HomeMy WebLinkAbout071596 PC AgendaA ~I of 15 min.teS is pro.'i~e~ ~} mem~rS 0f di~ puS]i~ ~ a~m~ mg c,,mmi&~io~ on i~ms mat are
When you are conl~ I~)[ward
For all
, Northe~t~l Corner
5. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
:'.Planner:
'~ Recommendation:'
PA! ~pmeot Facilities Impact
Mitigqtion Plan
Temecuht Valley Unified School District
Citywide
Enact a school facility impact mitigation fee fo~ futu~
~idential development requiring City Council approval
Exempt
::,~:. Next meeting: August S, 1996 - Regular Planning:~oi,~ t
:,!:'.....: . ..... ,..:: .. ,.,
,.~
ITEM #2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM THE
DECEMBER 4, 1995 MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 4, 1995
A regular meeting of the city of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, December 5, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Miller, Slaven, Ford. Webster
Fahey
Commissioner Fahey had given previous notice for her absence.
Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz,
Senior Planner John Meyer, Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell and Associate Planner
Matthew Fagen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Ford called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:05 P.M. There were
no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Aooroval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
Approval of Minutes
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
2.1 Minutes of September 11.1995
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the
minutes of September 11, 1995 with the following corrections: Page 5 add to the direction
from the Commission: Commissioner Ford asked that the grade be lessened. Also #3
change the sentence from - EI;,,,;nate the loop road to Studv emphasis of the loop road.
The motion carried as follows:
Minutes .pc. 12/04/95
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
DECEMBF, R 4, 1995
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
2.2 Minutes of SeDtember 18.1995
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
minutes of September 18, 1995 with the following corrections: Page 3 add Commissioner
Fahev to the no votes; Page 5, last paragraph - change wording from cement to stucco;
Page 6 - change wording from O~a,~ge Stdpe to Glow Tube everywhere the word is cited.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
2.3 Minutes of October 16. 1995
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the minutes of October 16, 1995, as written.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
3. ADDroyal of the Planning Commission Meeting for January 8.1996 due to the
The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission is scheduled
to January 8, 1996.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. Old Town SDecific Plan Amendment
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report and the background on
the plan amendments that were approved by the City Council.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 6:20 P.M.
Minutes.pc. 12/04/95 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 1995
Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, spoke in opposition to changes in the Old
Town Specific Plan. He asked that no further consideration be given to the
Buffman Project. He stated that the voters were against the height
regulations and the land use being proposed in Old Town and that the voters
would voice their opposition to the Temecula City Council.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:25 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the
amendments to Sections III and IV of the Old Town Specific Plan.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
5. Planning Application No. PA 95-0114 (Plot Plan)
Associate Planner Matthew Fagen presented the staff report and foot prints
for review on the renovation and expansion to the Tower Plaza. Staff
recommended approval subject to the conditions listed.
Commissioner Slaven made the following comments:
The guidelines in the traffic circulation are not strong and
definite. She recommended the word should be changed to will
throughout.
She felt the village concept will not be enhanced by this
renovation.
She expressed opposition to the proposed colors of yellow, blue
and purple.
She was in opposition to thinning the trees fronting the
freeway and at the westbound freeway entrance.
She stated her concern that the amount of disability parking
spaces allotted is not enough in this center.
I am concerned with the type of street furniture to be utilized.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern with maintaining the existing
landscaping and trees. Senior Planner Meyer responded that the Commission
may want to direct staff to work with the applicant to include a chapter in the
design guidelines on landscaping before it is reviewed by the Commission.
Minutes.pc. 12/04/95 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1995
Chairman Ford stated for the record that he had a conversation with a Mr. Thomas,
concerning this application, over the telephone.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 P.M.
Jim Weirick, LBA and Associates 17848 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, requested
approval of the project and stated that the center is in dire need of
rejuvenation. He also expressed the desire not to disturb the village concept
by maintaining the trees and landscaping which would enhance this facility.
He also agreed to the following:
All wording will be revised from should to shall.
The colors used will conform and will agree to guidelines. Earth
tones, warm grey and muted vibrant colors are being
considered.
All mature trees at the main entries will be maintained but he
requested approval to remove the sycamore trees and replace
them with characteristic trees in the other entry ways.
The street furniture will be aesthetically correct.
Additional handicapped parking spaces will be included in the
plan.
Joe Faust, Faust Associates, 2020 W. Tustin Ave, spoke as the traffic
coordinator for the applicant. He explained that traffic generated from the
expanded theater would have little impact on Phase I, (the theaters except
for Friday and Saturday evenings.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with the large buildings being
proposed at the north end of the center and asked if the buildings would
match the village center portion. Jim Weirick responded that large retail
buildings are necessary but they could be designed to match the village
concept.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M.
Senior Planner Meyer reported that the traffic study is in compliance with the
general plan. He also stated that the Commission has the authority to require
the applicant to provide a more extensive traffic study on Phase II and any
other phase.
Chairman Ford suggested the Commission review the traffic study in relation
to the theater and to ask what is wanted now as well as in the future. He
also recommended that the applicant work with staff to alternate the peak
hours of operation at the theater and the study should be evaluated using that
criteria. Steve Cresswell responded that the Rancho California Road
expansion should facilitate the traffic volume. An engineering study has been
approved by the City Council to look at the 1-15 and the 215 corridors.
Commissioner Slaven expressed opposition to the plot plan regarding major
retail at the north end of the center and recommended a hotel and conference
room facility be considered.
Minutes.pc. 12/04/95 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECF, MBER 4, 1995
Commissioner Webster stated that he would favor large retailers at this
location because of the freeway frontage. He also agreed that improvements
are needed in the design guidelines and he would not support the design of
the tower theater as currently proposed.
Commissioner Miller also expressed opposition to the guidelines as written.
Chairman Ford asked what the applicant would need to provide, to change
the large retail use to another use.
Planning Manager Ubnoske responded that an amended plan could be brought
back to the Commission with added language to state either/or and reminded
the Commission that this depends on what business would want to come to
the center. She recommended that the Commission approve Phase I of the
project tonight to get the project moving and Phase II could be brought back
at a later meeting of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Ford stated that the guidelines need to be strengthened due to
some loose language, and recommended that they be brought back to the
Commission prior to finalization.
Commissioner Webster recommended the amendments to the guidelines be
handled at the staff level.
Commissioner Miller stated that he does not support the Tower Plaza Plot Plan
as proposed.
Chairman Ford stated that he also does not support the design guidelines for
this project, since this is a gateway to the City and he recommended the
design guidelines be brought back to the Commission, as soon as possible, for
a review of the entire concept of the plaza.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt
the Negative Declaration for Phase I for Planning Application 95-0114 (Plot Plan); to adopt
the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA95-0114, Phase I; to adopt Resolution No. 95-028
approving PA95-0114 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report
for Phase I; to approve PA95-0114, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, with a
revision of Condition 3B to read that the Handicapped Parking Spaces must meet the ADA
requirements for Phase I and that the Planning Commission review Phase II and reserve the
opportunity to review the design guidelines.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Chairman Ford called for a recess at 8:45 P.M.
Minutes.pc. 12/04/95 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 4, 199~
The meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was reconvened at 8:50 P.M.
6. Planning AODlication No. PA95-0112 (Plot Plan)
Associate Planner Matthew Fagen presented the staff report and stated that
staff was concerned with the removal of trees.
Chairman Ford stated for the record that the Commission had visited an
Oscar's Restaurant in another location.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M.
Russell Rumunsoff, 27349 Jefferson, represented the applicant and addressed
the landscaping plan in depth. He spoke in favor of the project.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern with the type of trees to be
planted and the visual impact on the west elevation, which can be addressed
at a later time.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern with preserving the integrity of
parking due to the duck feeders. He recommended some sort of signage
designating "restaurant parking only."
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with having both egress and ingress
on Rancho California Road. Principle Engineer Cresswell responded that
improvements proposed on Ynez rd. would resolve this and also restricted
parking on Rancho California Road is being considered.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 9:28 P.M.
Commissioner Slaven stated that she feels will be a wonderful use for this
property and will benefit the community at large.
Chairman Ford commended the applicant for the design of the landscaping
and the overall aesthetics being enhanced because of this project.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt the
Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution 95-029 approving PA95-0112.
The motion carried as follows;
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: I
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Minutes.pc. 12/04/95 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECF, MBER 4, 1995
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported that the City Council continued
the adoption of the Draft Development Code and Zoning Ordinance to the
Council meeting on December 18, 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Slaven thanked the planning staff for the expert and
professional job they do and wished everyone a happy holiday.
Commissioner Ford reported on the joint transportation meeting of Temecula
and Murrieta which is scheduled for December 5 at 4:00 P.M.
It was moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 P.M. One motion carried unanimously.
The next meeting will be held January 8, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho California Water
District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
CHAIRMAN
SECRETARY
Minutes.pc. 12/1M/95 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM THE
FEBRUARY 5, 1996 MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to
order on Monday, February 5, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water
District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman
Steve Ford called the meeting to order.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Webster, Miller, Ford
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Slaven
Commissioners Fahey called to say she would be late due to car trouble.
Commissioner Slaven called to say she would be late.
Also, present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Planning
Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer, and Principal Engineer
Steve Cresswell.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Community Development Director Gary Thornhill presented Chairman Ford
with a plaque in Recognition of Service Commendation for his service on the
Commission from 1989-1990 and as Chairman of the Commission from
1993-1996.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the agenda with modification to take agenda item//'4 as the 3rd item
discussed and agenda item #3 as the last item, in order to give Commissioners
Slaven and Fahey time to arrive.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
2 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Webster, Ford
None
Fahey, Slaven
Minutes.l~c .02\05\96
PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 1996
2. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE
None given,
3. Lighting. Landscaping and Staff Report Content
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report and introduced Mike
Elliot, Landscape Consultant for the City of Temecula. Mike Elliot detailed
the process of working on reviewing landscape plans.
Commissioner Miller requested the approval for the plant species list.
Commissioner Slaven arrived at 6:45 P.M.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern for the many trees, planted in the
Target Center, which are not doing well.
Mike Elliot responded that training is taking place to educate staff to know a
good tree from a bad tree prior to final approval of the project.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern for evergreen trees that do not do
well and are not appropriate for this area.
Chairman Ford commented that when the Commission receives the new list
of approved trees, this will assist the Commission.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern regarding the islands at the end of
parking lanes. She recommended additionally a cement curb so citizens will
not step into the dirt area when exiting their vehicle.
Commissioner Webster asked the status of the development code. Senior
Planner John Meyer responded that the use of the new Development Code
goes into effect at the end of this week.
STAFF REPORT CONTENT
Senior Planner John Meyer presented an example of the staff report content
for the Commission's review.
Commissioner Slaven stated she wants everything possible included in the
staff report. She asked that they contain information of any meetings with
staff, such as; what was accomplished, comments, concerns, and ideas.
Commissioner Fahey arrived at 7:25 P.M.
Minutes.pc .02\05\96 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
Commissioner Webster commented that he appreciates the project
background, but does not need the statistics. He would like to have staff
comments detailed and some background on the applicant.
Commissioner Miller stated that the report was perfect as is and that the
only addition he would ask is that photos be attached if possible.
Chairman Ford commented that he often found it difficult to determine the
location of the project and recommended specifics, not exhibits, on each
project. He also feels it is important to list statistics of a project.
Commissioner Fahey agreed that it is difficult to locate a project when just
the vicinity is included in the packet.
Senior Planner John Meyer responded that staff wants to improve
conditions of approval and is working on this with the City Attorney.
Chairman Ford recommended that conditions be delineated as to which are
standard and which are projects specific. He recommended the project
specific conditions be highlighted on the report.
4. Annexation Process
Senior Planer Dave Hogan, presented the first draft of the annexation
guidelines and requested direction or recommended changes from the
Commission.
Commissioner Webster commented on open space areas and priority #1 and
#2. He recommended areas not be prioritized.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern with setting up an argument against
annexation.
Assistant City Attorney Diaz responded that the annexation process is
different from conditioning projects and that the property tax issue is the
only area where the city has jurisdiction, if there is a protest of annexing
property owners.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern with the services of County vs.
City.
Minutes.pc.02\05\96 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
I"EBRUARY S, 19~6
Development Director Thornhill commented that the City has little control'
due to LAFCO's authority and the guidelines could be a help or hinder.
These guidelines could be a tool to assist in reaching decisions as to
approval of annexation or not.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern that the city could be held hostage
by developers who could go to the County if the City does not give in to
annexation.
Dave Hogan responded that much of the annexation criteria are pulled out
of the General Plan.
A consensus by the Commission was reached on page 7 - infrastructures to
eliminate//'3 and use #4 "an existing or proposed and financially solvent"
Commissioner Slaven recommended the wording "will not be burdened by
higher fees" be added to page 10.
A consensus by the Commission was reached to recommend to the City
Council that areas not be identified by 1,2,3,4, priority, but with a,b,c,d,
delineation, and that the north area be divided into three different parts and
illustrated with three different colors.
Senior Planner Dave Hogan, stated that these changes will be brought back
to the Commission for final review.
DIRECTORS REPORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported on the League of Cities
workshop.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Ford recommended the Commission review the CIP Program
Booklet for the next meeting.
Commissioner Slaven stated she is proud of our City staff and appreciated
all the excellent work they do.
Chairman Ford thanked the Commission for the recognition and all their
support and assistance. He also commented that the input given to the
Council by the Planning Commission is very important.
Minutes.pc.02\05\96 4
PLANNING COMMISSION F~RRUARY 5, 1996
Commissioner Fahey will chair the next Planning Commission and it will be
noticed that appointments will be made at that time.
The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission is scheduled for
March 4, 1996 6:00 P.M. at Rancho California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to
adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
SECRETARY
Minutes,pc.02\05\96 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM THE
MAY 20, 1996 MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 20, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, May 20, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairperson Fahey presiding.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
None
Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D.
Weiner, Senior Planner John Meyer, and Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairperson Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:05 P.M. There
were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Aooroval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
PA 96-0008 (Development Plan)
Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster, Soltysiak
None
None
Senior Planner John Meyer reported to the Commission that additional time is
needed to solve concerns that have surfaced. He recommended this item be
continued to June 17, 1996.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments at 6:05 PM.
Russell Rumansoff, representing the applicant, spoke in agreement to the
continuation to June 17, in order to work with staff on resolving concerns.
Fred Grimes, 27311 Jefferson Avenue #103, spoke in opposition to the
project due to the inconsistency with surrounding development as it specifies
in the General Plan.
Chairperson Fahey closed the Public Comments at 6:07 PM.
Minutes.pc.05/20/96 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commission Slaven to continue item
PA 96-0008 (Development Plan) for Hydro-Scape Products, Inc to the Commission meeting
on June 17, 1996.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster,
Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
3. Planning APPlicatiOn NO. PA95-0140 Rancho Baotist Church
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report. He reported that this
project had been continued due to Commission concerns. The Baptist Church
is requesting that the temporary modular buildings become permanent that
allow additional classroom buildings be constructed. The applicant has
resolved the elevation issue by planning a one story building; the restroom
facilities have been added; landscaping planted around the modular units to
provide screening from residences, and also eves and skirting will be added
thereby improving the appearance of the modular buildings.
Chairperson Fahey called for Public Comments at 6:25 PM.
C.E. Langton, 44250 Cabo Street, spoke in support for the modular buildings
to become permanent.
Chairperson Fahey expressed confusion on Conditions #4 - 7.
Chairperson Fahey called for a recess at 6:20 PM.
The meeting was reconvened at 6:40 PM.
John Meyer presented clarification on Conditions of Approval #4 through 7.
Staff is requesting direction to work with the applicant on these conditions
and bring the resolution back to the Commission at the June 3, 1996,
meeting.
Chairperson Fahey asked if the site improvement amendments were sufficient.
Senior Planner John Meyer responded that they were sufficient.
Commissioner Webster requested clarification on Condition #3 pertaining to
the block wall, as he understood that the wall had been completed. Senior
Planner John Meyer responded that was correct and Condition #3 will be
deleted.
Minutes.pc.05/20/96 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 20. 1996
Commissioner Webster asked if the approval period for the modular buildings
was for one year only and if extensions were allowed. Senior Planner Meyer
responded that the applicant has the ability to make 3 additional requests for
extensions.
Bill Flood, applicant, addressed the circulation plan and the revised plan. He
stated the Sunday School building had been reduced from 7200 square feet
to 3500 square feet, the appearance of the modular buildings will be screened
with landscaping which will keep the noise level down, the tile roof will match
the other buildings and four restrooms will be added to the Sunday School.
Commissioner Slaven asked the applicant if they would agree to include these
revisions in the Conditions of Approval. Bill Flood, applicant, responded that
he would agree to adding them as conditions.
C.E. Langton, 44250 Cabo Street, addressed the Commission and stated that
he had been opposed to the project, however, since the revisions in, the plan
he now supports the church project.
Chairperson Fahey closed the Public Comments at 7:07 PM.
Senior Planner John Meyer requested Commission direction on landscaping; a
time limit for the completed construction; and to approve a condition limit of
90 days to remove the modular buildings after construction is completed prior
to occupancy.
Bill Flood responded that 5 years is ample time to construct the permanent
building.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern that the landscaping to screen the
modular buildings not be removed when the buildings are removed.
Commissioner Webster questioned if a 50' set back was adequate for the
submitted landscape plan, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske responded that
staff will work with the applicant to ensure the landscape plan is put in
correctly,
Commissioner Slaven expressed confusion on many issues and also because
of the unfinished business on this project. Assistant City Attorney Wiener
explained that staff would bring amended conditions back to the Commission
for a review without holding a public hearing.
Commissioner Miller requested to see Exhibit A (map) and recommended that
all maps be condensed into one.
Senior Planner Meyer responded that staff is comfortable with the plan and it
is in conformance with the General Plan and all issues can be resolved by
staff.
Commissioner Slaven stated that the Commission needs to know what the
final outcome will be.
Minutes.pc.05/20/96 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 20. 1996
Chairperson Fahey stated that the Commission could request to have a more
clarified plan or direct staff to work with the applicant and authorize staff to
approve the changes, so as to move forward.
It was moved by Commissioner Soltysiak and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve that staff work with the applicant on the amended Conditions of Approval including
the addition of Condition 85 (3500 square feet for the permanent building); include Exhibit
A in Condition #6 which will specify uses so they are clear; review the circulation plan and
approve with Commission authorization when all plans and modifications are completed.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster
Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported that the McMillan Memorandum
of Understanding had been approved by City Council. Staff has been working
on the filing requirements and a draft can be provided to the Commission if
they want to review it.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Slaven requested percentages of the cumulative traffic
circulation resulting from all projects and recommended this be placed on a
future Commission agenda. Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell responded
that the traffic policies will be delayed due to changes in personnel at the City
Hall.
Chairman Fahey requested the status on the proposed beer and wine policies
which are being developed. Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske responded
that staff was working with the City Attorney on these and she will provide a
list of existing licenses and the criteria for the finding of convenience or
necessity for Commission review.
It was moved by Commission Slaven to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 P.M. This was carried
unanimously.
The next meeting will be held June 3, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho California Water
District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
CHAIRMAN
SECRETARY
Minutes.pc.05/20/96 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM THE
JUNE 3, 1996 MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 3, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, June 3, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Co-Chairperson Slaven called the meeting to
order.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill; Planning Manager
Debbie Ubnoske; Senior Planner John Meyer; and Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Co-Chairperson Slaven called for public comments, There were no public comments
offered.
1 Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the agenda;
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Webster, Slaven, Soltysiak,
Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. ADDroyal of Minutes from the March 4. 1996 Planning Commission Meeting.
The motion was made by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to
continue the minutes of June 3, 1996, to June 17, 1996 and amend the following:
Page 5 - State the motion in regard to the Shell Station; It was moved by
Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the
Shell Station.
Page 7 - Research the motion in regard to Planning Application No. 96-0019 and
restate the vote: The motion carried as follows:
MINUTES.06/03/96 1
PLANNING CO]H]VIISSION
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
JUNE 3, 1996
Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster,
Soltyisak
None
None
Page 9 - Research the motion in regard to Planning Application No. 96-0024 (Revised
Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94-0061 ), Item 2, Issue #1 - Amend the
vote as follows: The motion carried as follows:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster,
Soltyisak
None
None
Page 12 - Beginning times shall be published as well as the ending time on
alcohol sales; which is 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 Midnight and change 12:00 AM to
12:00 Midnight.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster,
Soltyisak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairperson Linda Fahey arrived to the meeting at 6:09 and presided at this time.
2.1 Minutes of March 18. 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
minutes of March 18, 1996 with the following amendments:
Page 4 - next to the last paragraph, last sentence - add: - will direct 100% of
traffic to the Highway 79 South freeway exits.
Page 6 - Delete one page 6.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster,
Soltyisak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
MINLTYES.06/03/96 2
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 1996
2.2 Minutes of APril 15.1996
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
minutes of April 15, 1996 with the following amendment:
Page 3 - paragraph 1 - add the start of sale time limits also, which is 6:00
a.m. and change 12:00 AM to 12:00 Midnight.
Page 3 - paragraph 7 - Commissioner Miller asked that the following sentence
be amended to state Commissioner Miller stated that since a finding for
convenience was aOproved for the Union and Shell Stations. he doesn't see
any logical basis for not making the same finding in the Shell Station case.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Webster, Soltyisak
NOES:
2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
3. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE
None given.
4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report and recommended
approval of the final review, as it is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if a program had been developed to alleviate
traffic problems at the south end of Old Town. Senior Planner Meyer
responded that this is being planned under the assessment district and will be
completed within 6 months. The City will participate in this cost.
Commissioner Soltyisak asked how many lanes would be on the Pala bridge.
John responded 4 lanes will be constructed. He also stated that a traffic
signal will be installed at Pala Road.
It was moved by Commissioner Siaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to accept
staff recommendation and adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. PC NO. 96- ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S FY 1996-01
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED
CITY GENERAL PLAN.
The motion was unanimously carried.
MINUTES.06/03/96 3
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 1996
5. Planning Application No. PA94-0114 (Theater Elevations)
Associate Planner Matthew Fagen presented the staff report. He explained
that Phase II approval will not be recluested at this time. Staff recommends
approval of the revised site plans and elevations and to adopt Resolution No.
PA94-0114.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern about removing trees as planned in
Phase II. For the record she states that no trees are to be removed as part of
this application.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern that the existing Sycamore trees be
preserved and language added to Condition of Approval #4(c) which would
prohibit removal.
Commissioner Webster asked how the deletion of Conditions #30 and #45
relate to this application. Associate Planner Fagen responded that changes
could be made to Phase I by the applicant.
Commissioner Fahey stated there is a major traffic conflict at the main
driveway and drivers are making "U" turns at the light in order to go to
AM/PM. She recommended staff review this. Principal Engineer Cresswell
responded that he was not sure of any accident history at this signal but that
it would be possible to limit the turns.
Chairperson Fahey called for Public Comments at 6:45 PM.
David Thomas, P.O. Box 3221, Rancho Santa Fe, thanked the Commission for
their time and stated that he would be focusing on the entertainment side of
the center since there had been a change in the tenant market, and he would
answer any questions from the Commission.
Chairperson Fahey asked the intent in regard to the trees, David Thomas
responded he will abide by conditions and not remove or relocate the existing
Sycamore trees.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern over the elevation, She feels the
lines are sharp and recommended a softer overhang columns so they will
blend in.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the north elevation was adequate to screen
the mechanical equipment on the roof. The response was yes.
Commissioner Miller requested that the tenants be screened from viewing
mechanical equipment also. The applicant responded that they were not sure
of the size of the equipment at this time, but this would be addressed.
Chairperson Fahey closed the Public Comments at 7:02 PM.
MINUTES.06/03/96 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 3. 1996
Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the right-of-way on Rancho California Road and
if the variance issued to Black Angus would be set back. Principal Engineer
Cresswell responded that 12' in the southwest corner had been planned for this
purpose.
Chairperson Fahey called for a consensus on the change on the columns:
Commissioner Webster is satisfied with the design as is
Chairperson Fahey agrees with the design as is
Commissioner Miller like the entire plan as is
Commissioner Soltysiak agrees with the column plan as is
Commissioner Slaven is in opposition to the plan design as is
The consensus was to keep the column design as planned.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern on the facade on the facing wall
and recommended it be broken up.
Commissioner Slaven requested that Condition #5 be deleted due to the
vague design guidelines. She feels it is important to maintain guidelines.
Commissioner Webster stated that other phases of the project will need
guidelines and guidelines are not relevant to the theater.
Chairperson Fahey stated she supports Condition #5 as written.
Commissioner Slaven recommended that the trees currently along the freeway
frontage not be removed due to the screening ability.
Commissioner Webster stated he could foresee that the trees may obstruct
the marquee.
The applicant responded that the trees had been trimmed along the freeway
allowing visibility of the marque. He also stated that additional trees located
in a berm behind the theater need to be removed in order to construct the
building and felt this would not be of concern.
Chairperson Fahey expressed support for language in the conditions regarding
the trees.
Commissioner Webster stated that staff was aware of the Commission's
direction and agrees that frontage trees need to be trimmed and the trees in
the berm need to be removed for construction purposes.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commission Webster to approve the
elevations and site plan for the theater and the retail stores, based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval with the
following amendments: Sycamore trees in the front parking lot will remain; trees along the
iVl]~UTES.06/03/96 5
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 1996
Freeway frontage will remain; trees located in the berm can be removed; And approve
withdrawal of Phase 11 Application; Delete the Design Guidelines requirement from Condition
of Approval No.5; and deletion of other Phase II related Conditions of Approval for Planning
Application No. PA95-0114.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Webster, Slaven, Fahey, Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING MANGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported that the proposed Sign Ordinance
is being developed. A final draft will be available by August.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None given.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adjourn
the meeting at 7:28 PM. This was carried unanimously.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission is scheduled for
Monday, June 17, 1996 6:00 P.M. at Rancho California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
CHAIRMAN
SECRETARY
MINUTES.06/03/96 6
ITEM #3
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning CommisSion
D , n 'Z~
ebb'e Ub osl~e, Planning Manager
July 15, 1996
Beer and Wine License for Planning Application No. PA96-0128, ARCO AM/PM Mini
Mart, (Approved Plot Plan PA96-0073), Southeast Corner of Winchester Road and
Nicolas Road
Prepared by:
Request:
Location:
Applicant:
Purpose of Licence:
Zoning: Specific Plan
Alcohol Licenses in the Vicinity:
Stephen Brown, Project Planner
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Beer and Wine Licence for
ARCO AM/PM mini mart. The beer and wine sales are for consumption off site.
Southeast corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road
ARCO Products Company
Beer and Wine Sales
Type of License:
General Plan:
Off-sale Beer and Wine
Neighborhood Commercial
Texaco Food Mart, Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the City of Murrieta
Chevron Service Station and Mini Mart, Winchester Road in the Costco Center
Uses in the Vicinity:
Chaparral High School is located approximately 200 feet to the west
Residences to the south on the hills above the project site
Vacant fields to the north
Residential development to the east on Nicolas Road
R:\STAFFRF~I28PA96.B&W 7110196 slb
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
July 15, 1996
SUBJECT:
Beer and Wine License for Planning Application No. PA95-0092, Temecula Stage
Stop, Northeast Corner of Front and Sixth Streets
Prepared by:
Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
Request:
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Beer and Wine Licerice for
Temecula Stage Stop which provides local and regional shuttle services. The
wine tasting and sales are a component of the shuttle services to the Wine
Country by Temecula Stage Stop.
Location:
Northeast Corner of Front and 6th Streets
Applicant: Ed Dool
Purpose of Licence: Wine Tasting and Sales Type of License: On-sale Beer and Wine
Zoning: Specific Plan General Plan:
Community Commercial
Alcohol Licenses in the Vicinity:
Circle K, Front between 6th and Moreno
Joe's Cafe and Catering, Front between 6th and Moreno
Mexico Chiquito, Moreno and Front
Cucas Cafe, Front and Moreno
Rancho Liquor, Front and Moreno
Penfold's Care and Bakery, Front and Moreno
Denny's, Front and Rancho California
Texas Lil's, Front and 5th
Mad Madeline, Front and 5th
Bank of Mexican, Front and Main
Rosa's Cantina, Front and Main
Uses in the Vicinity:
Retail and Office Uses
Residences on south side of Sixth street east of Mercedes
Learning Unlimited (a small private school with tutoring for about twenty total students)
across the street on Sixth Street
The Senior Center, the museum, and Sam Hicks Park to the east of Mercedes between Moreno
and Sixth Streets
Computer Whiz Kids (a computer school) in the Chaparral Building
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA95.B&W 7/11M96 sa
ITEM #5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission ,2
i'
Debbie Ubnoske'j l~anning Manager
July 15, 1996
TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Resolution No. PC 96- entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT
MITIGATION PLAN AND SET THE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION
FEE CAP"
BACKGROUND
During development of the City's General Plan, the Temecula Valley Unified School District
(District) requested that the City of Temecula require residential developers to fully mitigate
the impact of new development on school facilities. In response to their request, the City
Council included language in the Growth Management and Public Facilities Element stating that
if Proposition 170 failed to win voter approval in the November 1993 Election, the City would
establish a school mitigation resolution.
With the failure of Proposition 170, the City Council approved Resolution No. 95-36 on April
11, 1995 establishing the School Mitigation Program. The Resolution did the following:
Authorized the School District to prepare and submit a Mitigation Plan that
addresses the impacts on school facilities;
· Set standards for the contents of the School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans;
Established procedures for the City's review and approval of a proposed
Mitigation Plan; and,
· Stated how the approved Mitigation Plan will be carried out.
Resolution 95-36 states that a Mitigation Plan must document the need for additional financial
mitigation in excess of the revenues that would be received from Statutory School Fees or
other sources of funding available to the District. Specifically, the Mitigation Plan must
contain information on the following items:
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PC17/10/96 dwh
o The number of students generated by new development;
o Typical school site and construction costs;
o Optimum Facility Utilization;
o Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources; and
o Level of Support for New Development.
The District's Plan contains all of the required elements with the exception that TVUSD has
not including any costs for central administration and support facilities that may be associated
with new development. A copy of the Resolution 95-36 is attached to this Staff Report as
Attachment 3.
DISCUSSION
The School Facility Mitigation Plan submitted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District
calculated the cost of providing school facilities for an average household. The most recent
version of the District's Mitigation Plan is included in Attachment No. 1. The proposed
changes to the Mitigation Plan are highlighted for easy reference. The process for identifying
the per unit costs for school facilities are summarized below.
STEP1.
The costs of constructing new elementary, middle and high school facilities are
determined using the State of California's standard costs.
STEP 2.
A Student Generation Factor (SGF), for attached and detached residential units,
by school type, is calculated using a survey of new homes within the District.
STEP 3. The total cost of providing schools for each household is calculated.
STEP 4. General Obligation Bond and State School Funding Program credits are calculated.
STEP 5. The actual (net) cost of providing schools for each household is determined.
The School Mitigation Plan submitted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District was
reviewed by David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG), the City's impact fee consultant. A
copy of DMG's review is included in Attachment No. 4. The DMG concludes that while much
of District's Mitigation Plan is based upon direct verifiable numbers, there are two non-
technical policy issues that could affect the net cost of providing future schools funding. The
first is the future Student Generation Factor, and the other issue is the assumption that there
will be no future school bond funding.
School Facility AcQuisition and Construction Cost
Resolution 95-36 requires that typical facility construction costs be consistent with State
standards. The costs of constructing new school facilities used by TVUSD in their mitigation
plan are consistent with the State Standards and are less than the actual construction costs
for recently built schools. Shown below are comparative actual costs for the construction for
Redhawk Elementary, Vail Ranch Middle, and Chaparral High Schools and the State approved
acquisition and construction costs that are used in the District's Mitigation Plan.
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
AND THE PROPOSED TVUSD MITIGATION PLAN
School Type
Elementary School
Actual TVUSD Construction
Costs (Including school name)
Costs used in
Mitigation Plan
Facility
Capacity*
(Redhawk ES) $7,551,948 $7,525,844 660
Middle School (Vail Ranch MS) 914,404,484 $13,569,197 850
High School (Chaparral HS) $37,790,467 935,785,757 2, 100
* - School capacities assume single tracks; 4-track capacities ere 825 and 1063, respectively, for elementary
and middle schools.
According to DMG, the school capacity figures used by TVUSD exceed state guidelines. As
a result, DMG is recommending that the District's proposed fees be reduced by $675 and
9519, respectively, for detached and attached units. This reduction will be accounted for in
the final step of this process.
Student Generation Factor
The City's Resolution establishes a specific methodology for determining the appropriate
student generation factors for the various types of residential development. The Student
Generation Factor shall be based upon a random sample of at least 250 dwellings constructed
in the preceding three years.
The District's Student Generation Factor survey indicated that the SGF for detached dwelling
units varied over the six-year life of the survey from 0.74 students per household in the
Survey Year to 0.88 students per household in Years Four, Five and Six. The attached unit
SGF varied from 0.40 in the Survey year to 0.64 in Year Six. The District proposes to use
the Year Six figures for their Mitigation Plan. The Detached and Attached SGFs by year and
school type are shown below.
Grade Level
Pre-Kindergarten
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(Students per Typical Household)
Survey
Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
.33 n/a n/a n/a
Year 5 Year 6
n/a n/a
K through 5 .44 .48 .46 .45 .41 .39
6 through 8 .18 .18 .21 .20 .22 .24
9 through 12 .13 .18 .18 .23 .25 ,25
ITo',',,,II .,4 I .84 I.88.881I
I Column and row totals may not add up because of rounding; BOLD numbers are TVUSD's recommended SGF, f
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PCI 7/9/96 dwh 3
Grade Level
Pre-Kindergarten
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(Students per Typical Household)
Survey
Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
.28 n/a n/a n/a
Year 5 Year 6
n/a n/a
K through 5 .28 .34 .32 .34 .32 .29
6 through 8 .09 .11 .13 .13 .17 .19
9 through 12 .04 .02 .04 .09 .11 .17
IToT ,It ."olI .,,9I . 01I
I Column and row totals may not add up because of rounding; BOLD numbers are TVUSD's recommended SGF, I
According to DMG, the methodology used to calculate the new home Student Generation
Factor in the District's Plan is technically supportable. (The issue discussed on Pages 9
through 12 of the DMG Study.) DMG, in their study, also added that a SGF is highly volatile
and is difficult to predict with accuracy over the long-term. City Resolution 95-36 provides
for the periodic review and evaluation of the approved Mitigation Plan and its components.
Facility Cost per Residential Unit
The costs of school facilities for attached and detached residential units are calculated using
the per student facility cost estimates and the Student Generation Factor. The unadjusted
school facility cost proposed by the District was $10,210 for detached units and $7,360 for
attached units.
DMG in their analysis determined that the gross, unadjusted, costs for residential units were
a little less than originally described in TVUSD's Mitigation Plan, The actual amounts are
910,207.11 and 97,357.31 for detached and attached residences, respectively. DMG's
unadjusted per unit costs for providing school facilities are included in the following table.
Net Cost per Residential Unit for New School Facilities
A portion of the cost of providing new schools is from outside funding sources. The major
funding sources are the State School Building Program and General Obligation (GO) bonds.
To accurately reflect the per residence cost for new schools, these credits need to be
calculated and subtracted from the Total Cost described above. The District's Plan identified
that detached units should receive a credit of $698 and attached units should receive a credit
of $501 for State Building Fund and general obligation credits. DMG reviewed the District's
proposed per unit cost and recommends that an additional $191 for detached units and $138
for attached units will be credited to (deducted from) the total per unit costs.
Since the preparation of the DMG Study, Proposition 203 was approved in the 1995 election.
As a result, the District has further modified the proposed Plan to provide an additional credit
toward future elementary school construction. This additional credit is $105 for detached
residential units and $76 for attached residential units. The additional credit has been
incorporated into DMG's technically justified school facility mitigation costs described in the
following table.
RECOMMENDED PER UNIT SCHOOL FACILITY COST
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT
School Funding Credits
Net Detached Unit Impact
School Type
Elementary I Middle l High
~3,341 $2,594 ~4,272
TOTAL
$10,207
($351) ($211) ($432) ($994)
$2,990 ~2,383 ~3,840 ~9,213
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT
~2,398 ~2,054 $2,905 $7,357
School Funding Credits ($253) ($167) ($293) ($713)
Net Attached Unit Impact ~2,145 ~1,887 $2,612 I $6,644
IColurnn and row totals may not add up because of rounding.
Future School Bond FundinE
The final issue is the assumption that no additional outside funding sources will be available
to build new schools. The availability, or lack of future funding, from outside sources is the
second non-technical policy issue that affects the net cost of providing future schools funding.
There is a concern, that because of this school mitigation cap, TVUSD will not aggressively
pursue future funding sources if the fee cap was approved by the City. The validity of this
assumption is challenged by the recent passage of Proposition 203. According to TVUSD,
an estimated $11,000,000will be available locally to build schools.)
However, the conservative (intentionally underestimated) school facility ~mpact modeling done
by City Staff, which included additional Proposition 203 funds, suggests that the additional
funds will not eliminate the significant school funding deficit the District is facing. According
to the modeling, the passage of Proposition 203 and the fee cap will reduce the cumulative
2006 school construction deficit from $65 million to $37 million. A copy of the results of this
modeling effort are included in Attachment No. 5.
CONCLUSION
The decision to address the mitigation of the impacts on schools from new development was
made by the City Council in 1993. The recommended per unit fees are considered to be
technically justifiable by DMG. If the Planning Commission believes that the fee is appropriate
and reasonable, the Commission should recommend the proposed fee cap to the City Council.
If the City Council approves the fee cap, it would apply only to those projects that receive a
legislative approval after that date. Typical legislative approvals include general plan
amendments, specific plans, zone changes, development and pre-annexation agreements.
Many of the large specific plans that have been recently approved in the County already have
a similar mitigation requirement applied to them.
R:~HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PCI 7/9196 dwh 5
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Proposed Mitigation Plan was prepared pursuant to, and submitted under, the School
Mitigation Program addressed in Implementation Program C.3 of the Growth Management/
Public Facilities Element of the City's adopted General Plan. As a result, the proposed
Mitigation Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed Mitigation Plan does not have the potential to cause an alteration or have a
significant impact on the physical environment. Future specific school projects that may result
from the funds raised under this Plan will undergo the appropriate level of environmental review
when specific sites and designs are known. Therefore, the Community Development Director
has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant
to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Proposed Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan - Blue Page 7
Draft PC Resolution No. 96-{next) - Blue Page 8
Resolution 95-36 - Page 12
DMG's Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fee - Blue Page 13
Results of School Facility impact Modeling - Blue Page 14
R:XSCHOOLS\SCHLPLA/~I.PC17/10/96 vgw 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PC1 715/96 dwh 7
Dr. h~k~a B. Normhey
~uI~nt~m
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES
IMPACT R~ITIGATION PLAN
FOR
TEMECULA VALLEY UNII4'iED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Prepared For:
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
31350 Rancho Vista Road
Temecula, California 92592
Prepared By:
DAVID TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1301 Dove Street, Suite 600
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 752-1554
April 2.4, 1996
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary ........................................... i
L Introduction ............................................ 1
II. City of Temecula Resolution .................................. 2
IlL Optimum Facaity Utilization .................................. 3
A. Class Size ........................................... 3
B. Multi-Track Year Round .................................. 4
IV. Bond Issues and Other Alternative Funding Sources ................... 6
A. Funding Sources Pursued By TV'USD .......................... 6
B. Certification By TVUSD ................................. 10
V. Central Administration, Support Facilities and Interim Facilities ........... 11
VI. Coordination of planning Review For School Site Development ............ 12
VII. Methodology of Facilities lmpaa Mitigation Plan .................... 13
A. Overview of Methodology ................................ 13
B. Student Generation Factors ................................ 13
C. FacRity Cost Impacts ................................... 14
VIII. TVUSD Existing School Facilities Capacity and Enrollment Data ......... 16
IX. Impaa of Residential Development On School Facilities Needs ............ 17
A. Student Generation Factors Per Residential Unit ................... 17
B. 1995-96 TVUSD School Facility Costs ........................ 18
C. Facility Cost Impacts Per Residential Unit ...................... 19
X. Mechanisms Available for New Residential Development to Mitigate School
Facilities Impacts ........................................ 21
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Student Generation Factor Study
Exhibit B: School Facility Costs
Executive Summary
This Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan ("Plan") is intended to meet the
requirements which are set forth by City of Temecula Resolution No. 95-36, adopted April 11,
1995, by the City Council. The parameters set forth in Resolution No. 95-36 include facilities
utiliTarion, TVUSD alternative facilities funding sources, and TVUSD coordination of planning
with the City of Temecula ("City").
TVUSD current school facilities capacity has been evaluated to determine if excess capacity is
available to house new students generated by residential development. The District's physical
plant includes seven elementa~ schools, three middle schools, and two high schools (one regular
education and one continuation high school). Collectively, TVUSD's educational facilities in
the 1995-96 school year have a capacity of 10,477 students. Of these seats, 5,292 are at the
elementary school level, 2,932 are at the middle school level, and 2,253 are at the high school
level. The enrollment as of September 7, 1995, was 12,185 students. A comparison of the
District's enrollment and facility capacity for the 1995-96 school year indicates that enrollment
exceeds capacity at the elementary and high school levels and is approaching capacity at the
middle school level. In fact, TVUSD projects that all surplus seats at the middle school level
will be occupied by the end of calendar year 1995.
The Plan evaluates student generation rates and school facilities costs including administrative
and support facilities cost impacts for residential development occurring within TVUSD. Student
generation rates and cost data for school facilities used in the Plan established gross total school
facilities costs per dwelling unit ranging from $7,360 to $10,210 per dwelling unit, depending
on the type of housing product. Credits based on funding from the State School Building
Program and unspent General Obligation bonds were established, with dwelling units receiving
credits ranging from $501 to $698. depending on the type of housing product. I~i~adi~0ii:,:
credits based on funds to be received by the District as a result of Proposition 203 being
approved by the State voters on Ma.n:h 26, 1996, range from $76 to $105 per dwelling unit.
The net scht'~[ t~cilities costs per dwelling unit are $6,783 to S9,407. depending on the type of
housing product, as shown in Table ES-1. These facility costs are in 1995-96 school year
dollars and are to be adjusted annually for inflation. TVUSD currently collects the maximum
residential school fee authorized by AB 2926 and approved by the State Allocation Board on
Januar~ 24, 1996. The maximum school fee of $~!:!~ per square foot provides for
approximately 22~5% to ~]!ii~% of the net school facilities costs, depending on the type of
housing product. To satisfy the City's school mitigation requirements, as promulgated by
Resolution No. 95-36, it will be necessary for all new residential development, except for
projects proposed under Senior Citizen Developments zoning, to provide the funding necessary
to mitigate 100% of the net school facilities costs.
TVUSD must be contacted by a developer at least 120 days prior to the review of the project
by the Plaxtning Commission, to permit sufficient time to negotiate a Mitigation Agreement. In
mitigating a project's school impacts, the Developer and TVUSD may agree to utilize one or
more of the following f'mancing mechanisms:
1. Payment of school fees
2. Dedication of land
3. Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District
4. Levying of a Special Tax
5. Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer an~t TVUSD
TABLE ES-1
NET FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
School Level.
Land Use Category Elementary Middle High
Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595 $4,272
Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51) $(203)
Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121) $(126)
Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(105) $0 $0
Net Detached Unit School Facility $3,041 $2,423 $3,943
Impact
Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054 $2,905
Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40) $(138)
Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96) $(86)
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(76) $0 $0
Net Attached Unit School Facility $2,183 $1,918 $2,681
Impact
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Total*
$10.210
$(254)
$(~. 4.
$(105)
$9,407
$7.360
$(178)
$(323)
$(76)
$6,783
ii
I. Introduction
Throughout the State of California, school districts are seeking to finance the construction of
school facilities required by growing student enrollments. This is also the case in TVUSD,
where student enrollment has ~own by 1,100 students over the last year. Combined with
growth from past years, enrollment has and will continue to exceed the capacity of existing
school facilities within TVUSD.
A school district in California has several options available to finance the construction of school
facilities, including the State School Building Program ("State Program"), local debt f'mancing
(such as General Obligation Bonds, Mello-Roos Bonds, and Certificates of Participation based
on tax increment revenues related to an existing project of a local redevelopment agency, and
statutory school fees ("School Fees"). Unfortunately, the State Program obtains a majority of
its funding through statewide school bond elections which are proving inadequate for the State' s
school facilities needs. Even though Prolyosition 203 a $3.(} billion school bond measure, of
which only $2.02.5 billion is marked for grades K-12, was passed by the voters of California
in March 1996. the estimated backlog of State funding applications totals over $7.0 billion.
Furthermore, with the defeat of Proposition 170 by the State's voters, local general bond
measures will still require a two-thirds approval rather than the proposed simple majority
approval. Local debt financing programs are proving inadequate in many cases, in part due to
the difficulty of obtaining the two-thirds voter approval required for such programs. The only
exception to this voter approval requirement is Certificates of Participation, but the sale of this
facilities financing instrument is consu'ained by the need for a stream of revenues to cover lease
payments.
For these and other reasons, many school districts rely on School Fees as a primary funding
source for school facilities required by new development. However, School Fees only provide
a portion of the school facilities funding required by new development. This Plan is intended
to satisfy the requirements which have been set forth by City Resolution No. 95-36. Those
requirements include the optimal utilization of school buildings and administration facilities, the
use of bond issues and all other alternative funding sources, and the coordination of planning
review for school site development.
~'emecula Valley Unified School District Page 1
Chy - Residential Facilities Impact Miagatlan Plan April 24, 1996
H. City of Ternecula Resolution
On April 11, 1995, the City Council for the City of Temecuta (the "City") adopted ResolutiOn
No. 95-36. This resolution states that TVUSD may present a request to the City for mitigation
of the impact on schools of a development proposal ("Mitigation Payments"). It specifies that
a Mitigation Plan must be prepared by TVUSD and adopted by the City.
The Mitigation Plan shall contain documentation of the need for any level of Mitigation Payment
that exceeds the total revenue anticipated to be received by TVUSD from the School Fee
established pursuant to applicable law, plus any other source of funding available or anticipated
to be available to TVUSD for the provision of school facilities. In addition, the Mitigation Plan
shall contain a review of the following issues:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Student Generation Factors
Typical School Facilities
Optimum Facility Utilization
Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources
Central Administration and Support Facilities and Interim Facilities
Level of Support From New Development
Coordination of Planning Review for School Site Development
Temeeula Vaaey Unified School District Page 2
City - Reshtenilol Facilities Impact Maigatlon Plan April 24, 1996
III. Optimum Facility Utilization
TVUSD is currently optimizing the use of its existing educational facilities. Efficient use of
classroom resources is being implemented in the following manner:
A. Class Size
The TVUSD Board of Trustees has adopted a policy to ut'dize its facilities in accordance
with the loading standards recommended by the Office of Public School Construction
COPSC"). As shown in Table 1 below, TVUSD meets the loading standards established
by the OPSC at every grade level.
TABLE 1
TVUSD AND STATE LOADING
STANDARDS
Grade Level
Loading Standards
TVUSD~ [ OPSCz
Kindergarten
(double session) 55 55
Grades 1 - 3 29 29
Grades 4 - 6 33 33
Grades 7 - 8 30 30
Grades 9 -12 28 28
Temeeula Valley Unified School District
2 Office of Local Assistance Applicant Handbook
(The Office of Public School Constraction was
formerly the Office of Local Assistance)
The OPSC also fixes a square 'footage allowance, by student, for new construction
projects. According to a 1987 study by the American Institute of Architects CAIA"), 15
states besides California maintain maximum per pupil square footage standards. The AIA
survey found that California provides the lowest mount of space per student, and that the
average maximum square footage provided by the 15 other states is 65 percent higher
than the California standards.
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 3
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
B. Multi-Track Year Round
Less than 10 percent of all school districts in the State are utilizing multi-track year-wund
educational programs to maximize facility capacity. In 1989, TVUSD formed a
committee to examine the pros and cons of instituting a year round educational program.
In 1993, communities within TVUSD were surveyed regarding the options of providing
adequate facilities for all students. The three options included in the survey were year-
round education, double sessions, and the placement of additional relocatable buildings.
After receiving over 650 responses (see Table 2) and having four public hearings, the
TVUSD Board of Trustees approved the establishment of a K-12 year-round calendar with
a single-track plan at eight schools. Two schools, Red Ilawk and Sparkman Elementary
Schools, were approved to be placed on a year-round calendar with a four-track plan in
July 1994 and (me.i~l~!~i:i;.~,~El~a~::~!i~.i:~.:~i':m!ii:!;i:foUr~traek plan
in~:'lulyi!995. In addition, all new elementary and middle schools constructed in TVUSD
will be placed on a year-round calendar with a four-track plan.
TABLE 2
TVUSD SURVEY RESPONSES
N,,mber of
Option Responses
Double Sessions 14
Relocatables 233
Year-Round Education 405
Anti-Year-Round Education 25
Questions Only 5
Percentage
2%
34%
59%
4%
1%
100% I
As for the high school level, utilization of a year round educational program is very
difficult. First, some of the classes offered as part of a departmentsilTed program are
specialiTed in nature and may only be taught by one or two teachers. Such classes would
be unavailable to students who are attending a track when these teachers are off-cycle.
Also, it may not be possible to phce all athletes on a lxack which corresponds to the sport
in which they are participating. As a remit, these students could be forced to either give
up their participation in favor of family vacations during the off-cycle or participate in
sports when the rest of their track peers are on a between-cycles break.
According to Resolution No. 95-36, TVUSD is requested to comment on the utiliTation
of double school sessions as part of its effort to justify Mitigation Payments in excess of
School Fees presently levied at the amount of $~::!:~ per square foot. Based on the results
Temeeula Volley Unified School District Page 4
CRy - Residential Facilid~s lmpact Midgatlan Plan April 24, 1996
of the survey, both the education community and the residents in TVUSD consider double
sessions to be an unacceptable means of educating students. In order to implement such
a program, some students must arrive at school in the early morning while other students
begin classes in the middle of the day and leave in the late afternoon. In other words,
students come and go before and after daylight hours. This places an artificial Limit on
the number of instruction minutes which each student may receive. In addition to the
limitations on instruction time, there are obvious safety hazards which this situation
creates. Double sessions also make it difficult to resolve labor disputes caused by the
prolonged work day and increase child care responsibilities for parents whose children
will be out of school either all morning or all afternoon on a daily basis. For the reasons
described above, the Board of Trustees has determined double sessions to be
inappropriate.
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 5
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
IV. Bond Issues and Other Alternative Funding Sources
Resolution No. 95-36 states that "TVUSD shall certify, and provide supporting evidence in the
mitigation plan that it is pursuing State and alternative facilities financing." Listed below are
the various State and alternative facilities financing sources that TVUSD has or is pursuing. In
addition, in accordance with Resolution No. 95-36, TVUSD has provided a certification that it
is pursuing alternative funding sources.
A. Funding Sources Pursued Bv TVUSD
1. Certificates Of Participation
Certificates of Participation CCOP"s) are a means of borrowing funds, as opposed
to a new revenue source. In other words, principal and interest costs associated with
a COPs issuance must be repaid by TVUSD. The repayment would come from
TVUSD's general fund, which obtains funding from the State, or School Fees. As
a result of diminkhing State financial support and School Fee income, COPs are
a financial tool which should be used very prudently by school districts in
today's economic climate. To the extent that TVUSD needs its General Fund for
operations and maintenance, and School Fees for construction of facilities, these
funds can not be used to support the issuance of COPs.
2. State School Building Program
The State Program obtains its funding through statewide school bond elections which
are not providing sufficient revenue for the State's school facilities needs. l~ven
though Proposition 203 a S3.0 billion school bond measure, of which only $2.025
billion is marked for grades K-12, was passed by the voters of California in
March 1996. the estimated backing of State funding applications totals ov~ $7.0
billion. The next state~de school finance bond measure can be placed before the
State voters in November 1996, assuming the State legislature pass a bill to put a
bond measure on the ballot.
TVUSD has been very active in pursuing funds from the State Program. From the
1992 bond measures, TVUSD has received approximately $14,200,000 from the
State Program for 50 percent of the costs of Temecula and Vail Ranch Middle
Schools. The facilities were open for the 1992-93 school year and the 1994-95
school year, respectively, and have a combined capacity of 2,092 students on a
traditional calendar. In the future, both middle schools may serve students year-
round and have a combined capacity of 2,510 students. TVUSD has also received
$18,300,000 from the State Program for Chaparral High School. The high school
is scheduled to open for the 1997-98 school year and planned to house 2,094
students.
Tetnecula Valley Unified School DBtrict Page 6
City - Residential Facilities Impact Miagation Plan Apra 24, 1996
As Temecula and Vail Ranch Middle Schools and Chaparral High School facilities
will serve students generated from future homes, a credit for a share of the State
Program funds must be allocated to new dwelling units. Based on school enrollment
and capacity for the 1995-96 school year, assuming Temecuh and Vail Ranch Middle
Schools are placed on a multi-track year-round calendar, 445 middle school seats
(2,932 + 41_8 - 2,905 = 445) and 1,118 high school seats (2,094 - 976 = 1,118) are
available for students generated fwm new development. Apportioning the
$32,500,000 based on the number of seats available for students generated from new
dwelling units, creams a credit of $2,517,530 at the middle school level ($14,200,000
x (445 / 2,510) and $9,770,487 at the high school level ($18,300,000 x (1,118 /
2,094)).
These credits must then be apportioned between new development in the City and
new development in the County. A total of 18,000 new detached dwelling units and
7,800 new attached dwelling units are projected in the City and 21,000 new detached
dwelling units and 5,500 new attached dwelling units in the County. These will
generate 20,832 new students in the City and 22,000 new students in the County.
Based on the number of students to be generated in the City versus the County, the
credit for new development in the City is $1,228,797 at the middle school level and
$4,739,227 at the high school level.
In 'addition to receiving funds from the 1992 bond measures, TVUSD has bc~n very'
aggressive in applying for State Program funds from Proposition 203, the Ma~h
1996 bond measure. The District is expecting to receive 50 peak-eat reimbursements
for 2 elementary schools, Paloma and Pauba Valley Elementary Schools. Paloma
Elementary School opened in July 1995 and Pauba Valley Elcmentaxy School is
planned to be occupied in July 1996. TVUSD is also anticipating to receive 50
percent funding from the'State Program for Vintage Hills Elementary School which
is scheduled to be opened in July 1997.
In total, the District will receive approximately $11,000,000 for the construction of
the three elementary schools listed above. Similar to the funds received from the
t992 m~m~es. a credh for a share of the State Pro=tara funds must bc allocated to
new dwelling units. l?~ued on school em-xxllment and capacity for the 1995-96 school
year, assuming each elemexaary .school has a capacity of 878 students on a four-track
plan, 1,408 of the 2,634 new elementary school seats are needed to house students
generated from existing dwelling units {649 students an cu.¢ntly housed at Paloma
Elemem~. School and 759 studeaRs are currently unhonsed). The remaining 1,226
elementary school seats are available for students generated from new development.
Apportioning the $11,000,000 based on the number of seats available for ~udents
generated from r~w dwelling units, creates a credit of $5,119,970 ($11,000.000 x
(1,226 / 2,634)).
As for any additional State funding, should future referendums be passed by the
voters of the State, TVUSD will continue to pursue funding. However, because
of the uncertainty, any additional State funds beyond the amounts listed above
cannot be considered a reliable alternative funding source.
Ternecula Valley Unified School District Page 7
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
3. General Obligation Bond
On November 7, 1989, two-thirds of the electorate authorized TVUSD to issue
$65,000,000 of General Obligations ("GO") bonds. In essence, this granted TVUSD
the right to levy an ad valorem tax on all taxable property located within its
jurisdiction, The upper tax rate disclosed to the voters was $0.10 per $100.00 of
taxable property valuation.
As a result of TVUSD's current taxable property valuation, the District has issued
and spent $43,400,000 of GO bonds to date. The remaining $21,600,000 of unspent
GO bonds are planned to be issued for the construction of facilities to serve students
generated in TVUSD by new development. Therefore, a credit must be calculated
for new homes.
Similar to the State Program, the credit for unspent GO bonds must be apportioned
by the number of elementary, middle, and nigh school students generated from new
development in the City and new development in the County. The numbers of
elementary, middle, and nigh school students projected from new development in the
City are 9,204, 5,802, and 5,826, respectively. The numbers of students by grade
level for the County are 9,730, 6,085, and 6,185. Based on these numbers, the
credit is $4,641,539 at the elementary school level, $2,925,925 at the middle school
level, and $2,938,028 at the nigh school level for new development in the City.
As for additional authorization of GO bonds, it is very unlikely that the
electorate would grant TVUSD the right to levy any additional taxes in the
foreseeable future.
4. Redevelopment Pass-Through
California redevelopment law presently allows school districts to share in tax
increment income via pass-through agreements with local redevelopment agencies.
However, because school districts cannot unilateraliy establish redevelopment project
areas and because recently approved legislation (AB 1290) limits school district
revenues from redevelopment, the availability and amount of these monies is subject
to events outside of the control of the district. These events include the following:
the number and scope of project areas wnich may be formed by the local city or
county; the amount of tax increment wnich the district is able to receive under AB
1290; and future development activity within the project area. Additionally, the
availability of pass-through proceeds for school districts may be affected by future
actions of the Governor and Legislature. The transfer of redevelopment funds from
local agencies to the State sets a dangerous precedent as far as the future of
redevelopment in California is concerned. Hence, tnis is not a probable source of
future revenues, except as to any existing pass-through agreements.
Curren~y, TVUSD receives approximately $500,000 per year of redevelopment pass-
through. The District has and plans to continue to use the redevelopment funds for
the construction of administrative and support facilities. Since redevelopmerit pass-
Ternecula Valley Unified School District Page 8
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
through is contingent on development within the project area, TVUSD's amount
of redevelopment funds may increase or decrease in any given year. As stated
above, the availability of additional tax increment is out of the control of the
District. Therefore, these funds cannot be considered a reliable alternative
funding source.
Community Facilities District
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act provides a method for local governments,
like school districts, to fund public facilities and certain services. The Community
Facilities District CCFD") is a special financing entity through which a local
government is authorized to levy special taxes either to pay debt service on issued
bonds or to pay for the direct construction of facilities or services. A two-thirds vote
of the qualified electors of such district is required to form the CFD. The qualified
electors are comprised of (i) the registered voters, if at least 12 persons have been
registered to vote within the territory of the proposed CFD for each of the 90 days
preceding the close of the protest hearing, or (ii) the landowners of the proposed
district.
TVUSD has established two CFDs by landowner vote including approximately 6,200
proposed residential units. However, these special tax proceeds are intended to
replace School Fees which would have been paid on those units. In the case of other
new residential developments, TVUSD may be willing to establish a third CFD for
the purpose of mitigating adequate school facilities. This CFD would be annexable
and may include the following features (i) a single payment special tax equal to the
impact, which would be levied at the time a building permit is issued, (it) an annual
special tax, which would be equal to the impact amortized over 25 years, or (iii) a
combination of a single payment special tax and an annual special tax. If the CFD
includes an annual special tax, TVUSD will coordinate with the City to assure that
the overall tax burden does not exceed 2 % of the assessed valuation.
As outlined above, two Community Facilities Districts have been established by
TVUSD, and a third is possible. This source of income is only available to
TVUSD in lieu of School Fees for units within those CFDs. TVUSD intends to
continue to utilize CFDs when appropriate for new residential development.
6. Developer Loan Funds
With respect to developer loan funds, TVUSD will consider the possible fair-share
reduction in future mitigation payments for a particular project based on the receipt
of State Program funds, which together with the amount of mitigation payment for
that particular project, are greater than the developer' s proportionate share of school
facilities costs. With respect to GO bonds and CFDS, new development has already
been given a credit for its proportionate share of the unissued GO bonds which have
been previously authorized, and it is unlikely that the electorate would grant TVUSD
the right to levy any additional taxes in the future.
Femecula Valley UnO~ed School District Page 9
City - Residential Faciliaes Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
B. Certification By TVUSD
I, Dr. Novotney, as Superintendent of Temecula Valley Unified School District, do
hereby certify that TVUSD has or is in the process of pursuing the above-mentioned
alternative funding sources where appropriate and within the constraints described above.
Dr. Patrich B. Novotney
Superintendent
Temecula VaRey UnO~d School District Page 10
City * Residential Fac;_l~,'es lmpaa Miagat~n Plan April 24, 1996
V. Central Administration, Support Facilities and Interim Facilities
TVUSD has gained over 3,900 students during the last four years, an annual increase in excess
of ten percent. The new residential development which generated this rapid enrollment Fowth
has impacted TVUSD-administration, support, and interim facilities.
The District's central administration, maintenance, operations, and transportation facilities have
been overcrowded and inadequate for some time. For example, central administration functions
are housed in several buildings, including portables and trailers. TVUSD estimates that
provision of adequate central administration and support facilities will cost approximately S12.1
million. These facilities will serve a projected 25,000 students in ten years. The State Pro=~rarn
does not normally fund administration and support facilities.
Due to the inadequacy of existing funding sources for permanent facility construction, TVUSD
is currently utilizing relocatable/portable facilities on an interim basis. OPSC projects that
TVUSD's enrollment will grow at an annum rate of 1,260 students through the 2000-01 school
year. This equates to over 6,300 new students in the next five years. It is reasonable to assume
that at least a portion of these new pupils will need to be housed in interim classrooms. The
lease payments for a single portable classroom over the next ten years will total approximately
$70,000.
Resolution No. 95-36 states that a school district may include central administration, support,
and interim facilities as part of its Mitigation Payment; however, TVUSD has decided to utilize
other revenue funds to cover these facility costs, so these costs axe not included in our analysis.
Temecula Valley Unified School DBtrict Page 11
City - Residential Faeiliffts Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
VI. Coordination of Planning Review For School Site Development
TVUSD has developed and maintained an effective working relationship with the City,. This
relationship stems from the desire of both the School Board of TVUSD and the City Council to
work together to coordinate community-wide goals.
Curren~y, the City notifies TVIJSD of each new development application prior to their review
by the Development Review Committee CDRC") of the City. This committee reviews all
development agreements, general plan amendments, specific plans, plot plans and other planning
issues. This allows the District to coordinate with developers and comment on school matters
in the early stages of development.
Additionally, TVUSD participates in various meetings of the City Council and Planning
Commission when an item of interest or concern to TVUSD is on the agenda. This also allows
TVUSD to give valuable input at an early stage of development proposals.
TVUSD participated in the fonnation of SAGE 2 (Sustaining A Great Environment and
Economy). The purpose of this group is to establish a common infrastructure planning model
for all government entities and utilities within the Temecula and Murrieta Valleys. This
planning organization enables entities that develop infrastructure to coordinate theh' activities in
an attempt to avoid costly expenditures that come from lack of coordination amongst government
entities and utilities.
Lastly, Section 65402 of the Government Code and Section 21151.2 of the Public Resources
Code require school districts to notify the local planning commission regarding a proposed
school site acquisition prior to acquiring title to the property. Within 30 days after receipt of
this notice, the planning commission is to investigate the proposed site and present a written
report to the school board which includes a summary of the investigation and recommendations
for acquiring the site in a manner which is consistent with the general plan. School districts also
currently coordinate planning activities for new schools with the local f~re marshal.
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 12
City - Residenard Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
VII. Methodology of Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan
TVUSD has experienced rapid enrollment growth in recent years. This growth has created an
increased demand for new school facilities within TVUSD, and the need to incur significant costs
to meet that demand. As a result, TVUSD has determined that the herein described Mitigation
Payments should be re~luired of all new development to the extent authorized by Resolution No.
95-36. The objective of this Plan is to provide a basis for such findings pursuant to the
requirements of applicable law, including Section 66001 and following of the Government Code
and the provisions of Resolution No. 95-36.
A. Overview of Methodology
In order to evaluate the existence of a nexus, this Plan identifies and analyzes the various
connections or linkages between residential development and (i) the need for school
facilities, (ii) the cost of school facilities, and (iii) the amount of the Mitigation Payments
that can justifiably be imposed by TVUSD. The primary linkages identified include the
following:
1. Student generation, i.e., household formation within TVUSD generates new students
2. Facility requirements, i.e., student generation within TVUSD leads to the need to
incur costs for new school facilities
3. Mitigation Payment requirements, i.e. , additional costs for new school facilities within
TVUSD lead to the need to levy development fees
The above linkages result in a series of impacts which (i) connect new residential
development with increased school facilities costs, and (ii) connect fees per residential unit
with increased facilities costs.
These impacts are identified for two residential land use classes, namely Single Family
Detached Units and Multi-family Attached/Mobile Home Units. These "linkage impacts"
include two major types:
1. Student Generation Impacts
2. School Facilities Impacts
B. Student Generation Factors
Student Generation Factors were calculated by a consultant retained by TVUSD in
accordance with the methodology and parameters set forth in Resolution No. 95-36. This
included phone surveying 250 residents who occupy dwelling units which (i) are in the
District's area, (ii) were constructed in the last three years, and (iii) represent current and
anticipated development.
Teraecula Valley Unified School Distact Page 13
City - Residential Facaiaes Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
Facility Cost Impacts
Facility Cost Impacts are calculated by dividing the gross facilities cost associated with
each grade level by the corresponding category of Student Generation Impacts Separate
facility cost estimates were prepared for each grade level by TVUSD. The cost data
include the costs of site acquisition, school construction and other on-site improvements.
and school furfiishings.
Temecula Valley Unified ~hool District Pag~ 14
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
VIII. TVUSD Existing School Facilities Capacity and Enrollment Data
In order to determine whether TVUSD's existing school facilities contain excess capacity to
house students generated by new residential development, current facilities and projected
enrollment data for the District have been evaluated.
At the present time, TVUSD's physical plant includes seven elementary schools, three middle
schools, and two high schools (one regular education and one continuation high school).
Collectively, these facilities in the 1995-96 school year have a permanent capacity of 10,477
students. The District's enrollment as of September 7, 1995, was 12,185 students. As shown
in Table 3 below, TVUSD's 1995-96 school year enrollment at the elementary and high school
levels exceed capacity and is approaching capacity at the middle school level. In fact, TVUSD
projects that all surplus seats at the middle school level wi/1 be occupied by the end of calendar
year 1995.
TABLE 3
EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES
CAPACITY AND ENROLLMZENT
School Level
Elementary School (K - 5)
Middle School (6 - 8)
High School (9 - 12)
1995/96 Total
Capacity~
5,292
2,932
2,253
Total 10,477
1995/96 Excess Capacity
Enrollment: (Shortage)
6,051 (759)
2,905 27
3,229 (976)
12,185 I (1,708)
xSource: Temecula Valley Unified School District. TVUSD currently owns two types of
portables/reloeahables: permanent and non-permanent. Table 3 includes permanent
portables/reloeatables.
2Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 15
Cizy - Residential Facllaies Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
IX. Impact of Residential Development On School Facilities Needs
As discussed in Section VII, the objective of this Plan is to determine the impact of new
residential development on TVUSD's school facilities. Section VH outlined the methodology
which was employed-in this Plan to meet that objective. What follows is a step by step
presentation of the results of the analysis.
A. Student Generation Factors Per Residential Unit
In order to analyze the impact of new residential development on TVUSD's student
enrollment, TVI_ISD retained a consultant to calculate student generation factors
CSGFs") by land use for each grade level. The methodology employed by the consultant
to calculate the SGFs for TVUSD was identical to the methodology depicted in
Resolution No. 95-36. The consultant surveyed by phone a minimum of 250 units based
on (i) the units being constructed within the last three years, (ii) the units represent the
current and anticipated future characteristics of the communities in TVUSD, and (iii) the
units not being senior citizen housing.
Of the 250 units surveyed, 203 were Detached Units (single family detached). Based on
these surveys, there axe 89 elementary school students, 36 middle school students, and
26 high school students residing in the 203 units. In order to calculate the current SGFs
by each school level for Detached Units, the number of students in each school level
were divided by the number of units surveyed. However, in accordance with Resolution
No. 95-36, "the SGFs shall be based on an assessment of student pass-through from new
homes over at least a five year period." Using this methodology for each school level
resulted in the following SGFs:
TABLE 4
TVUSD STUDEaNT GENERATION RATES
DETACltRY} UNITS
School Level Student Generation Rates
Elementary School 0.39
Middle School 0.24
High School 0.25
Total 0.88
The identical procedure for calculating the SGFs for Detached Units was used in the
rates for Attached Units (multi-family attached and mobile home units). Based on the
remaining 47 surveys (250 - 203 = 47), there are 13 elementary school students, 4
middle school students, and 2 high school students residing in the 47 units. Based on
student pass-through over a five year period of time, the SGFs for Attached Units are
shown in Table 5.
Temecula Valley UnO~d School District Page 16
City - Residential Facileact Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
TABLE 5
TVUSD STUDF~NT GENERATION RATES
ATTACHED UNITS
School Level
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
Total ]
Student Generation Rates
0.28
0.19
0.17
0.64
The Student Generation Factor Study prepared for TVUSD is shown m Exhibit A.
1995-96 TVUSD School Facility Costs
TVUSD's school facility costs have been estimated for each school level. At the
elementary and middle school levels, the capacity of the facility has been increased by
20 percent to reflect the loading of a facility on a multi-track year-round calendar. The
school facility costs represent the fall cost of land, construction and furnishings for new
elementary, middle, and high schools. These costs reflect TVUSD's recent experience
in constructing new facilities. It must be noted, however, that these facility costs per
student do not include leased interim facilities costs or interest costs associated with debt
incurred to finance facilities prior to receiving sufficient fee revenues to construct such
facilities. In addition, the facility costs are in 1995-96 school year dollars and are to be
adjusted annually for inflation. The construction costs by school level are shown in
Table 6, while the construction costs by item for each school level are shown in Exhibit
B.
TABLE 6
DISTRICT FACILITY COSTS PER STUDENT (1995-96 $)
I School Level School Facility Costs I
Elementary School $ 8,572
Middle School $10,812
High School $17,090
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 17
City - Residential Faeilitles Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
Faeilitv Cost Impacts Per Residential Unit
By multiolying the information in Tables 4 and 5 by that in Table 6, we arrive at the per
unit gross school facility cost impact for each land use type. These impacts are shown
by school level and by land use type in Table 7. Table 8 shows the per unit State
Program 1992 bonds, GO bond, and ~:;i~i::~,i;~nd credits for each school
level and land use type. By subtracting the information in Table 8 from that in Table
7, we arrive at the per unit net school facility impact for each school level and land use
type. These impacts ar~ shown in Table 9.
The total net school facility cost for a Detached dwelling unit in 1995-96 school year
dollars is therefore $9~i~, while the total net school facility cost for an Attached
dwelling unit in 1995-96 school year dollars is $~!~83. To fully mitigate its school
impacts, a residential project must provide funding or facilities equivalent to these
figures.
TABLE 7
GROSS FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
Land Use Category
Detached Unit School Facility Impact
Attached Unit School Facility Impact
I * Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
School Level.
$3,343 $2,595 $4,272 $10,210
$2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7,360
TABLE 8
CREDITS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
School Level
Land Use Category Elementary [ Middle
Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51)
Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40)
Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121)
Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96)
Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $~I~
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit
High I Total
$(203) $(254)
$(138) $(178)
$(126)
$(86) $(323)
Temecula Vailey Unified School District Page 18
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
TABLE 9
NET FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
Land Use Cate~,orv'
Detached Unit School FacilRy Impact
Detached Unit State Program Credit
Detached Unit GO Bond Credit
Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit
Net Detached Unit School Facility
Impact
Artached Unit School Facility Impact
ARached Unit State Program Credit
Attached Unit GO Bond Credit
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit
Net Attached Unit School Facility
Impact
* Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
School Level
Elementary Middle High [ Total*
$3.343 $2,595 $4,272 $10.210
NA $(51) $(203) $(254)
$(197) $(121) $(1265 $(,! '! !)
$(105) $0 $0 5(105)
$3,041 $2,423 $3,943 $9,407
$2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7,360
NA $(40) $(138) $(178)
$(141) $(96) $(86) $(323)
$(76) $0 $0 $(76)
$2,183 $1,918 $2,681 $6,783
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 19
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
Mechanisms Available for New Residential Development to
Mitigate School Facilities Impacts
All residential development proposals submitted to the City of Temecula for final legislative
action related to entitlemerits require review by Temecula Valley Unified School District
CTVUSD"), except for residential proposals within the Senior Citizen Development Zone. which
are regulated under Section 65995.1 of the Government Code. Prior to residential project
review by the City Planning Commission, TVUSD must either (1) enter into a Mitigation
Agreement with the developer, or (2) if Agreement can not be reached, submit to the City a
request for certain mitigation procedures permitted under Section 65996 of the Government
Code.
In meeting its school facilities needs, TVUSD shall evaluate both the costs of constructing new
facilities to serve the needs of new development, and the phasing of these new facilities. The
school construction costs per Detached or Attached dwelling unit shall be based on the impact
estimates listed under Table 9 of this Plan. For 1995-96 school year, these costs are $9,407 per
Detached dwelling unit and $6~787~ per Attached dwelling unit. Phasing of new facilities shall
be based on current enrollment, existing school capacities, and projected enrollment based on
the proposed developmere and the student generation rates listed in Tables 4 and 5 of this Plan.
In determining the commitment required of a developer to mitigate his school facilities impacts,
TVUSD and the developer may consider one or more of the alternatives listed below:
1. Payment of school fees as required under Section 65995 of the Government Code
2. Dedication of land as sites for schools and administrative facilities
3. Formation of or annexation to a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
4. Levying of a Special Tax to fund school facilities
5. Other alternatives as proposed and agreed upon by the developer and TVUSD
In order to avoid a delay in City processing, TVUSD and the developer must execute a
Mitigation Agreement prior to review of the project by the City Planning Commission. To
facilitate reaching such an Agreement, TV'USD must be contacted by the developer at least 120
days prior to review of the project by the City Planning Commission.
J:~CLIENTS\TEMECULA.USDXMITIGATEXRF~ID6.MIT
Tetnecula Valley UnOettd School District Page 20
City - Residential Facilities Impact Millgalen Plan April 24, 1996
EXHIBIT A
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Student Generation Factor Study
PRIMARY DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH - NEW HOMES
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
For the purposes of this study, School Planning Services (SPS) has conducted a
random telephone survey for the Temecula Valley Unified School District {"TVUSD")
of residents living in new housing in the District's area, with the primary
objective being the determination of the relevant student generation factors.
The research approach utilized in this effort has been developed and refined by
SPS over several years through its involvement as a consultant for school
districts throughout California; additionally, it is specified as the approved
methodology for determining student generation factors for new homes by Riverside
County in its recently adopted Resolutions No. 92-164 and 93-131.
For purposes of the survey, new homes are defined as those constructed within the
past three years. Only occupants of non-age-restricted developments were polled;
because of the randomization of the telephone calls, single-family detached and
attached dwellings as well as mobile homes were surveyed in a proportion similar
to recent construction activity in the area. A total of 250 completed surveys
were obtained in the course of the project, with the final tally at 81% detached
units, 17% attached units, and 2% mobile homes.
Respondents were also queried on such topics as number of children in the
household by age and grade (if applicable), family size, family description, the
age of the head of household and ethnicity. As a result, in addition to
providing ancillary empirical support for the student generation data, the survey
also produced some interesting demographics for the District which may be useful
for planning purposes.
DESCRIPTION OF HOUSEHOLD
Figure I illustrates that the predominant family structure found in the new homes
in TVUSD consists of the "traditional" family of two adults with children; this
segment comprises 4~ of all the surveyed households.
HOUSEHOLD DESCRIPTION
NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Slngle/WC - 4%
2- AdUI~S/NC ~ 34%
2 AGuItS/WC - ~6%
Singie/NC - 11%
3~- A~ul ts/~¢C - 5%
(Non-age ReStriCted housing)
Source: School Planning Sefvtcea, 1/94
Figure 1
Ranking second in incidence is the category of two {or more) adults who have no
children present in the household, representing 34% of the sample, followed by
households containing childless single adults which accounted for 11% of those
surveyed. The remaining two categories, those of single adults with children and
of three or more adults with children, constituted only 4% and 5% of the sample
respectively.
2
Grouping the responding households by the presence (or absence) of children
indicates that over half (55%) of the surveyed households have children present
in the home (Figure 2).
HOUSEHOLDS BY PRESENCE OF CHILDREN
NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Temecula Valley Unified School District
With Children - 55~
Without ChilOren -
Figure 2
3
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
When the number of people
residing in the surveyed
households is examined,
the most prevalent size
of household is found to
be the two-person house-
hold (31%), followed by
the household with four
persons at 25%. The av-
erage household size
found in the new homes
was 3.1, identical to the
average household size
for the City of Temecula
as published by the De-
partment of Finance for
1993. (It is also mar-
ginally higher than the
County average of 3.0.)
As shown in Figure 4, the
median household size of
the sample, i.e., the
point below which half of
the sample falls, calcu-
lates to 2.4 This is
attributable to the rela-
tively large number of
one and two-person house-
holds, although 14% of
the households reported
at least five residents.
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Temecula Valley Unified School District
One -
Average HH Size - 3,1
Six (*) - 8%
Figure 3
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD SIZE
NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Ternecula Valley Unified School District
100 %
80 %1
20 %
Figure 4
AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
In surveying the residents of new housing in lemecuIa, a relatively young segment
of the population was discovered with just over half of the heads of household
in this new housing less than 40 years of age {Figure 5}. In fact, the median
AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
'NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Ternecula V~lley Unified School District
60 and over
Under 30 12iS
18%
Median Age · 36 80-5g
30-3g
33~ 40-49
Figure 5
age of the sample was 36 years. Additionally, the predominant age category,
claiming one-third of the hea~s of household, was 30-39 years of age.
Respondents aged 60 and over, representing persons of retirement age not living
in age-restricted communities, ecualled 12% of the sample.
ETHNICITY
Respondents were also invited to state their ethnicity; 86% identified themselves
as (non-Hispanic) White. Hispanics comprised 8% of the respondents, with all
other categories amounting to a csmbined total of 6%.
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS
As stated above, the survey respondents were queried with respect to the number
of children in the ~ousehold attending public school by specific grade as well
Table 1
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS OVER TIME
PEAK LOAD FROM NEW HOUSING
Temecula Valley Unified School District
1994
Current
Grades Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 5
Pre-K 0.32
K-5 0.41 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.37
6-8 0.16 0.16 0.t9 0.19 0.21 0.23
K-8 0.57 0.61 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.60
9-12
0.11 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.23
K-12 0.68 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.82 0.83
Note: Columns may not total because of rounding.
Source: School Planning Services, 1/94
as detailing the age and number of any pre-school children. The results of these
questions are displayed as average student generation factors ("SGF") for grades
K-5, 6-8, K-8, 9-12 and K-12 on Table 1 and Figure 7.
The matrix displayed on Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 7 is the product of a
student generation methodology which is characterized by the aging and
progression of the pre-school population discovered in new housing into a K-12
enrollment scenario as the older students matriculate through and out of the
elementary grades; 'this produces a student generation factor reflecting the
measurable peak student load generated by a new unit.
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS OVER TIME
PEAK LOAD FROM NEW HOUSING
Temecula Valley Unified School DIstrict
Students/New Home
1.00
0.82 0.82 0.83
0.80 - 0.77 0.78
0.40 -
,1.00
J O.80
0.60
- 0.40
0.20 - - 0.20
0.00 0.00
Current Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Figure 7
The five-year time span which is presented (current year through year 5) is
determined and indeed constrained by the age limit factor of the pre-scheolers;
that is, all of the children of pr~-school age will have reached the school age
for kindergarten within five years. (It should be noted that this approach
articulates the SGF over time from the average number of children in an average
new housing unit; consequently, cohort survival data is not applicable.)
The survey data reveals that TVUSD must be prepared for the eventuality that each
new housing unit may, on the average, produce a peak load of 0.83 students in
7
grades K-12 within a five-year period. As explained above, this figure is a
melded function of the number of children of pre-school age found in the survey
sample (the average household reports .32 pre-kindergartners) and school-age
children attending public school.
This methodology represents an attempt to estimate the real potential impact on
facilities generated by the average new home, rather than the simple reliance on
a one-time "snapshot" evaluation. This approach is especially important not only
because it results in a more accurate assessment of the impact of new develop-
ment, but also because it can be another valuable tool for facility planning
purposes. Given the lag time associated with the process of the construction and
funding of facilities, this information, when reviewed in conjunction with
residential construction activity, can ~erve as an advanced warning mechanism of
enrollment growth.
EXHIBIT B
Temecula Valley Unified School District
School Facility Costs
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITY COSTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
(ELEMENTARY SCHOOL)
A. SITE $1,087,963
NUMBER OF ACRES I0.00
COST PER ACRE $108,796
B. PLANS
ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS $409,286
OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIA~NCE PLANS CHECK FEES $32,284
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $2,713
PRELIMINARY TESTS $10,731
OTHER COSTS - ENERGY ANALYS1S $15,817
C. CONSTRUCTION
UTILITY SERVICE
OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
NEW CONSTRUCTION
UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES
OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS
D. TESTS
E. INSPECTIONS
F. FURNrrtTRE & MOVABLE EQUIPMENT
G. CONTINGENCY
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$48,988
$13,446
$230,009
$521,289
$4,348,021
$263,608
$11,708
$470,831
$5,437,069
$81,343
$72,436
$272,155
$104,047
$7,525,844
MAIOR CONCLUSIONS
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
YEAR-ROUND CREDIT
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT
732
20.00%
078
45,394
51.70
$119.78
$8.571
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITY COSTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL FACILITfI~-S I1VIPACT MITIGATION PLAN
(M/I)DLE SCHOOL)
A. SITE
NUMBER OF ACRES 20.00
COST PER ACRE $108,796
B. PLANS
ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS $552,414
OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $52,841
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $4.759
PRELIMINARY TESTS 55,400
OTHER COSTS - ENERGY ANALYSIS $25,700
C. CONSTRUCTION
UTILITY SERVICE
OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
NEW CONSTRUCTION
UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES
OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS
D. TESTS
E. INSPECTIONS
F. FURNITURE & MOVABLE EQLrI~MENT
G. CONTINGENCY
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$31,618
$0
$195,293
$1,177,940
$7,939,286
$0
$355,863
$2.175,926
$641,114
$9,700,000
$142,800
$104,400
$586,710
$218,247
$13,569,197
MA IOR CONCLUSIONS
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
YEAR-ROUND CREDIT
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT
20.00%
1,255
79,500
$122.01
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $10.812.11
TE1VIECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITY COSTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES 13/[PACT MITIGATION PLAN
(I-FGH SCHOOL)
A. SITE
NUMBER OF ACRES 45.00
COST PER ACRE $108.796
B. PLANS
ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS $1,208,000
OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $147,454
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $14,035
PRELIMINARY TESTS $35,000
OTHER COSTS ~ ENERGY ANALYSIS $92.518
C. CONSTRUCTION
UTILITY SERVICE
OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
NEW CONSTRUCTION
UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES
OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS
D. TESTS
E. INSPECTIONS
F. FURNrI'URE & MOVABLE EQUIPMENT
G. CONTINGENCY
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$113,o2o
$296,456
$3,398,414
$1,893,583
$18,742,311
$I,278,181
$1,278,035
$~,895,833
$1,497,007
$27,000,000
$421,000
$259,000
$1,712,916
$0
$35,785,756
M.A. IOR CONCLUSIONS
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
YEAR-ROUND CREDIT
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT
2,094
0.00%
2,094
198,945
95.01
S135.72
$17,089.66
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC 96-
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PC17/5~96 dwh 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP1VIENT FACILITIES
IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND SET THE APPROPRIATE
MITIGATION FEE CAP
WHEREAS, rapid population growth in recent years in the City of Temecula ("City") has
resulted in large increases in the numbers of students that the Temecula Valley Unified School District
("District") is required to educate, and has resulted in the need to enlarge existing school facilities and
construct new facilities to house the students in accordance with the policies of the District and standards
specified by state law; and
WHEREAS, new students impacting existing school facilities are due primarily to residential uses
(except senior citizen development); and
WHEREAS, adequate school facilities are a benefit to both new development and the community
at largel and are a necessary component of the City's social and infrastructure systems; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has declared that financing the construction of school facilities
is the responsibility of the State of California; and
VfHEREAS, the State of California has been unable to adequately fulfill its obligation for funding
such additional school facilities and has shifted the primary responsibility for financing of school facilities
to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986, ("School Facilities Law of 1986"),
may establish developer mitigation fees for residential, commercial and industrial uses, and may establish
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts to provide for school plant facilities financing as authorized
and limited by the laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the combination of state school bond monies, school district imposed developer fees,
local school bond measures, and other sources of financing have generally been inadequate to provide
for the enlargement and construction of school plant facilities sufficient to adequately house new students
in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the State of California; and
WHEREAS, school funding sources under current state laws and available funding are oriented
toward the provision of interim school facilities, and a need exists to fund permanent K-12 school
facilities. including facilities for the special education needs of special or disadvantage students; and
WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA "), has the
authority to review development proposals for impacts on School Facilities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Development Cornoration v. City of San
Die~:o, 205 Cat. App. 3d 1201 (1988), William S.. Hart High School District v. Regional Planning
Commission, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of
Riverside, 228 Cat. App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting the School Facilities Law of 1986, the City has the
authority to condition legislative acts including general plan amendments, specific plans and amendments
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.pC17/5/96 dwh 9
thereto, and changes of zone, if it finds that the impacts on school facilities have not been mitigated to
a level of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the provision of a quality school system to educate the residents of the City of
Temecula is important to the City's future; and
WItEREAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District requested that the City of Temecula
adopt a resolution providing creating a program to provide full funding for school facilities from some
types of development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council included language in the Growth Management and Public Facility
Element of General Plan concerning the mitigation of school facility impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 95-36 which established a Program to mitigate
the impact of new residential development on the public school facilities within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District has prepared and submitted a
Mitigation Plan in conformance with the provision of Resolution 95-36; and,
WHEREAS, the District's submitted Mitigation Plan meets the provisions of Resolution 95-36;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has had an independent analysis prepared to evaluate the
District's submitted Mitigation Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the independent evaluation confirmed that the reasonableness of the District's
proposed Mitigation Plan and the costs of constructing new school facilities; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed mitigation plan was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing were conducted on July 15, 1996, at which time interested persons
had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MITIGATION
PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
APPROVE A SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CEILING ON FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT OF $9,318 FOR DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND $6,720 FOR ATTACHED
RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 1996.
LINDA FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PCI 7/5/96 dwh 10
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of July, 1996 by
the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PCI 7/5t96 dwh 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 95-36
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PC1 715t96 dwh 12
I~F-~OLUTION NO. 95.36
A ]~F-~OLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF Tnm~ CrfY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING ~ SCHOOL FACn,rrY
IMPACT MITIGATION PROGRAM
~, rapid population swath in x,'x, ent yem-s in the City of Temecula ('City')
has resulted in large increases in the numbas of students that the Temecula Valley Unified
School District (*District*) is requix~l w educe, and has resulted in the nell to eniarg¢
existing school beiHfi~ and construct new facilities to house the students in accordance with the
policies of the District and standards specified by state hw; and
WHEREAS, new student impacts on existing school facilities are due primarily to
residential uses (except senior citizen development); and
WHEREAS, impacts from commercial and industrial development are less significant
than those of residential development and are partially offset by the conuibutions of commercial
and industrial uses toward a strong tax base in the City which supports public services, including
schools; and
~, adequate school facilities are a benefit to both new development and the
community at large, and are a necessary component of the City's social and infrastntcture
systems; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has deelnr~d that icing the construction of school
facilities is the responsibility of the State of C~lifornia; and
WHE~REAS, the State of California has been unable to adequately fulfill its obligation
for funding such additional school facilities and has shiftexl the primary responsibility for
financing of school facilities to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986,
("School FaciLities Law of 1986'), may establish developer mitigation fees for residential,
commercial and industrial uses, and may es~blish Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
to provide for school plant facilities financing as authorized and limited by the laws of the State
of California; and
WHEREAS, the combination of state school bond monies, school district imposed
developer fees, local school bond measures, and other sources of financing have generally been
inadequate to provide for the enlnrgement and consmlction of school plant facilities sufficient
to adequately house new students in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the
State of California; and
WB'F-REAS, school funding sources under current state laws and avnilahle funding are
oriented toward the provision of interim school facilities, and a need exists to fund tnn'manent
K-12 school facilities, including facilities for the special education needs of special or
disadvantaged students; and
R~sos\95-36 I
Wwl;IFAS, the City, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality ACt ('CEQA"),
has the authority to review development pwposals for impacts on School Facilities; and
WFrk-~EAS, pursuant to deckions r~t-hed in Mira Development Col3~oration v. City of
f~1]1.12i1~, 205 CaL App. 3d 1201 (1988), William S.. H~rt High School Distxict v. Regional
Planning Commission, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murriem Valley Unified School
District v. County of Riv~xalde, 228 CaL App. 3d 1212 (1991) int~p,'~ng the School I:acilities
law of 1986, the City has the authority to condition legislative acts including genenl plan
amendments, specific plans and amendments then:w, and changes of zone, if it finds that the
impacts on school facih'ties have not been mitigated to a level of in,:igni~r~nce; and
WI~REAS, the provision of a q,~llty school system w educate the residents of the City
of Temecula is important to the City's future; and
WIt'FlEAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District requested that the City of
Temecula adopt a resolution pwviding creating a program w provide full funding for school
facilities from some types of development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council included language in the Growth Management and Public
Facility Element of the General Plan concerning the mitigation of school facility impacta; and
WI:[EREAS, this Resolution is being adopted at the request of the District which has
agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the City from claims resulting from the adoption,
enforcement, or implementation of the Resolution; and
WtrF-REAS, the Planning Commi~don has considered the Program at its November 7,
1994 meeting and recommends that the Council approve this Re,solution; and
WFIERFAS, notice of the propo__~ed resolution was posted at City ~aIL County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce.
NOW, TI~t~REFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECIK,A
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Mitigation of School Facility Impacts
A. Except as pwvided below, all development projects and applications that are
submitted to the City of Temecula and that requixe a General Plan amendment, zone change,
development agreement, pre-annexafion agreement or Specific Plan approral or amendment
shall be reviewed for theft potential school facility impacts and mitigation of such impacts.
B. No conditions of approval on a General Plan amendment, zone change,
development agreement, pre-annexation agreement or Specific Plan approval or amendment
shall require any applicant or developer to provide mitigation in excess of the amounts
authorized by Government Code Section 65995, as it now exists or may be amended from time
to time, unless a School District Mitigation Plan ('Mitigation Plan") has been p~pared by or
on behalf of the District and approved by the City Council.
2
C. Any of the following shall be conslden~d to be adequam mitigation of school
facility impacts associated with approvals by the City for Genend Plzn amendments, Specific
Plans and Specific Plan Amendments, development agreements, pre-annexafion agreements and
zone changes:
1. A legally enforceable School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement
('Mitigation Agreement*) between the District and developer that specifies the exact nature,
mount, process and conditions of mitigation to be y, uvided by the applicant/developer or other
appropriate documentation.
2. A finding pursuant to CEQA by the appropriate City review body that no
significant impacts on school facilities shall occur as a result of the proposed development.
Provided further, findings may also be made pursuant to CEQA that the impacts on school
facilities have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Section 2. School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans
A. Any school district located partly or totally w~thln the City my prepare and
submit a School Deqllty Impact Mitigation Plan to the City to address the impacts on school
facilities which may result from new re~lential development projects within that district. The
City shall review and may consider, at its sole discretion, appwving a proposed Mitigation Plan
if the Plan adequately addresses the impacts rasulting from inezeases in the number of students
within the school district submitting the Mitigation Plan.
B. The following development projects shall be exempt from the requirements of an
approved Mitigation Plan. These projects shall be requixed w pay only the statutory school fees
authorized by Government Code Section 65995, as it now exists or may be mended from time
to time, or any other mount previously agreed to by the District and the owner/developer of
the proposed development project:
1. Residential projects which have been approved by a heating body (Planning
Commission or City Council) prior to the effective date of this Resolution.
2. "Quasi-judicial' land u~e approvals, including but not limited to
subdivision maps, use permits, plot plans and variances.
3. Subsequent approvals for the components of a larger project which has
already met the requirements of this Resolution (e.g. a tentative tract map within a specific plan
which has akeady mitigated school facility impacts).
4. Commercial or industrial projects.
5. Senior dt~zen housing as defined in Government Code Section 65995.1 (a).
6. Any residential development proposal for which a Mitigation Agreement
has already been executed between the developer and the DisU'ict.
RedoreX95-36 3
7. Any or all changes of zone need~i to maim the Of Seh~ City Zoning Map
consistent with the ~ ~-d Use D~ignations contained in the City's first adopt=d General Plan as
requh'ed by Government Code Section 65860, as it now exists or may be amended from time
to time, of the State Planning and Zoning Law.
8. Any amendments to a ~ 61 n~vely approved land use entitlement (including
a general phn amendment, zone change, development agreement, pre-annexation agreement,
specific plan approval or amendmen0 that does not incxease the total number of residential
hou~ng units within the area of the entitlement.
Section 3. Preparation of School Facility Impact Mitigation
A. The Mitigation Plan shall conlain documentation of the need for any level of
mitigation that exceeds the total of revenue anticipated to be received by the District from
Statutory School Fees authorized by Government Code Section 65995, as it now exists or may
be amended from time to time, and any other sources of funding avnihhle to or anticipated by
the District. The Mitigation Pin. shall be adopted by the District Board of Trustees. At a
minimum, all Mitigation Plans shnl] contain the following information:
1. Student Generation Factors.
a. The District Student Generation Facwr (SGF) sh., be based upon
a household survey. The SGF sh~ll include peak student loading for all elementary, middle and
high school grades.
The SGF Household Surv~ shall be based utxra and consist of the
following:
(1) A minimum random sample of 250 occupied dwelling units
that were constructed in the preceding three years.
(2) A representative sample of the current or anticipated future
characteristics of the community, including consideration for any resort or second home
characteristics of the community.
(3) The survey shall exclude senior citizen housing.
(4) A representative sample of the housing product types within
the district (i.e. single family detached, single family attached, or multi-family rental properties and.
mobile hones).
(5) The SGF shall be based on an auessment of student "pass
through' from new homes over at least a five-year period.
c. The District and any other interested party may propose additional
survey factors and conditions to be incioded in the survey. The use of any additional survey
factors and conditions (that could affect the SGF) must be approved by the City Council prior
to doing the survey.
Resos%95-36 4
2. Typical School Land Cost Factors
a. The Typical School I and Costs Factor CrSF) shall be based on the
State's standard cost and shnll be based upon a finished and impwved, cons~'uction ready school
site, including the extension of necessary infrastructure.
b. Development of school sites shall be based on California
Department of Education standards for infrastruaure, location, and acre~e.
c. School conslxuction costs shall be as authorized by the State Office
of Local Assistance (OLA), or a.s required by local and state codes.
d. All costs for plans, test, inspections, furniture and equipment, and
contingencies shall be in accordance with OLA requirements.
3. Optimum Facility Utilization
a. This District shall demonstrate, in the Mitigation Plan, optimum
utitiT~fion of its fadlities.
b. The Mitigation Plan ~h~ll inchde consideration of a year-round,
multi-track education program, double school sessions, and altexz~tive student loading programs.
4. Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources
a. The District shall Certify, and provide supporting evidence in the
Mitigation Plan that the District has used, or committed for use, all its available funding sources.
b. The District ~nH certify, and pwvide supporting evidence in the
Mitigation Plan that the District is pursuing state and alternate facilities financing.
c. Xf the District is not pursuing, or does not anticipate pursuing
alternate financing, it shall include an explanation and rationale in the Mitigation Plan for not
doing so.
d. The Mitigation Plan shall include considerations of methods of
financing the payment for and construction of School Facilities, to ensure the provision of
adequate facilities and to minimize actual costs to future residents, including the use of developer
loan funds based on anticipated state bond fund reimbursement and community facilities dislxicts.
5. Central AdminisWation and Support Facilities and Interim Facilities
The Dishlet shall have the opportunity, through the Mitigation Plan, to
present an argument justifying mitigation for impacts on adrnini sWa~on and support facilities and
interim facilities. The justification shall include information on staffing, work logs, and other
data to demonstrate that the DhUict is using its adminhtrative funding in a manner which
maxirnizes productivity and minimizes costs. In addition, if the District elects w present this
1~,o,\95-16 5
justification, the Mitigation Plan ~h~ll demonstrate that the mitigation requested is proportional
to the impacts directly attributable to new development.
6. Level of Support Fwm New Development
The Mitigation Plan my provide for total mitigation of school facilities
impacts that are shown to result from new residential developments from all potential funding
sources. The Mitigation Plan shall not be used to provide for mitigation of impacts attributable
to existing development.
7. Coordination of Pl~nning Review for School Site Development.
The Mitigation Plan shall include provisions for consultations between the
District, the City, and/or the applicant on future school facility location and site development
plans in order to promote compatibility with City land use, circulation, and other plans, and
coordination on public improvements, including streets, sidewalks, and traffic control
mechanisrfls.
B. The District shall submit its adopted Mitigation Plan to the City for its review and
approval as W whether it conforms to these requirements and will reasonably and equitably
mitigate, in the best interest of the City and its residents, the additional imp on the District
school facilities. Upon submittal of the Mitigation Plan to the City the following procedures
shall be followed:
1. The District shall submit the adopted Mitigation Plan to the Director of
Planning. The submittal shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee to cover the City's cost
of reviewing the District's Plan.
2. Within 30 days following receipt of the District' s Mitigation Plan, the
Director of Planning shall review the plan to detea~nine whether it conforms to the requirements
of this Section. The Planning Director shall inform the Building Industt~ Association for
Riverside County of its receipt of the Di.mict's Mitigation pl~n~ and invite them to provide
written comments or objections. After reviewing the Mitigation Plan, the Director shall t~lo~
one of the following actions:
a. Notify, by written notice to the superintendent of the District, that
the Mitigation Plan conforms to the requirements of this Resolution. The notice shall also
contain the anticipated meeting date for the Planning Commission's consideration of the
Mitigation Plan.
b. Notify, in writing, the superintendent of the Disuict that the
District's Mitigation Plan does not conform to the requirements of thi~ Section and desaibing
the deficiencies that n__,~_ to be corrected. Any major changes in the DisUict's Mitigation Plan
must be approved by the District's Board of Trustees.
3. Within 60 days following the Director of Planning's notification of the
completeness of the District's Mitigation Plan, the Planning Commi~-qion shall review and
6
consider the plan W dem~ine whether it conforms W the requirements of this Section and will
reasonably mitigate the hnpaas of new development on school facilities. Af~ considering the
Mitigation Plan, the Commission shall recommend that the City Council approve, deny,
condition, or continue the approval of the Disuict's Mitigation Plan.
4. Within 30 days following the Planning Commission's recommendation on
the District's Mitigation Plan, the City Council shall x~view and consider the Plan to de~'mine
whether it conforms to the requirements of ~ Section and will reasonably and equitably, in the
best inr.~rests of the City and its residents, mitiEato the impaas of new development on school
facilities. After considexing the Mitil;afion Plan, the Council shall approve, deny, condition,
modify, or continue consideration of the District's Miti~atiun Plan.
C. Upon approval of the City Council, the Mitigation Plan shall thereshr be
regarded as the b~i~ for the identification by the District of specific impacts attributable to
individual residential development proposals, and mitigation m-n~ures which may be appropriate
to eliminate or reduce to a level of in_~ignificance the impacts attributable to such residential
development pxol.,osals. The City shall not adopt any financial mitigation in excess of the
District's recommended development mitigation measure, unless it is found to be consistent with
the provisions of a previously approved Mitigation Plan, an executed developer-District
agreement, or any measures panriVed by Stale hw.
D. The DisUict may request, or the City Council may initiate, the process of
mending the previously approved Mitigation Plan at any time. Any amendments to the Plan
shall follow the approval procedures specified in this Resolution.
Section 4. Review of Resldevt~l Projects
A. For all residenthl projects, the Director of Planning shall notify the District, by
means of written notice, as to any proposed development located within said District prior to the
first Development Review Committee meeting.
1. The Notice to the District shall include the following information:
a. The location of the project;
b. The name of the owner and developer;
c. The number and type of dwelling units proposed;
d. A preliminary site or development plan; and,
e. The date of the DRC meeting.
2. The District shall provide wri.'tten comments on any project submitted for
their review and comment prior to the date of the Development Review Committee meeting.
3. The failure of the District to provide a wriUen response w the Director of
Reoos~5-36 7
Planning shall constitute the equivalent of 'No Comment,* In this case, the City will require
only the State mandated school impact mitigation fees authorized by Government Code Section
65995, as it now exists or may be amen~ from time w time.
B. All residevrlnl development propo~ls that do not require a General Plan
amendment, zone change, development agreement, pre-annexalion a~reement, or Specific Plan
approval or amendment by the City shall be reviewed for their potential impact on school
facilities as pan of the hiilnl Environmental Study process. Nothing in this resolution restricts
the ability of the Din~ctor of planning to detzrn~ine that all otherwise exempt residential project
may have a significant impact on the envLronment and thai an Environmental Impact Report
shonld be prepared. No mitigation of school impacts beyond the mitigation identified in State
law will be required for these projects.
C. All residen~ development proposals that require General Plan amendments,
Specific Plans, Specific Plan amendments, development agreements, pre-armexation agreements.
and changes of zone shall be re~tiewed for their potential impact on school facilities and the
environment and the mitigation of those impacts in accordance with the r~quireanents of State
and Local law.
1. If a School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement is required and an
Agreement hns not been submined, the Director of Planning shall notify the applicant that the
application is incomplete and that additional inforwnfion (i.e. spe~nl study or environmental
impact report) is requized to assess the impacts on and mitigation of the effects of the
development project on the District's school facilities.
2. Within 30 days of submission of an application, the Director of Planning
shall nofffy the applicant that either:
a. The proposed development project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the District's school facilities or the environment, and that no additional
special studies or supplemental mitigation agreement is required.
b. The proposed development project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the District's school facilities, but may have an adverse impact on the
environment and that a special study or environmental impact report is required.
c. The pwposed development project could have an adverse impact
on the District' s school facilities and that a detailed impact assessment and mitigation study must
be prepared and/or a School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement must be obtained.
d. The proposed development project could have an adverse impact
on the District's school facilities and/or the environment, and that a special study or an
environmental impact report must be prepared and/or an Impact Mitigation Agreement is
required.
e. The proposed development project will have an adverse impact on
the District's school facilities and the environment and that a spefi~l study or an environmental
~o""\91-36 t
impact report must be prepared.
3. If the applicant and/or developer disagrees with the Director's
determination of the project's potential impact on the environment or the District's school
facilities, they my appeal the decixion to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days of
receipt of the Director's determination. The appeal shall be made and filed in accordance with
the requirements of the Planning Commission.
4. Within 30 days of filing an appeal of the Director's decision, the Dixector
of Planning shall schedule the appeal for the Planning Commission's consideration.
5. If the applicant, developer, or District disagrees with the Planning
Commission 's determination of the project' s potential impact on the environment or theDistrict's
school facilities, they my appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days of
receipt of the Commission's determination. The appeal sh~ll be made and fried in accordance
with the requirements of the City Clerk.
6. Within 30 days of filing an appeal of the Planning Commission's action
the City Clerk shall schedttl~ the appeal for the City Council' s consideration. The City Counc~'s
decisions on these matten shah be final.
D. The evidence of adequate mitigation of any significant adverse impacts on the
District's school facilities shall be established by a Mitigation Agreement. The terms of the
Mitigation Agreement, shall be incorporated by reference in the conditions of CEQA Approval,
and on the Conditions of Approval of any Specific Plan, the Resolution of Approval of any
general plan amendment, and in the terms of any development or pre-annexation agreement.
Section 5. Implementation of thk Resolution
A. Nothing ~ this Resolution shall be interpreted as limiting or restricting the ability
of the Director of planning, Planning Commission, or Council to require additional information
or special studies on any residential project~ submitted to the City for approval
B. It is the intent of the Council that this Resolution be in force and effect until
amended, rescinded, suspended, superseded or until a subsequent resolution or ordinance is
enacted which supersedes tlfis Resolution.
C. This Resolution is adopted at the behest of and for the benefit of the Temecula
Valley Unified School District and other school districts wjthln the limiL'~ of the City .of
Temecula. It is agreed that should any claim, action, challenge, or similar proceeding be'
instituted against the City for the adoption, imposition, or calculation of the school miU'gation
requirements under the provisions of this Resolution, shall be the full and complete responsibility
of the District. To that end, the District shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold hannle~ the
City against any los~, cost, expense, claim, damage, settlement, or judgment, resulting from a
lawsuit or any part thereof pertaining to this Resolution.
RemaX95-36 9
D. This Resolution shall not become effective unless and until the District
acknowledges, in writing, and t~ltes any and all al~n'opfiate Board action related to its
obligations as set forth in this Section.
Section 6. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this llth day of April, 1995.
ATfP.,ST:
E. Stone, Mayor
STATE OF CALr~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEM]ECULA
I B'~.RF. Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the llth day of April,
1995 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYBS: 3 COUNCKJVI]EMBBRS: Lindernans, Roberrs, Stone
NOBS: 0 C OUNCKJg[BMBBRS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCrLMBMBBRS: None
ABSTAINED: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz, Parks
I0
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
REVIEW OF PROPOSED TVUSD SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEE
R:\HOOAND\SCHLPLAN,PCI 7~5~96 dwh 13
,-DECEMBER,i,4,-1995-
- ..----- " - ,: .:-. -:,.-: .,.
, . , .... .,,?.
'-
,. ,..:.
--:.---.--.
D~id~.Gr~th & Associates, Ltd. H~SJ " ' ' ,-, -'
4320 Aubum'Bl~ Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 9~41
1
_]
,]
]
]
]
]
]
..1
Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) was engaged by the City of Temecula to review mitiga-
tion fees proposed in the Temecula Valley Unified School District Impact Mitigation Plan. Our
review focused on four factors that. affect the outcome of the fee calculations: (1) facility cost, (2)
facility capacity, (3) student generation factors, and (4) availability of funds from other sources.
Each of those factors is examined in detail to determine whether the methodology, data, and as-
sumptions used in the fee calculations can be supported. Our conclusions regarding each of those
factors is summarized below. In addition, this summary and the body of the report identify impor-
tant policy issues. Those issues cannot be resolved on technical grounds, but they affect the
amount of the mitigation fees in a major way and should be considered by the City Council in
evaluating the proposed fees.
I. Facility Cost Our review of facility cost estimates used by TVUSD in the calculation of miti-
gation fees shows that they are consistent with facility costs standards used by the State Alloca-
tion Board (SAB) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) for approval of state
school construction funding.
2. Facility Capacity. Our review of facility capacity figures used by TVUSD to calculate miti-
gation fees shows that, for elementary and middle schools, square footage per student exceeds
OPSC guidelines. The effect is that school capacity is understated and cost per student is over-
stated. To correct for the TVUSD's use of facility capacity figures that exceed OPSC guidelines,
DMG has recalculated the mitigation fees for elementary and middle schools using OPSC ap-
proved square footage per student. The recalculated fees, as shown in Table 7 of the report, are
lower than the proposed TVUSD fees by $675 for Single-Family Detached dwelling units and
$519 for Single-Family Attached dwelling units. Those figures do not reflect any adjustment for
possible policy decisions with respect to student generation factors or future availability of state
school construction funds.
December 14, 1995 David M. Griffith & Associates Page I
]
]
Review of Proposed TlftISD School Impact Mitigation Fees
3. Student Generation Factor~ Our review of student generation factors (SGFs) used to calcu-
late TVU'SD's proposed mitigation fees shows that the methods used to derive them are technl-
cally supportable. We note, however, that the projected SGFs would be valid only for the
projection period, and may vary in either direction therea_Qer. Furthermore, the choice of peak
year factors as the basis for mitigation fees is a policy choice that is not dictated by the technical
analysis. In addition, a recent District analysis of current student generation factors (November,
1995) supports the projected factors for detached dwellings in the mitigation plan, but indicates
that projected factors for attached dwellings (and resulting fees) may be as much as 25% too high.
4. Funds Available from Other Sources. Our review shows that the calculation of proposed
mitigation fees reflects a credit for the District's currently authorized bonding capacity and tom-
mitted state school construction funding. Some other possible sources of funding for future
school construction were discussed in the mitigation plan and assumed to have no potential for
funding of future TVUSD school facilities. For the most part we concur. However, the assump-
tion that no state school construction funds will be available for any future TVUSD schools seem:
very pessimistic, despite the fact that the most recent statewide school bond issue was rejected by
the voters. Since there is no technical basis for estimating the avallability offuture funding ~'om
this source, any allowance for such funding must be based on a policy judgment.
5. Summary of Key Policy Issues.
As indicated previously, some of the factors bearing on the amount of the proposed mitigation
fees cannot be evaluated technically. We recommend that the City Council carefully consider the
following policy issues when evaluating the mitigation fees:
Student Generation Factors. Projected student generation factors for attached
units, as shown in the mitigation plan, are high compared with recently obtained data
on current rates. In addition, the factors for both detached and attached dwellings can
be expected to change over time in ways that cannot be predicted with confidence. As
aresult, some policy judgment must be applied to the choice ofthesefactors. A
detailed discussion of the factors is contained in the attached report.
December 14, 1995
David M.. Griffith & .~ssociates
Page 2
]
2'
]
]
]
Review of Proposed 77/USD School bnpact Mitigation Fees
Future School Bond Funds. The mitigation fees assume that no state or local school
bond funds will be available for any future TVUSD school construction. Neither the
Distri~ nor the City can know how voters will respond to future proposals for school
bond issues, but the assumption used in the mitigation plan is very pessimistic and
should be evaluated by the City Council.
December 14. 1995 David ~Z Gri.~Tth &,4ssociates Page 3
Review of Proposed TlrCISD School Impact Mitigation Fees
REVIEW OF PROPOSED
TVUSD SCHOOL IMPACT
MITIGATION FEES
David M. Cvriffith & Associates (DMG) was engaged by the City of Temecula to review school
mitigation fees proposed by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVU'SD). This report
summarizes the approach used to establish those fees, and evaluates key data and assumptions
which influence the outcome of the calculations. DMG's review is based on the Residential De-
velopment Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan (April 22, 1994) by David Taussig and Associates.
That plan incorporates student generation factors projected by School Planning Services and facil-
ity cost estimates prepared by the TVUSD Facilities Development Department.
A. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY
The proposed mitigation fees are intended to represent an average cost per dwelling unit (DU)
for school facilities required to accommodate students residing in new developments. The mitiga-
lion plan calculates fees for two categories of residential development (single-family detached and
single-family attached), and three types of school facilities (elementary [K-5], middle [6-8], and
high [9-12] schools). Student generation factors vary by development category, and costs vary by
facility type, so fees are computed separately for each of the six combinations of development
categories and facility types.
It is important to note that the fee calculation method used in the Impact Mitigation Plan is not
dependent on the amount of development projected for a particular period of time. Development
projections are used by TVUSD to schedule facility construction, but do not affect the calculation
of the proposed mitigation fees. It should also be noted that a considerable amount of future de-
velopment in Temecula will occur in vested subdivisions which would not be subject to any new
mitigation fee.
December 14, 1995 David;~l. Grif~th & .-h~'ociates Page 4
_]
1
]
]
]
Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
The fee calculation method can be broken down into three steps, as shown in the following for-
mulas. The result from each of the first two steps is used in the subsequent step.
(2)
Facility Cost + Facility Capacity = Cost per Student
Cost per Student x Students per DU = Cost per DU
Cost per DU - Credits for Other Funds = Fee per DU
]
]
]
]
ZI
]
Zi
]
]
]
]
]
Four variables are used in these formulas: (1) facility cost; (2) facility capacity; (3) students per
dwelling unit (a.k.a. student generation factor); and, (4) funds available from other sources. The
value inserted for each of these variables affects the result of the fee calculation. Those effects
will be addressed in the following section.
B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FEES
The methodology, data and assumptions used at each stage of the fee calculations are evaluated
below.
I. Facility Cost Facility costs used in calculating the school mitigation fees are based on
TVUSD estimates for prototype elementary, middle, and high schools. Those estimates are
shown in attachments to the Impact Mitigation Plan and are summarized in Table 1 on the follow-
ing page.
The State Allocation Board (SAB) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) evaluate
school development costs for purposes of allocating state school construction funds, and OPSC
has developed square foot cost standards for school construction. Application of those standards
requires a project-specific breakdown of building area by function, and a detailed analysis of site
development costs. Sincethat type ofreview is not possible for hypothetical future projects, the
best available yardstick for evaluating facility cost estimates in the Impact Mitigation Plan is the
cost of similar TVUSD projects approved by OPSC.
December 14, 1995 David A,f. GriJ~th & .,lssociafes Page 5
Review of Proposed TIfUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
Table 1
Facility Costs
Cost Elementary
Component School
Site Acquisition i 1,087,963;
Plans/Compliance 470,831
Construction 5,347,069
Testing/Inspection 153,779
Furniture/Equipment 272, 155
Contingency 104,047
Totals $7,525,844
Total Square Footage 45,394
Total Cost/Sq. Ft. (TVUSD) $165.79
Total Cost/Sq. FL (OPSC) $190.50 s
Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. (TVUSD) $119.78
Construction Cost/Sq. FL (OPSC) $119.50 s
Middle
School
2, 175,926
641,114
9,700,000
247,200
586,710
218,247
$13,569,197
79,500
$170.68
$186.02 6
$122.01
$121.89
Source: TVUSD Impact Mitigation Plan and SAB-approved project bu~_ets.
I Estimated sit~ cost = $108,796.30 per acre.
2 Assumes 10-acre site. s Assumes 20-acre site. 4 Assumes 45-acre site.
5 Includes 10% escalation from 1990 consInaction cost of $108.64 and total cost of $I73.21.
~ Based on SAB appWved budgets for actual TVUSD projecLs.
High
School
4,895,833~
1,487,007
27,000,000
680,000
1,712,916
0
$35,785,756
198,945
$179.88
$192.33
$135.72
$135.53 6
TVUSD has provided DMG with detailed breakdowns of SAB approved project budgets for three
school projects: Redhawk Elementary School (1990), Vail Ranch Middle School (1993), and
Chapparal High School (1994). In Table 1, the average construction cost per square foot for
those projects is compared with the costs used to calculate proposed mitigation fees. Because the
costs for Redhawk Elementary School go back to 1990, we have escalated them by 10%, the in-
crease in the OPSC cost index since that year. It should be noted that the cost figures shown in
Table 1 for Vail Ranch Middle School and Chaparral High School are based on the SAIl up-
proved budget and do not include additional costs funded by TVUSD. Those additional costs in-
creased the project budgets by about 1.3% for Vail Ranch and about 4.5% for Chaparral.
As shown by the comparisons in Table 1, square foot construction costs used to calculate the
mitigation fees are very close to the OPSC approved costs for similar projects, and total cost per
December 14, 1995 David~. Griffith &Associates Page 6
F]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
square foot is lower than for the OPSC approved projects. One reason for the lower total cost is
a lower cost for land.
Our conclusion based on this review of the facility cost estimates is that TVUSD has used reason-
able costs to calculate the mitigation fees.
2. School Capacity. For purposes of calculating mitigation fees, TVUSD has estimated the ca-
pacity of each prototype facility (elementary, middle and high school) in terms total students ac-
commodated. The Impact Mitigation Plan states that TVUSD meets standards set by OLA (now
OPSC) for student loading, in terms of class size and maximum square footage per student.
The OPSC square footage per student standards, as shown in Table 2, are for a normal, nine-
month school calendar. Since the mitigation plan assumes that all new elementary and middle
schools will be on a year round schedule, the allocation of space per student must be adjusted to
reflect the fact that a year round schedule allows more students to be accommodated in a given
mount of space.
Table 2
OPSC Standards - Square Footage per Student
Elementary Jr. High Middle High
Component School CK-6) School (7-8) School (6-8) School
Base Allowance 55 Sq. Ft. 75 Sq. Ft. 68 Sq. Ft. t 86 Sq. Ft.
Increase for new schools 4 Sq. Ft. 5 Sq. Ft. 5 Sq. Ft. 6 Sq. Ft.
Increase for 30% portables 3 Sq. Ft. 3 Sq. Ft. 3 Sq. Ft. 3 Sq. Ft.
Totals 62 Sq. Ft. 83 Sq. Ft. 76 Sq. Ft. 95 Sq. Ft.
Source: TVUSD and the Office of public School Constniction
x Middle school standard equals 1/3 K-6 grade standard plus 2/3 7-8 grade standard.
2 High school slandurd as shown is tbr total of 2100 students.
Changing from a nine-month schedule to a year round schedule can theoretically increase the ca-
pacity of a school by 33%. However, OPSC assumes that a 20% increase is realistic. TVUSD
used a 25% increase in the mitigation plan. Table 3 shows the capacities of the TVUSD
December 14, 1995 David M. Griffith & Associates Page 7
Review of Proposed 77/USD School Impact Mitigation Fees
prototype schools for both nine-month and year round schedules, using the OPSC space alloca-
tion standards. The table also shows the capacities as presented in the mitigation plan.
Table 3
School Capacity
Square Feet - TVUSD Prototype School
OPSC Standard
Square Feet per Student (9 Mo. Sched)
Capacity of Prototype School (9 Mo. Sched)
Capacity of Prototype School (Year Round)t
Square Feet per Student (Year Round)
TVU'SD Mitigation Plan
Square Feet per Student (9 Mo. Sched)
% of OPSC Standard (9 Mo. Sched)
Capacity of Prototype School (9 Mo. Sched)
Capacity of Prototype School (Year Round):
Square Feet per Student (Year Round)
% of OPSC Standard (Year Round)
Elementary Middle
School (K-6) School (6-8)
45,394 Sq Ft 79,500 Sq Ft
62.0 Sq Ft
732 Students
878 Students
51.7 Sq Ft
High
School
198,945 Sq Ft
76.0 Sq Ft 95.0 Sq Ft
1,046 Students 2,094 Students
1,255 Students N/A
63.4 Sq Ft N/A
68.8 Sq Ft 93.5 Sq Ft 94.7 Sq Ft
111% 123% 100%
660 Students 850 Students 2,100 Students
825 Students 1,063 Students N/A
55.0 Sq Ft 75.4 Sq Ft N/A
106% 119% N/A
Year round adju.sunent b~sed on a 20% increase.'~ Year round adjustment based on a 25% increase.
It is clear from Table 3 that the facility capacities used by TVUSD to calculate the mitigation fees
for elementary and middle schools are based on a per-student space allocation significantly higher
(11% for elementary schools and 23% for middle schools) than the OPSC standard. That overal-
location is offset to a degree by the District's use of a 25% increase rather than a 20% increase in
capacity for year round scheduling. However, after accounting for that offset, the mitigation fees
reflect an allocation of 6% more elementary school space per student and 19% more middle
school space per student than the OPSC standards would allow. The cost per student would in-
crease proportionately. TVUSD has explained that its capacity estimates were based on students
per classroom rather than a square footage allocation, and were based on the District's anticipated
space needs for successful first implementation of the multi-track, year round program which be-
gan in July 1994.
December 14, 1995 DavidA~r. Griffith & .4ssociates Page 8
FJ
-1
)
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
l
]
1
!
Review of Proposed 77/USD School Impact Mitigation Fees
Our conclusion re~ardin~ school capacity estimates is that the mitigation fees are based on square
foota~e t~er student space allocations that exceed OPSC m~idelines. The effect is to understate
school capacit'v and overstate the cost per student. Later in this report. the fees are recalculated
usino the OPSC capacity guidelines.
3. Students per Dwelling Unit (Student Generation Factors). In order to forecast the number
of students that will be produced by anticipated development in the District, TVUSD engaged
School Planning Services to establish the student generation factors which are used in the Impact
Mitigation Plan. A student generation factor (SGF) represents the number of students at a par-
ticular grade level produced by one dwelling unit of a particular type. The SGFs used to calculate
TVUSD school mitigation fees were estimated for two types of residential development-- single-
family detached and single-family attached-and for the elementary, middle and high school levels.
Those SGFs are based on a telephone survey of households in the District. The survey was lim-
ited to residents of dwellings constructed in the three years prior to the survey. The intent of that
limitation was to isolate the impact of new housing on the TVUSD student population. The sur-
vey identified the number and ages ofpre-school and school-age children living in the surveyed
households. The District staff reports that children attending private schools were not included.
Using information from the survey, the average number of students per dwelling, in each age
group, was determined for the detached and attached development types. By projecting the aging
of those children over a five year period, School Planning Services forecasted the number ofchil-
dren per dwelling unit at the elementary, middle and high school grade levels for each of those
years. Tables 4 and 5 show the projected student generation factors for each year, for the two
types of residential development.
The student generation factors used to calculate the fees in the Impact Mitigation Plan are those
for Year 6--the peak year for total students, and for two of the three grade levels. The K-5 factor
for detached units peaks in Year 2, and declines sharply thereafter. Peak values and the mean fac-
tot for each grade level in the tables have been added by DMG.
December 14, 1995 David A~ Griffith & .4ssociates Page 9
Review of Proposed TFUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
-!
_i
Table 4
Student Generation Factors for New Single Family Detached Dwelling Units
Grade Survey Year Year Year Year
Level Year 2 3 4 5
Pre-K 0.33 N/A N/A N/A N/A
K-5 0.44 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.41
6-8 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.20, 0.22
9-12 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.25
Totals 0.74 0.84 0.85 I 0.88 0.88
Year
6
N/A
0.39
0.24
0.25
0.88
Peak
Values Mean
N/A N/A
0.48 0.44
0.24 0.21
0.25 0.20
0.97 0.85
Source: School Planning Services, 1994. Peak values and mean added by DMG.
I
i
i
!
l
]
The method used to develop these factors appears technically supportable. DMG has not re-
viewed the actual survey data, but assuming that the survey year values accurately reflect the sur-
vey results, the projections appear mathematically correct. Of course, that does not necessarily
mean that those projections accurately reflect the real world situation.
Table 5
Student Generation Factors for New Single Family Attached Dwelling Units
Grade Survey Year Year Year
Level Year 2 3 4
Pre-K 0.28 N/A N/A N/A
K-5 0.28 0.34 0.32 0.34
6-8 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.13
9-12 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.09
Totals 0.40 0.47 0.49 0.55
Year Year
5 6 Peak Mean
N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.32 0.29 0.34 0.31
0.17 0.19 0.19 0.14
0. I1 0.17 0.17 0.08
0.60 0.64 0.70 0.55
Source: School PIning Services, 1994. Peak values and mean added by DMG.
One useful way to evaluate the projected student generation factors from the Mitigation Plan
would be to compare them with the number of students actually generated by existing dwellings.
Unfortunately, the required information is hard to come by. Student enrollment is tracked for the
entire District, but dwelling unit counts are not. Conversely, dwelling unit counts are available for
December 14. 1995
David ,~. Gri~th & .qssoc/ates
Page 10
J
|
!
!
!
!
]
]
]
]
Review of Proposed TI'TJSD School linDact Mitigation Fees
the City, but TVUSD enrollment figures do not distinguish consistently between City residents
and residents ofunincorporated portions of the District.
However, TVUSD recently completed estimates of current student generation factors based on
November, 1995 enrollment and a count of current dwelling units from aerial photos. The dwell-
ing unit count was performed by the District staff, and covered only the urbanized portion of the
District. The Temecula Planning Department has indicated that the dwelling unit counts seem
consistent with other available information. Below, the current student generation factors are
compared with projected factors from the Mitigation Plan. The Year 2 (1995) projections from
the Mitigation Plan would be most comparable with the District's current SGF estimates. The
Year 6 (1999) projections were used to calculate mitigation fees.
Table 6
Current Student Generation Factors
Unit
Type
Detached
Attached
Student Generation
Factors
Actual (November, 1995)
Projected Year 2 (1995)
Projected Year 6 (1999)
Actual (November, 1995)
Projected Year 2 (1995)
Projected Year 6 (1999)
K-5 6-8 9-12 Total
0.41 0.20 0.22 0.83
0.48 0.18 0.18 0.84
0.39 0.24 0.25 0.88
0.21 0.09 0.09 0.38
0.34 0.11 0.02 0.47
0.29 0.19 0.17 0.64
Some: TVIJSD
The actual 1995 factors for detached units are reasonably close to 1995 projections--lower in K-5
and higher for the other grade levels, but almost identical overall. For attached units, though, the
projected 1995 factors are significantly (24%) higher overall than the actual factors. Of course,
the number of attached units is much smaller than the number of detached units so the projections
may have suffered from a small sample size in the survey. Changes in the SGF used to calculate
mitigation fees will result in directly proportional changes in the fees. In other words, if the SGF
is reduced by 10%, the fees would be reduced by 10%.
December 14, 1995
David j~l. Griffith d: :lssocmtes
Page 11
1
1
]
Review of Proposed TI/USD School Impact Mitigation Fees
Another important consideration is that student generation factors change significantly during the
projection period, and may continue to change in either direction thereafter. It does seems Clear
from the numbers in Tables 4 and 5 that, as the younger children in the survey sample progress
through successive grade levels, the factors for middle and high school students will decline again,
at least for single-family detached dwellings, which make up the bulk of households in the Dis-
ttict. The data from the survey do not offer any clue as to longer term trends that depend on
numbers of children not yet born at the time of the survey. Thus, the choice of factors to be used
as the basis for mitigation fees depends on interpretation and judgment. Ultimately that choice
depends on a policy decision.
To improve the accuracy of student generation factors in the future, we recommend that the City
ask TVUSD to keep student enrollment data in a manner that allows for easier identification of
City residents and facilitates computerized address matching. Those changes would provide a
better basis for evaluating the impacts of development, and making future policy decisions with
respect to developer funding of school facilities.
Our conclusion res~arding student ~eneration factors is that the survey results are valid onlv for
the projection period, and indicate that SGFs for middle and hiah school may decline after a few
years. TVUSD estimates of current student aeneration rates indicate that the factors for used in
the mitigation plan for attached units may be too high by a si.onificant mar~in. Use of peak year
factors to project facility needs is not the only reasonable policy choice. In the future. it would be
desirable for the District to keep enrollment records in a form that would allow easier analysis of
the impacts of new development.
4. Funds Available from Other Sources. The Impact Mitigation Plan discusses other funding
sources for school development, and applies credits to the mitigation fees for funds available from
certain sources--specifically, the state school building program and TVUSD general obligation
bonds approved by voters in 1989. Fund sources which appear to have potential to provide new
money for school development by TVUSD are discussed below.
December 14, 1995
David ~X~t. Grif~th & Associates
Page 12
*J
J
-I
-,!
.I
I
!
!
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Review of Proposed WUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
a. State School Building Program. The mitigation plan assumes that no additional funds will bc
available from this source for any facilities that have not already been funded. Uncxpcnded funds
approved for TVUSD from the State School Building Program amount to $25.4 million, of which
approximately $:20 million will benefit future development. Roughly $8.5 million of that amoum
was credited against the City's mitigation fees. The remainder was credited to the County portion
of the District. That split is based on projections of total numbers of future students to be gener-
ated in the City, as opposed to currently unincorporated areas. The time frame and method used
to forecast the number of students generated in the City and County portions of the District are
not clear from the Mitigation Plan.
b. General Oblis~ation Bonds. Of $65 million in authorized G.O. bond funding, $31.2 million has
been expended and $33.8 million remains to be issued. According to TVUSD, all bonds that can
be supported by the current assessed valuation in the District have been, or soon will be, issued.
The remaining authorization reflects future increases in assessed valuation which are expected to
result from additional development. Of the $33.8 million, approximately $14 million, or 41%, is
credited against the City's mitigation fees. As with the State school construction funds, the re-
mainder was credited to the County portion of the District based on projections of total numbers
of future students to be generated in the City, as opposed to currently unincorporated areas.
c. Redevelopment Pass-through. TVUSD currently receives approximately $460,000 per year in
redevelopment pass-through funds. The amount that will be available in the future is uncertain for
a number of reasons. The District has established a policy of using redevelopment funds for ad-
ministrative and support facilities, and indicates that current revenue from this source is fully corn-
mitted to repay bonds issued to construct a maintenance, operations and transportation facility.
The mitigation fees do not include the cost of such facilities, nor do they reflect any credit for re-
development funds.
d. School Impact Fees. TVUSD is authorized by statute to levy school impact fees. Fees on
residential development ($1.72/Sq. Ft) would be treated as an offset to the proposed mitigation
fees, so there is no need to credit them in the fee calculations. However, school impact fees
December 14, 1995
David A,Z Griffith & .4ssociates
Page 13
Review o/proposed TVUSD School Impact Miti,eation Fees
imposed on commercial and industrial development ($0.28/Sq. Ft.) do represent another source of
funding for school development which is not addressed in the Impact Mitigation Plan. According
to the TVUSD staff, only about $22,000 in commercial/industrial school impact fees has been col-
lected during the current fiscal year, and the amount typically does not exceed $I00,000 for an
entire year. As long as the amounts are in that range, they would not be significant relative to the
proposed mitigation fees. In addition, the District argues that work-related transfers of children
from other Districts into TVUSD schools justifies excluding that revenue from the mitigation fee
analysis. At present, 177 of the Distriet's 11,400 students are on work-related transfers. The
number of students transferring out of the District at present is 28.
Our conclusion regardin~ the District's assumptions on future availabilitv of other funds is that
thev are ~enerallv supportable, except for the assumption that no state school construction funds
or local bond money will be available for any future TVUSD facilities. That assumption seems
quite pessimistic. Admittedly, the District has no basis for estimatin~ when, or to what extent
such fundin~ might be available, but the City Council should consider that validity of this policy
judm~qent.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
In the foregoing analysis, we have recommended one technical correction in the calculation of
TVUSD's proposed mitigation fees. We have also pointed out some important policy questions
that cannot be resolved on technical grounds, but which shoutd be considered by the City.
1. Technical Correctiottt The proposed mitigation fees are based on per-student space alloca-
lions that exceed OPSC standards. DM~ has recalculated the mitigation fees using OPSC ap-
proved space allocations. Table 7, on the following page, shows the corrected mitigation fees, and
compares them with the fees proposed in the mitigation plan. Details of the recalculation are in-
eluded in Appendix A. The recalculation reduces the fee for detached dwellings by $675. It also
reduces the fee for attached units by $519. In both cases that represents a reduction of about 7%.
December 14. 1995 David 3/[. Griffith & o4ssociates Page 14
-!
!
i
1
l
l
]
]
Review of proposed 7~'USD School Impact Mitigation Fees
Table 7
Recalculated Mitigation Fees Using Corrected Student Space Allocation
Fee
Type
Single-family Detached
Fees from Mitigation Plan I $3,311
Fees Recalculated by DMG $3,095
Single-Family Attached
Fees from Mitigation Plan 1 $2,377
Fees Recalculated by DMG $2.221
Elementary
School
Middle
School
$2,853
$2.383
$2,259
S1,887
High
School
$3,828
$3,840
$2,603
$2,612
Total
$9,993
$9,318
$7,239
$6,720
See Table 9, TVUSD Impact Mitigation Plan
2. Policy Issues. As indicated in our analysis, certain assumptions used in calculating the pro-
posed mitigation fees are open to question. We recommend that the City Council carefully con-
sider the following policy issues when evaluating the mitigation fees:
Student Generation Factors. Projected student generation factors for attached
units, as shown in the mitigation plan, are high compared with recently obtained data
on current rates. In addition, the factors for both detached and attached dwellings can
be expected to change over time in ways that cannot be predicted with confidence. As
a result, some policy judgment must be applied to the choice &these factors. A
detailed discussion of the factors is contained in the attached report.
Future School Bond Funds. The mitigation fees assume that no state or local school
bond funds will be available for any fiature TVUSD school construction. Neither the
District nor the City can know how voters will respond to future proposals for school
bond issues, but the assumption used in the mitigation plan is very pessimistic and
should be evaluated by the City Council.
December 14, 1995
David.~I. Grif~th & .4ssociares
Page 15
J
J
! APPENDIXA
!
]
l
]
]
]
]
APPENDIXA
Table A-1. Breakdown of TVUSD School Development Costs
ACTUAL COSTS (SAB-APPROVED BUDGET)
Redhawk E.S. (1990) Vail Ranch M.S. (1993) Chapparal H.S. (1994)
Site Acres 11.95 Site Acres 21.62 Site Acres 50.00
Bldg Scl Ft 43.600 Bldg Sa Ft 77,437 Bldg Sq Ft 196.490
Item U~t~ Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost Cost U~it Cost
A. Site Acres $1,945,000 $162,762 $ 3,223,500 $149,098 $ 7,505,200 $150,104
B. Plans Sq Ft $ 410,820 $ 9.42 $ 675,651 $ 8.73 $ 1,489,830 $ 7.58
C. Construction [1] Sq Ft $ 4,736,626 $ 108.64 $ 9,439,110 $ 121.89 $26,630,004 $ 135.53
D. Tests Sq Ft $ 79,900 $ 1.83 $ 134,274 $ 1.73 $ 410,907 $ 2.09
E. Inspection Sq Ft $ 72,000 $ 1.65 $ 100,850 $ 1.30 $ 264,811 $ 1.35
F. Fumiture/Equipm Sq Ft $ 258,396 $ 5.93 $ 620,913 $ 8.02 $ 935,794 $ 4.76
Subtotal A. thru F Sq Ft $ 7,502,742 $ 172.08 $14,194,298 $ 183.30 $37,238,546 $ 189.5t
G. Contingencies Sq Ft $ 49,206 $ 1.13 $ 210,186 $ 2.71 $ 553,921 $ 2.82
Tc:al [2] Sq Ft $ 7,551,948 $ 173.21 $14,404,484 $ 186.02 $37,790,467 $ 192.33
[1] Includes separate funding for special education crassrooms (Vail Ranch and Chaparral)
[2] Does not include District funded costs in excess of state-approved project budget for 50/50 match.
PROJECTED COSTS FROM MITIGATION PLAN
Elementary School Middle School
Site Acres
Bldg Sol Ft
Item Units Cost
A. Site Acres $1,087,963
B. Plans Sq Ft $ 470,831
C. Construction Sq Ft $ 5.437,069
D. Tests Sq Ft $ 81,343
E. Inspection Sq Ft $ 72,436
F. Fumiture/Equipm Sq Ft $ 272,155
Subtotal A. thru F. Sq Ft $ 7,421,797
G. Contingencies Sq Ft $ 104,047
Total Sq Ft $ 7,525,844
10.00 Site Acres 20.00
_.45,394 Bldg Sq Ft 79,500
Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost
$108,796 $ 2,175,926 $108,796
$ 10.37 $ 641,114 $ 8.06
$ 119.78 $ 9,700,000 $ 122.01
$ 1.79 $ 142,800 $ 1.80
$ 1.60 $ 104,400 $ 1.31
$ 6.00 $ 586,710 $ 7.38
$ 163.50 $13,350,950 $ 167.94
$ 2.29 $ 218,247 $ 2.75
$ 165.79 $13,569,197 $ 170.68
High School
Site Acres 45.00
. BIdg Scl Ft 198,945
Cost Unit Cost
$ 4,895,834 $108,796
$ 1,497,007 $ 7.52
$27,000,000 $ 135.72
$ 421,000 $ 2.12
$ 259,000 $ 1.30
$ 1,712,916 $ 8.61
$35,785,757 $ 179.88
$ $
$35,785,757 $ 179.88
Page A-1
APPENDIX A
Table A-2. RECALCULATION OF MITIGATION FEES
Mitigation Fees Based on Actual Costs
Facility Costs K-5 6-8 9-12
Fadlity Cost per Square Foot [1] $ 173.21 $ 186.02 $ 192.33
Square Feet per Student (Normal Schedule) 62.00 76.00 95.00
Adjustment for Year Round Schedule 20% 20% N/A
Adjusted Square Feet per Student (Sq. Ft. / 1.2) 51.67 63.33 95.00
Fadlity Cost per Studen~ _ $ 8.949.17 $11,780.98 $18.271.13
Totals
Mitigation Fee - Single Family Detached (SFD) K-5 6-8 9-12 Totals
Students per Dwelling Unit (SFD) 0.39 0.24 0.25 0.88
Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $ 3,490.18 $ 2,827.44 $ 4,567.78 $10,885.40
Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $ 246.00 $ 211.00 $ 432.00 $ 889.00
Net Mitigation .Fee per Dwelling Unit $ 3,244.18 $ 2,616.44 $ 4,135.78 $ 9,996.40
Mitigation Fee - Single Family Attached (SFA) K-5 6-8 9-12 Totals
Students per Dwelling Unit (SFA) 0.28 0.19 0.17 0.64
Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $ 2,505.77 $ 2,238.39 $ 3,106.09 $ 7,850.25
Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $ 177.00 $ 167.00 $ 293.00 $ 637.00
Net Mitigation Fee I~er Dwelling Unit $ 2,328.77 $ 2,071.39 $ 2.813.09 $ 7,213.25
Mitigation Fees Based on Projected Costs from Mitigation Plan
Facility Costs K-5 6-8
Facility Cost per Square Foot [1] $ 165.79 $ 170.68
Square Feet per Student (Normal Schedule) 62.00 76.00
Adjustment for Year Round Schedule 20% 20%
Adjusted Square Feet per Student (Sq. Ft. / 1.2) 51.67 63.33
Fa.r~lit~ Cost per Student $ 8,565.79 $10,809.84
Mitigation Fee - Single Family Detached (SFD) K-5 6-8
Students per Dwelling Unit (SFD) 0.39 0.24
Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $ 3,340.66 $ 2,594.36
Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $ 246.00 $ 211.00
NetMitigation Fee per Dwelling Unit $ 3,094.66 $ 2.383.36
Mitiqation Fee - Single Family Attached (SFA) K-5 6-8
Students per Dwelling Unit (SFA) 0.28 0.19
Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $ 2,398.42 $ 2,053.87
Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $ 177.00 $ 167.00
Net Mit!gati0n Fee per Dwelli~ng Unit $ 2,221.42 $ 1,886.87
9-12 Totals
$ 179.88
95.00
N/A
95.00
$17,088.38
9-12 Totals
0.25 0.88
$ 4.272.09 $10,207.11
$ 432.00 $ 889.00
$ '3,840.09 $ 9,318.11
9-12 Totals
0.17 0.64
2,905.02 $ 7,357.31
293.00 $ 637.00
2,612.02 $ 6,720.31
[1] See Tabte A-1.
Page A-2
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
RESULTS OF SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT MODELING
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLA,N.PCI 715196 dwh I 4
RESULTS OF
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT MODELING
April 3, 1996
Prepared by:
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
R:\SCHOOLB~IMODFr. L.MMO 4/3/96 dwh
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Report is to document the City of Temecula's School Facility Impact Model.
The model was developed by City Staff as a diagnostic tool to evaluate the overall impacts of
residential development on school facilities within the Temecula Valley Unified School District
(TVUSD). The model is a districtwide simulation; it is not based upon, nor intended to predict,
specific developments or their impacts on school facilities.
HOW TIlE MODEL WORKS:
The model evaluates the demand for new school funding based upon new home construction.
In summary, the model works like this:
A predetermined number of new homes is added to the existing housing stock each year
and school enrollment for the year is calculated;
The total enrollment is compared to the number of existing schools and the need for
additional schools is determined;
If the model decides that a new school is necessary, it also identifies the need for
funding to build the new facility several years before it is needed;
Any school impact fees to be received are calculated using the number new homes built
during the year; and,
A cumulative balance is kept of the difference between school construction funding needs
and available resources.
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS:
For any simulation or modeling of reality, certain assumptions must be made. One of the
fundamental assumption of this model is that intentionally underestimates the costs to the District
to provide new schools. Listed below are the other major assumptions upon which the model
is based.
The Student Generation Factor (SGF) in the model is based upon average dwelling units
and current enrollment. As a result, the modeled SGF is less than the District's
projected future Student Generation Factor.
Moderate-to-high levels of school overcrowding (districtwide) are assumed. The
following school overcrowding rates are assumed:
o 25 percent over enrollment per high school facility;
o 20 percent over enrollment per middle school facility; and,
o 15 percent over enrollment per elementary school facility.
10.
11.
The school capacity for all middle and elementary schools is calculated assuming that
some schools will be one track and others will be on four-tracks. Future capacity is
assumed to be the midpoint between the one-track and four-track capacities. All high
schools are single track facilities.
The cost of providing the portable facilities needed to support the assumed levels of
overcrowding are no__!t included in the model.
No future increases in the costs of site acquisition, materials, or labor are assumed.
Future construction costs are based upon the District' s proposed Mitigation Plan and the
City's independent evaluation.
The model assumes that needed construction funding must be available before facility
construction can begin. According to the District, the design and constraction period for
a high school is three years, and the design and construction period for middle and
elementary schools is two years.
If approved by mid 1996, higher school fees will not be collected until the sixth year.
In year 6, it is assumed that 25 % of all school fees collected will be the higher fee. In
years 7 through I0, the model assumes that 50% of all school fees will be the higher fee.
Beginning in year 11, the model assumes that 75% of all school fees each year will be
the higher fee.
The model assumes that Temecula Valley Unified School District will receive $i1
million in Proposition 203 funds. For modeling purposes, it is assumed that these funds
will arrive in three annum installments. According to the District, these funds are
targeted to reimburse and offset some of the costs associated with the construction of the
Paloma, Pauba Valley, and Vintage Hills Elementary Schools.
Because the model attempts to integrate the current and proposed school funding system,
the District's proposed per unit fee has been recalculated on a square foot basis. This
recalculation consists of dividing the recommended per unit fee of $9,318, by the
average size of a new home, 1,812 square feet. This means an equivalent per square
foot cost of $5.14 per square foot.
For the initial years of the model, the District' s existing school construction schedule has
been incorporated in the model, overriding the model's facility calculation formulas.
R:\SCHOOLS\IMOD~L.MMO 4/3/96 dwb 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SIMULATIONS:
For this analysis, two different simulations were prepared. Both simulations use the current
$1.84 per square foot for residential construction and include the anticipated $11 million from
Proposition 203. The two simulations are as follows.
Simulation Number 1 assumes no increase in the $1.84 square foot fee for new
residential construction.
Simulation Number 2 assumes a City approved increase for all residential development
approved after mid-1996. The District's proposed $9,318 per unit fee has been
converted to a square foot charge to make it compatible with model format.
RESULTS:
According to these simulations, the estimated cumulative impact for new school construction for
the Temecula Valley Unified School District in School Year 2006-07 are shown in Table 1
below. The annual subtotals for each simulation are included in Tables 2 and 3.
TABLE 1
SIMULATION
Number 1. No Increase in School Mitigation Fees
for newly approved residential units. The fee
remains at $1.84 per square foot.
CUlVlLrLATIVE
SURPLUS OR (DEFICIT)
($65,378,934)
Number 2. Higher School Mitigation Fees for
residential units that receive their legislative
approvals after the new fee is required. The new
higher fee is presumed to be $5.14 per square foot.
($37,349,559)
R:\SCHOOLSHMOD~L. MMO 4/3/96 dwh 3
TABLE 2
SUMMARY
OF THE ANNUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND FUNDING AS $1,84 PER SQUARE FOOT WiT'-
AN INCREASE TO $1.84 FOR APPLICABLE HOMES APPROVED FROM NOW ON
BEGINNING OF YEAR BOND cUNDS/
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION
SCHOOL YEAR SURPLUS/(DEFICiT) FUNDS NEEDED FEES PAID
BEFORE 1995-96 $.28,812,000 $24,675.000 [INCLUDEDI
1 REMAINDER 1995-96 $4,137,000 $6,445.844 $1,733.722
2 1996-97 ($575.122) $13.569,197 $7,834,600
3 1997-98 ($6.309.719) $7,525,844 $7.834,600
4 1998-99 ($6,000,963) $0 S7.834,600
5 1999-00 $1.833,637 $7.525,844 $4.167,600
6 2000-01 ($1.524,607) $35.785,757 S4.167,600
7 2001-02 ($33.142.764) $21.095,041 $4167.600
8 2002-03 ($50,070.205) $7.525.844 $4.167.600
9 2003-04 ($53.428.449) $0 $4.167600
10 2004-05 ($49.280,849) $7,525,844 $4.167.600
11 2005-06 ($52,619.093) $0 $4 167.6O0
12 2006-07 ($48,451,493) $21,095,041 $4.167,600
END 3= vEAP-
SUM',.,J,T:VE
=UND BALANSE
SURPL.jSiSE=:S:T
64.137.000
($575122)
(S6.309,719)
($6000963)
$1.833.63?
(5! ,524 607)
($33142,764)
($50.070205~
(S53 426449)
($49.260,849)
($52,619,093)
($48,451.493)
($65,378,934)
R:\SCHOOLS\IMODEL.MMO 413196 dwh 4
TABT ~ 3
SUMMARY
DF THE ANNUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND FUNDING AS $1.84 PER SQUARE FOOT WITh
AN INCREASE TO $5.14 FOR APPLICABLE HOMES APPROVED FROM NOW ON
BEGINNrNG Of YEAR BOND ~UNDS,'
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE CONSTRUCTION M1TIGATTON
SCHOOL YEAR SURPLUS/{DEFICIT) FUNDS NEEDED FEES PAID
BEFORE 1995-96 $28.812,000 $24.675.000 [INCLUDED)
1 REMAINDER 1995-96 $4.137,000 $6.445.844 $I ,733.722
2 1996-97 ($575,122) $13.569.197 $7.834.600
3 1997-98 ($6,309,719) $7.525,844 $7.834.600
4 1998-99 ($6.000,963) $0 $7,834.600
5 1999-00 $1.833.637 $7,525,844 $4.. 167600
6 2000-01 ($1,524.607) $35,785,757 $6,036.225
7 2001-02 ($31.274.139) $21.095.041 $7.904.850
8 2002-03 ($44.464.330) $7.525,844 $7.904.850
:
9 2003-04 ($44.085.324) $0 S7,904,850
10 2004-05 ($36,180,474) $7.525,844 $7.904.850
11 2005-06 ($35,801,468) $0 $9,773.475
12 2006-07 ($26,027.993) $21.095,041 $9.773,475
R:~,SCHOOLS~IMODEL.MMO 4/3/96 dwh 5
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan}
Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA96~0008;
2. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0008;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
PA96-0008 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0008 subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Robert Tiglio, Hydro-Scape Products, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Russell Rumansoff, Herron + Rumansoff, Architects, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
Design and construction of a 9,994 square foot
office/warehouse building and 28,200 square foot outdoor
storage area.
LOCATION:
South side of Enterprise Circle North, west of Jefferson
Avenue.
EXISTING ZONING:
Business Park (BP) [Manufacturing Service Commercial
(M-SC) at the time of project submittal]
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Business Park (BP)
Business Park (BP) and Service Commercial
(SC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
Business Park (BP)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
R:\STAFFP, F~8PA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel and Vacant
Parking Lot and Vacant
Commercial Center
Offices
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 1.75 acres
Total Site Area:
Building Area: 9,994 square feet
Landscape Area: 13,634 square feet
Paved Area: 24,998 square feet
Other Paved areas: storage yard 28,200 square feet
Parking Required: 13 spaces
Parking Provided: 31 spaces
Building Height: Twenty-eight feet (28')
BACKGROUND
This case has been continued at the Planning Commission twice. The first continuance on May
20 resulted from questions raised by the City Attorney regarding the issue of consistency with
the Development Code. The City Attorney determined that the case was complete for filing and
therefore consistent with Ordinance 348. The second continuance from the June 17 Planning
Commission meeting was granted to allow the applicant to provide additional data and make
project modifications. The Commission requested that the applicant demonstrate what outdoor
area was to be designated as storage; confirm that the fault setback line was established by
sound engineering principles, prepare a site line analysis from Jefferson Avenue, Jefferson
Creek Center, and from the Burnham Building; and demonstrate that adequate screening of the
storage area is obtainable.
Delineate Outdoor Storage
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan that delineates the proposed outdoor storage
area. The total enclosed outdoor area is 27,830 square feet while the proposed storage area
is 10,115 square feet. The balance of the area is designated as drive-though, large truck loading
and unloading, and customer pickup/loading.
Fault Set Back Line
The applicant is still researching the source of the fault line data and will have comments at the
Commission Meeting.
Site Line Analysis
The applicant determined that a site line analysis would not adequately illustrate the conditions
in the field and has opted to provide additional screening of the storage area to mitigate any
aesthetic impacts.
Screening of Outdoor Storage
Additional broadleaf evergreen trees are proposed to be planted on the east, west and north
boundary of the project. The applicant has proposed to plant 36" box trees to form a solid
screen at early maturity. The proposed trees have a moderate growth characteristic that has
a potential diameter of 30 feet and a height of 50 feet.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to design and construct a 9,994 square foot office/warehouse facility.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the project site will be landscaped. Parking will occupy the
fault hazard zone constrained portion of the site. A 28,000 square foot outdoor storage area
will be enclosed by an eight foot wall and fence combination to provide screening of the stored
contents. The project area has been previously graded. Enterprise Circle North has been
improved to its ultimate right-of-way and all utilities are at the project site.
ANALYSIS
Project Design
The architecture is similar to other buildings in the area and features tilt-up concrete panels,
recessed reveals and windows to break up the massing. Parking for the project occupies the
fault hazard set-back area established by County Geologic Report No. 457. An employee lunch
area has been provided at the northern portion of the site. Loading will be at the west and
north sides of the building. The applicant has addressed most of Staff's concerns regarding the
building's design with the exception of the front entry statement and enhanced landscaping
treatment along the street.
Because of the proposed operation, the entrance has been located to the rear of the building.
Staff has requested a stronger architectural feature statement be incorporated into the
building's design to direct customers to the building's entry. Special design features such as
additional trees and vines will be required to break up the large building mass and enhance the
streetscape. Conditions of approval (//12 and//13) have been included to require these
revisions,
Letters of Opposition
Staff has received four letters of opposition to the Hydro-Scape proposal. The project
opponents base their objection on the incompatibility with the existing bank, medical office, and
Jefferson Creek retail center. Opponents fear that outdoor storage will be a nuisance and cause
loss of property values. Moreover, the opponents cite traffic impacts and storage of potentially
toxic chemicals as a basis for denial of the project.
Staff has reviewed the project for compatibility with the surrounding area noting the
architectural design of the adjacent buildings. With the conditions of approval requiring
enhanced landscaping and architectural design, staff feels that the end product will conform
to the level of design in the local community. Other issues raised by the opponents suggest
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb 3
that traffic will be an issue. The City's Public Works Department has reviewed the project for
traffic impacts and had determined that the project will contribute less than five percent of
traffic to Enterprise Circle North. The storage and use of toxic and hazardous chemical 'are
permitted in the Business Park designation. Hazardous chemicals usually identified with the
proposed land use consist of glues and solvents utilized in the welding of a variety of plastic
pipe. These chemicals will not be used on the premisses but will be offered for sale to local
contractors and home owners for use off site. Staff has concluded that the sale of these
materials does not constitute a threat to the community.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is BP (Business Park). However, because the project was submitted
prior to the implementation date of the Development Code (February 9, 1996) and new zoning
designations, it was determined that the case would be processed under the land uses
permitted by the M-SC zone. Ordinance No. 348 Section 11.2 relating to permitted uses in the
M-SC zone specifically permits building materials sales yards and warehousing and distribution
which would normally include the storage and use of toxic or hazardous materials.
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Typical uses in this
designation may include: light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply and wholesale
businesses. The project as proposed is consistent with the M-SC zone and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the M-SC zone. The applicant has
responded to issues and concerns raised by Staff with the exception of architectural details and
landscaping that would make this project conform to the same level of design exhibited by the
surrounding uses. Conditions of Approval will require the applicant to refine the architectural
elevations and landscaping.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: Ordinance 348, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these
effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the
project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 21
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 38
Exhibits - Blue Page 45
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
Letters of Opposition - Blue Page 46
R:~,STAFFRPT~gPA96.1~3 7/10/96 slb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:kSTAFFRFI'~SPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0008 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT A 9,994 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, AND
WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON A PARCEl, CONTAINING 1.75
ACRES LOCATED AT 41581 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-281-026
AND 909-281-028
WHEREAS, Robert Tigilo fried. Planning Application No. PA96-0008 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0008 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA96-0008
on May 20, 1996 and June 17, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA96-0008
to July 15, 1996, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0008; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Eindingi The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0008 makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformante with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances to include: Ordinance 348(Zoning Code), Ordinance No. 655
(Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
R:\STAFFRPTXSPA96.PC$ 7/10/96 slb 7
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
3. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An
Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be
significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of
Approval added to the project.
4. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0008
(Development Plan) as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. vnvironmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for t~is project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 to construct a 9,994 square foot office, and warehouse
facility located at 41581 Enterprise Circle North and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-281-026
and 909-281-028 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
pan hereof.
R:XSTAFFR/~gPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb [~
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of July,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:XSTAFFRPT~SPAg~.PC3 7110/96
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STA~SPA96.PC2 7191~ sl~ 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
Project Description: A Development Plan for a new 9,994 square foot warehouse with office
and storage facilities, a 28,200 square foot outdoor storage area and parking for 31 vehicles
and 4 bicycles.
Assessor's Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-281-026 and 909-281-028
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 Seventy-Eight Dollars
(~78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan) which action is brought within the appropriate
statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section
21000 at seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167).
City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the
action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "D" approved
with Planning Application No. PA96-0008, or as amended by these conditions.
A. A minimum of 31 parking spaces shall be provided.
R:\STAFFRP'BSPA%.PC3 71101% slb 11
B. A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
Floor Plans and front and side elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit "E",
or as amended by these conditions.
The rear elevation shall conform substantially with Exhibit "F", or as amended by these
conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "G" or as amended
by these conditions.
Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit "H", or as amended by these
conditions.
All handicapped parking spaces shall be a minimum of 14 feet by 18 feet as required by
the City of Temecula Code.
All standard parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet as required by the
City of Temecula Development Code.
10. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
11. All signage shall conform to Ordinance No. 348.
12.
The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans that show sufficient landscaping to
increase the landscaping on the south and east planting areas adjacent to the building.
Landscaping plans shall be approved by the Planning Manager.
13.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Manager for review and approval revised building elevations showing a stronger entry
statement.
14. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view from adjacent streets.
15.
The applicant shall demonstrate, by submittal of a written report, compliance with the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan for this stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
16.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required
by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
17. A copy of the grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
18.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
R:~STAFFRPTXSPA96.PC3 7110/96 slb 12
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
19.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submit'ted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
20.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing
fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover
page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
21.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
22.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation
plans.
23.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
24.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
25.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
R:\STAFFRPTXSPA96.PC~ 7/10/9~ slb 13
26.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
27.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
28.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
29.
Comply with appli~:able provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code
30.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
31. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
32.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
33.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
34.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
35. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
36.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
37.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
38. Provide disabled access from the public way.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
R:\STAFFRPT~gPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb 14
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
39.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
40.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
41.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
42.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
43.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
44.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
45.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
46.
Permanent landscape and irrigatmn plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
47.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is subject
to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall
comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code and with the rules
and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
48.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets
for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply.
Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for
R:\STAFFRFr~SPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb 15
drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
49.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and Department of
Community Development. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control
measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
50.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, or verification that such a fee has been previous paid for this lot,
prior to issuance of any permit.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
51.
Improvement plans and/or Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment
Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. The
following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
52.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
53.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
54.
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, a copy of
which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security 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
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb 16
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; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest 'the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
55.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permit
56.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
57.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
58.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
59.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance
No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated April 17, 1996, a copy of
which is attached,
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth by the Riverside County
of Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated January 19, 1996, a copy of
which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:\STAFFRPT~8PA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb 17
City of Ternecula
43174 Bus~ness Park DrNe · Temecula, California 92590
(909) 694-6444 · Fax, (909) 694-1999
April 17, 1996
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STEVE BROWN
HYDRO-SCAPE
PA96-0008
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance
546. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be
located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available
from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company,
the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fn'e protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fLre alarm system. Plans shah be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings and electronic gates. If
building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the
Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are
protected by a fkre or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
10. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
11.
Install portable ftre extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
12.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
13.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
14.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
15.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and shall be approved by the fn'e department prior to installation.
16.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
17. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
C
Laura abral
Fire Safety Specialist
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
RECEIVED
JAN29 1996
DATE: January 19, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
/2~E/ HARRISON, Envirortmental Health Specialist III
PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0008
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA96-0008 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency.
b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture
schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055
will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Undergrotmd storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste reduction management.
CH:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health Clearance.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 2 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Planning Application No. 96-0008 (Development Plan)
Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of Temecula
43714 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Stephen Brown, (909) 694-6400
Project Location: Enterprise Circle North 500 feet north of Winchester Road
Project Sponsor's Name and Address~
Hydro~Scape Products, Inc
5808 Kearney Villa Road.
San Diego, CA 92313
General Plan Designation: Business Park (BP)
Zoning: Processed under the MSC zone
Description of Project: Construction of a 9,994 square foot office and storage building
and a 28,200 square foot outdoor storage area for landscape supplies.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located on a previously graded parcel
within an area of existing light industrial and commercial uses.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department,
Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal
Water District and Rancho California Water District.
R:\STAFFRPT\BPA96.pC2 6/12/96 slb 22
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IX]
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
[]
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA~6.PC2 6112196
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project.
Stephen Brown, REA Project Planner
January 23.1996
Date
R:\STAFFRFT~$PA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 24
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (2)
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (3, p. 17.02-3)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (1, F5-4~ p. 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including low-
income or minority community)? ( )
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumutatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1, F4-2, p. 4-5)
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( )
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (1, F7-1, p. 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking? (1, F7-1, p. 7-6)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(1, F7-2, p. 7-8)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e. Landslides or mudflows? { )
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 25
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
g. Subsidence of the land? (1, F7-2, p. 7-8)
h. Expansive soils? ( )
I. Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and mount of surface runoff7 ( )
b. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (1, F7-3, p.
7-10 and 1, F7-4, p. 7-12)
c. Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity}?
( )
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( )
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( )
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( }
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
I. Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ( )
QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
( )
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (
Alter air movement, moisture or temperature
or cause any change in climate? ( )
AIR
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRFr\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
d, Create objectionable odors? ( )
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION,
Would the proposal result in:
a, Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(4)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersection or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(3, pg17.24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? { )
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( )
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals and birds)? (7 & 1, F 5-
3, p. 5-15)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (7 & 1, F 5-3, p. 5-15)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (7 & 1, F 5-
3, p. 5-15)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (1, F 5-3, p. 5-15)
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1, F
5-3, p. 5-15)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentleliy
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
S~nificant
Impact
X
' No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\gPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 27
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner7 ( )
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
( )
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, bd~ not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation)? ( )
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
( )
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( )
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( )
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? ( )
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( )
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection7 ( )
b. Police protection? ( )
c. Schools? ( )
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
Potentially
Significant
impact
Potentialiy
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT',SPA96,PC2 6f12/96 slb 28
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant ' No
Impact Incorporated impact Impact
e. Other governmental services? ( ) X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ( ) X
b. Communications systems? ( ) X
c. Local or regional water treatment or X
distribution facilities? ( )
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e. Storm water drainage? ( )
f. Solid waste disposal? ( )
g.
Local or regional water supplies? (
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway7
( )
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? { )
c. Create light or glare? ( )
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (2, F55,
p.280}
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (2, F56, p.
283)
c. Affect historical resources? (2, p. 281)
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( )
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( }
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:%STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC16/12/96 sib 29
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
aignificant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporated impact Impact
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
( )
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade X
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major perio~ls of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve X
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumutatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6112/96 slb 30
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
C.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
SOURCE LIST
1 - City of Temecula General Plan
2 - City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
3 - City of Temecula Zoning Map
4 - City of Temecula Development Code
6 - Geotechnical Investigation on the Wildomar Fault, Parcel Map 19582-2 Rancho California
area, Riverside County, CA.
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1,e,
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an in-fill
Development Permit and will occupy.the site which is currently Vacant. There is an
established commercial and light industrial concentration at this site. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Population and Housing
2.b,
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly.
The project is in-fill development and will occupy the site which is currently vacant.
While the project could conceivably cause a few people to relocate to the Temecula
area, the project will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3.a.b.e.
Any development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards
since the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active.
Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is
consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. The project has been designed to
avoid the fault hazard zone identified by County Geologic Report prepared for the
underlying Parcel Map No. 19582-2. Information contained in the City of Temecula
General Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the
project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or
mudslides. No known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The
same is true for mudslides.
3.c,g.
The project is identified by the General Plan as an area susceptible to liquefaction and
subsidence. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through mitigations recommended
in the slope stability report, geotechnical studies, prepared for this site and through
the requirements of the Uniform Building Code standards.
3.d.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The
project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur.
3.f.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in
topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and will therefore
require minimal grading for the project. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both
on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project
may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques
will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape
and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the
amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project,
modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered
significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be
mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils.
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6112/96 slb 32
Water
4,a.
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rale
and amount of surface runoff, Previously permeable ground will be rendered
impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying herdscape and driveways,
While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, any potential impacts can be
mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project
to safely and adequately handle the runoff which will be created.
4.b.
The project is located within the limits of the lO0-year flood plan. To mitigate any
potential impacts, a buildings will be required to be build above the flood elevation.
4. c.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters
and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the
project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of
Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the
NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than
significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d .e.
The project will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any
waterbody, impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. No
major waterbodies are located in the subject project area.
4.f-h.
The project will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. No
changes will occur in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions,
withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Further, the
project will not result in an altered direction or rate of flow of groundwaters or in
impacts to groundwater quality. Construction on the site will not be at depths
sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters.
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists at
the project site. Additional water service will need to be provided by Rancho California
Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Quality
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
project air quality violation. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating
any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no sensitive
receptors in proximity to the project.
R:\STAFFRPT'xgPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 33
5,0.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change
in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant
impacts on the environment in this area.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips and may add
to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that the project have a less than five (5) percent
increase to the nearest intersection (Enterprise Circle North and Winchester Road)
during peak travel hour. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation
fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project.
6.b.c.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is in-
fill within an existing industrial area. F.urther, the project is designed to current City
standards and does not propose any.hazards to safety from design features.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. A
sidewalk exist on the site along Solana Way and Ynez Road. Hazards or barriers to
bicyciists have not been identified as part of the project.
6.g.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists
currently in the immediate proximity of the project.
Energy and Mineral Resources
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.
The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to
energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the
project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the
rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s)
(construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the
subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of
the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
The project will not result in the toss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known
mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the
State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project,
Hazards
9.a.c. The project will not include the storage of petroleum based or other hazardous
products in large quantity.
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC'2 6/12/96 slb 34
9.b.
9.d.
9.e.
Noise
10.a.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an
emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and
will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No
health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard
area.
The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently
vacant and any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels
during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run.
The project site is located within an industrial area. There are no sensitive receptors
located in the area.
lO.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibratmns during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of
producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very
annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source
of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new
or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for
fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance
of service provision from these entities.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new
or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people
to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or
altered school facilities. This project may be required to pay school mitigation fees
prior to the issuance of building permits (this determination will be made by the
Temecula Valley Unified School District). No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the
Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California.
Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of
development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered
significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
R:\STAFFRPT\gPA96.1~C2 6/12/96 slb 35
11.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered to the
site.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12,a.).
12.c.
The project will have a less than significant effect in the need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an
ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR
further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly
impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There
are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to storm water drainage. The project is in-fill, and will need to provide
some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a
condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this
development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and
Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is in-fill and
is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have
any designated scenic highways.
R:\STAFFRIrlTxBPA96,PC'2 6/12/96 slb 36
13.b.
Although the project is considered infill in nature, the size and lack of articulation of
the building mass will created a negative aesthetic environment. Mitigation measures
and the conditions of approval will be instituted that will create a similar level-of
design compatible with the surrounding area and thus mitigate against the negative
aesthetic effect.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project
will produce and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results in new
light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655
(Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution).
Cultural Resources
14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values. None exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Recreation
15.a,b.
The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people
to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts to the
quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities.
R:XSTAFFRPT\SPA96.I~2'2 6112196 ~lb 37
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPT\gPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 38
Z
Z
Z
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.pC2 6/12/96 slb 45
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
I
|
\
\
CTH
LIB
PALH
CENTER
BEST
JlESrERN
I COUNTRY
CHP
"\, TEMECULA -
\
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
VICINITY MAP
L
R:\STAFFP, FI~SPA~.PCI 5/2/96 slb
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
H i/~' ~/
R~
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
R:\STAFFR.w~SPA96.l~C1 51319~ sb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
LETTERS OF OPPOSITION
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96
Jefferson Creek, Ltd.
27311 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (909) 676-7177/676-6168 / FAX (909) 699-0048
April 18, 1996
Mr. Stephen Brown
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: PA 96-0008 (DEVELOPMENT PLA/~
HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC.
.......
Dear Mr. Brown,
I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing conceming the proposed development referenced
above.
I represent of Jefferson Creek, Ltd., which owns the adjacent shopping center known as Jefferson
Creek. Our project is a high quality, retail development with tenants such as Richie's Real
American Diner, Filippi's Piz2.a, Making Waves Ha~ Salon, Jarvinen Travel, CDM/Westmar
Commercial Real Estate and others.
We are strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons:
The use is incompatible with the surrounding development in North Jefferson Business
Park, which includes our property. It is immediately adjacent to office buildings, medical
office buildings, First Pacific National Bm~k, and similar uses. The proposed use is
clearly an industrial use.
The proposed use will have a high concentration of outside storage. According to the site
plan that I have reviewed, the building consists of 9,994 sq. ft. with outside storage of
27,830 sq. ft. The storage yard is the predominant use. I have enclosed for your review
photographs of the Hydro-Scape building and yard located in Eseondido so you can get
some sense of what type of use it really is. We believe the photographs graphically
illustrate that the use is incompatible with the existing development surrounding the
project.
Mr. Stephen Brown
April 18, 1996
Page 2
In summary, we believe the proposed project will adversely impact surrounding properties. We
request that this proposed project be denied on the basis of its incompatibility with surrounding
uses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
JEFFERSON CREEK, LTD.
C0-MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER
Fred D. Grimes
FDG:jss
copy: Mark Esbensen
Jack Raymond
't
John C. Baymond
P. O. Box 3295
Escondido, CA 92033-3295 U.S.A.
Apd119,1996
ks'd, ...........
Director of Planning
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Case No. PA96-0008: Hydroscape Products. Inc.
Gentlemen:
I am strongly OPPOSED to the above proposed development plan and I am amazed that
staff has recommended approval. North Jefferson Business Park, in which this project is proposed,
is comprised primarily of professional office uses in an "up-scale" environment. The Jefferson ~ ~
Creek retail center, immediately adjacent to the east, is an expensive, neat, well maintained facility
which would be greatly damaged by this proposed project dominated by a most inappropriate
outdoor storage area. It is incompatible to all of the surrounding uses, depreciates property values
of nearby properties, and represents unsound land planning and use.
The use proposed belongs more appropriately in an industrial park area or at least away
from quality office and commercial uses.
Please be advised that as an investor in the Jefferson Creek Center I will suffer economic
harm and damages if this project is approved. We assert that there is significant environmental
harm which may ensue and that not all environmental impacts have been appropriately considered
or reviewed. We contest the negative declaration determination on numerous grounds, including
but not limited to traffic impacts, incompatible uses, storage of potentially toxic chemicals, and
adverse economic impact on surrounding properties.
' I urge immediate rejection of this plan and proposal.
cc: Lounsbery, Ferguson, Esquire
John C. Raymond ~' ---" . :L_
FIRST PACIFIC NAT, ONAL
BANK
Admin/Strat/ve Offices.' 613 H/Valley Parkway, Escondido, Californta 92025-2597 (619) 74 1-3312 FAX,' [619) 741-7381
April 25, 1996
Mr. Stephen Brown
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
APR 2 9 1996
A, 'd ............
RE: PA 96-0008 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC.
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing concerning the proposed development referenced above.
I represent First Pacific National Bank which owns the existing high-quality bankJoffice building located
adjacent to the proposed development as well as the two lots now being developed into additional parking
and available parcels next to the bank.
We are strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons:
The use is incompatible with the surrounding development in North Jefferson Business Park,
which includes our property. It is immediately adjacent to office buildings, medical office
buildings, a high-quality retail center and similar uses. The proposed use is clearly an industrial
use.
,
The proposed use will have a high concentration of outside storage. According to the site plan
that I have reviewed, the building consists of 9,994 square feet with outside storage of 27,830
square feet. The storage yard is the predominant use. This is not compatible with the
surrounding existing development of office/medical building and retail centers.
In summary, we believe that the proposed project will adversely impact surrounding properties. We
request that this proposed project be denied on the basis of its incompatibility with surrounding uses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Executive Vice President/COO
MJP:jff
FAMILY ENTERPRISES
4607 MISSION GORGE PL., SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 - TEL.: (619) 287-8873 - FAX (619) 287-24
April 22, 1996
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Re:
Hydroscape Products, Inc. : ~
Plot Plan Development Plan Submittal No. PA96-0008
To Whom It May Concern,
We own 41593 Winchester Road and 27315 Jefferson Avenue, which are located one lot
over from this proposed use. We feel Hydroscape is a great company but irs use does not
fit into an office and retail park. As you know most of the office and retail projects in this
park have been given back to the banks. As one of a handful of owners that have hung
in here the last thing we need is to compete with other projects in Temecula that have
outside storage next to their building.
Let's bring Hydroscape to Temecula but in the appropriate place, not in an office park.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
CASTER, f, AM~LY ENTERPRISES
Brian R. Caster
Chief Executive Officer