement and the note secured by it, time shall be of the essence. Agency's acceptance of partial or delinquent payments, or the failure of Agency to exercise any right or remedy, shall not constitute a waiver of any obligation of Borrower or right of Agency and shall not constitute a waiver of any other similar default that occurs later. 3.18 Default Default shall occur upon but shall not be limited to the following events: Failure to make any payment or performance required by this Security Agreement or the Promissory Note in timely fashion; if any warranty, representation or statement made hereunder or otherwise furnished to Agency is false or grossly inaccurate; loss, theft, substantial damage to, destruction of, sale of, encumbrance of, theft of, levy, seizure or attach~nent of the Collateral; and, impairment of payment of any indebtedness secured by this Agreement. 3.19 Remedies On the occurrence of any event of default, and at any later time, Agency may declare all obligations secured hereunder due and payable immediately and may proceed to enforce payment and exercise any and all of the rights and remedies provided by the California Commercial Cede as well as other rights and remedies either at law or in equity possessed by Agency. Agency may require Borrower to assemble the Collateral and make it available to Agency at any place to be designated by Agency that is reasonably convenient to both parties for purposes of Agency's disposition of Collateral to satisfy the obligations hereunder. Unless the Collateral is perishable, threatens to decline speedily in value, or is of a type customarily mid on a recognized market, Agency will give Borrower reasonable notice of the time and place of any public sale or of the time after which any private sale or any other intended disposition of the Collateral is to be made. The requirements of reasonable notice shall be met if the notice is mailed, postage prepaid, to the address of Borrower as provided A. In deeds: "The granme heroin covenants by and for himself or herself, his or her heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, religion, marital status, handicap, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or herself or any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of ranant% lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land.' B. In leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself or herself, his or her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him or her, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, handicap, religion, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the premises herein leased nor shall the lessee himself or herself, or any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants or vendees in the premises herein leased." C. In contracts: "There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person, or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, religion, marital status, handicap, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the premises, nor shall the transferee himself or herself or any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any inch practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the premises." 5.4 , Effect and Duration of Covenants The covenants established in this Security Agreement shall, without regard to technical classification and designation, be binding for the benefit and in favor of the Agency, its successors and assigns, the City and any successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof. Any covenants contained in this Security Agreement relating to construction of improvements shall expire upon the issuance by Agency of a Certificate of Completion or Certificates of Completion for the entire Site. The covenants contained in this Security Agreement relating to the use and maintenance of the Site and improvements thereon shall expire upon repayment of the loan from Agency provided for in Section II herein. The covenants contained in this Security Agreement against discrimination shall remain in perpetuity. IV. USE OF PROCEEDS OF LOAN 4.1 Limits on Use of Loan Proceeds The funds provided Borrower hereunder shall underwrite or reimburse Borrower for the purposes described in Exhibit No. 4 attached hemto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4.2 l[ndemnitv Borrower shall defend, indemnify, assume all responsibility for and hold the Agency and the City, and their respective elected and appointed officers and employees, harmless from all costs (including attorneys' fees and costs), claims, demands or judgments for injury or damage to property and injuries to persons, including death, which may be caused by any of Borrower's activities under this Security Agreement, whether such activities or performance thereof be by Borrower or anyone directly or indirec~y employed or contracted with by Borrower and whether such damage shall accrue or be discovered before or after termination of this Secutiry Agreement. V. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS 5.1 Continued Conduct of Business Borrower covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and successors in interest that during the term of the loan provided for in Section II herein, Borrower, and its successors and assignees shall continue to operate a and related projects and uses incidental thereto, and shall comply with all applicable City ordinances. 5.2 Obligation to Refrain from Discrimination Borrower covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person, or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, handicap, religion or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Site nor shall the Borrower itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, leases, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of the Site. 5.3 Form of Nondiscrimination and Nonsegregation Clauses Borrower shall refrain from restricting the rental, sale or lease of the property on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, marital status, handicap, or religion of any person. All such deeds, leases or contracts shall contain or be subject to substantially the following nondiscrimination or nonsegregation clauses: 6.4 Applicable Law The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. 6.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties axe cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise of it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 6.6 Inaction Not a Waiver of Default Any failures or delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive either party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. 6.7 Damages If a default is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in Section VI, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default, and the nondefaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.1 Nonliability of Agency Officials and Employees No member, official or employee of the Agency or the City shall be personally liable to the Borrower, or any successor in interest, for any default or breach by the Agency (or the City) or for any amount which may become due to the Borrower or successor or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. 7.2 Inspection of Books and Records Agency has the right to inspect, at reasonable times, the books and records of Borrower as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. 7.3 Conflicts of Interest Borrower warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any officer, employee or agent of the City or Agency any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. VI. DEFAULTS. REMEDIES AND TERMINATIONS 6.1 Defaults -- General Failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. A party claiming a default ('claimant') shall give written notice of default to the other party, specifying the default complained of. 6.2 ' Institution of Legal Actions In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. 6.3 Venue of Legal Actions Any legal actions brought pursuant to this Agreement must be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, in any other appropriate court in that County, or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California. IN WITNESS WI-IEREOF, the Agency and Borrower have signed this Agreement. DATED: ATTEST: Secretary TE1VIECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By RONALD J. PARKS Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT F. FIELD General Counsel to the Agency DATED: ,a ATTEST: By Secretary 7.4 Notices. Demands and Communications Among the Parties Written notices, demands and communications among the Agency and Borrower shall be sufficientiy given by personal service or dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal offices of the Agency and Developer described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.5. Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate as provided in this Section. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, notice personally served shall .be deemed to have been received as of the date Of such services. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Agency against Borrower, service of process on Borrower shall be made by personal service or in such other manner as may be provided by law. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. WAIVERS AND AMENDMENTS 8.1 This Agreement shall be executed in four duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement includes pages 1 through __, and Exhibits 1 through 4, which constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. 8.2 This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. 8.3 All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Agency or the Borrower, and all amendments hereto must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Agency and the Borrower. 8.4 In any circumstance where under this Agreement either party is required to approve or disapprove any matter, approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 8.5 The parties hereto acknowledge that they were represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement, and such counsel have participated in the drafting of this Agreement. 8.6 This Agreement, when executed by the Agency and delivered to Borrower, must be authorized, executed and delivered by Borrower within thirty (30) days after the date of signature by the Agency or this Agreement shall be voidable by notice in writing to the Borrower. Exhibit No. 4 Limitations on Use of Loan Proceeds [To Be Prepared By Agency] Exhibit No. 2 Property Description of Collamral [To Be Provided By Borrower] ~< ~ o <z o~ >~ ~z ~ ~ h~ ~<~ ~ ~. ~< ~ z< ~ ~< o =o < ~ < < ~ < U < =~< ~ < <ou~ z~ u ~ ~o ho o; z~u o[ ~D =~ oz~ < ~ o~'~ CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SMALL BUSINESS LOAN MANUAL Process and Procedures TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SMALL BUSINESS LOAN MANUAL PURPOSE The handbook establishes guidelines to be applied in the loan disbursements of the Temecula Redevelopmerit Agency funds. The mission of the Finance Department is to assist small businesses with their financial needs on behalf of the City of Temecula. Our goal is to lend within the annual allotment to stimulate growth in the community by means of prudent lending practices. RELATIONSHIPS WITH 13QRROWERS Good relations are essential within the City at large and borrowers in particular. These ongoing relationships are vital to the continued success of the City of Temecula's loan programs. It is important that the Finance Department and its liaison promote good communications as a priority to ultimately fund loans in an efficient and timely manner. ELIGIBILITY Borrowers business must be located within the redevelopment area and be organized for profit. New businesses must contribute a minimum of 30% cash to the total project cost. Existing businesses must not exceed a debt/equity ratio of 4:1. Borrowers must establish that they have or can obtain the necessary knowledge to operate a profitable business and deduce the marketability of their product or service. It is necessary for the loan to be secured with sufficient collateral and not exceed $100,000. Substantiation of borrowers ability to repay the loan from business cash flow is essential. PERMITTED USE QF LOAN PROCEEDS Borrower may construct, expand or convert facilities for use of their commercial or industrial business. Eligible purchases are machinery, fixtures, and equipment. SECURITY A deed of trust may be required on business or personal real estate and/or a security interest in equipment. R:LNORTONIJMANUALS;RDAI. OAN. PRO I 9/2/34 G. To pay off inadequately secured creditors which have not been properly serviced by the debtor or are past due. LOAN 1. 11. REVIEW AND COMPLETION PROCESS A (complete) loan package is to be submitted by borrower pursuant to the guidelines set forth in applicant's package. Credit reports, UCC search and/or Preliminary Title Reports are then ordered by the Finance Department on prospective borrowers. The loan package is then reviewed by the Finance Officer and loan committee for recommendations. The package is then reviewed by the loan processor to ensure compliance of same. It is then reviewed by an ad hoc committee of the City Council and subsequently scheduled for review and approval by the entire council. Loan packages are then reviewed by the City Council for final approval. Borrower is notified of the terms and conditions, interest rate, and fees. Determination is made at that time whether the fees are to be deducted from loan proceeds or paid by borrower. Loan documents are then drawn (in triplicate), one (1) for the borrower, one (1) for the City Finance Department, and one (1) for City record (i,e., note, security agreement, and/or deed of trust, UCC-1 filing, and vehicle title recording when applicable). Loan documents are then signed by City officials at the City Clerk's office and notarized. Borrower is then notified by the City Clerk's office and an appointment time is set for them to sign. Documents are signed by borrower (in triplicate). The UCC-1 is filed with the state and/or Deed of Trust recorded by the Administrative Secretary, Linda Norton. UCC filings ar to be monitored and renewed every five year period (e.g., every four and one-half [4-1/2] years to refile). Funds are disbursed by the Finance Department pursuant to the check request/pay voucher procedure. R:INORTONL~MANUALS~RD,4LOAN. PRO 3 9/2794 RATES Both variable and fixed rates are available. Variable rates are generally tied to Prime Rate + 2% and annual and lifetime rate caps may be made available. Rates and payments are usually adjusted semi-annually. Fixed rates are generally Prime Rate + 2% for the full term of the loan. TERMS Amortization schedules are from 5 to 10 years based on the life of new equipment but not beyond the term of the property lease. 20 years is applicable for real estate based on appraisal. There is no prepayment penalty should the borrower choose to prepay the loan in whole or in part at any time. FEES A $250 loan fee is to be paid by borrower plus other actual costs such as UCC filing fees, title, appraisal, and recording, etc. These fees can be deducted from loan proceeds or paid by borrower. PROHIBITED USE OF FUNDS The following usage precludes lending by the City of Temecula through the Redevelopment Agency's small business loan incentive program. Speculative new construction, raw land acquisition, or real estate purchased for purposes of resale by borrowers for their own account whereby the prospect of profit will result from market fluctuations. B. Commodity futures account trading. C. Gambling. Mineral exploration and development of ventures, i.e., petroleum, gas, mineral, and other prospecting where discovery of something of value will result in profit. E. Proceeds used in a business located outside the City of Temecula. F. Publications of newspapers, magazines, and journals of all types.