HomeMy WebLinkAbout080596 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1996, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water District's
Board Room
42135 Winchester Read
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of t5 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are
not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the
Commissioners about an item ~ listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should ~
(?asp Nf):
Xpldicanl:
Proposal:
...... P.*,9,~-llll4' I(es"ideal'ial I)eveloln:aenl I. acilnn.~ Inalmct
Matiga'lh'm I'l~e' ..
'h'n~ecnla Vallt~ I;nil~d qdmol I)i~n'icl
('i~)~itle
Enact a school faciliW impact mitigation fee for future
residential development requiring City Council approval
Environmental Action: Exempt
Planner: Dave Hogan
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution Recommending the City Council
Approve the District's School Facili~ Impact Mitigation
Plan
CONT~UED FROM THE JULY 15, 1996 PLANN~G COMMISSION HEA~G
R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMMXAGEI, TDAS%8-5-96.WT'D 7/29/96 klb
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
Hydro-Scape Products, Inc.
4158 Enterprise Circle North
Develop a warehouse and office facility of approximately
9,994 square feet
Negative Declaration
Stephen Brown
Approval
CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 15, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION .
II
R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMIVP, AGENDAS\8-5-96.WpD 7/29/96 klb 2
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday,
June 17, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Miller, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
ABSENT: Slaven
Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner,
Senior Planner John Meyer, and Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:05 P.M. There were no
requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADDroyal of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to
approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
2. Approval of Minutes Dated March 4. 1996 that were continued from June 3. 1996 and
Minutes from the May 6.1996 Planning Commission Meeting
2.1 AoDroval of Minutes March 4. 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the minutes of March 4, 1996, with the following amendments: - Page 12, last
paragraph - delete additional landscal~ing plan and change to - Evergreen landscaping
along the eastern elevation of the building to provide additional screening for the retail
businesses.
Page 5 add It was moved bv Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner
Webster to aporove the Shell Station Aoplication.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\l~96\061796.PC 7/31/~6 klb 1
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1996
Page 5 - paragraph 7 - Commissioner Miller asked for the following change - delete the
wording "the competitive edge" and change to "have equal footing with the other
service stations in the area"
Page 12 - 3rd paragraph - add the opening time for the sale of alcohol to the motion as
6:00 AM.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
2.2 Minutes of May 6. 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the minutes of May 6, 1996, with the following amendments: - Page 2, last
sentence - #4 - add Staff would like Commission direction.
Page 2, last paragraph - add the response was given from Senior Planner John Meyer.
Page 3, paragraph 2 - change authorized to authorize.
Page 7, - Adjournment - add and seconded by Commissioner Webster.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
Preliminary Site Plan and Elevations for the Old Town Entertainment Project
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report explaining that this is the
Commission's opportunity to provide general direction and comments on the design and
architecture of the Entertainment Center and the Westside Specific Plan. Dave
introduced architect Mike McNary of W.D.G. Architects.
Commissioner Webster recommended that the Commission comment first on the Old
Town Entertainment Center and then on the Westside Specific Plan.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\061796.PC 7/31/Q6 klb 2
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17. 1996
Old Town Entertainment Center
Commissioner Webster questioned the Palm trees that are shown in the amended plan
but not in the original plan; the vehicular traffic planned for down Mercedes Street; and
the mixing of architectural styles. He recommended the color palates be studied so all
colors blend together.
Architect Mike McNary responded that Mercedes Avenue will only be opened to the
Entertainment Center visitors.
Chairman Fahey expressed concern that the building elevations would obstruct the
residents on the north side of the Opera House. Architect Mike McNary responded that
the buildings will be treated esthetically and low scale buildings will be constructed
toward the north side residents.
Chairman Fahey expressed concern that the low scale buildings would not make up for
the larger buildings.
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed concern for the parking situation. Senior Planner
Hogan responded that all parking for the project is located at the Westside Specific Plan
site and transportation will be provided from this site.
Chairman Fahey expressed concern for residents being disturbed by pedestrians traveling
from parking lots to the Entertainment Center. Senior Planner Hogan responded that
pathways will be screened with heavy landscaping in order to keep pedestrians away
from residences.
Chairman Fahey requested the timeframe on construction. Senior Planner Hogan
responded that the schedule is not certain, but by late summer things could be started.
Chairman Fahey recommended staff take the Old Town elevations to public hearing.
Senior Planner Hogan responded that the Directors' Hearing is noticed for the public.
4. Planning Application No. PA94-0107 (Development Agreement)
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Webster requested the status on development of the Development Impact
Fees. Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske responded that the fee schedules should be
completed by end of summer and she will provide them to the Commission when
completed.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments at 7:00 PM.
Chris Halquest, representing Costain Homes, urged approval of the project and agreed
with the Conditions of Approval.
R:\PLANCON~4\MINUTES\1996\0617~6.PC 7/31/96
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17. 1996
On a motion made by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Miller the
Negative Declaration and Resolution 96-
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
was approved.
Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
None
Slaven
Planning Application No. PA96-0092 (Variance)
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Staff recommends
approval for three (3) seven-foot (7') on-site signs and denial of one (1) five foot (5')
monument sign facing Ynez Road. Applicant is requesting application for the monument
sign be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments at 7:10 PM.
The applicant expressed concern for poor visibility in the Center making it difficult for
customers to find their destination. Retailers are also concerned that there are not
enough signs on Ynez Road to direct customers to their locations.
Commissioner Miller asked the current sign locations. The applicant responded that
signs are set back at entrances and not very visible.
Joe Scarcella, 40295 Calle Cacita, Scarcellas Restaurant spoke in support of replacing
the existing signs and also in support of a five foot (5') monument sign.
Chairman Fahey closed the Public Comments at 7:24 PM.
Commissioner Webster expressed support for the directional signs but said he feels
there is not enough information to act on the monument sign. He recommended
approval on the interior signs and denial of the monument sign, which should be
brought back before the Commission.
Commissioner Miller agreed and would like to review the sign plan ordinances for the
Center and the comprehensive sign plan for the City, before making a decision.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked when the sign committee would complete development
of sign ordinances. Commissioner Miller responded that it would not be completed
before spring.
Chairman Fahey stated that she could not support a continuation of the sign variance
without more information.
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1996
Associate Planner Fagan stated that if the applicant were to withdraw the variance for
the monument sign the Commissioner could act on the directional signs only at tonight's
meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adopt
Resolution 96- for three (3) 7' high directional signs and to continue the request to construct
a monument sign facing Ynez Road.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
None
Slaven
Planning AnDlication No. PA96-0075 (Development Plan. Fast Track)
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments at 7:41 PM.
Cynthia Davis, 9245 Brown Deer Road, San Diego, representing McMahon/Olphant
Properties & Plant Equipment, stated she would answer any questions.
It was moved by Chairman Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve
Planning Application No. PA96-0075 and to adopt the negative declaration and
resolution.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
1 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
None
Slaven
RECESS.' Chairman Fahey called for a recess at 7:45 PM.
The meeting of the Planning Commission reconvened at 7:50 PM.
R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\l~g6\061796.pC 7/31/96 klb 5
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17. 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan) for Hydroscape
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report and detailed the amended
landscape plan. Staff recommended approval.
Chairman Fahey asked for clarification of the zoning. Senior Planner Meyer responded
that the Commission should focus on the design of construction only, since the
application was submitted prior to the development code adoption.
Commissioner Miller requested the type of material used on the perimeter. Senior
Planner Meyer deferred to the applicant.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments at 8:03 PM.
Russell Rumansoff, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. Mr.
Rumansoff stated that the special constraints of being located in the flood zone
dictated the set back zones. He also commented that additional landscaping had been
added to the front of the property by eliminating 2 parking spots. The material used on
the perimeter treatments is a tilt-up concrete wall. Also the applicant is requesting
reduction of parking spaces from 33 to 30.
Commissioner Miller requested the elevation for the tilt-up wall. Mr. Rumansoff
responded that it would be 8' on one side.
Commissioner Webster asked if the building elevation was included in the Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Rumansoff responded that it is included in the CCR's but he is willing to
include this in the Conditions if requested.
Commissioner Webster asked about the gate locations for the warehouse section.
Archie Humphrys, 5805 Kearny Villa Road, San Diego, representative of Hydro-Scape,
spoke in support of the project and commented that the warehouse doors will be in the
back where pick-up of materials will take place.
David Wakefield, 42346 Rio Nedo, spoke to urge the Commission's approval of this
project.
Mark Telford, 41735 Winchester Road, representing the Winchester Group, spoke in
opposition to the project. He expressed concern with the use of this location due to the
previous zoning and to the visual effect of the solid wall. He also asked who would
regulate elevations of stacking pipe material.
Fred Grimes, 27311 Jefferson Avenue//107, representing Jefferson Creek Limited,
spoke in opposition of the project due to the proposed use and also felt that the
landscaping was not adequate to shield the stacking of materials and the truck traffic
noise.
R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1996\061796.PC 7/31/~6 klb 6
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17. 1996
Mark Esbensen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project and
presented a sight-line study regarding elevations and felt that the screen wall may invite
graffiti.
Commissioner Miller requested clarification of the sight-line study. Mark Esbensen
shared the study with the Commission.
Russell Rumanoff responded to the public comments and reiterated that the applicant
will comply with all elevation requirements, the buildings will be set back making it
impossible to see into the storage locations, the landscaping shall comply with the 25%
requirement, and the truck traffic will only be once or twice per month.
Chairman Fahey closed the Public Comments at 8:58 PM.
Chairman Fahey asked for clarification from Assistant Attorney Weiner on what
elements should be considered on this project. Assistant Attorney Weiner responded
that this area is covered under Riverside County Ordinance//348 and the permitted uses
are garden, supply and hardware, which includes storage and materials. It is consistent
with the General Plan zoning.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern that the usage of this site is not compatible with
the surrounding businesses and could not support this application.
Chairman Fahey stated that the amount of storage is incompatible with the surrounding
uses and stated she could not support this application as requested.
Commissioner Soltysiak spoke in opposition to the application, unless additional
screening was added, and this could be reviewed again.
Commissioner Webster expressed his concern that the amount of storage was allowed
at the time of submittal. He stated that since Ordinance/1348 does not mandate the
percentage of storage, he would support this application.
Chairman Fahey commented that additional landscaping to provide screening could be
re-addressed, but not at tonight's meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to
continue this application to July 15, 1996. The following are conditions set by the
C'ommission to be approved by staff prior to July 15:
Analysis of line of site
Increase the intensity of the landscape
Re-evaluate the elevation of the solid wall
Prepare a detailed plan for the location of the stacking and loading areas
Consider alternative material for the tilt-up wall
Construct the tilt-up wall facing Jefferson Creek forward restricting the
view from the gate
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1996
·
July 15, 1996.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
MANAGERS REPORT
None given.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None given.
Have site line visibility and site visits made by the Planning Department prior to
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
None
Slaven
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the
meeting at 9:20 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held July 1, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho California Water
District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
ITEM #3
1989
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Debbie Ubnosl/d, Planning Manager
August 5, 1996
Beer and Wine Criteria
BACKGROUND
At the July 15, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting, the Community Development Director
committed to bringing additional information on the issue of beer and wine licenses to the Planning
Commission on August 5, 1996. As you are aware, this is a fairly new issue and the Planning
Department has been trying to find criteria which would assist the Commission in making
recommendations to either approve or deny beer and wine licenses. To date, the Department has
not been very successful in finding any criteria.
DISCUSSION
The City of Escondido recently adopted an Alcohol Ordinance which contains some locational,
developmental and operational criteria for beer and wine. I have listed these criteria below in hopes
that they will provide the Commission some assistance determining the issue of "public convenience
or necessity."
Locational Requirements
(1)
On-sale and off-sale establishments shall observe a minimum 600 feet separation between
schools, public parks, and youth centers.
(2)
An exemption from the minimum 600 foot separation shall be extended to restaurants
(including restaurants with separate bar facilities) and off-sale establishments totaling over
15,000 square feet with 10 percent or less of the gross floor area devoted to alcohol sales and
display.
(3)
For the purpose of calculating the distance separation requirements, the distance shall be
measured from the closest exterior wall of any on-sale establishment to the nearest property
line of the surrounding consideration points.
Development and Operational Standards
(1)
The business phone number of all on-sale and off-sale establishments must be listed in the
local telephone directory.
R:XSTAFFRPT\BEERW1NE.PC2 7/30~96 klb
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(li)
(12)
(i3)
(15)
(16)
A public telephone must be located on the premises of on-sale establishments, or, if the
establishment is located within a shopping center, a public telephone must be located in the
center.
Public telephones located on the premises shall not receive incoming calls.
Alcoholic beverage advertising for on-sale and off-sale establishments shall be limited to fifty
percent of window display and ten percent of wall sign area permitted by the Sign Ordinance
and shall comply with all applicable City sign regulations.
Placement of advertising at off-sale establishments shall not obstruct the view from the
exterior of the sales counter. cash register, seller and customer.
Food and non-alcoholic beverages shall be available at drinking places whenever alcoholic
beverages are sold. This provision is not intended to require meal service or full kitchen
facilities.
Alcoholic beverage sales in on-sale and off-sale establishments are prohibited from drive-up
or walk-up windows.
Employees selling alcoholic beverages at off-sale establishments must be at least 18 years
of age. Anyone under 21 years of age selling alcoholic beverages must be under the direct
and continuous supervision of at least one sales person 21 years of age or older.
Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and outside on-sale
and off-sale establishments, and operators of such establishments shall maintain the premises
free of litter, trash and debris at all times.
Drinking places shall provide adequate security as recommended by the Police Department.
Customers under twenty-one (21) years of age dining at an on-sale establishment without a
parent or guardian must leave premises one hour after meal service stops if alcoholic
beverage service continues.
The sale of forti~ed wines (alcohol content greater than 15%) is not permitted at on-sale or
off-sale establishments.
An exemption from the provision restricting the sale of forti~ed wines shall be extended to
naturally fermented or tbrtified wines which are corked and aged for minimum two years.
The sale of malt liquors is not permitted at off-sale establishments.
On-sale establishments shall not sell alcoholic beverages for consumption outside the
building.
An exemption to selling alcohol for consumption outside shall be permitted for restaurants
with outside seating.
R:\STAFFRPT\BEERWINE.PC2 7/30/96 klb
(17) Drinking alcohol shall be prohibited in the parking lot and open areas surrounding the
premises of on-sale and off-sale establishments.
(18) Signs must be posted in a conspicuous place inside and outside on-sale and off-sale
establishments advising patrons that drinking alcohol outside the establishment and drinking
alcohol in public is prohibited, except in City approved areas.
(19) Reasonable steps to discourage loitering in parking areas, sidewalks, alleys and areas
surrounding on-sale and off-sale establishments and adjacent properties must be taken, i.e.
asking persons to leave, calling police, patrolling the area, etc.
(20) Wine and\or wine coolers shall be sold in minimum 750 ml size or four-pack containers.
(21) Distilled spirits shall be sold in minimum 375 ml containers.
(22) Beer shall be sold in minimum six-pack containers. Sale of beer in single containers of 64
ounces or less is prohibited.
(23) An exemption for the sale of micro-brewed beers in less than six-pack quantities and single
containers may be granted. subject to approval of the Chief of Police.
(24) Alcoholic beverage sales in off-sale establishments are prohibited between 12:00 midnight
and 6:00 a.m.
Concurrent Sales of Motor Vehicle Fuel and Alcoholic Beverages
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
No alcoholic beverages shall be displayed within five (5) feet of the cash register or the front
door unless it is in a permanently affixed cooler.
No advertisement of alcoholic beverages shall be displayed at motor fuel islands.
No display or sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made from any ice container.
No self-illuminating advertising for beer and wine shall be located on buildings or windows.
Employees selling alcoholic beverages between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and midnight shall
be at least twenty-one (21) years of age.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff in terms of establishing criteria for the
finding of "public convenience and necessity" for beer and wine sales.
R:\STAFFRPTXBEERWINE.P(2 7/30/96 klb
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
August 5, 1996
Director's Hearing Case Update
The following cases were heard at Planning Director's Hearings in June and July, 1996:
Date Case No. 'Proposal :: Applicant Action
June 27 PA96-0065 Permit the processing of Jack Roripaugh Approved
stockpiled sand for
transport off site
June 27 PA96-0029 Construct a McDonatds McDonald' s Corporation Approved
Restaurant and Indoor
Playland
June 27 PA96-0010 Tentative Parcel Map Temecula Investment Approved
27746, a commercial Company, et al
subdivision of 2.79 acres
into three parcels
July 3 PA96-0056
July 3 PA96-0073
Minor CUP for breeding of
composting earthworms
Development Plan for Arco
AM/PM Mini Market and
self serve gasoline
George Bodlak Approved
Arco Products Company Appreved
July 11 PA96-0063 Minor CUP to construct a Pacific Bell Mobile Approved
60 foot antenna and Services Antenna
wireless communications
facility
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
R:',DIRHEARMMEMO\6-3-96.DH 7/16/96 klb I
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
R:x, DIRHEARMMEMO\6-3-96.DH 7/16/96 klb 2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DrRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 27, 1996 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are iimited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire
to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be f'filed out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA96-0065 [Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Jack Koripaugh
Nicolas Road at the easterly City boundary
Permit the processing of stockpiled sand for transport off site until
existing 50,000 cubic yard inventory is depleted.
Negative Declaration
Stephen Brown
Larry Cooley
Approval
APPROVED
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA96-0029 (Development Plan)
McDonald's Corporation
Northwest corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road
To construct a 2,529 square foot restaurant and an attached 1,288
square foot "Indoor Playland".
Negative Declaration
Stephen Brown
Larry Cooley
Approval
APPROVED
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Kecommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA96-0010 (Tentative Parcel Map
No. 27746)
Temecula Investment Company, et al
Northwest corner of Front and First Streets
A commercial subdivision of 2.79 acres into three (3) parcels with
waiver of the final map.
Categorical Exemption per Section 15315 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
John Pourkazemi, Assistant Engineer
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DIRHEARX. AGENDAX6-27-96.AGN 7/3196 lab
ACTION AGEN'DA
TEM2ECULA DIRECTOR'S FIEARI/qG
SPECIAL M2EETING
JULY 3, 1996 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMF~NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item n_.Ol listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA96-0056 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
George Bodlak
3 1205 Nicolas Road
Breeding ofcomposting earthworms on 869 acres.
Negative Declaration
Steve Brown
Jim Faul
Approval
A/PROVED
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA96-0073 (Development Plan)
Arco Products Company
Southeast corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road
Arco A~M/PM Mini Market convenience store selling
groceries, snack items, and self serve gasoline.
Negative Declaration
Steve Brown
Jim Faul
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOLrI~N1VIENT
R:\DIRI-lEAR'xAGENDA\7-3-96.AGN 7/5/96 klb
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S REARING
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 11, 1996 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC REARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA96-0063 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Pacific Bell Mobile Services Antenna
Southeast comer of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road at
the site of the Rancho California Water District' s water tank.
Construct a 60 foot antenna and unmanned wireless communications
facility.
Negative Declaration
Steve Brown
Mike Boone
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DIRHEAR~AGENDA\7-| 1-96.AGN 7/16/96 vgw
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE: August 5, 1996
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT 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
This item was originally considered at the July 15, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. The
item was continued to allow representatives of the development community to provide their
testimony to the Commission. The July 15, 1996 Staff Report is included. The Resolution has
been modified to reflect the Commission's consideration of this item at tonight's meeting.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
July 15, 1996
TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S
FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
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.PCI 7/10/96 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.
STEP 1. 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
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PCI 7/9/96 dwh 2
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)
(Redhawk ES) $7,551,948
Costs used in
Mitigation Plan
$7,525,844
Facility
Capacity*
660
Middle School
(Vail Ranch MS) 914,404,484 913,569,197 850
High School (Chaparral HS) 937,790,467 $35,785,757 2,100
* - School capacities assume single tracks; 4-track capacities are 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 9675 and
$519, 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.
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(Students per Typical Household)
Survey
Grade Level Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Pre-Kindergarten .33 n/a n/a n/a 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
tToTALII.74I .84.BeI .881.8 1.88 I
I Column and row totals may not add up because of rounding; BOLD numbers are TVUSD's recommended SGF. I
R:\HOGANDXSCHLPLAN.PC1 719196 dwh 3
Grade Level
Pre-Kindergarten
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(Students per Typical Household)
Survey
Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Year 5
.28 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Year 6
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
I Colurnn and row totals may not add up because of rounding; BOLD numbers are TVUSD's recommended SGF.
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
~10,207.11 and ~7,357.31 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 8105 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.
R:~HOGAND~SCHLPLAN.PCI 719/e~ dwh 4
RECOMMENDED PER UNIT SCHOOL FACILITY COST
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT
School Funding Credits
Net Detached Unit Impact
SchooiType
Elementary I Middle I High
$3,341 92,594 94,272
TOTAL
910,207
(9351) (9211) (9432) (9994)
92,990 92,383 93,840 99,213
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT
92,398 92,054 92,905 97,357
School Funding Credits (9253) (9167) (9293) (9713)
Net Attached Unit Impact 92,145 91,887 92,612 ~ 96,644
[Colurnn and row totals may not add up because of rounding,
Future School Bond Fundincl
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 911,000,000will be available locally to build schools.)
However, the conservative (intentionally underestimated) school facility impact 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 965 million to 937 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.
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
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
R:\HOGAND~SCHLPLAN.PC17t5/96 dwh 7
Dr. PamPa B. Novoa~,
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES
IMPACT 1VhTiGATION PLAN
FOR
TEMECULA VALLEY UNHn~
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
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary ........................................... i
L Introduction ............................................ 1
II. City of Temecula Resolution .................................. 2
IlL Optimum Facility U'ttlization .................................. 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 TVUSD .......................... 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 Impact Mitigation Plan .................... 13
A. Overview of Methodology ................................ 13
B. Student Generation Factors ................................ 13
C. Facility 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
Mechanisms Available for New Residential Development to Mitigate School
Facilities Impacts ........................................ 21
Exhibits
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Student Generation Factor Study
School Facility Costs
Executive Summary
This Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan ("Plan") is intended to meet the
requirements winch 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
utiliTation, 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 elementary schools, three middle schools, and two high schools (one regular
education and one continuation ingh 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
Diswict'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. In addition,
credits based on funds to be received by the District as a result of Proposition 203 being
approved by the State voters on March 26, 1996, range from $76 ro $10S per dwelling unit.
'I'he net school facilities costs per dwelling unit are $6,783 to $9,407, depending on the ~'pe 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
January 24, 1996. The maximum school fee of $:~!i~ per square foot provides for
approximately :12i~:~% to ~!~% 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 wffi 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 Planning Commission, to permit sufficient time to negotiate a Mitigation Agreement. In
mitigating a project's school impacts, the Developer and TVUSD may agree to utiliTe one or
more of the following fmancing 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 and TVUSD
TABLE ES-1
NET FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
.School Level --
Land Use Cate2orv Elementary Middle High [ Total*
Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595 $4,272 $10,210
Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51) $(203) $(254)
Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121) $(126)
Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(105) $(2) $0 $(105)
Net Detached Unit School Facility $3,041 $2,423 $3,943 $9,407
Impact
Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7,360
Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40) $(138) $(178)
Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96) $(86) $(323)
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(76) $0 $0 $(76)
Net Attached Unit School Facility $2,183 $1,918 $2,681 $6,783
Impact
* Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
ii
L Introduction
Throughout the State of California, school districts are seeking to fmance the construction of
school facilities required by growing student enrollments. This is also the case in TVIJSD,
where student enrollment has grown 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 financing
(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
sci~ool facilities needs. Even though Proposition 203 a $3.0 billion school bond measure, of
which only $2.025 billion is earmarked for ~-rades K-12, ~vas passed by the voters of California
in March 1996. the estimated backJog 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 insu'ument is constrained 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.
Temcula Valley Unified School District Page 1
City - Residential Facilities Impact MRigailon Plan April 24, 1996
II. City of Ternecula Resolution
On April 11, 1995, the City Council for the City of Temecula (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 TVIJSD 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 TVIJSD fwm 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
Tcmtcula Valley UnO~ed School District Page 2
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigaaon Plan April 24, 1996
111. Optimum Facility Utilization
TVUSD is currently optimizing the use of its existing educational facilities.
classroom resources is being implemented in the following manner:
A. Class Size
Efficient use of
The TVUSD Board of Trustees has adopted a policy to utilize 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
Leading Standards
TVUSD~ [ OPSC2
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
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Office of Local Assistance Applicant Handbook
(The Office of Public School Construction 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 malBtain maximum per pupil square footage standards. The AIA
survey found that California provides the lowest amount 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 Apra 24, 1996
Multi-Track Year Round
Less than 10 percent of all school districts in the State are utilizing multi-track year-round
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 Hawk and Sparkman Elementar-j
Schools, were approved to be phced on a year-round calendar with a four-track plan in
July ~994and ~n~.'.i~~:~::~!~i!~!:~i!i!~i!i~'::::~Zi~!i-fo~rrtraek :plan
in:i!Juty;;~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.
Option
Double Sessions
Relocatables
Year-Round Education
Anti-Year-Round Education
Questions Only
Total Surveyed
TABLE 2
TVUSD SURVEY RESPONSES
Number of
Responses
14
233
405
25
5
682
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 d~partmentalized program are
specialized 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 place all athletes on a track which corresponds to the sport
in which they axe participating. As a result, 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 utilization
of double school sessions as pan of its effort to justify Mitigation Payments in excess of
School Fees presently levied at the amount of $~i!i~ per square foot. Based on the results
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 4
City - Residential Facilities lmpact Mitigation 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.
Teraeeula Valley Unified School DisMet 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 ,~paid by TVUSD. The repayment would come from
TVUSD's general fund, which obtains funding fwm the State, or School Fees. As
a result of dimlnl, ghlng State f'manciai 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 TVTISD 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. g.v~n
though Proposition 203 a $3.0 billion school bond measure, of which only $2.025
billion is earmarked 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. The next statewide school financ~ bond measure can be placed before the
State voters in November 19.96, assuming the State legialature 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 Prog'ram for Chaparral High School. The high school
is scheduled to open for the 1997-98 school year and planned to house 2,094
students.
Temccula Valley UniFied School DidtrOt Page 6
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 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 Temecula and Vail Ranch Middle
Schools are placed on a multi-track year-round calendar, 445 middle school seats
(2,932 + 413 - 2,905 = 445) and 1,118 nigh school seats (2,094 - 976 = 1,118) axe
available for students generated from new development. Apportioning the
$32,500,000 based on the number of seats available for students generated from new
dwelling units, creates 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 venus 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 reckring funds f~m the 1992 bond measures, TVUSD has been very
aggressive in applying for State Progntm funds from Proposition 203, the March
1996 bond measure. The Distria is expec~g to x, eceive 50 percent rehnbun~ments
for 2 elementary schools, Paloma and Pauba Valley m-mentaxy Schools. Paloma
Elementary School opened in July 1995 and huh Valley Elementary School is
planned to be occupied in July 1996. TVIJSD 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 thre~ elementary scJaools ~ above. Similar to the funds received from the
1992. measuxes. a credit for a slate of the State Program funds must be allocated to
new dwelling units. Based on school ~trollme~ ~d capacity for the 1995-96 school
year, assuming each ~lmnentary school has a ~ity of 878 students on a four-track
plan, 1,408 of the 2,634 new el~nentaxy school seats are needed to hous~ students
~ from existing dv~etling units (649 sumdents are currently housed a~ Paloma
Elemenlary School and 759 students are curr~ty unhoused). The remaining 1,226
elemeram'y school seats at= available for students generated from new development.
Apportioning t!~ $11,000,000 based on the"numl~r of seats available for students
generat~ from new dwelling units, creates a credit of $5,119,970 ($t1,000.000 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.
Temecula 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
jurisdictions. 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 dam. The remaining $21,600,000 of unspem
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 high school students generated from new
development in the City and new development in the County. The numbers of
elementary, middle, and high school students projected from new development in the
City are 9,204, 5,802, and 5,826, respectively. The numbers of students by gTade
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 high school level for new development in the City.
As for additional authorization of GO bonds, it is ver~ 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 unilatendly establish redevelopmerit project
areas and because recently approved legislation (AB 1290) limits school district
revenues from redevelopmerit, the availability and mount 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 which may be formed by the local city or
county; the mount of tax increment which 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, this is not a probable source of
future revenues, except as to any existing pass-through agreements.
Currenfiy, 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-
Teraecula 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.
5. 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 f'mancing 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 qnalified electors of such district is required to form the CFD. The qualified
electors are comprised of (i) the registered voters, ff 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 a~mual
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.
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 9
City - Residential Facilities 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
Temeeula Valley UnO~td School District Page !0
CRy - Residential Facaities Irapact Miagati~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 powth
has impacted TVUSD-administration, support, and interim facilities.
The District's central admlnigrration, maintenance, operations, and transportation facilities have
been overcrowded and inadequate for some time. For example, central administration functions
are housed in several buildings, including pottables and trailers. TVUSD estimates that
provision of adequate central admini~ha~on and support facilities will cost approximately S12.1
million. These facilities wi//serve a projected 25,000 students in ten years. The State Program
does not normally fund administration and support facilities.
Due to the inadequacy of existing funding sources for permanent facility construction, TVUSD
is currently utilizing rclocatable/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 District Page 11
City - Residential Factuti, l Impact Mitigaaan 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.
Currently, the City notifies TVUSD 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 formation 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 their activities in
an attempt to avoid costly expenditures that come from lack of coordination amongst government
entities and utilities.
Lastly, Section 65402 of the Governmere 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 rifle 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 fire marshal.
Ternecula Valley UnO~ed School District Page 12
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
VII. Methodology of Facilities Impact Miagation Plan
TVUSD has experienced rapid enrollmere 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 required 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 fmdings 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.
Temecula Valley Unified School Disttia Page 13
City - Residential Facilities Impact Miagation Plan April 24, 1996
C. 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 School District Page 14
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mi~gmion 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 regulax 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 will be occupied by the end of calendar
year 1995.
School Level
Elementary School (K - 5)
Middle School (6 - 8)
High School (9 - 12)
TABLE 3
EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES
CAPACITY AND ENROLL,MENT
1995/96 Total
Capacityt
5,292
2,932
2,253
Total 10,477
1995196
Enrollment~
6,051
2,905
3,229
12,185
Excess Capacity
(Shortage)
(759)
27
(976)
(1,708)
~Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District. TVUSD currently owns two types of
portables/relocatables: permanent and non-permanent. Table 3 includes permanent
portables/relocatables.
2Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Temccula Valley Un~fttd School l~trizt Page 15
City- Residential Facaities 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 VII 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 residevtin! development on TVUSD's student
enrollment, TVUSD 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 TV'tJSD 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 (~i) the
units not being senior citizen housing.
Of the 250 units surveyed, 203 were Detached Units (single family detached). Based on
these surveys, there are 89 elementa~ 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:
TABI,I~, 4
TVUSD S'I'UDEaNT GENERATION RATES
DETACI:fF~D UNITS
l School Level
Elementa~ School
Middle School
Student Generation Rates
0.39
0.24
High School 0.25
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.
Ttmecula Valley UnO~ed School District Page 16
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
TABLE 5
TVUSD STUq3F~NT GENERATION RATES
ATTACHED UNITS
School Level
Elementary School
Middle School
Student Generation Rates
0.28
0.19
High School 0.17
To.-, I
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 full 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 f~'tljties costs or interest costs associated with debt
incurred to fmance 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
Elementary School
Middle School
School Facility Costs
$ 8,572
$10,812
High School $17,090
Temeeula Valley Unified School District Page 17
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
Facility Cost Impacts Per Residential Unit
By multiplying 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:~f~:i:~ credits for each school
level and hnd 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 are shown in Table 9.
The total net school facility cost for a Detached dwelling unit in 1995-96 school year
dollars is therefore $R!~, while the total net school facility cost for an Attached
dwelling unit in 1995-96 school year dollars is $~ii~- To fully mitigate its school
impacts, a residential project must provide funding or facilities equivalent to these
figures.
TABLE 7
GROSS FACII,ITY COSTS BY IAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
Land Use Category
Detached Unit School Facility Impact
Attached Unit School Facility Impact
* Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
· School Level---
F. Jementary ladle Toga.
$3,343 $2,595 $4,272 $10,210
$2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7,360
TABLE 8
CIIF-I~ITS 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
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit
$(2O3)
$(138)
$(126)
$(86)
Total
$(254)
$(178)
$(:,:,:)
$(323)
$(10~
$176)
Temecula Valley Unified School Dis~ict Page 18
City - Residential Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan April 24, 1996
TABLE 9
NET FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
School Level.
Land Use Cateeorv' Elementary Middle
Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595
Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51)
Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121)
Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(105) $0
Net Detached Unit School Facility $3,041 $2,423
Impact
Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054
Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40)
Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96)
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(76) $0
Net Attached Unit School Facility $2,183 $1,918
Impact
* Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
High
$4,272
$(203)
$(126)
$0
$3,943
$2,905
$(138)
$(86)
$0
$2,681
Total*
$10,210
$(254)
$(~d.!)
S(105)
$9,407
$7,360
$(178)
$(323)
$(76)
$6,783
Temecula Valley Unified School District Page 19
City - Residential Faciliaes 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 le~slative
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 IVlitigation
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 ks 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 $~:i7/~t per Attached dwelling unit. Phasing of new facilities shall
be based on current enrollment, existing school capacities, and projected enrollment based on
the proposed development 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, TVUSD must be contacted by the developer at least 120
days prior to review of the project by the City Planning Commission.
Temtcula Vaaey Unified School D~tzia Page 20
City - Residential Facilities Impact M~gation 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 Districtts 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 demographks 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 Valiey Unified School District
2+ AduIts/NC -
3'- AClultS/WC - 5%
Source: School Planning Servlcea.
(Non-age Restricted Housing)
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
Temecul~, Valley Unified School District
With Children
WIthout Children -
(Non-sge RestrICtSO Housing)
Soume: School Planning Service#, ~/94
Figure 2
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
Five~y 8I
Average HH Size · 3,1
Two - ;31~ Four -
Figure 3
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD SIZE
NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Ternecul= Valley Unified School Diatrict
100 %
80 ·I
60 %i
~ Median
40 %
20 %
2.4
Figure 4
4
AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
In surveying the residents of new housing in lemecula, 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 Valley Unified School District
60 and over
Unc~er 30 12%
Median AOe · 36 60-59
18%
30-39
,;t~ 40-49
Figure 5
age of the sample was 36 years. Additionally, the predominant age category,
claiming one-third of the heats of household, was 30-39 years of age.
Respondents aged 60 and over, representing persons of retirement age not living
in age-restricted communities, equalled 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 ccmbined total of 6%.
5
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 0.19 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-I2 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.
6
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
Ternecula Valley Unified 8Ghool DIstrict
Students/New Home
1.00 ,1.00
0.82 0.82 0.83
0.80 - 0.77 0,78 ~ ~ ~ - 0.80
0.60 - - 0.60
0.40 - ~ - 0.40
0.20- -0.20
0.00 0.00
Current Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 8 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-schoolers;
that is, all of the children of pre-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
metded 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 serve as an advanced warning mechanism of
enrollment growth.
8
EXHIBIT B
Temecula Valley Unified School District
School Facility Costs
* , -
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITY COSTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
(ELE1VIENTARY SCHOOL)
A. SITE
NUMBER OF ACRES 10.00
COST PER ACRE $108,796
PLANS
ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS $409,286
OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLh'MNCE PLANS CHECK FEES $32.284
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $2,713
pRELIMINARY TESTS $10,731
OTHER COSTS - ENERGY ANALYSIS $15,817
CONb'I'RUCTION
UTILITY SERVICE
OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
NEW CONSTRUCTION
UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES
OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS
D. TESTS
E. INSPECTIONS
F. FURNH't.;RE & MOVABLE EQUIPMENT
G. CONTINGENCY
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$48,988
$13,446
$230,009
$521,289
$4,348,021
$263,608
$11,708
$1,087,963
$470,831
$5,437,069
$81,343
$72,436
$272,155
$104,047
$7,525,844
MAIOR CONCLUSIONS
NUI~BER OF STUDENTS
YEAR-ROUND CREDIT
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT
732
20.00%
45,394
51.70
$119.78
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $8371
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITY COSTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL FACILITH~S IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
(1VITDDLE SCHOOL)
A. SITE
NUMBER OF ACRES 20.00
COST PER ACRE $108,796
B. PLANS
ARCHITECT'$ FEE FOR PLANS $552,414
OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $52,$41
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $4.759
PRELIMINARY TESTS $5,400
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 EQUIPMENT
G. CONTLNGENCY
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$31,618
$o
$195,293
$1,177,94o
$7,939,286
$o
$355,863
$2,175,926
$641,114
$9,700,000
$142,800
$104,400
$586,710
$218,247
$13,569,197
MA lOR CONCLUSIONS
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
YEAR-ROUND CREDIT
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT
20.00%
79,500
63.35
$122.01
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $10,812.11
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITY COSTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
(I-FGH SCHOOL)
A, SITE
NUMBER OF ACRES 45.00
COST PER ACRE 5108,796
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 $N-,035
PRELIMINARY TESTS $35,000
OTHER COSTS - ENERGY ANALYSIS $92,518
C. CONSTR[JCTION
UTILITY SERVICE
OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE 51TE DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
NEW CONSTRUCTION
UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY 5OURCES
OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS
D, TESTS
E, INSPECTIONS
F. FURNfI'tJRE & MOVABLE EQUIYN. IRNT
G. CONTINGENCY
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$113.020
$296,456
$3,398,414
$1,893,583
$18,742,311
$I,278,181
$1,278,035
$4,895,833
$1,497,007
$27,000,00~
$421,000
$259,000
$1,712,916
$0
$35,785,756
MA. IOR CONCLUSIONS
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
YEAR-ROUND CREDIT
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT
,CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT
2,094
0.00%
2,094
198,945
95.01
$135.72
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $17.089.66
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC 96-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
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 DEVELOPMENT
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
fac'dities 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 large, 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
WHEREAS, the State of Califomia 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 Fac'fiities 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 Corporation v. City of
Fu~LD.j.e,~, 205 Cal. 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 Cal. 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 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
WHEREAS, 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 confined 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, public hearings were conducted on July 15 and August 5, 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 DEVFJ,0PMENT IMPACT OF $9,213 FOR DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND $6,644 FOR ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 5th day of August, 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 5th day of August,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 95-36
RESOLUTION NO. 9S-36
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ crrY
OF TEMECULA APPROV]NG THE SCHOOL FACn.rrY
IMPACT MITIGATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, raphi population growth in __r,~,_t years in the City of Temecula (*City')
has resulted in large increases in the humben of students m~t the Temecula Valley Unified
School District (*District*) is required to educate, and h~ resulted in the n~ to enlarge
existing school f~acilities and construct new f~nties to house the students in accordance with the
policies of the District and standards specified by slate law; and
WB'EREAS, new student impacts on rating school facilities axe due primarily to
residential uses (except senior citizen development); and
WI~,REAS, impacts from commercial and industrial development are less significant
than those of residential devek~pment and are partially offset by the contributions of commercial
and industrial uses toward a strong tax base in the City which supports public services, including
schools; and
WIItREAS, adeq,,~t, school facilities are a benefit to both new development and the
community at large, and are a neoRt~ry component of the City's social and infrastructure
systems; and
WI:[EREAS, the State Legislature has declared that financing the construction of school
facilities is the responsibility of the State of California; and
WIIEREAS, 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'), my establish developer mitigation fees for residential,
commercial and industrial uses, and my embli~h Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
to provide for school plant facilities financing aa 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 pwvide 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
WIIERFAS, school funding sources under current state hws and available funding are
oriented toward the pwvision 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
disadvantaged students; and
Resos~95-36 I
Wm~EAS, the City, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA*),
has the authority to x~-vi~w development proposals for impacts on School Facilities; and
~, pursuant to decim'ons reached in Mira Development CoX~oration v. City of
~u~D_ig~, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (1988), William S.. H~n High School District v. Re;ional
Planning Commission, 226 CaL App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murriem V~lley Unified School
DisU'ict v. County of Rive.alde. 228 C. aL App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting the School Facih'ties
Law of 1986, the City has the authority m condition lgislative a~s including gen~-al plan
amendments, specific plans and nm~.~dm,*nt~ ther~o, and clmuges of zone, if it finds that th~
impacts on school fac~'ties have not been mitigated to a level of in.~igaifir~.ce; and
Wn~REAS, the provision ofa q,,..ty school system to educate the residents of the City
of Temecula is important to the City's future; and
W~EREAS, 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
WlefERRAS, the City Council included language in the Growth Management and Public
Facility FAemem of the General Plan concerning the mitigation of school facility impacts; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is being adopted at the request of the District which has
agreed to indenmify and hold harmless the City from claims resulting from the adoption,
enforcement, or implementation of the Resolution; and
WB'ERY_AS, the Planning Comwlt~ion has considered the Program at its Novembex 7,
1994 meeting and recommends that the Council approve this Resolution; and
W~IRREAS, notice of the propo__~_ resolution was posted at City grail, County LibtarT,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chambe= of Commerce.
NOW, THERE, FORE, TH'E CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI,I,~WS:
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 require a General Plan amendment, zone change,
development agreement, pre-annexation agreement or Specific Plan approval or amendment
shall be reviewed for their potevfial 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 mounts
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 prepared by or
on behalf of the District and approved by the City Council.
ResoaX95-36 2
C. Any of the following shall be considered W be adequate mitigation of school
facility impacts associated with approvals by the City for General Plan amendments, Specific
Ptsais and Specific Plan Amendments, development agreements, pre-annexation agreements and
zone changes:
1. A legally enforceable School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement
("Mitigation Agreement") between the Dist~ct and developer that specifies the exact nature,
mount, process and conditions of mitigation to be provided by the applicant/developer or other
appropriate documenlation.
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 C~QA that the impacts on school
facilities have been mitigated W a level of insignificance.
Section 2. School Faeillty Impact Mitigation Plans
A. Any school district locaUd partly or totally w~thln the City may prepare and
submit a School F.t~n_~ Impact Mitigation Plan to the City to address the impacts on school
facilities which may z~sult from new r~'j'_'dential development projects within that district. The
City shall review and may consider, at its sole discxetion, approving a proposed Mitigation Plan
if the Plan adequately addresses the impacts re.suiting from increases in the number of students
within the school district submitting the Mitigation Plan.
B. The foliowing development projects shall be exempt from the requirements of an
approved Mitigation Plan. These projects shall be required to 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 previnusly agreed to by the Distxict and the owner/developer of
the proposed development project:
1. Residential projects which have been approved by a hearing body (Planning
Commission or City Council) prior to the effective date of this Resolution.
2. "Quasi-judicial' land use approvals, including but not limited to
subdivision maps, use pertnits, 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 already mitigated school facility impacts).
5. Senior citizen housing as defined in Government Code Section 65995.1 (a).
6. Any residevtiM development proposal for which a Mitigation Agreement
has already been executed between the developer and the Dislfict.
P4so~95o36 3
7. Any or all changes of zone needed to malz the C)ffiei=! City Zoning Map
consistent with the T ~nd Use Designations contained in the City's fixst adopted General Plan as
required by Government Code Section 65860, as it now exists or may be amended from time
to time, of the Sta~ Planning and Zoning Law.
8. Any amendments to a le_~ dnfively ,u/vn,ved land use entitlement (including
a general plan amendment, zone change, development agxeenent, pre-annexation agreement,
specific plan approval or amendment) that does not increase the total number of residential
housing units within the area of the entitlement.
Section 3. Preparation of School Fs,-mty l'ml}aCt Mitigation Plans
A. The Mitigation Plan shall conlain documentation of the n__~ed for any level of
mitigation that exceeds the total of revenue anticipated to be rec~v~ by the District from
Statutory School Fees authorized by Government Code Section 65995, as it now exists or may
be mended from time to time, and any other sources of funding available to or anticipated by
the District. The Mitigation Plan shall be adopted by the District Board of Trustees. At a
minimum, all Mitigation Plans shall certain the following informntion:
1. Student Generation Factors,
a. The District Student Generation Factor (SGF) shall be based-upon
a household survey. The SGF shall include peak student loading for all elementary, middle and
high school grades.
The SGF Household Survey shnll be based upon 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 repre,~ntative 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 ached, or multi-family rental properties and.
mobile homes).
(5) The SGF shall be based on an assessment of student "pass
through" from new homes over at least a five-year period.
c. The District and any other interested party my propose additional
survey factors and conditions to be included 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.
4
2. Typical School Land Cost Facton
a. The Typical School t ~-d Cosu Factor CI'SF) shall be based on the
Sta~'s standard cost and shall be based upon a fwi~hed and improved, consn'uction n:ady school
site, including the extension of nec,.~ry infrastructure.
b. Development of school sites shall be based on California
Department of Education standards for infrastructure, loc~fion, and acreage.
c. School construction costs shall be as authorized by the State Offic~
of Local Assistance (OLA), or as requital by local and ,~=te_ codes.
d. All costs for plans, test, inspections, furniture and equipment, and
contingencies shall be in accordance with OLA requirements.
3. Optimum Facility UtiliT~tion
a. This District shall demonstra~, in the Mitigation Plan, optimum
utiliTxition of its facilities.
b. The Mitigation Plan ~h~il include consideration of a year-wund,
multi-track education program, double school ?_s_,'ions, and alternative 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 Disuict has used, or committed for use, all its av=ilnhle funding sources.
b. The District shall certify, and provide supporting evidence in the
Mitigation Plan that the District is pursuing state and alternate facilities financing.
c. If the District is not pursuing, or does not anticipate pursuing
alternate financing, it shnll 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 districts.
5. Central Administration and Support Facilities and Interim Facilities
The Disuict shall have thc opportunity, through the Mitigation plan~ to
present an argument justifying mitigation for impacts on adm½nigtration and support facilities arid
interim facilities. The justification shall include information on slaffmg, work loads, and other
data to demonsWam that the District is ,ring its aClminix~/aliVC flirtcling in a Ilialiner which
maximizes productivity and minimizes costs. In addition, if the District elects to present this
justification, the Mitigation Plan ~hall demonsu~ that the mitigation requested is proportional
to the impacts directly araibutable to new development.
6. Level of Sur~port From New Development
The Mitigation Plan may provide for total mitigation of school facilities
impacts that are shown to result fxom 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 Plnnning Review for School Site Development.
The Mitigation Plan shal/include provisions for consultations between the
District, the City, and/or the appl~cant 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, inciuding streets, sidew'alle% and traffic control
mechanisms.
B. The District shall submit its adopted Mitigation Plan to the City for its review and
approval as to whether it codore to these requirements and will reasonably and equitably
mitigate, in the best interest of the City and its residents, the additional impacts 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 submilZal shah 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 Phnuing shall review the plan to detm'ruine whether it conforms to the requirements.
of this Section. The Planning Director Sh~ll inform the Building Industry Association for
Riverside County of its receipt of the District's Mitigation Plan, and invite them to provide
written comments or objections. After reviewing the Mitigation Plan, the Director shall take
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 District that the
District's Mitigation Plan does not conform to the requirements of this Section and describing
the deficiencies that need to be corrected. Any major changes in the District's Mitigation Plan
must be approved by the District's Board of Trusf__~__.
3. Within 60 days following the Director of Planning's notification of the
completeness of the District's Mitigation Plan, the Planning Commission shall review and
Rs,o~95-36 6
consider the plan to determine whether it conforms to the x'equirements of mi~ Section and will
reasonably mitigate th~ impacts of new development on school facilities. After considering the
Mitigation Plan, the Commission shall recommend that the City Council approve, deny,
condition, or conlinun the approval of the District's Mitigation Plan.
4. Within 30 days following the Planning Commission's recommendation on
the District's Mitigation plan, the City Council shall review and consider the Plan to determine
whether it conforms to the requkvements of this Section and will x~k~onably and equitably, in the
best interests of the City and its residents, mitiga~ the impacts of new development on school
facilities. After considering the Mitigation Plan, the Council shall approve, deny, condition,
modify, or continue consideration of the District's Mitigation Plan.
C. Upon approval of the City Council, the Mitigation Plan shall thernf~r be
regarded as the b~i~ for the identification by the District of specific impacts attributable to
individual residevli~l development propo~k, and mitigation measures which may be appropriate
to eliminate or reduce to a level of in~ignifiC'nnce the impacts attributable W such residential
development propo~l~ The City shall not adopt any findintuit| mitigation in exce.~ 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 permilIed by S~, hw.
D. The Distri_~ may request, or the City Council my 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 Resido~lnl Projects
A. For all residev~l projects, the Director of Phnning shatl notify the District, by
means of written notice, as to any proposed development located within said Dislrict prior to the
first Development Review Committee meeting.
i. 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 pmliminazy site or development plan; and,
e. The dale of the DRC meeting.
2. The District shall provide w~tm comments on any pwject subinitial for
their review and comment prior to the date of the Development Review Committee meeting.
3. The failure of the District to provide a writm response to the Dirmor of
P,~sos~95-36 7
Planning shal] constitute the equivalent of "No Comment,* In ,h~ case, the City ~ require
only the State rn~,~A-~ school impact rnitiradon fees autho~_zed by Government Code Section
65995, as it now exists or may be amended from time to time.
B. All re,~denfial development propo~ls that do not require a General Phn
amendment, zone change, development agreement, p~e-annexation agn~ment, or Specific Phn
approval or amendment by the City shall be x~L-wed for their potential impact on school
facilities as part of the Initial Environmental Study process. Nothing in thi~ resolution restricts
the ability of the Director of Planning to detmnine th=t an otherwise exempt residential project
may have a significant impact on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Report
should be prepared. No mitigation of school impacts beyond the mitigation identified in State
law will be required for these projects.
C. All residential development proposals that require General Plan amendments,
Specific Plans, Specific Plan amendments, development agreements, pre-annexation agreements,
and changes of zone shall be reviewed for their potential impact on school facilities and the
environment and the mitigation of those impacts in accordance with the requirements of State
and Local law.
1. If a School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement is required and an
Agreement has not been submitted, the Director of Planning shall notify the applicant that the
application is incomplete and that additional informalion (i.e. special study or envin~nmental
impact report) is required 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 Direcwr of Planning
shall notify the applicant that either:
a. The proposed development projea 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 pwposed 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 re'port is required.
c. The proposed 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 pwject 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 pz~-~red 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 spe~! study or an environmental
Re,~95-36 ~
impact report must be prepared.
3. If the applicant and/or developer di~.-~-ees with the Director's
deten'ninafion of the pwject's poumtial impact on the environment or the District's school
facilities, they may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days of
receipt of the Director's dention. The appeal shall be made and filed in accordance with
the requirements of the planning Comwi~qlon.
4. Within 30 days of filing an appeal of the Director's decision, the Direcwr
of Planning shall schedule the appeal for the planning Commission's consideration.
5. If the applicant, developer, or District disagrees wiffi the Phnning
Comrnission's determination of ~e project's potentis/impact on the environment or theDistrict's
school facilities, they ihay appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days of
receipt of the Commission's determination. The appeal shall be made and filed in accordance
with the requirements of the City Clerk.
6. Within 30 days of JillnE an appeal of the p!=nnlng Commis~ion's action
the City Clerk sh.ll schedule the appeal for the City Council's consideration. The City Council's
decisions on ~e~ marmrs shall be final.
D. The evidence of adequate mitigation of any signLficant adverse impacts on the
District's school facilities shall be established by a Mitigation Agreement. The terms of the
Mitigation Agreement, sh~ll be incorporated by rderence in the conditions of CEQA Approval,
and on the Conditions of Approval of any Specific Plan, the Resolution of Appwval of any
general plan amendment, and in the terms of any development or pre-annexafion agreement.
Section 5. Implementation of thk Resolution
A. Nothing ~ this Resolution shall be interpreted as limiting or restricting the ability
of the Director of Platruing, Planning Commission, or Council to require additional information
or special studies on any residev"~l projects submitted to the City for appwval.
B. It is the intent of the Council that this Resolution be in force and effect until
mended, rescinded, suspended, superseded or until a subsequent resolution or ordinance is
enacted which supersedes this 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 within the limits of the City.of.
Temecula. It is agreed that should any claim, action, challenge, or siwil~r proceeding be
instituted against the City for the adoption, imposition, or calculation of the school mitigation
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 harmless the
City against any loss, cost, expense, claim, damage, settlement, or judgment, resulting from a
lawsuit or any part thereof pertaining to this Resolution.
Res~95-36 9
D. This Resolution shall not become effective unless and until the District
acknowledges, in writing, and takes any and all appropriate Board action related to its
obligations as set forth in this Section.
Section 6. Certification. Th~ City C/n'k shsll c~ the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVk'T}, AND ADOPTED this llth day of April, 1995.
ATTEST:
· Stone, Mayor
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAT-II~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF 'H:MECULA
I ~rEu~.ny CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopUxl 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 vot~ of the City Council:
AYES: 3 COUNCrr-M]EMBERS: Lindemans, Roberrs, Stone
NOES: 0 COI/NCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUN~MBE~S: None
ABSTAINED: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks
Resos%9~-36 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
REVIEW OF PROPOSED TVUSD SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEE
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN,PCI 715196 dwh 13
J
J
J
_]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
:]
]
]
Review of Proposed TI~USD School Impact Mitigation Fees
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
A. Summary of Methodology
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Appendix A
Table A-1
Table A-2
Analysis of Proposed Fees
1. Facility Cost
2. School Capacity
3. Students per Dwelling Unit (Student
Generation Factors)
4. Funds Available from Other Sources
Recommendations
I. Technical Corrections
2. Policy Issues
1
4
5
5
7
9
12
14
LIST OF TABLES
Facility Costs
OPSC Standards - Square Footage per Student
School Capacity
Student Generation Factors for New. Single
Family Detached Dwelling Units
Student Generation Factors for New Single
Family Attached Dwelling Units
Current Student Generation Factors
P, ecalculated Mitigation Fees Using Corrected
Student Space Allocation
Breakdown of School Development Costs
Recalculation of Mitigation Fees
14
15
10
10
11
15
A-1
A-2
December 14, 1995 DavidM. GriJg~th & .4ssociate$ Page i
_1
_]
,3
]
]
]
]
j
'!
'!
:'1
Review of Proposed TFUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y
David M. Griffith & Associates ('DMG) was engaged by the City of Temecula to review mitiga-
lion fees proposed in the Temecula Valley Unified School District Impact Mitigation Plan. Our
review focused on four factors thataffect 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
mount 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-
lion 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 ~ Griffith & Associates Page I
.3
]
]
]
]
Review o/Proposed TFUSD School Impact Miti~,ation Fees
3. Student Generation Factor& Our review of student generation factors (SGFs) used to calcu-
late TVUSD's proposed mitigation fees shows that the methods used to derive them are techni-
cally supportable. We note, how=ver, that the projected SGFs would be valid only for the
projection p~riod, and may vary in either direction thereafter. 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. FundsAvailable 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 corn-
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 seems
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 availability of future funding fi-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
a result, some policy judgment must be applied to the choice of these factors. A
detailed discussion of the factors is contained in the attached report.
December 14, 1995 Dcn,id M. Griffith & .-tssociates Page 2
]
]
J
J
]
J
J
Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact A,fitigation 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
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]vl. Grif~th & .4ssociates Page 3
Review of Proposed TFUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
REVIEW OF PROPOSED
TVUSD SCHOOL IMPACT
MITIGATION FEES
David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) was engaged by the City of Temecula to review school
mitigation fees proposed by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). 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-
tion 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 ~X,I. GriJ)Tth & .-lssociates Page 4
_]
]
Review o[ 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 ~'om each of the first two steps is used in the subsequent step.
(3)
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
]
]
]
]
]
3
]
]
]
]
]
Four variables are used in these formulas: (I) 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. ANALYS~ OF PROPOSEDFEES
The methodology, data and assumptions used at each stage of the fee calculations are evaluated
below.
1. 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 TVU'SD projects approved by OPSC.
December 14, 1995 Davidit/. Griffith & .4ssociates Page 5
Review of Proposed 77/USD School Impact Mitigation Fees
Table 1
Facility Costs
Cost Elementary Middle
Component School School
Site Acquisition ~ 1,087,963: 2,175,9263
Plans/Compliance 470,83 1 64 1, 114
Construction 5,347,069 9,700,000
Testing/Inspection 153,779 247,200
Furniture/Equipment 272, 155 586,710
Contingency 104,047 218,247
Totals $7,525,844 $13,569,197
Total Square Footage 45,394 79,500
Total Cort/Sq. Ft. (TVUSD) $165.79 $170.68
Total Cost/Sq. Ft. (OPSC) $190.50 s $186.02 6
Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. (TVUSD) $119.78 $122.01
Construction Cost/Sq. FL (OPSC) $119.50 ~ $121.89 6
Source: TVUSD Impact Mitigation Plan and SAB-approved project budgets.
I Estnnated site cost = $108,796.30 per acre.
: Assumes 10..acre site. 3 Assumes 20-acro site. 4 Assumes 45-acre site.
5 Includes 10% escalation from 1990 construction cost of:$108.64 and total cost of $173.21.
6 Based on SAB approved budgets for actual TVUSD projects.
High
School
4,895,8334
1,487,007
27,000,000
680,000
1,712,916
0
$35,785,756
198,945
$179.88
$192.33 6
$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 Vait 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 ~X,l. 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.
Z 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
amount of space.
Table 2
OPSC Standards - Square Footage per Student
Elementary Jr. High Middle High
Component School (K-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 Construction
I Middle school standard equals 1/3 K-6 grade standard plus .2/3 7-8 grade standard.
2 High school standard as shown is tbr total of 2100 studants.
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
Decetnber 14, 199.$
Dayid Ol. Gri. ffith & .tssociates
Page 7
Review of Proposed TFUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
prototype schools for both nine-month and year round schedules, using the OPSC space alloca-
lion 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)m
Square Feet per Student (Year Round)
TVUSD 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 High
School (K-6) School (6-8) School
45,394 Sq Ft 79,500 Sq Ft 198,945 Sq Ft
62.0 Sq Ft 76.0 Sq Ft 95.0 Sq Ft
732 Students 1,046 Students 2,094 Students
878 Students 1,255 Students N/A
51.7 Sq Ft 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 adjustment ba.~d 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
(1 I% 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°/0 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, 199.$ David M. Grij~th & Associates Page 8
't
]
]
]
]
Review of Proposed TI/USD School Impact Mitigation Fees
Our conclusion regarding school capacity estimates is that the mitigation fees are based on square
footage net student space allocations that exceed OPSC maidelines, The effect is to understate
school capacity and overstate the cost per student. Later in this report. the fees are recalculated
using the OPSC capacity ~uidelines.
3. Students per l)welling 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-
titular grade level produced by one dwelling unit era 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 of chit-
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-
tor for each grade level in the tables have been added by DMG.
December 14, 1993 David ~[, Gri~hh & .4ssociates Page 9
-!
-i
-1
1
Review of Proposed D'USD School Impact Miti.~ation Fees
Table 4
Student Generation Factors for New Single Family Detached Dwelling Units
Grade Survey Year Year Year
Level Year 2 3 4
Pre-K 0.33 N/A 'N/A N/A
K-5 0.44 0.48 0.46 0.45
6-8 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.20,
9-12 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.23
Totals 0.74 0.84 0.85 0.88
Year Year Peak
5 6 Values Mean
N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.41 0.39 0.48 0:44
0.22 0.24 0.24 0.21
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20
0.88 [ 0.88 0.97 0~85
Source: School Plaratmg Services, 1994. Peak values and mean added by DMG.
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
5
N/A
0.32
0.17
0.11
0.60
Year
6 Peak Mean
N/A N/A N/A
0.29 0.34 . 0.31
0.19 0,19 0.14
0.17 0.17 0.08
0.64 0.70 0.53
Source: School Planning Services, 1994. Peak values m~d 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 A~ Gri. ffi th & .4ssociates Page 10
I
I
]
I
i
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Review of Proposed TI, TJSD School Imvact Mitigation Fees
the City, but TVUSD enrollment figures do not distinguish consistently between City residents
and residents of unincorporated 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 (!995)
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: TVUSD
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 I0%.
December14,1995
David jX~12 Grif~th & .q~'ociates
Page I 1
l
:i
l
:1
]
3
:1
'l
Review of Proposed TFUSD School Impact Miagation Fees
Another important consideration is that student generation factors change significan~y during the
projection p~riod, and may continue to change in either direction thereafter. It does se~ms 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-
trict. 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 regarding student ~eneration factors is that the survey results are valid only for
the projection period, and indicate that SGFs for middle and hic,h school may decline after a few
years. TVUSD estimates of current student generation rates indicate that the factors for used in
the mitic,ation plan for attached units may be too high by a significant marvin. Use of peak year
factors to proiect 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 bu)lding 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 M. Gr~th & Associates
Page 12
-1
-I
!
!
!
]
]
]
]
-]
]
1
]
]
Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
a. State School Building Program. The mitigation plan assumes that no additional funds will be
available from this source for any facilities that have not already been funded. Unexpended 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 amount
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 Obligation 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 milli on, approximately $14 millio n, 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 com-
mitted to repay bonds issued to construct a maintenance, operations and transportation facility.
The mitigation fees do not include the cost of ~uch 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 ~I. Griffith & .~ssoc~ates
Page 13
J
J
-I
_!
J
!
!
]
!
]
]
]
]
]
*:)
:1
:l
:::]
Review of Proposed TVUSD School lntpact Mitigation 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 $100,000 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 District's 11,400 students are on work-related transfers. The
number of students transferring out of the District at present is 28.
Our conclusion re~arding the District's assumptions on future availability of other funds is that
they are ~,enerally 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 estimating when. or to what extent
such fundlint might be available. but the Citv Council should consider that validity of this policy
judament.
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 should be considered by the City.
1. Technical Correction~ The proposed mitigation fees are based on per-student space alloca-
tions 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 It,,r. Gri~th &,4ssociates
Page 14
Review o, f Prol~osed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fees
Table 7
Recaiculated Mitigation Fees Using Corrected Student Space Allocation
Fee Elementary Middle
Type School School
Single-family Detached '
Fees from Mitigation Plan 1 $3,311 $2,853
Fees Recalculated by DMG $3.095 52.383
Single-Family Attached
Fees from Mitigation Plan ~ $2,377 $2,259
Fees Recalculated by DMG $2,221 $1.887
High
School Total
$3,828 $9,993
$3,840 $9,318
$2,603 $7,239
$2,612 $6,720
See Table 9. TVUSD/rapact Mitigation Plan
2. Policy lssues~ 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 of 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 future 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.
1
1
December 14, 1995
David ,~Z Griffith & .4ssociates
Page 15
-.I
i
APPENDIX A
]
]
J
!
!
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
APPENDIX A
Table A-I. Breakdown of TVUSD School Development Costs
ACTUAL COSTS (SAB-APPROVED BUDGET)
Redhawk E.S. (19g0)
Site Acres 11.95
Bldg SQFt 43.600
Item Units Cost Unit Cost
A. Site Acres $1,945,000 $162,762
B. Plans Sq Ft $ 410,820 $ 9.42
C. Construction [1] Sq Ft $ 4,736,626 $ 108.64
D. Tests Sq Ft $ 79,900 $ 1.83
E. Inspection Sq Ft $ 72,000 $ 1.65
F. Fumiture/Equipm Sq Ft $ 258,396 $ 5.93
Subtotal A. thru F Sq Ft $ 7,502,742 $ t72.08
G. Contingencies Sq Ft $ 49,206 $ 1.13
Tc:al [2] Sq Ft $ 7,551,948 $ 173.21
Item
A, Site
B. Plans
C. Construction
D. Tests
E. inspection
F, Fumiture/Equipm
Subtotal A. thru F.
G, Contingencies
Total
Vail Ranch M.S. (1993) Chapparal H.S. (1994)
Site Acres 21.62 Site Acres 50.00
Bldg SQFt 77,437 Bldg Scl Ft 196,490
Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost
$ 3,223,500 $149,098 $ 7,505,200 $150,104
$ 675,651 $ 8.73 $ 1,489,830 $ 7.58
$ 9,439,110 $ 121.89 $26,630,004 $ 135.53
$ 134,274 $ 1.73 $ 410,907 $ 2.09
$ 100,850 $ 1.30 $ 264,811 $ 1.35
$ 620,913 $ 8.02 $ 935,704 $ 4.76
$14,194,298 $ 183.30 $37,236,546 $ 189.51
$ 210,186 $ 2.71 $ 553,921 $ 2.82
$14,404,484 $ 186.02 $37,790,467 $ 192.33
[1] Includes separate funding for special e~ucation classrooms (Veil Ranch and Chaparral)
[2] Does not include Dist~ct funded costs in excess of state-approved project budget for 50/50 match.
PROJECTED COSTS FROM MITIGATION PLAN
Elementary School Middle School High School
Site Acres 10.00 Site Acres 20.00 Site Acres 45.00
Bldg Scl Ft 45,394 Bldg Sq Ft 79,500 Bldg SQFt 198,945
Units Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost
Acres $1,087,963 $108,796 $ 2,175,926 $108,796 $ 4,895,834 $108,796
Sq Ft $ 470,831 $ 10.37 $ 641,114 $ 8.06 $ 1,497,007 $ 7.52
Sq Ft $5,437,069 $ 119.78 $ 9,700,000 $ 122.01 $27,000,000 $ 135.72
Sq Ft $ 81,343 $ 1.79 $ 142,800 $ 1.80 $ 421,000 $ 2.12
Sq Ft $ 72,436 $ 1.60 $ 104,400 $ 1.31 $ 259,000 $ 1.30
Sq Ft $ 272,155 $ 6.00 $ 586,710 $ 7.38 $ 1,712,916 $ 8.61
Sq Ft $ 7,421,797 $ 163.50 $13,350,950 $ 167.94 $35,785,757 $ 179.88
Sq Ft $ 104,047 $ 2.29 $ 218,247 $ 2.75 $ $
Sq Ft $ 7,525,844 $ 165.79 $13,569,197 $ 170.68 $35,785,757 $ 179.88
Page A-1
APPENDIX A
Table A-2. RECALCULATION OF MITIGATION FEE6
Mitigation Fees Based on Actual Costs
Facility Costs
Facility Cost per Square Foot [1] $ 173.21
Square Feet per Student (Normal Schedule) 62.00
Adjustment for Year Round Schedule 20%
Adjusted Square Feet per Student (Sq. FL / 1.2) 51.67
FadlitY Cost per Student $ 8,949.17
6-8 9-12
$ 186.02 $ 192.33
76.00 95.00
20% N/A
63.33 95.00
$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 per Dwelling Unit $ 2,328.77 $ 2,071.39 $ 2,813.09 $ 7,213.26
Mitigation Fees Based on Projected Costs from Mitigation Plan
Facility Costs K-5 6-8 9-12
Facility Cost per Square Foot [1] $ 165.79 $ 170.68 $ 179.88
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
Facility Cost perStudent $ 8,565.79 $10,809.84 $17,088.38
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
Net Mitigat!on Fee per Dwelling Unit $ 3,094.66 $ 2,383.36
Totals
9-12 Totals
0.25 0.88
4,272.09 $10,207.11
432.00 $ 889.00
3,840.09 $ 9,318.11
{
Mitigation Fee - Single Family Attached (SFA)
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 Mitigation Fee per Dwelling Unit .,$ 2,221.42 $ 1,886.87
Page A-2
[1] See Table A-1.
9-t 2 Totsis
0.17 0.64
$ 2,905.02 $ 7,357.31
$ 293.00 $ 637.00
$ 2,612.02 $ 6,720.31
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
RESULTS OF SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT MODELING
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLA/q. PCI 7/5/96 dwh 14
RESULTS OF
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT MODELING
April 3, 1996
Prepared by:
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
O
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 simuhtion; it is not based upon, nor intended to predict,
specific developments or their impacts on school facilities.
HOW THE 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 ASSUMFrIONS:
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 not 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 construction 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 10, 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 $11
million in Proposition 203 funds. For modeling purposes, it is assumed that these funds
will arrive in three annual installments. According to the District, these funds am
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\IMODBL. MMO 4~3~96 dwh 2
DESCRIPTION OF ~ 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 agoroved increase for all residential development
agoroved after mid-1996. The Disttict's proposed $9,318 per unit fee has been
convened 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.
CUMULATIVE
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)
TABLE 2
SUMMARY
OF THE ANNUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND FUNDING AS $1.54 PER SQUARE FO:,T W~T--
AN INCREASE TO $1.84 FOR APPLICABLE HOMES APPROVED PROM NOW ON.
BEGINNING OF YEAR BOND FUNDS/
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION
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.e44 $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 $7,834,600
5 1999-00 $1,833.637 $7,525,844 $4.167,600
6 2000-01 ($1,524,607) $35,785,757 $4.167,600
7 2001-02 ($33,142.764) $21.095,041 54.167.600
8 2002-03 ($50,070.205) $7.525,844 $4.167.600
9 2003-04 ($53.428,449) $0 $4,167.600
10 2004-05 ($49.260.849) $7,525.844 $4,167.600
11 2005-06 ($52.619,093) $0 $4,167,600
12 2006-07 ($48,451,493) $21.095.041 $4.167,600
R:\SCHOOLS\IMODEL.MMO 45196 dwh 4
TABT-F 3
SUMMARY
OF THE ANNUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCT]ON COSTS AND FUNDING AS $1.64 PER SQUARE FCCT WTTF
AN INCREASE TO $5 14 FOR APPLICABLE HOMES APPROVED FROM NOW ON.
BEGINNING OF YEAR BOND =UNDS,'
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE CONSTRUCTION M[TIGAT]ON
SCHOOL YEAR SURPLUS/(DEF~Cf/~ FUNDS NEEDED FEES PAID
BEFORE 1995-96 $28.812.000 $24,675.000 I[NCLUDED]
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 S7.834.600
4 1998-99 ($6,000.963) $0 $7.834.600
5 1999-00 $1,833,637 $7.525.844 $4,167.600
6 2000-01 ($1.524.607) $35.785,757 $6.036.225
7 2001-02 ($31.274,139) $21.095,0~1 $7.904,850
8 2002-03 ($44,464.330) $7.525.844 $7.904.650
9 2003-04 ($44.085,324) $0 $7,904.850
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
END OF Y-'A~
CUMULA'rVE
=UN2 BALANCE
S,; 137DCC
($575.122)
($6.309.7191
(56,000.963)
$1,633.637
($1.524.607}
($31.274.139)
($44.464,330)
($44.086.324!
($36.180,474)
($35.801.468)
($26.027.993)
($37,349.559)
ITEM #6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
August 5, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan) - Design and
construction of a 9,994 square foot office/warehouse building and a 28,200
square foot outdoor storage area.
Prepared by: Stephen Brown Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends
Commission:
the Planning
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA96-0008;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0008;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving 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.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 15, 1996. The
Resolution from the July 15, 1996 Staff Report has been modified to reflect the continuance
action taken by the Commission.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 2
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 15, 1996 - Blue Page 3
R:XSTAFFRFIn, SPA96.FC4 7130196 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC4 7/30/96 klb 2
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 filed Harming 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, June 17, 1996, and July 15, 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 August 5, 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, 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. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0008 makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances to include: Ordinance 348(Zoning Code), Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
R:\STAFFRPTXSPA96.PC3 7/31/96 slb
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. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula 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
part hereof.
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC3 7/31/96 slb
Section ~. 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:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPTX8PA96.PC3 7/31/96 fib
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
JULY 15, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.FC4 7/30/96 klb 3
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;
Z. 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:~STAFFRP'BSpA96.PC3 7/10/96 sro 1
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 Oooosition
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:XSTAFFRPT~gpA96.pC3 7/10/~(~ 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 rec~uirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: Ordinance 348, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt.
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.
R:~STAFFRPT~SPAg~.PC3 7/10/96 slb 4
m
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:
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:\STAFFRlq~SPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA~6-0008 (DEVEIX)PMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT A 9,994 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, AND
WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.75
ACRF. q LOCATED AT 41581 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH
AND KNOVVN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-281-026
AND 909-281-028
WB~REAS, Robert Tigilo filed 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 hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public heating, 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. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0008 makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances to include: Ordinance 348(Zoning Code), Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
R:\STAFFRFrXgpA%.PC3 71101% slb 7
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:XSTAFFRIri~SPA96.PC3 7/10/96 fib ~
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:L~TAFFRIr~BPA96.PC2 7/9/96 si 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 (49) 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 et 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:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slb 1 I
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.
t4. 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:\$TAFFRF'BSpA96.I~t 7/10/96 slb 12
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
19.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
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 refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
25.
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.
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 applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code
30. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting 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 c~lcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
38. Provide disabled access from the public way.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
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 irrigation 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:\STAFFRlri~SPA96.PC3 7110/~6 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 a't 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:~'TAFFRFI~SPA96.PC3 7/10/~ db 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:\STAFFRFI~gPA96.PC3 7/10/96 slim 17
ss r 90 {9091 694-6444 · F~x (9091 694-1999
April 17, 1996
TO:
ATrN:
lIE:
PrANNING DEPARTM2F2qT
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 fu'e protection standards:
The fn'e Department is required to set a minimum fn'e flow for the remodel or
construction of all commemial 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 requixed fife 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, co/~talning a Fire
Department approval signature block~ and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fn'e 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 phced 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 fn'e alarm system. Plans shall 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 fire 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 fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2AIOBC. 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 altoproved by the fire 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.
Laura Cabral
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
PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0008
1. 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.
2. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency.
h)
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
Caiifomia 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:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· HaTardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste reduction management.
CH:ar
(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 db 21
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
10.
Project Title: Planning Application No. 96-0008 (Development Plan)
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Temecula
43714 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Person and Phone Number:
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\gPA96.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) ha~ 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
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project.
Stephen Brown, REA Project Planner
Januarv 23.1996
Date
R:\STAFFRPT~gPA96.PC2 6112196 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 iml~acts 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. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1, F4-2, p.
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, 19.7-6)
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
Unless
Mitigart,on
IncorporaTed
X
X
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\I~PA96.PC2 6112196 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? ( )
4, WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and mount of surface runoff? ( )
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)
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? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ( )
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
( )
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
Potentialiy
Significant
Irapat1
Less Than
X
X
X
NO
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:/STAFFRPT\aPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 26
s
s
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, pgl 7.24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( )
Conflicts with adol~ted 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
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA~6.PC2 6112196 sFo 27
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b. Use non-renewal resources ill a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c. 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. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, bdt not
limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemical or
radiation)? ( )
b. 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 protection? ( )
b. Police protection? ( )
c. Schools? ( )
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
R:\STAFFRPT\gPA96.pC2 6/12/96 slb 28
Less Than
Significant
impact
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
SIgnificant M~t~gation S~gnificant 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? ( )
b. Communications systems? ( )
c. Local or regional water treatment or
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 highway?
( )
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 physi_cal 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
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\aPA96.PC2 6112/% slb 29
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mit~gauon 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 periods 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? ("Cumulativety 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, 6/12/96 slb 30
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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 Temecuta 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
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.
Pooulation and Housino
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
topogr_aphy, 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 6/12/96 slb 32
Water
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the ra~e
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 100-year flood plan. To mitigate any
potential impacts, a buildings will be required to be build above the flood elevation.
4.0.
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 tess 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~gPA96.PC'2 6/12/9~ slb 33
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 wilt 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. Further, the project is designed to current City
standards and does not propose any.l~azards 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
bicyclists 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.
Enerav 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 loss' 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.]~?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 fiammable
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 vibrations 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.
ll.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;\STAFFRPTXSPA96.PC2 6112196
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 Svstems
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:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6112196 slb 36
13.b.
Although the project is considered infill in nature, the size and lack of articulation of
the building mass wilt 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.
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 wilt 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:~,STAFFRPT'tSPAg~.PC2 6/12/96 slb 37
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~STAFFRI~T~JlPA96,k"2 6/12/96 slb 38
z
o
Z
< .~ .<
< ,< ,~
~ ~ z
Z
Z
ATTACHMENT NO, 4
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
%
%
\, TEMECULA ~,
'~ laCH
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
PALH
CENTER
BEST
WESTERN
COUNTRY
INN
CHP ~
VICINITY MAP
R:~STAFFILV~SPA96.1~CI 1/2/96 slb
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
RH
RP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
e
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
~P
CC ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
LETTERS OF OPPOSITION
R:\STAFFRPT\ItpA96.I~'2 6/12/96 slb 46
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 PLAN)
HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC.
A?R 2 2
.........
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 Pizza, Making Waves Hair 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 Escondido 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 afiversely impact surroundhag 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.
CO-MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER
Fred D. Grimes
FDG:jss
copy: M~xk Esbensen
Jack Raymond
0
0
r-,'
0
0
John C. Baymond
P. O. Box 3295
Escondido, CA 92033-3295 U. SJL
Apd119,1996
A 2 4
ks 'd ............
Director of Planning
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Case No. PA96-0'J08: Hydroscape Products, Inc.
Gentlemen:
I am strongly OPPOSED to the above proposed development plan and I am amazed that
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 apprcved. 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.
John C. Raymond
cc: Lounsbery, Ferguson, Esquire
FIRST PACIFIC NAT, oNA'
BANIf,'
Actmln/strat~ve Offtces: 613 Y~ Valley Parkway, Esconclzclo, Califorma 92025-2597 [619) 741-3312 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
.........
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 bank/office 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
FP
4607 MISSION GORGE PL.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 - TEL.: (619) 287-8873 - FAX (619) 287-2~
April 22, 1996
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Hydroscape Products, Inc.
Plot Plan Development Plan Subr~ittal 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 it's use does no,
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,
CASTE~.EAM~Y ENTERPRISES
Brian R. Caster
Chief Executive Officer