HomeMy WebLinkAbout101000 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104
ADA Title Ill
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
OCTOBER 10, 2000 - 7:00 P.M.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M.
5:30 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency pursuant
to Government Code Sections:
Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a) with respect to two matters of existing litigation involving the
City. The following case/claim will be discussed: 1) Temecula Oldenspace
Preservation Or~lanization v. City of Temecula and City of Temecula v. Lanq
Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8 concerning acquisition of interests in real property (being a division of
Parcels 3, 4, and 5 of Parcel Map No. 28657-1 as shown by Map on file in Book 193
of Parcel Maps, page 64-67 and Parcel A of Lot Line Adjustment No. PA00-0051 .)
The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Kearny Real Estate
Company. Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment of the real
property interests to be acquired. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson and Jim
O'Grady.
Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8 concerning acquisition of real property .7 acres located on the south side
of Sixth Street at Felix Valdez Road and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The
negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Ng Man Nang and San Fun Ho.
Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment of the real property interests
proposed to be acquired. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, Jim O'Grady,
and John Meyer.
Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 (b) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With respect
to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached
where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on
existing facts and circumstances and the City will decide whether to initiate
litigation.
Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties
may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk.
R:~Agenda\101000
1
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 2000-12
Resolution: No. 2000-69
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Jeff Stone
Prelude Music: Jennifer Taft
Invocation:
Pastor Sofia Sadler of Harvester Church of Temecula
Flag Salute:
Councilman Pratt
ROLL CALL:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberrs, Stone
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk,
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to
Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item.
There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made
at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
R:~Agenda\101000
2
2
3
4
5
6
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of July 18, 2000;
2.2 Approve the minutes of July 25, 2000;
2.3 Approve the minutes of August 1, 2000;
2.4 Approve the minutes of August 8, 2000;
2.5 Approve the minutes of August 22, 2000.
Resolution Approvinq List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
City Treasurer's Report as of Auclust 31, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of August 31, 2000.
Purchase of larqe Format Scanner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Authorize the purchase of a large format scanner for Records Management and GIS
for use in scanning blue prints, plans, maps, and other large documents that require
retention by the City from DLT Solutions, Inc. of Herndon, Virginia, in the amount of
$30,243.27.
Purchase of Microsoft Office 2000 Professional
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Authorize the purchase of 165 licenses of Microsoff Office 2000 Professional Suite
from Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc., Riverside, California, in the amount of
$33,090.02.
R:~Agenda\101000
3
7
Authorize temporary partial street closures for the Race for the Cure Event, October 22,
2000 in the Promenade Mall area (Margarita Road, Solana Way, Ynez Road, and
Overland Drive)
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTIAL STREET
CLOSURES FOR INLAND EMPIRE RACE FOR THE CURE
EVENT ON OCTOBER 22, 2000, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL
EVENT
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for
Margarita Road Widening - Phase I - Project No. PW99-01
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Margarita Road Widening - Phase I -
Project No. PW99-01;
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for
Pavement Management System - Project No. PW99-17 - Jefferson Avenue Pavement
Rehabilitation
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Pavement Management System -
Project No, PW99-17 -Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation.
10
Modification No. 2 to Assistance Agreement No. AG8J5000051 - U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs & City of Temecula - Pala Road Bridge Improvement
Project - Project No. PW97-15
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve Modification No. 2 to Agreement No. AG8J5000051 between the U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and City of Temecula
providing for a total amount not to exceed $5,622,293.00.
R:~Agenda\101000
4
11 Award of Construction Contract for the Pala Road Bridqe Landscape Environmental
Mitiqation/Median & Parkway Landscapinq - Project No. PW97-15 (Landscape)
12
13
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Award a construction contract for the Pala Road Bridge Landscape - Project No.
PW97-15 (Landscape) to Diversified Landscape Co. for a base amount of
$174,961.75 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $17,496.00 which is equal to 10% of the base contract
amount.
Amendment to Cooperative Aclreement between the Cit,/of Temecula and County of
Riverside for the construction of the traffic siclnal and safety liclhtincl improvements at
Rancho California Road and Butterfield Staqe Road - Project No. PW98-11
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve the amendment to the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside
for the installation of a traffic signal and safety lighting at the intersection of Rancho
California Road and Butterfield Stage Road - Project No. PW98-11;
12.2 Approve an advance of $33,150.00 from the General Fund Reserves for the
installation of the traffic signal and safety lighting improvements in cooperation with
the previously approved Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside.
Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 2000-11 (Siqn reclulations for the Old Town Specific
Plan)
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF
CHAPTERS III AND IV SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE OLD
TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT)
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
R:~Agenda\l 01000
5
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 2000-01
Resolution: No. CSD 2000-16
Naggar, Pratt, Roberrs, Stone, Comerchero
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of
Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENTCALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of August 22, 2000.
2 Community Services Recreation Brochure
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Award contract to Graphics Unlimited Lithography for the preparation and
printing of six (6) issues of Community Services Recreation Brochure over a
three-year period in an amount of $35,547 annually;
2.2 Approve a contingency of 10% or $3,550 annually.
R:~Agenda\l 01000
6
3 Tract No. 23513 - Service Level B and Service Level D Rates and Charges (located on
the north side of Santiago Road between John Warner and Margarita Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH
RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL D
RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23513 BEGINNING
FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, October 24. 2000, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
R:%Agenda\101000
7
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 2000-01
Resolution: No. RDA 2000-07
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberrs
ROLL CALL
AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberrs
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the
Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent
Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the
Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
VVhen you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENTCALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of August 22, 2000.
First Amendment to lease between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula
and Butterfield Enterprises with respect to restrooms located at Butterfield Square
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Authorize staff to renew the five-year lease between the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Temecula and Butterfield Enterprises with respect to restrooms
located at Butterfield Square in the amount of $9,912 annually.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
R:~Agenda\101000
8
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, October 24, 2000, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\101000
9
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may
appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the
time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
14 Planninq Application No.99-0317 (Appeal of Development Plan) -Temecula Ridqe
Apartments (located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the
intersection of Rancho California Road and Moracla Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND
UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO-
AND THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING, AND TOT LOT ON 20.88
NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, BASED
UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RELATED THERETO
15
Planninq Application No. PA00-0261 - a request to amend the text of the Marqarita
Villaqe Specific Plan. Planninq Areas 8, and 10/11/12 to increase the maximum size for
the homes from 2,600 square feet to 3,700 square feet and to reduce the number of floor
plans provided from five (5) to three (3)
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve the categorical exemption under Section 15061(b)(3) by making a
determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified
per Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA;
R:~Agenda~101000
10
15.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND
THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC
PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR VILLAGE B RELATED TO
THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8 AND 10/11/12
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD OFF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKVVAY, SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE, AND
NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN
TRACT NOS. 23100-6, -7, AND -8
COUNCIL BUSINESS
16
Pala Road Interim Improvements and Widening - Project No, PW99-11 (Interim),
including a traffic signal at Pala/Loma Linda (PW98-14) and a traffic signal at PalaNVolf
Vallev (PW98-15)
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Review the Project Plans and Specifications for the construction of Pala Road
Interim Improvement - Project No. PW99-11 (Interim) including road widening, a
traffic signal at Pala/Loma Linda (PW98-14) and a traffic signal at PalaNVolf Valley
(PW98-15);
16.2 Continue the matter to November 14,2000, and direct staff to prepare a response to
the comments of residents and interested parties to the proposed project for the
November 14, 2000, meeting.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, October 24, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\101000
11
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JULY 18, 2000
The City Council convened in an adjourned workshop meeting at 6:07 P.M., on Tuesday, July
18, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve,
Temecula, California.
Present:
Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Advising the public of the passing of former Planning Commissioner Tim Miller, Mayor Stone
requested that the City Council support the planting of a tree along with a plaque in a City park
in Mr. Miller's memory.
COUNCILBUSINESS
1 Third Workshop for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP)
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive and file.
City Manager Nelson briefly introduced the item and advised that the County will be providing a
status report regarding the various components of the RCIP as well as an update to the City's
recommended policy, requesting that the County not approve any General Plan amendments or
changes of zones that intensify land uses without being able to demonstrate that traffic impacts can
be mitigated to a level of service D or better. Mr. Nelson advised that the City's request has been
forwarded to the County's Transportation Land Management Department and noted that the Board
will be considering the policy request on July 25, 2000.
At this time, Mr. Nelson introduced Mr. Richard Lashbrook, Agency Director of the Transportation
Land Management Department, who proceeded with an overview of the RCIP, noting the following:
· County continuing to work on all three elements of the Integrated Plan, primarily, this
evening, focusing on the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)
· City's policy request has been filed with the Board, noting that the request is
generally consistent with the current General Plan and, therefore, will not represent a
significant change in policy
· County's current policy requires the County to study any City intersections which
may be impacted with a 5% or greater increase in traffic; that cumulative impacts
would be addressed in traffic studies.
R:~,linutes\071800
1
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. David Lashbrook, Mr. Brian James, and Mr. Steve Smith,
representing the County, provided additional information with regard to the RCIP,
noting/commenting on the following:
· Anticipated increased population growth within the next 20 years in an effort to
achieve a balance (transportation, infrastructure, open space requirements)
· Land Use Plan, General Plan Map/General Plan, Habitat Conservation,
transportation
· Stakeholder driven
· Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) boundaries
· Unincorporated sectors
· Alternatives for Special Study Area, noting that overall densities are not being
changed within the planning area but they are being redistricted in a more efficient
manner
o Trends (Alternative No. 1 - existing area plan land use and specific plan
designations accommodating Habitat Conservation Corridors) - allowable
residential units 40,000 - 83,000
o Sphere (Alternative No. 2 - Cities of Murrieta and Temecula Sphere of
influence designations) - allowable residential units 41,000 - 86,000
o Vision (Alternative No. 3 - proposed the creation of a New Town, focused on
a mixed use town center and airport business park) - allowable residential
units 44,000 - 92.000 - primary focus will be on the Vision Alternative
· Transit Spine Network - proposes the creation of additional transit throughout
Riverside County
· Circulation Network
· Riverside County Transit Commission's identified Corridors (four)
· Habitat Transaction Method zones (HTM) - voluntary program
· Vail Lake - should be planned for low density development
Expressing concern with the County's ability to mitigate traffic impacts, Councilman Pratt
commented on the need for mass public transportation. It was noted that the County's transit
initiative is an aggressive effort - one which is tied to the RTA plans.
With regard to the various alternatives, it was noted for City Manager Nelson that the intent was to
first model Alternative No. 3 (Vision Statement) and then model the other two alternatives in an
effort to determine potential impacts to which Mr. Nelson advised that a model for Alternative No. 1
(existing) should be modeled first.
In response to City Councilmembers and City Manager Nelson, the County representatives
provided the following information:
· Intent to create the opportunity for high-density development which would assist in
the long-term development of transit
· Circulation Element - mass transit will not be taken into consideration in terms of
maintaining service level D
· That significant General Plan amendments/zone changes/upzones will impact the
transportation development balance and as well change the vision
· That once the Plan is adopted, major/cumulative changes to the Plan will be
reviewed on a five-year cycle and that minor zone changes and General Plan
amendments could be addressed on an as-needed basis
· Overall density of this Plan will basically remain the same
· With respect to Alternative No. 3, challenge will be a timing issue (planning and
funding), noting that major/new corridors are multi-year efforts
· Major challenge will be to accommodate future development.
R:\Minutes\071800
2
Councilman Naggar requested that information with regard to the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, as it relates to the Region, be provided to the City Council at the next RCIP
Workshop.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill expressed concern with regard to the following:
With regard to the City's Growth Management Plan - no reference has been made,
by the County, as to the Urban Growth Boundary issue
Recommend to increase parcel sizes in agriculture area east of the City; if interested
in protecting agriculture, 10-acre zoning will be insufficient; it was noted by the
County that larger requirements could be addressed
With respect to the land use plans, how can it be determined whether or not a land
use pattern will work unless it is compared and contrasted to something; therefore,
should model existing trends and compare it to Alternative No. 3 in order to
determine derived benefits; it was noted by the County that it would be the intent to
complete modeling, noting that the order in which each Alternative will be modeled
has not been determined.
Addressing agricultural preserve, Ms. Anne Burrell. 37623 Leon, French Valley, referenced the
Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) and the Habitat Transaction Methodology (HTM) and relayed
concerns with regard to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
In response to Councilman Naggar, County representatives noted the following:
· IntentoftheMulti-SpeciesHabitatConservationPlanistoachievecoveragefor
a large number of species and to create a plan that takes it out of State/Federal
control and places it into local control and, thereby, streamlining the process; intent
not to condemn or take anyone's property
· Habitat Transaction Methodology (HTM) is being explored; it is an overlay, not
intended to replace existing land uses nor to stop anyone from continuing to occupy
and use their property or develop it; concerns have been expressed with regard to
HTM
By way of written communication (copies provided to the City Council), Ms. Beatrice DuBeckman,
38800 Via de Oro, Glen Oaks area, advised the Councilmembers that her property is zoned R-A5
and that she opposed the possible rezoning of 5 acres to 2.5 acres.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to receive and file the provided information. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2 Resolution of the City Council regarding the French Valley Airport
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE FRENCH
VALLEY AIRPORT
R:\Minutes\071800
3
Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that if
the proposed resolution were adopted, staff will orally present it to Airport Land Use
Commission on July 20, 2000.
Considering the proposed County zone changes near the airport violate the Southwest Area
Plan as well as Alternative No. 3, Councilman Roberts questioned why this matter is even being
considered.
Providing background information with regard to the airport, Ms. Joan Sparkman, 40215 Colony
Drive, Murrieta, referenced the protection of the safe zones of the French Valley Airport,
supporting the resolution to ensure completion of the RCIP before considering any zone
changes which may affect valuable assets of this County.
With regard to residential property in the French Valley Airport Mr. Borre Winkle, Executive
Director of the Building Industry Association, advised that the area has a lot of vested property
and entitlemerits which would not accommodate an expanded airport.
In light of Dr. Husing recent report regarding industrial land, Councilman Naggar noted that
industrial land is a significant aspect to the City's future.
Relaying his support of the resolution, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, echoed by Councilmembers
Naggar and Stone, relayed his concern of rezoning of land that is currently zoned industrial and the
potential impacts of such action, commenting on economic impacts to the City in its efforts to create
that needed job base.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to adopt Resolution No. 2000-58. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No comments.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:57 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at
7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
[SEAL]
R:LMinutes\071800
4
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JULY 25, 2000
The City Council convened in a Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and reconvened in a regular
meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula
City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Present:
Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Eve Craig.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Reverend Pat Campbell of Temecula Valley Church of Religious
Science.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Certificates of Arrow of Light
Mayor Stone presented to each Cub Scout a Certificate of Achievement for attaining his Arrow
of Light ranking.
Good Nei.qhbor Award
Introducing Mr. Gus Torres to the City Council, staff, and the viewing audience, Mayor Stone
commended Mr. Torres and presented to him the Good Neighbor Award.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. To ensure that all interested individuals have the opportunity to listen to County input
with regard to the RCIP, Mr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camina Alba, Murrieta, suggested that the
Board of Supervisors be requested to attend a City Council RCIP Workshop meeting.
B. Mr. Doc Laine, 41971 Main Street, relayed his concern with the impacts the current Sign
Ordinance is having on the Old Town merchants.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill informed Mr. Laine that staff is processing an
amendment to the City's Sign Ordinance, noting that it would be reviewed by the Old Town
Local Review Board and the Planning Commission prior to it being presented to the City
Council for review.
R:\Minutes\072500
1
C. Mr. Ned Montgomery, 41915 Third Street, echoed Mr. Laine's concerns with regard to
the Sign Ordinance.
Councilman Roberts encouraged staff to address the matter as expediently as possible.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Commenting on the City's efforts in requesting that the County approve an interim
process which would limit any upzones, General Plan amendments, Specific Plan amendments,
during the development of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) and until the completion
of the RCIP, which may intensify the zoning, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that the matter
has been agendized at the County Board level and the recommendation was that any requested
upzone would have to be able to demonstrate that traffic could be mitigated to service level D or
better any intersection within the City. If such could not be demonstrated, the upzone, after
environmental review, would be taken off calendar and would not be readdressed until the
completion of the RCIP
B. Thanking the City Clerk's Department for its associated efforts, Councilman Naggar
introduced the Welcome to your City Council meeting brochure, advising that this brochure was
created to provide simplification/clarification to City Council meeting terms, descriptions, etc.
C. Councilman Naggar advised that he has several openings on his Citizen's Advisory
Committee (clergy and homemakers) and offered those individuals who are interested to call
City Hall.
D. Councilman Roberts thanked Ms. Shari Crall for her upbeat and positive article with
regard to the City of Temecula published in the Californian.
E. Councilman Pratt advised that he had attended the Murrieta Creek Advisory Committee
meeting as well as the Temecula Little League Softball Team game.
F. Advising that he had attended the Temecula/Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Governmental Affairs Committee meeting, Mayor Stone informed the public that $132 million
(Federal/State/Local monies) have been allocated toward the fight against Pierce's Disease.
Commenting on the State's (Caltrans) inability to complete any on/off ramp
improvements/widening 10 miles to the east and west of the Fast Track lanes on the 91
Freeway, Mayor Stone noted that discussions are pursuing in light of Fast Track's desire to
provide additional connections that will require State approval as well as the environmental
review process.
CONSENTCALENDAR
Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
R:~,linutes\072500
2
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of May 9, 2000;
2.2 Approve the minutes of May 23, 2000;
2.3 Approve the minutes of June 1, 2000.
3 Resolution Approvin.q List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 County of Riverside Sheriff Services Contract
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Authorize approval of the law enforcement contract with the County of Riverside and
authorize the Mayor to execute the contract in final form.
5 Authorization of Special Tax Levy in Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-t2 (YNEZ
CORRIDOR)
6 David Turch & Associates Contract Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the contract amendment for Federal legislative services to be provided by
David Turch & Associates.
R:~,linutes\072500
3
7 Award of Contract for P. C. Workstations
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Award a contract for Pentium-based computer workstations to Sys Technology, Inc.
of Cypress, California, in the amount of $54,002.95.
(This Item was pulled for separate discussion; see page 5.)
8 Tract Map No, 23513 - Finding of Conformance with its original approval (located north of
Santiago Road between Mar~larita Road and John Warnet Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve Tract Map No. 23513 in conformance with the conditions of approval;
8.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement;
8.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful
Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, and Monument Bond as security for
the agreements,
(Mayor Stone abstained with regard to this Item.)
9 ComDletion of Ynez Road/Margarita Road Interim Improvements - Project No. PW00-06
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Accept the street improvements for Ynez Road/Margarita Road interim
Improvements as complete.
10 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract for Pujol Street Sidewalk
Improvements - Project No. PW98-17
RECOMMENDATION:
10. 1 Accept the Pujol Street Sidewalk Improvements Project - Project No. PW98-17 - as
complete;
10.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a 12-month
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
10.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of
Completion, if no liens have been filed.
(Mayor Stone abstained with regard to this Item.)
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 6 and 8 - 10
(Item No. 7 was pulled for separate discussion.) The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Stone who abstained
with regard to Item Nos. 8 and 10.
R:~linutes\072500
4
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION
7 Award of Contract for P.C. Workstations
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Award a contract for Pentium-based computer workstations to Sys Technology, Inc.
of Cypress, California, in the amount of $54,002.95.
City Clerk Jones presented the staff report (as per agenda material), confirming that the Request for
Proposal (RFP) had been sent to 10 local vendors but that not one of them had responded.
Although the existing computer workstations may not be able to deliver the more updated
programs, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero requested that some of the existing machines be given to
the Senior Center as well as other possible agencies.
Addressing Ms. Alice Sullivan, Director of the Chamber of Commerce, Mayor Stone requested that
the Chamber assist in the process of making vendors aware of such opportunities.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
At 7:34 P.M., the City Council reconvened as the Temecula Community Services District, the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Winchester Hills Financing Authority. At 9:12 P.M., the
City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
11 Consideration of Temecula Revisited Rod Run and Cruise to the Blues Sponsorship
Request
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Consider the sponsorship request for the Temecula Revisited Rod Run and Cruise
to the Blues event.
(Mayor Stone abstained with regard to this Item.)
Assistant City Manager O'Grady presented the staff report (of record), referencing the City
Council's general support of the sponsorship request, as discussed at the July 11, 2000,
meeting, and highlighting the Councii's concerns with regard to cost and project revenues.
Advising that staff has met with the promoters of this event, Mr. O'Grady noted that the following
changes were made to the proposal in order to address the City Council's concerns: increased
the proposed revenue estimates to more accurately reflect the probable revenues, reducing
staff support costs from an estimated $30,000 to an amount not to exceed $25,000, and
increasing the funding ratio to the Theatre Foundation from 75% to 80% and, thereby increasing
the Theatre Foundation proceeds by 50%.
Advising that he was present to answer any questions, Mr. Pat Vesey, 28192 Terra Vista Road,
informed the City Councilmembers that a letter was written to the Temecula Town Association
(TTA), inviting that organization to be a part of this event by the placement of a booth and,
thereby, providing early registration for the February 'IrA Rod Run.
R:~Vlinutes\072500
5
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, echoed by Councilman Roberrs, commended Mr. Vesey and the
Temecula Town Association for their cooperative efforts.
In an effort to determine the rise or decrease of business as a result of this event throughout the
entire City and not just Old Town, Councilman Naggar, Councilman Pratt, requested that staff work
with the Chamber of Commerce to create a mechanism in which to determine such information.
Concurring with the concept of determining such information, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero
cautioned on the difficulty of properly accessing such information and, thereby, limiting the hidden
benefits to the City.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor
Stone who abstained.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
No additional comments.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Nelson introduced a new City publication entitled The Business Resoume Guide,
which provides information with regard to business financing, permitting process, etc. Advising
that the publication will be available to the public, Mr. Nelson commended Assistant City
Manager O'Grady and Marketing Coordinator Wolnick on a job well done.
Referencing a newly created brochure Welcome to your City Council meeting, City Manager
Nelson commended Office Specialist Cohee, from the City Clerk's Department, on her efforts
associated with this brochure.
Mr. Nelson as well commended Deputy Director of Community Services Ruse on a job well
done with regard to the CR&R contract.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
With regard to the Closed Session, City Attorney Thorson advised that Item No. 1 (real property)
was continued and that there were no reportable action on the other three items.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:35 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned for the purpose of a City
Council/Planning Commission Workshop, to Tuesday, August 1, 2000, at 6:00 P.M., City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATI'EST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
[SEAL]
R:\Minu~s~72500
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
AUGUST 1, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at
6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, August 1, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers:
Planning Commissioners:
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt,
Roberts, and Mayor Stone.
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, and Chairman
Guerriero.
Absent: Planning Commissioner: Webster.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Councilman Naggar.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Stone.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
Chairman Guerriero relayed thanks to the City Council for holding this Joint Workshop
with the Commission.
Commissioner Mathewson expressed his appreciation to staff and to the Council for the
street-capping project completed in the Chardonnay Hills area.
Councilman Naggar noted his gratitude to the Firemen who were battling the Pechanga
fire, acknowledging their sacrificial efforts to save life and property.
Providing an update regarding the August 1, 2000 CETAP meeting, Councilman Roberts
relayed that the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) had provided a presentation with
respect to Transportation; and noted that there were also discussions regarding a
specific proposed project within the County which was a proposal for a residential tract
which was not proximate to any commercial development, and would also encompass a
zone change.
R:\Minutes\080100
1
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that this particular project would be reviewed in
conjunction with the new County Policy, which passed last week.
With respect to RTA, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed that the agency was holding a
three-day rail review meeting from July 31st-August 2"d, noting that three of the world's
leading authorities on public transportation would assist the County in evaluating the
existing mass transit, and future plans for mass transit.
COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS
I Housing Element Progress Report
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Receive the Housing Element Needs Assessment and provide comments
regarding issues to be addressed in the updated Housing Element.
Senior Management Analyst Brown provided an overview of the staff report (per agenda
material), noting that the revised Housing Element would be processed prior to the General Plan
Update due to State Law requiring every Housing Element in this particular region to be updated
by December 31, 2000; relayed that the City had hired a consulting firm to aid in the update of
this complex element; provided additional information regarding the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), noting that some of the numbers reflected in the assessment could
potentially be revised; and introduced Mr. John Bridges, from Cotton Beland and Associates,
who would provide an overview of the Housing Element Update.
Mr. Bridges relayed the request of the consulting firm for direction from the Council and the
Commission regarding the regional housing needs numbere; noted the provision of a summary
of the report (per supplemental agenda material); via overheads, provided an overview of the
2000-2005 Housing Element, highlighting the RHNA, noting that the State density guidelines
reflected 25 units per acre for developing housing for the very low income category,
acknowledging that at this time the City of Temecula did not have existing zoning at 25 units per
acre; relayed that in 1993, the City of Temecula's Housing Element had proposed 20 units per
acre for this category, adding on the density bonuses and mixed use development; and queried
the Council and Commission for input regarding the densities desired to be included in the
2000-2005 Housing Element.
Mr. Bridges addressed the concerns and comments of the Council and Commission, as follows:
In response to Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero's queries with respect to submitting to the State an
Element proposing 20 units per acre for the development of the very low income housing,
clarified the process of submitting the Draft Element to the State, noting that after a review
period the Element could come back with comments; noted that at that time the City could
respond to the comments by modifying the Element, if necessary, or the Element could be
adopted without revisions, and Findings would be developed to clarify the manner in which the
Element conforms with State Law in spite of the comments; and provided additional information
regarding possible litigation issues associated with adopting an Element without HCD's
concurrence that it did comply with State Law.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, clarified the process of developing the RHNA numbers,
acknowledging the current appeal regarding the represented numbers; provided additional
information regarding the City's values not being reflected in the RHNA figures; provided
R:\Minutes\080100
2
additional data regarding if the proposed Elemenrs housing unit goals were not met at the end
of the five-year period; and noted the requirement for the City to provide available land for
housing within each of the categories.
Councilman Roberts commented on the appeal of the RHNA numbers for Riverside County,
providing additional information regarding the associated issues.
For Councilman Roberts, relayed that at the subsequent Housing Element Cycle there would be
an evaluation of whether the previous Elemenrs goals had been met which would be inclusive
of reports regarding changes in the community (i.e., agricultural changes); advised that with
respect to the new census results, the data utilized for this Element would come from the
previous census information, noting that the data actually utilized was developed approximately
three years after a census was taken, noting that it was specific with regard to the block group
level, advising that this information would not be available from the new census results for
approximately three years.
In response to Councilman Naggar's queries regarding RHNA's gauging of the City's
infrastructure, noted that once the RHNA numbers were established, the State established the
expected growth in the region and each community's share of that growth, advising that the
State's position was that the City's responsibility was to ensure that there was land and
infrastructure available to accommodate the numbers; with respect to development within the
County that impacted the City, advised that the infrastructure issues could be addressed via
agreements with the County regarding Development Fees to offset the impacts, clarifying that
the State would not take this matter into account when providing RHNA numbers; noted that if
the RHNA numbers were revised as a result of the appeal process that the Element could be
updated in response to that condition; and reiterated additional information regarding the
process if the City did not meet the goals of the Element.
For Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding legal challenges
associated with adopting an Element in spite of negative comments from HCD; confirmed that
the Housing Programs (i.e., rental assistance) would be included in the Housing Element Report
that would go forward to HCD for review; and relayed that the Housing Element was unique
from alternate elements encompassed in the General Plan, confirming that at times there was
conflict between the Housing Element and altemate elements in the General Plan, and the
values of the community.
For Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, provided additional information regarding the State Guidelines
for the very low income housing being 25 units per acre, advising that these guidelines were
also utilized in coastline communities; relayed the benefits with respect to HCD's review, if there
was data reflecting that in certain areas the City would consider (via approval of Specific Plans)
zone changes (i.e., to 25 units per acre) in exchange for additional established Open Space
areas, noting the likelihood of obtaining a favorable response from HCD if the 25 units per acre
density level was included in the Element.
The Council and Commission relayed the followin.q closing remarks:
In concurrence with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff
recommended that the City incorporate the higher densities via agreements with developers in
exchange for additional open space areas, rather than modifying the General Plan to reflect the
higher densities; and recommended that the City strengthen the Housing Programs to
encourage a wide level of income levels, via subsidizing the purchase of the housing units.
R:Mvlinutes\080100
3
Chairman Guerriero expressed concurrence with Commissioner Chiniaeffs statements
regarding Housing Programs within the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed that he would not support revising the General Plan to
incorporate a higher density of 25 units per acre, recommending that the City propose the 20
units per acre for this particular housing need; and recommended including language in the
Element regarding the willingness of the City to consider modifying certain zoning areas (i.e., 25
units per acre) with proposed Specific Plan's in exchange for additional Open Space areas.
Councilman Naggar relayed concurrence with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, noting that he
would not support upzoning areas within the General Plan; and commented on the concept of
subsidizing housing. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information
regarding the concept.
In response to Councilman Naggar's comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided
additional information regarding incentives for developers to construct units which would
encompass a portion of units for affordable housing, noting the goal to create affordable housing
while the visual external appearance of the housing would not appear to be differentiated due to
minor variances within the unit being reduction in square footage and/or interior amenities,
Commissioner Mathewson relayed for discussion purposes, the concept of financial transfers
within communities whereby one community did not desire to fully address very low income
housing and would provide financial transfers to address the housing need in an alternate
community, noting his concern that the City having some control with respect to housing in
response to the desire of the community.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Councilman Roberrs relayed additional
information regarding the financial transfer concept being implemented in the Rancho Mirage
area.
For informational purposes, and in response to Councilman Roberts' previous comments, Mr.
Samuel Alhadeff clarified that the financial transfer agreement was made was made with the
City of Coachella, providing additional information regarding the issues associated with the
concept; and suggested contacting the City of Coachella for additional information regarding the
agreement.
Commissioner Telesio commented on the variant levels of income required for housing
development at 25 units per acre dependent upon the area of the development (i.e., Newport
Beach Coast); and queried whether the State took this variance into consideration. In response,
Mr. Bridges relayed that in the City of Temecula, the development of 20 units per acres would
proximately equate to meeting the low income level, clarifying that at 25 units per acre the low
income level would definitely be met; provided additional information regarding density bonuses;
and relayed the potential of the State commenting that even with density bonuses the goal
should be 25 units per acre.
For Councilman Pratt, Mr. Bridges relayed that if there was a recession at a future date affecting
income levels that there would most likely be a reduction in the cost of housing units, confirming
that the ratio would remain the same.
It was the consensus of the Council and the Commission to have the consultant move forward
with the Element with a density level of 20 units per acre for the very low-income housing levels.
R:\Minutes\080100
4
2 Growth Management Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff on the density and
amenity issues associated with the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided an overview of the Council's adoption of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), noting the implementation of the program, relaying that staff and the
Commission desired to have additional clarification with respect to Policy No. 2, Section B
(regarding the Planning Commission's approval of projects above the lowest densities if the
project provided onsite or community amenities), specifically regarding what constitutes an
amenity;, and relayed Councilman Naggar's query with respect to the Council's and
Commission's view regarding tentative tract and parcel maps that have been previously
approved, and are now requesting time extensions.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that on the Commission there was not a consensus with respect to
what the Council viewed as an amenit~ and referenced the General Plan, page 222, Section
5.1 regarding this issue which sited examples of amenities.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero clarified that with respect to the Planning Commission's approval
of the lowest density levels, that the GMP pertained to Specific Plans and large development
plans; noted that the Council was seeking, in terms of amenities, major infrastructure
improvements, and community benefits; clarified that the policy was not a mandate to approve
projects solely at the lowest density range, noting his concern if there was no flexibility in the
approval process; and recommended that although guidelines were necessary, each project
should be approved on a case-by-case basis,
Councilman Naggar relayed that his recommendation would be to not add additional speci~city
to the guidelines, but that the Planning Commission should initially consider the minimum
densities in relation to the projecrs benefits to the community; advised that he had every
confidence that the Planning Commission could adequately make the determination whether the
qualifying amenities were certain road improvements, or other community assets; concurred
with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's comments, that the City did not desire to limit development
strictly based solely on the lowest densities (siting Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's example that if
a developer proposed a project with higher densities while offering to build a City Library), and
that the City did not desire to remove all flexibility, basing approval only on the lowest end of the
density range if the project had alternate merits.
In addition to referencing the amenities denoted in the General Plan, Chairman Guerdero
provided examples of amenities that had been presented to the Commission on previous
projects (i.e., a community pool which was increased in size and permitted via written
agreement to be utilized by the Swim Team, and specific road improvements); clarified that the
Commissioners' opinion differed with respect to qualifying amenities. relayed that in his opinion
additional landscaping should be a qualifying amenity, siting a project that had been presented
which proposed a forty-seven percent (47%) landscape plan in lieu of the twenty percent (20%)
requirement, advising that at this time there was no data to support this asset as a qualifying
amenity.
Referencing the GMP, and the General Plan, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried that variance in
the language of the documents, noting that the General Plan reflected that the target density
was mid-range, while the GMP reflected that the target range was the lowest range, questioning
R:~/linutes\080100
5
whether the General Plan needed to be amended to reflect the GMP guidelines. In response,
City Attorney Thorson advised that the GMP indicated that each project shall be considered on
its own merit in accordance with the General Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance, confirming
Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments that the direction of the GMP in Section 2, B, was for the
Planning Commission to consider approval with these guidelines; specified that the direction
was for the Planning Commission to focus on whether or not the density was creating a
negative impact, and whether or not there could be Findings under the General Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance to address this factor; clarified that the GMP was not an amendment to the
General Plan, and therefore could not compel the Commission or the Council to solely approve
a project at the lowest density; and provided additional information regarding staffs direction to
developers.
Referencing the General Plan which stated that Future residential development is expected to
occur at the target levels of density, as stated in the table (which denoted mid-range densities),
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that if this was not the City's desire, that the General
Plan should be amended. In response, City Attorney Thorson clarified that the General Plan did
not state that the density would be mid-range, but that it was expected; relayed that on a case-
by-case basis each project would be reviewed in order to determine if the densities proposed
were appropriate under those certain circumstances, and to determine the impacts to the
community.
Councilman Naggar relayed that with respect to the General Plan density table figures which
were previously referenced, that he interpreted that to mean that these figures would represent
the expected average densities with Citywide development; noted that he viewed the GMP as a
philosophy that the Council was communicating to the Planning Commission, relaying that upon
review of development proposals the Council would begin with the concept of approving
projects in the lower density level, but would take into account other aspects of the project.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the General Plan was specific in that the expected density
was the mid-range, based on the previously mentioned table, advising that a process was
followed with the development of that language in the General Plan at that point in time; and
reiterated his recommendation that if there was a change in the Council's philosophy, that the
new policy ought to go through the same process.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the referenced density range (via the General Plan)
did not apply to medium and high density, advising that it was it was the desire to not
discourage the development of affordable housing.
In light of the desire to not discourage development of affordable housing, Commissioner
Mathewson queried how a high density development proposal that would have rents not
qualifying for affordable housing should be viewed; and queried whether the target range would
be applicable in a case such as this.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero relayed that in the
past, the Commission had questioned whether an applicant would be willing to designate a
portion of a development for senior housing or low-income housing, advising that if the applicant
was not agreeable that this would eliminate one of the amenities that the City was seeking.
Chairman Guerriere advised that the Commission desired to have a more definitive direction
with respect to the specific amenities that would qualify for appreving a higher density, or to
incorporate a General Plan amendment.
R:~vlinutes\080100
6
Councilman Pratt advised that in his opinion the Planning Commission was qualified to struggle
with these issues in determining whether or not a project should be approved; and noted that
since the future held additional growth in the City there would need to be plans for improvement
with respect to transportation issues.
For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified the density levels represented
on the referenced table in the General Plan, noting that due to the calculations the City utilized
in the circulation modeling that there was a buffer, since the medium and high-density projects
have never been developed at the highest level; relayed that if it was the desire of the Council to
amend the General Plan in order to revise the target density levels, that there would still be
flexibility within that range during the approval process; recommended processing an
amendment to the General Plan prior to the update process in order to create clarity with
respect to targeted densities, noting that staff needed information in order to direct applicants
who would begin planning projects that could encompass a one to one-and-half year period of
time.
Mr. Robert Oder, representing Mira Loma Apartments, relayed his concern with the lack of
definition of what the Council considered an amenity with respect to an apartment complex, or
rental housing; advised that there was a universal understanding in the industry that an amenity
was an asset to the property which enabled the property owner to receive higher rents (i.e.,
swimming pool, recreation center, microwave ovens); referencing the Temecula Ridge project,
noted that this proposal had multiple amenities; and concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeffs
comments that the GMP appears to state that the lowest density range was the desire of the
Council, whereas the General Plan codi~es what has to be done, relaying that he would be
more comfortable applying the GMP if it was submitted to the same review procedure as the
General Plan.
In response to Mr. Oder, and for informational purposes, Councilman Naggar commented on
the Temecula Ridge Project, noting that this proposal was near the high end of the density
range; and relayed that he could support changing the term amenity, noting that in his opinion
the amenities the Council were seeking were for the purpose of attaining community value.
Councilman Roberts relayed that in his opinion, amenities could refer to internal amenities that
would reduce the generation of traffic (i.e., a proposed 25-meter pool, a large tot lot, and
barbecues) which would reduce the need to leave the complex.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed that it was clear to him that the term amenity was not
viewed the same by the Council as it was by the apartment development industry, advising that
it might be appropriate for the GMP to change the word amenity, and noted that the Council,
when adopting the GMP, was seeking major community Citywide amenities, relaying a desire to
clarify this issue. In response, Mr. Oder relayed that an apartment complex with multiple
amenities created a higher quality of life, and thereby was an improvement to the community.
For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Oder relayed that it was his opinion that including affordable
housing in a luxury apartment project (i.e., the Temecula Ridge Project) would not be
appropriate, noting that it was his opinion that low income housing was better suited in single
detached dwellings.
Mr. William Griffith, representing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, viewed the GMP as an
implementation document via growth management (i.e., balancing the issue of establishing
roads, and ensuring adequate traffic circulation); noted that the General Plan was a legislative
document providing density ranges, identifying amenities, trade-off elements, and housing
R:\Minutes\080100
7
elements; noted his difficulty with Section B1 of the GMP due to the application process, the
environmental review, and the design of infrastructure; noted the confusion with respect to when
a development application was deemed complete, relaying the process; noted that per an
anonymous phone call to staff, it had been relayed that the densities were to be at the lowest
end of the range in future development proposals; provided an overview of the proposals in the
Wolf Creek Specific Plan, noting the planning pedod of approximately two years; and
recommended that the GMP and the General Plan be disconnected, reiterating that the GMP
was solely an implementation tool.
Mr. Barton Buchalter, 30000 Block of Rancho California Road, relayed that from a developer's
standpoint, if it was the desire of the Council to approve projects at the lowest densities that the
General Plan should be amended, noting that there was certainty needed which would affect
property rights, and the individual's due process; opposed the inconsistencies between the
GMP and the General Plan, reiterating his recommendation that the General Plan be amended
in order to create an equitable situation for developers; noted that required amenities should be
differentiated on smaller sites; relayed the acceptable density ranges in alternate areas (i.e., the
City of Irvine); and advised that the City may lose quality development if this issue was not
resolved.
Councilman Pratt relayed his support of the GMP, noting the importance of the community's
comments with respect to the issue of growth management.
Councilman Naggar relayed that he did not view the GMP as inconsistent to the General Plan,
noting that if the viewed inconsistency had been the target density, that this issue had been
clarified; with respect to Mr. Griffith's queries, recommended that when preparing a project for
the approval process that the developer ensure that if the densities were higher than the lowest
range that there be an accompanying excellent project package (i.e., road improvements, fire
stations, libraries); and reiterated that the GMP was a philosophy, relaying that if growth was not
managed it could create a crisis situation especially in light of the County's developmental
impacts on the City of Temeoula.
In response to Councilman Roberts, City Attorney Thorson relayed that the GMP specified that
each project must be determined on its own merit in terms of its consistency with the General
Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and with State and Federal Law, advising that there was not a
conflict with the General Plan, noting that it would not create legal liability issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero concurred with Councilman Naggar, noting that he did not view the
GMP as inconsistent with the General Plan, clarifying that the language of the GMP stated
direct the Planning Commission to consider, advised that the Council's direction to the
Planning Commission was that the Council trusted the Commission to make the decisions within
the parameters of the direction provided; clarified that the direction was for the Planning
Commission to initially consider development at the low end of the density range and to take
into account proposed community benefits; with respect to the amenities represented in the
General Plan which Chairman Guerriero had presented, noted that he concurred that those
denotations as acceptable amenities; and relayed that the target density level could still be the
mid-range if there were community benefits proposed with the project.
Chairman Guerriero clarified that the density issue was not the issue needing clarification,
advising that the matter of confusion was with respect to a clear definition of qualifying
amenities; noted that if the Council desired to utilize the 11 amenities denoted in the General
Plan, that the Planning Commission could move forward with a clearer understanding;
recommended adding an additional qualifying amenity to the list: an increased percentage of
R:~Minutes\080100
8
landscaping, relaying that in his opinion if a project proposed an approximate fifty percent (50%)
landscape plan this amenity should qualify as a community asset.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero advised that the Council did
not desire to limit the qualifying amenities, directing the Commission to determine whether a
proposed amenity qualified as a community benefit.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that with respect to the amenity of proposed increased
landscaping, that there would need to be a balance on a case-by-case basis, advising that there
may be projects that have significant impacts on the site (i.e., significant grading impacts),
reiterating the need for a balancing effect; relayed that he could move forward with the Council's
direction, noting that the GMP did not state shall consider, but may consider, advising that there
was flexibility; and with respect to qualifying amenities, concurred with Councilman Roberrs'
comments that a reduction in the generation of vehicular trips should be considered an amenity,
while noting that some amenities (i.e., a swimming pool ) could reduce trips for residents not
needing to leave the complex, that if the facility was open to the public it could also be an
attractor of traffic.
Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred that a reduction in vehicular trips was a public benefit;
relayed that it was his opinion that there was a lack of information available to the development
community; noted that via the development community, roads, houses and commercial centers
were built in a community, advising that in his opinion the City owed the developers a fiduciary
responsibility to have a degree of certainty as to a more specific direction with respect to
densities; noted that the General Plan was not clear if in the approval process the GMP was
included; reiterated that the General Plan specifically stated that the target density was mid-
range, relaying that in exchange for special public benefits the Council and the Planning
Commission might allow the densities to be between the target density and the maximum
density; advised that due to the explicit direction in the General Plan, that if the densities desired
have changed, the General Plan should be amended; noted that it was the Planning
Commission's charge to enforce the guidelines and policies in the General Plan; relayed that in
his opinion, the Council's direction was leaving the development community in a no-man's-land;
and recommended that if the Council's desire was to have a Growth Management Policy it
should be part of the General Plan.
At Councilman Naggar's request, City Attorney Thorson noted the preceding policies of the
General Plan which listed eight or nine policies to be considered; clarified that the General Plan
addressed a range of densities, not specifying one density for each land use area; advised that
the General Plan provided a mechanism to determine the manner that densities would be
adjusted in the preceding policies; confirmed that it stated that the expected target density range
was mid-range, advising that guidelines could be developed determining the evaluation of
varying densities; and relayed that the General Plan was acceptable, as written, as a legal
minimum.
Advising that it was not his desire that anyone should be left in a no-man's-land. Councilman
Naggar advised that any individual who was considering making a sizeable investment by virtue
of development in this City, one should be able to bank on something, and to have a certain
degree of certainty.
Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated the lack of clarification with the direction for developers to
pursue.
R:~Minutes\080100
9
In response to discussion comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that most of the
apartment projects that have been constructed in the City of Temecula have been in the 14-16
units per acre range, advising that to the best of his knowledge there were no development
projects close to the 20 units per acre range.
In response to City Manager Nelson's queries with respect to the consistency of the GMP with
the General Plan, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while he concurred with City
Attorney Thorson's comments from a legal perspective, that from a planner's point of view it was
his preference that there be certainty in the General Plan. and that the language of the General
Plan (which was the bible for development direction for developers) clarify the basic policy
standards; recommended that the language of the General Plan include additional specificity
with respect to the amenities; and relayed that clarification would aid in staffs communication
with the developers.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that if the
amenities were more clearly defined there would still not be absolute certainty, but that the
ambiguity would be reduced if there were no conflicts between the General Plan and the GMP;
and advised that if the two documents (the General Plan and the GMP) were consistent, then
the negotiations could begin with the amenities issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero suggested that there be development of a matrix, whereby 20
qualifying amenities could be denoted, and prioritized in order of the most important assets to
the community, and then have that data be placed in the form of a table; noted that it could be
specified that for a certain amenity there could a be certain percent increase in density. In
response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that this was a feasible concept, noting that
staff could work with the Commission and bring forward to the Council recommendations.
Councilman Pratt commented on the importance of the concepts expressed from the community
residents with respect to growth management.
Councilman Naggar relayed that although the City Council could meet to determine additional
speci~city with respect to qualifying amenities, that it would reduce the flexibility the Planning
Commission currently had, querying whether that was the desire of the Commission; and noted
that he could support the concept of developing a matrix table as suggested by Mayor Pro Tem
Comerchero.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with respect to identifying specific standards,
advising that General Plans were intended to be general; noted that there was subjectivity in the
approval process; and relayed that if standards were further specified, the approval process
may be bound to specifics that were not applicable for some projects, while clarifying that he
would support expanding the list of qualifying amenities.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that while the General Plan did not have to have language that
was specific, it should provide guidance with respect to siting the amenities that would be
considered when approving densities above the densities outlined in the General Plan; and
recommended that during the General Plan update process that there be revisions to reconcile
the GMP with the densities, and to provide what community benefits (i.e., trip reductions) could
be utilized to offset increase in densities.
in response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with clear direction in
the General Plan, the approval process would still have flexibility.
R:~vlinutes\080100
10
Commissioner Telesio relayed the desire to review the projects with definite guidelines on a
case-by-case basis, with an element of flexibility; and advised that after discussion of this issue,
he felt comfortable to move forward with the General Plan and GMP, as written.
Mayor Stone relayed his complete confidence in the Planning Commission; reiterated that he
was a strong supporter of property rights and due process; noted that it was not his desire to
limit the approval process with the development of a matrix table; concurred with Commissioner
Chiniaeff comments that there was confusion with respect to the General Plan and the GMP,
relaying that potential land buyers should be able to have certain expectations, advising that
there was a conflict between the legal verbiage and expectations, recommending that the
language be clarified so that a potential land buyer could have provision of expectations within a
certain range.
Councilman Roberts relayed that he did not support the matrix concept, noting that the latitude
in the approval process was necessary.
Councilman Naggar commented on the balance between approving greater densities and the
amenities a developer proposed; and recommended leaving that discretion to the Planning
Commission.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's queries, Chairman Guerriero relayed that if it was
the City Council's desire to grant latitude to the Planning Commission to determine whether the
amenities proposed qualified for approving higher densities, that he could move forward with
that direction.
In concurrence with Mayor Stone's comments, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that
when the update process took place that clarification be added with respect to the relationship
of the GMP to the General Plan; and relayed that he felt comfortable to move forward with the
approval process with his interpretation of the GMP and the General Plan.
Mayor Stone queried whether the Commission was clear that the Commission could grant a
density incentive for an on-site improvement proposed to be utilized solely for the residents
living in the project.
In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could support granting
density incentives for on-site improvements due to fact that a better quality development would
be a benefit to the community.
In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the discussion comments
regarding provision of density incentives; and relayed the importance of the planning staff
having a clear understanding of the development expectations since staff would be addressing
future applicants.
Councilman Naggar commented on on-site amenities, clarifying that the City desired quality
development and that in his opinion microwave ovens or tile floors would not be qualifying
amenities.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that within the subjective judgement of the Planning
Commission, certain amenities would carry greater weight than others (i.e., an amenity that
bene~ted the entire community rather than one that benefited solely the projecrs residents).
R:~vlinutes\080100
11
Chairman Guerriem recommended that with projects that were highly visible in the community
that there be consideration to require some type of a landscape monumentation or a statement
element; and provided additional information regarding the visual buffer landscaping could
provide.
In response to Mayor Stone's previous query regarding a developmenrs provision of an on-site
amenity (i.e., a pool), Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would balance the amenity with
how it bene~ted the community, as a whole.
It was noted that at 8:42 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:59 P.M.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated the request for the City Council to provide direction
with respect to requests for time extensions on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel
Maps; and provided an overview of the existing review process of granting the extensions.
Councilman Naggar recommended that the Planning Director consider the GMP when
considering the request of the time extensions.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed opposition to changing
allowable densities on a previously approved map, advising that the landowner would lose
entitlements they had previously obtained; and noted that most likely numerous maps would
expire with respect to the ability to request time extensions during the next two-to-three year
period.
Councilman Naggar advised that the landowner would be able to maintain the density level if
there were proposed amenities (i.e., horse trails).
Councilman Roberrs, echoed by Mayor Stone, recommended that the process of approving the
map time extensions remain, as is.
In response to Councilman Roberrs, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that when
reviewing the time extensions that staff reviewed the projects with respect to the State Law that
pertained to granting those extensions, considering whether it was consistent with the General
Plan and whether there were public health and safety issues that may exist now that did not
exist at the time of the approval, ensuring that the maps appropriately addressed these two
issues.
For Councilman Pratt, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed staffs efforts to ensure that trail
easements were obtained on properties adjacent to the creeks.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that if there were areas of concern in the review process
that staff would bump up the approval process of the time extension request to the Planning
Commission level.
City Attorney Thorson relayed that the City could not condition a map extension, advising that it
could either be granted or denied, while noting that the property owner could agree to a
condition; provided additional information regarding the remaining lots; advised that when a
request for a time extension was submitted, that there was an automatic 60-day extension per
State Law, noting that the final map could be perfected during the period, bypassing the
extension process altogether; noted that if the City requested trails, there would have to be
Findings to justify the fact that there were different circumstances at this time that did not exist
R:~,linutes\0801 O0
12
when the map was approved; and for Councilman Naggar, provided additional information
regarding the trail system being added to the General Plan.
3 General Plan Progress Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Provide comments on the Elements (i.e. Land Use, Circulation, Growth
Management) that should be examined during the update of the City's
General Plan.
Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the request for
input from the Commission and the Council with respect to the General Plan update; relayed
that the matters staff had preliminary identified for addressing were with respect to the following:
1 ) the landfill land issues, specifically with regard to the remaining vacant land, 2) the process of
addressing Open Space preservation issues, 3) investigating alternate transit options, 4)
addressing built-out traffic conditions, 5) investigating the effect of regional growth issues, and
6)ultimately to research the sustainability of the community; relayed that the new traffic analysis
would be conducted intersection-based rather than road segment-based; advised that staff
would request the consultant to provide a ten-year infrastructure recommendation; relayed that
there would be additional noise and air quality studies; and reiterated the request for the
Commission and the Council to provide input with respect to any policies, focuses, or issues to
address at this time in the updating process.
Councilman Roberts recommended that there be a Transit Element investigated during the
General Plan update process in order to consider the feasibility of the matter, noting that
Councilman Pratt had made recommendations in the past regarding this issue.
For Councilman Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that there was a transit
corridor on Winchester Road, relaying that staff has been ensuring provision of those
easements as development occurs.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerohero relayed concurrence with including a Transit Element in the
update, advising that it should be tied into the Land Use Element, specifically with regard to the
relationship between the two; in response to Senior Planner Hogan's query, noted that it was his
opinion that the General Plan should, additionally, address art in public p/aces.
Chairman Guerriero recommended that there be investigation with respect to underground
parking facilities (i.e., in the Old Town area, or in the second phase of the mall), and to
investigate tunneling (underpasses) as opposed to overpasses (i.e., in the Highway 79 area);
and recommended that the City develop specified truck routes.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that Land Use, Circulation, and the Growth
Management clarification be addressed, as well as the Community Design Element, specifically
with respect to architecture, landscaping, and monumentation; recommended that the Open
Space Element address recreational facilities; and with respect to the Housing Element,
recommended investigating financial transfers to alternate communities in order to address the
regional housing impacts, querying the Council for their input regarding this issue.
In response to Mayor Stone, City Attorney Thorson relayed that staff could bring back the issue
of financial transfers in order to provide the Council with additional background information.
R:~vlinutes\080100
13
With respect to the Western Bypass Project, Councilman Pratt recommended that in order to
accommodate the area on the western portion of the creek, that them be a circular cimulation
route (creating a circular mute around the City) whereby the Sport's Park would be accessible
from alternate portions of the City without travelling through the center of town.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding the Community Design and
Architecture Element, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that while the larger projects were
scrutinized with respect to this issue that there be closer attention paid to the smaller projects,
as well; and recommended that a major issue needing to be addressed in the update was the
sphere of influence.
In response to Councilman Naggar, with respect to transit issues, Deputy City Manager
Thornhill relayed that while it was possibly too late for the planning of fixed routes, that there
were numerous options for non-fixed mutes.
With respect to the process of updating the General Plan, Commissioner Mathewson
recommended that there be efforts to incorporate citizen involvement (i.e., workshops in
neighborhoods). In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that staff had involved the
community during the last update, confirming that this was an integral part of the process, noting
that staff would incorporate community involvement.
Councilman Naggar relayed the importance of expediting the process of completing the update.
Mayor Stone relayed that this Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop had been
productive, recommending that the workshops be held at a minimum of twice a year.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:28 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and Mayor Stone formally adjourned the Joint City
Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesday,
August 8, 2000, 7:00 P.M., and to the next Planning Commission regular meeting on
Wednesday, August 2, 2000, 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:~vlinutes\080100
14
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 8, 2000
The City Council convened in a Closed Session at 6:15 P.M. and reconvened in a regular
meeting at 7:01 P.M., on Tuesday, August 8, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula
City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Present:
Absent:
PRELUDE MUSIC
Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberrs, and Stone.
Councilmember: None.
The prelude music was provided by Eve Craig.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Rabbi Yitzchok Hurwitz.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Pratt.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Certificate of Achievement to Ms. Connie Cutler for bein.q awarded Teacher of the Year for
Riverside County
Commending Ms. Cutler on her achievement, Mayor Stone presented the Certificate of
Achievement which was accepted, with much appreciation, by Ms. Cutler.
Certificate of Achievement to Jared Valencia and Christopher Louis Duncan for attainin~j Eatlie
Scout rank
Mayor Stone presented a certificate to Christopher Louis Duncan for his achievement in
attaining Eagle Scout rank. Jared Valencia was unable to attend and it was noted that the
certificate would be forwarded to him.
Certificates of Achievement to Arrow of Liqht Recipients
Mayor Stone presented a Certificates of Achievement to each Cub Scout.
J.O.LT. Pro.qram Presentation
Sgt. Mitch AIm provided an overview of the JOLT Program, advising that it is a volunteer-
based juvenile diversion program created by the Temecula Police Department along with the
cooperation of the Juvenile Probation Department and the Temecula Valley Unified School
District to divert first-time juvenile offenders out of the criminal system and place them into a
diversion rehabilitation type program. Sgt. Mitch AIm, Special Team Unit, and Officer Sherry
Adams, manager of the program, extended special recognition to Mr. John Davis for donating
R:~Ainutes~080800
1
his time as the presiding judge as well as to Jeremy Pfohl, Jeremy Davis, Jill Vasant, and Erin
Davis for serving as the four original juvenile attorneys of the Youth Court.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Mayor Stone advised that Community Services District Consent Calendar Item No. 2 will
be considered as a City Council Consent Calendar Item (8A; see page 5) and that Council
Business Item No. 10 (Community Service Funding Program Ad Hoc Committee Selection) will
be pulled because action had already been taken at the January 11, 2000, City Council
meeting, noting that he and Councilman Naggar had been appointed to that Committee.
B. With regard to compact parking spaces throughout the City, Mr. John Lynn, 32337
Placer Bel Air, requested that a study be completed to determine the reason for providing
compact parking spaces, noting that compact spaces are 21% smaller in size than standard
spaces. He noted that, in his opinion, there are compact parking spaces throughout the City
which do not meet Code requirements as to labeling and size. In closing, Mr. Lynn stated that,
in his opinion, there is no need for compact parking spaces.
Councilman Naggar requested that the Planning Commission review the matter.
C. Advising that the City of Temecula has an Olympic Gymnastics Team Member, Mr.
Chuck Washington recognized Ms. Rachel Tidd, who trains at Southern California Elite
Gymnastic Academy.
D. Mr. Chuck Washington and Mr. Brent Eskildsen, Board Members of Habitat for
Humanity, thanked the City Council and City staff for their overwhelming support. Mr.
Eskildsen further elaborated on the actual building of the two homes and reiterated that
volunteers are still welcome to participate.
E. Ms. May Lorah, 35555 Monte de Oro, thanked the City Council for its input to the County
regarding the French Valley development, expressing her desire that the County not change
the current zoning.
Ms. Lorah requested that future consideration be given to providing a specific area in
parks where children are given the opportunity to ride bikes. Community Services Director
Parker confirmed that in some of the pedestrian areas in parks, bike riding is prohibited but
noted that the issue will be addressed during the Trails Master Plan process, noting that the
Santa Gertrudis Trail is open and is a multi-use trail
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Having attended the League of California Cities Public Safety Policy Committee meeting
on Friday, August 4, 2000, Councilman Roberts apprised the Council of Proposition 36 (Drugs,
Probation, and Treatment Program) which will be voted on November 7, 2000, requesting that
the Council thoroughly address this matter prior to the November election to ensure proper
public awareness.
B. Councilman Pratt encouraged the public to utilize the City's Web site/E-mail as a means
of communicating with the City Councilmembers.
C. Extending his appreciation to all the Fire Fighters, volunteers, Red Cross associated with
fighting of the Pechanga fire, Councilman Naggar commended everyone on a job well done.
R:~Minutes\080800
2
D. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero commented on efforts underway with regard to creating a
joint mass transit project between San Diego County and the Riverside County.
E. Advising that the General Plan Advisory Committee for the Riverside County Integrated
Plan had met today, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that discussion included developer
incentives to ensure the building of projects that are desirous and necessary in the County.
F. Having won the State Championship, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero commended the girls
from the Temecula Little League Softball Team on a job well done and requested that the Team
be formally recognized at an upcoming City Council meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Resolution Approvin.q List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
3 City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2000.
4 Authorization to execute the Supplemental Aqreement for the Fiscal Year 2000-01
Community Development Block Grant Funds
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Supplemental Agreement for Fiscal Year 2000-
01 Community Development Block Grant Funds;
4.2 Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub-Recipient Agreements and
reprogram CDBG funds from completed projects in accordance with the current
budget resolution for general administration of the Fiscal Year 2000-01 Community
Development Block Grant Funds.
R:~linutes\080800
3
5
Approval of Funds for Plan Review Services
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for Plan Check
Services with Esgil Corporation;
5.2 Approve an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for Plan Check
Services with VanDorpe Chou and Associates.
6 First Amendment to City Manager's Employment Agreement
8A
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the First Amendment to the City Manager's Employment Agreement.
Award of Construction Contract for the Citywide P.C.C. Repair Program for FY2000-01 -
Project No. PW00-17
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Award a construction contract for the Citywide P.C.C. Repair Program for FY 2000-
01 - Project No. PW00-17 - to J.D.C., Inc. in the amount of $67,068.80 and
authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $6,706.88 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
Tract Map. No. 28482-3 (located north of Royal Birkdale Drive, east of Temeku Drive, west
of Meadows Parkway, and south and west of Royal Oaks Drive in the Margarita Village
SI3ecific Plan No. 199
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve Tract Map No. 28482-3 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval;
8.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement;
8.3
Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful
Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, and Monument Bond as security for
the agreements.
Second Amendment to the HVAC Preventive Maintenance Agreement with Kinetics
Service Company for FY2000-01 (removed from Community Services District
Consent Calendar Item No. 2 and placed on Council Consent Calendar Item No.
RECOMMENDATION:
8A. 1 Approve the Second Amendment with Kinetics Service Company for additional
HVAC repair and extra work services in the amount of $19,870.
R:\Minutes\080800
4
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 8 including 8A
(Item No. 8A was pulled from the Community Services District Consent Calendar). The
motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
9 City Council Subcommittee for the Lennar (Harveston) Project
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Appoint two City Councilmembers to a subcommittee to review the Lennar
(Harveston) Project.
Following a brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero offered the following motion:
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to appoint Councilmembers Pratt and Roberrs to
the Lennar (Harveston) Project Subcommittee. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
At 7:41 P.M., the City Council reconvened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:56 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly
scheduled City Council business.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Inviting the public to attend, City Manager Nelson advised that the Pala Bridge Dedication
Ceremony will be on Friday, August 18, 2000, at 10:30 A.M.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
With regard to the Closed Session Items, City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no
reportable actions under the Brown Act.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:57 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 22, 2000, at
7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
[SEAL]
R:~vlinu~s\080800
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 22, 2000
The City Council convened in a Closed Session at 6:15 P.M. and reconvened in a regular
meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, August 22, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of
Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Present:
Absent:
PRELUDE MUSIC
Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone.
Councilmember: None.
The prelude music was provided by Kud Jordan.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Randy Johnson of Temecula United Methodist Church.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by the Cub Scout Pack 301.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Certificate of Achievement to Christopher Carev attaininq Eaqle Scout rank
Mayor Stone presented a Certificate of Achievement to Christopher Carey for attaining his Eagle
Scout rank.
Certificates of Achievement to Arrow of Liqht Recipients
Certificates of Achievement were presented to each Cub Scout by Mayor Stone.
Certificate of Achievement to the Temecula Little Leaque Softball Team
Commending the Team and its coaches on their efforts, Mayor Stone presented a Certificate of
Achievement.
Recoqnition to various businesses throuqhout the City of Temecula for their voluntary support with
the Pechanqa Fire
With great appreciation, Mr. Wayne Hall and other Red Cross representatives acknowledged a
number of businesses and individuals that provided a tremendous amount support during the
Pechanga Fire.
Mayor Stone requested that a list of contributors be provided to the City Clerk and noted that he
would personally thank each business for its contributions.
R:\Minutes\082200
1
Mr. Wayne Hall invited the City Council and the public to the Red Cross Office Grand Opening on
September 12, 2000, at 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Stone requested that several of the City's replacement computers be donated to Red Cross.
At 7:22 P.M., Mayor Stone called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 7:33 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Advising that volunteers are still welcome to participate, Councilman Roberts invited the
public to the grand opening of the Blitz Build for Habitat for Humanity on Friday, September 1,
2000, at 9:30 A.M.
B. Having received several calls from residents, Councilman Roberts advised that City
Council would not take action with regard to the potential closing of Calle Medusa prior to the
completion of a neighborhood survey, noting that this survey has been mailed out, and noted
that a public hearing would be scheduled to discuss the potential closing of Calle Medusa.
C. Councilman Pratt advised that he had met with City staff as well as Congressman
Calvert to discuss Murrieta Flood Control and possible funding for it.
D. As the City's representative to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation component of the
Riverside County Integrated Plan, Councilman Naggar advised that he has recently attended a
meeting, noting that there appears to be controversy regarding this particular component and,
therefore, he was of the opinion that not much progress has been made with regard to it. Mr.
Naggar briefly provided clarification of such a plan and the benefits of it.
E. Referencing the City's adopted Growth Management Plan, Councilman Naggar
requested that discussions be pursued with Caltrans, requesting, in light of the RCIP, an
evaluation of the current freeway status as well as future status. Mr. Naggar encouraged that
this matter be addressed at this point in time prior to attaining the status of a congested
freeway such as the 91 freeway. By reviewing the matter, he noted that funding and the
petitioning of legislators could be addressed prior to the matter being an issue.
In response to Councilman Naggar's suggestion, Councilman Roberts advised that
Caltrans utilizes SCAG projections, which are completed every three years, noting that new
projections are being completed at this point time. Mr. Roberts recommended that if a meeting
were called that a representative from Caltrans as well as SCAG be in attendance.
F. In light of the State's recent Stage 3 Emergency Electrical Alert, Councilman Naggar
apprised the public of a Southern California Edison pregrem entitled the Cycling System
Program and advised that he has personally utilized the program.
G. Having attended an open house at Sterling Senior Community (Alzheimers, Assisted
living, and independent living services), Councilman Naggar commended the facility on the
services provided and commented on the need for such facilities. He advised that he had
requested Sterling Senior Community to make a presentation of its services at a future City
Council meeting.
H. In response to Mayor Stone, City Manager Nelson commented on difficulties that arose
with regard to the Max Responder and advised that efforts are underway to ensure resolution.
R:\Minutes\082200
2
I. For Mayor Stone, City Manager Nelson noted that Chief Building Inspector Elmo has
inspected the staging areas and storage area of the developer in Chardonnay Hills and that
staff follow-up will occur to ensure that safety is properly maintained.
J. Speaking very highly of his Aunt Natalie, Mayor Stone expressed appreciation to the
uplifting newspaper article written about her and her daily walking routine.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Resolution Approvinq List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2,1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
3 Purchase of four (4/City Vehicles
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the purchase of two 2001, Ford Rangers from Rancho Ford (each at
$16,540.70) total $33,081.40;
3.2 Approve the purchase of one 2001, Chevrolet ¼ ton pick up truck from Paradise
Chevrolet at $23,369.90;
3.3 Approve the purchase of one 2001, Ford commercial utility truck from Rancho Ford
at $57,858.04.
4 Approval of Funds for Plan Review Services
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Approve an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $4,000 for Plan Check Services
with Esgil Corporation;
4.2 Approve an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $12,000 for Plan Check
Services with VanDorpe Chou and Associates.
R:\Minutes\082200
3
5 Records Destruction Approval
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the
City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy.
6
Accept Crowne Hill Drive into the City-maintained Street System within Tract Map Nos.
23143-2 and 23143-4 (Butterfield Stacle Road to the north tract boundary of Tract Map
No. 23143-4)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING CROWNE HILL DRIVE INTO THE
CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM WITHIN TRACT MAP
NOS. 23143-2 AND 23143-4 (BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD TO
THE NORTH TRACT BOUNDARY OF TRACT MAP NO. 23143-
4)
7
Cooperative Aqreement between the City of Temecula and County of Riverside for the
desicln and construction of the Traffic Siqnal and Safety Liqhtinq Improvements at Rancho
California Road and Butterfield Staqe Road - Project No. PW98-11
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Approve the Plans and Specifications for the installation of traffic signal and safety
lighting improvements at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Butterfield
Stage Road - Project No. PW98-11;
7.2
Approve the Cooperative Agreement for the design and construction of the traffic
signal and safety lighting improvements at Rancho California Road and Butterfield
Stage Road - Project No. PW98-11;
7.3 Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement after review and approval by the City
Attorney;
7.4 Authorize payment of 50% of the construction costs to the County of Riverside.
8 Professional Services Aqreement - T.Y. Lin International - McDaniel Rancho California
Road Bridqe Wideninq over Murrieta Creek - Preiect No. PW99-18
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Approve the agreement with T.Y. Lin International - McDaniel to provide
professional design engineering services for the preparation of plans, specifications,
and estimates to construct the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over
Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-18 - for an amount not to exceed $330,366.00
and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement;
R:\Minutes\082200
4
8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of 10% of the agreement or $33,036.60.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. I - 8. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchere and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
At 7:52 P.M., the City Council reconvened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:02 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly
scheduled City Council business.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Ordinance amendinq Section 3.32.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code increasinq the
maximum value of Public Works contracts which may be bid by informal bid procedures
from $75,000 to $100,000 in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22020
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-09
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 3.32.010 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE INCREASING THE MAXIMUM
VALUE OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS WHICH MAY BE
BID BY INFORMAL BID PROCEDURES FROM $75,000 TO
$100,000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE
SECTION 22020
Director of Public Works Hughes presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting that
the approval of this recommendation would make the City's policy consistent with the State's
policy and that it would not change the approval process.
At this time, City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 2000-09.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Roberrs and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
10 Vail Ranch Annexation
RECOMMENDATION
10.1 Review the LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) staff report and provide
comments on the Vail Ranch Annexation.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff report (of record); referenced written
communication from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); and addressed the
County's request for a continuance of the hearing.
Mr. Bob Ritchie, 44779 Tahachapea Pass, provided information with regard to the 1998
Redhawk/Vail Ranch attempted annexation and issues that arose with the County relative to that
annexation application. If the continuance were appreved, Mr. Ritchie requested that it be
R:\Minutes\082200
5
approved contingent on the County hearing matter on September 28, 2000, and that positive action
be taken in accordance with LAFCO staff's recommendation for approval.
Councilman Roberts suggested that a meeting be scheduled with Supervisor Buster in order to
determine the issues of concern. In light of the 1999 election results, Mr. Roberts noted that the
Vail Ranch residents deserve to be annexed.
Concurring with Mr. Ritchie's comments, Mayor Pro Tern Comemhero noted that if the continuance
were granted, it should be granted to a date certain (30 days) to ensure the City would be able to
meet its necessary annexation deadlines to ensure annexation effectiveness by July 1, 2001.
Although he voiced no opposition to considering an annexation for Redhawk at the time it would be
requested by the residents, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that clarification must be provided
with regard to LAFCO's approval of the annexation conditioned upon the City's cooperation and
participation in annexation of the Redhawk area three years from the date of the Commission
adoption, questioning what would occur in the event the Redhawk residents had not indicated a
desire to be annexed within that time period.
City Manager Nelson noted that clarification with regard to the three-year time period would be
obtained prior to the LAFCO hearing.
At this time, the City Council received and filed the report.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Commending the City Clerk's Department and Web Master Pat Comerohero, City Manager
Nelson advised that the City's Web Site has received its second Golden Web Award from the
International Associates of Web Masters as well as a Gold Award from the Real Estate Library
for its design, interactivity, and content.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
With regard to the Closed Session Items, City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no
reportable actions under the Brown Act.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:20 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, September 12,
2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\082200
6
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the
Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby
allowed in the amount of $1,593,468.31
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 10th day of October, 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 2000-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do cedify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 2000- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 10th day of October, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
Resos 2000-
2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
09/21/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
09/28/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
10/10/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
09/28/00 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 10110/00 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
165
190
192
193
194
210
261
280
300
320
330
340
380
390
471
GENERAL FUND
RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
COIWdUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND
CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
INSURANCE FUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
RDA - DEBT SERVICE
TCSD DEBT SERVICE
CFD 98-1 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
$ 344,301.59
8,491.81
86,607.47
37.02
38,104.39
452.86
187,366.19
3,500.00
330,468,27
909.54
28,468.51
4,351,04
4,796.96
4,702.50
336,782.50
4.100.00
$ 218,334.94
533,075.69
632,030.02
210,027.66
$ 1,593,468.31
$ 1.383,440.65
100 GENERAL FUND
165 RDA-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
190 COrV~IUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPAR JADA~YONKE OUNTI SPECIALIST
SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER
153,565.53
2,654.76
37.203.06
55.21
2.425.54
494.20
1,189.56
801.98
6,029.04
1,769.27
3,839.51
210,027.66
$ 1,593,468.31
· HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT,
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
VO~JCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9
09/21/00 08:10 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
261 CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
380 RDA - DEBT SERVICE
471 CFD 98'1ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
AMOUNT
97,856.93
2,558.10
22,884.64
12.35
4w104.85
111.53
52,413.98
3,500.00
6,147.01
136.10
14,534.65
3,677.71
1,594.59
4,702.50
4,100.00
TOTAL 218,334.94
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
09/21/00 08:10 VOUCHER/CHECK RESISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CBECK
NUMBER
64600
64601
64602
64603
64606
64607
64607
64608
64609
64609
64610
64610
64610
64610
64610
64610
64610
64610
64610
64610
64611
64611
64611
64611
64611
64611
64611
64611
64611
64611
64611
64612
64613
64613
64614
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/18/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
09/21/00
003243 MANSUR SERVICES INC
APA 2000 REGION Vi CONF
APA 2000 REGION VI CONF
PAPA
003370 A I C P A
003213 A M S PLANNING RESEARCH
003213 A M S PLANNING RESEARCH
004054 ADKISON ENGINEERS INC
000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC
000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000101 APPLE ONEI INC.
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000101 APPLE ONE~ INC.
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
ARRIAGA, KANDYCE
000475 B N I PUBLICATIONS INC
000475 B N I PUBLICATIONS INC
003814 BALLREICH, MICHAELA
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
DEPOSIT:COUNCIL R.R. IMPRVMNTS
APA 2000 CF:CD/DT:9/16-18/O0
APA 2000 CF:PREISENDANZ:9/18
PAPA SEMINAR:HARRINGTON:9/28
MEMBERSHIP:WILLIAM B PATTISON
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
320-199-999-5250
001-161-999-5258
001-161-999-5258
190-180-999-5261
001-140-999-5226
FEASIBILITY STUDY-CHILD MUSEUM 001-2030
FEASIBILITY STUDY-CHILD MUSEUM 001-2030
SURVEY SVCS:IST STREET EXTENSI
MEMBERSHIP:DENICE THOMAS
MEMBERSHIP: GARY L THORNHILL
AUG MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:CITY HALL
AUG MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:MAINT FAC
AUG MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:SR CENTER
AUG MAT/TOWEL RENTAL: CRC
AUG MAT/TOWEL RENTAL: TCC
AUG MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:MUSEUM
AUG UNIFORM MAINT: TCSD
AUG UNIFORMS MAINT: PW
CREDIT:CANCEL UNIFORM RUIZ MNT
CREDIT:CHGE FOR ENVIR/DELIEVRY
TEMP HELP W/E 07/29 BRUNER
TEMP HELP W/E 07/29 BRUNER
TEMP HELP W/E 08/05 WESTHAVER
TEMP HELP W/E 08/05 MATTESON
TEMP HELP W/E 08/05 REID
TEMP HELP W/E 08/05 REID
TEMP HELP W/E 08/26 MATTESON
TEMP HELP W/E 08/26 ROSA
TEMP HELP W/E 08/26 BRUNER
TEMP HELP W/E 08/26 ~ESTHAVER
TEMP HELP W/E 08/26 HITCHCOCK
REFUND: PICNIC SHELTER
PUB:CAL/OSHA SAFETY ORDERS:CIP
PUB:CAL/OGHA SAFETY ORDERS:CIP
REIMB:CEPO TRAINING:O9/10-15
280-199-807-5804
001-161-999-5226
001-161-999-5226
340-199-701-5250
340-199-702-5250
190-181-999-5250
190-182-999-5250
190-184-999-5250
190-185-999-5250
190-180-999-5243
001-164-601-5243
190-185-999-5250
001-163-999-5118
001-165-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
165-199-999-5118
165-199-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
190-183-4989
001-163-999-5228
001-165-999-5228
001-120-999-5261
ITEM
AMOUNT
500.00
730.00
190.00
82.00
125.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
2,453.00
196.00
422.00
83.40
34.20
36.96
104.15
51.36
69.35
82.75
110.47
1.98-
32.25-
151.92
151.92
468.00
468.00
300.00
168.00
468.00
107.04
202,56
468.00
555.75
25.00
210.13
317.39
124.13
CHECK
AMOUNT
500.00
7~0.00
190.00
82.00
125,00
3,000.00
2,453.00
618.00
538.41
3,509.19
25.00
527.52
124.13
64615 09/21/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY AUGUST WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM 001-2370 4,413.53
64615 09/21/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY AUGUST WORKERIS COMP PREMIUM 165'2370 91.58
64615 09/21/00 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY AUGUST WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM 190'2370 1,788.81
VOUCHRE2
09/21/00 08:10
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
64615 09/21/00
64615 09/21/00
64615 09/21/00
64615 09/21/00
64615 09/21/00
64615 09/21/00
64615 09/21/00
64615 09/21/00
64616 09/21/00
64617 09/21/00
64618 09/21/00
64619 09/21/00 000154
6/+620 09/21/00 003138
64621 09/21/00 000484
64622 09/21/00 002543
64623 09/21/00 002989
64624 09/21/00 002147
64624 09/21/00 002147
64625 09/21/00 000447
64626 09/21/00
64627 09/21/00
64627 09/21/00
64628 09/21/00
64629 09/21/00
64630 09/21/00
64631 09/21/00
64631 09/21/00
64631 09/21/00
64631 09/21/00
64631 09/21/00
64631 09/21/00
64631 09/21/00
64632 09/21/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR
NAME
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
BESWICN, STEVEN W.
BUTLER, GREG
CHH, LP
CSHFO
CAL MAT
CALIF ASSN OF ECONOMIC
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
AUGUST WORKERrS COMP PREMIUM
AUGUST WORKERrS COMP PREMIUM
AUGUST WORKERrS COMP PREMIUM
AUGUST WORKERrS COMP PREMIUM
AUGUST WORNER'S COMP PREMIUM
AUGUST WORKERrS COMP PREMIUM
AUGUST WORKERrS COMP PREM[UM
AUGUST WORKERrS COMP PREM[UM
REIMB:LEAGUE OF CITIES:9/6'8
REIMB:LEAGUE OF CIT[ES:9/6-9
REFUNDABLE DEPST:LD98-O51GR
00-01 BUDGET AWARD APPLICATION
PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS
CALED MEMBERSHIP:S.NELSON/CITy
CALIF STATE RESOURCES C PERMIT:SPT PK DESILTATION POND
CLEAR IMAGE WINDOW CLEA CANOPY GLASS CLEANING:CiTY HAL
COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS
COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS
COMTRON1X OF HEMET
CORNERSTONE ACADEMY
CURLEY, CINDY
CURLEY, CINDY
DEL SOL INVESTMENT C0.
002954 DIAMOND GARAGE DOOR INC
004263 DISPLAY TECH EXHIBITS
004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN
004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN
004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN
004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN
004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN
004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN
004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN
000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
SUMMER NIGHTS ENTERTAINMENT
SUMMER NIGHTS ENTERTAINMENT
INSTALL NEW RADIO:B&S VEHICLE
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFUND:BIRTHDAY PARTY CANCEL
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFUNDABLE DEPST: LD99-243GR
RESIDENTIAL IMPRV:KAHLOR, T.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:ECON DEV
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
95366-02 DIEGO DR LDSC METER
ACCOJNT
NUMBER
192-2370
193-2370
194-2370
280-2370
300'2370
320-2370
330-2370
340-2370
001-165-999-5258
001-165-999-5258
001-2670
001-140-999-5250
001-164-601-5218
001-110-999-5226
210-190-171-5802
340-199-701-5250
280-199-999-5362
280-199-999-5362
001-162-999-5214
190-2900
190-182-4990
190-2900
001-2670
165-199-813-5804
001-2030
001-162-999-5263
001-161-999-5263
190-180-999-5263
330-199-999-5262
001-164-601-5263
001-163-999-5263
001-165-999-5263
193-180-999-5240
ITEM
AMOUNT
.69
69.97
13.08
33.15
7.82
91.16
18,37
256.24
368.70
403.79
995.00
50.00
967.22
445.00
250.00
45.00
150.00
150.00
353.14
100.00
149.00
100.00
995.00
820.00
1,422.31
161.66
25.11
37.71
26.68
151.06
148.46
67.56
556.97
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
6,784.40
368.70
403.79
995.00
50.00
967.22
445,00
250.00
45.00
300.00
353.14
100.00
249.00
995.00
820.00
1,422.31
618.24
556.97
VOUCHRE2
09/21/00 08:10
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
64633 09/21/00
64634 09/21/00
64634 09/21/00
64635 09/21/00
64636 09/21/00
64637 09/21/00
64637 09/21/00
64637 09/21/00
64637 09/21/00
64637 09/21/00
64638 09/21/00
64639 09/21/00
64639 09/21/00
64639 09/21/00
64640 09/21/00
64641 09/21/00
64642 09/21/00
64643 09/21/00
64643 09/21/00
64644 09/21/00
64644 09/21/00
64644 09/21/00
64644 09/21/00
64644 09/21/00
64644 09/21/00
64644 09/21/00
64644 09/21/00
64645 09/21/00
64646 09/21/00
64647 09/21/00
64647 09/21/00
64648 09/21/00
64649 09/21/00
64650 09/21/00
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
003623 EXCEL HARDWARE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
002037 EXPANETS
000478 FAST SIGNS
000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
003347 F]RST BANKCARD CENTER
003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
003347 FZRST BANKCARD CENTER
004052 FREDERIC R HARRIS INC
GELINAS, ELENA
000173 GENERAL BINDING CORPORA
002528 GLASS BLASTERS
002528 GLASS BLASTERS
000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
000192 GLOOAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI
003592 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
GREATER WORKS CHURCH
GREATER WORKS CHURCH
BASSANI, LC~4A
HOLT, ANNIE
0037~7 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
HARDWARE SUPPLIES-PW MAINT
AUG LDSCP IMPRV:HINTERGARDT PK
AUG LDSCP IMPRV:SPORTS PARK
PHONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY LOGO SIGN
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
LOT BOOK REPORT'FIGUEROA
XX-3083 M.NAGGAR:PROF MTG:TOGO
XX-6702 J.MEYER:PROF MTG/MISC
XX-6702 J.MEYER:PROF MTG/MISC
CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT-lSt STREE
REFUND: MUSIC FOR TODDLERS
BINDING SUPPLIES COPY CENTER
GLASS MUGS FOR NEW EMPLOYEES
GLASS MUGS FOR NEW EHPLOYEES
BLUE CAT5 PATCH CABLE
WHITE CROSSOVER PATCH CABLE
YELLOW PATCH CABLE
FREIGBT
SALES TAX
BLUE CAT5 PATCH CABLE
FREIGHT
SALES TAX
00'01 BUDGET AWARD APPLICATION
RELEASE RETENTION:PW97-25 BIKE
REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT/RENTAL
REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT/RENTAL
REFUND:GYMNASTICS-TERRIFIC 2IS
REFUND: LEVEL 3 SWIM LESSONS
ON-SITE TRAiNiNG & ASSISTANCE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-164-601-5218
190-180-999-5416
190-180-999-5415
320-199-999-5215
280-199-813-5804
001-165-999-5230
001-140-999-5230
001-110-999-5230
001-162-999-5230
001-171-999-5230
165-199-999-5250
001-100-999-5260
280-199-999-5260
280-199-999-5250
280-199-807-5801
190-183-4982
330-199-999-5220
001-150-999-5265
001-150-999-5265
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
001-140-999-5250
210-2035
190-2900
190-182-4990
190-185-4982
190-186-4970
320-199-999-5261
ITEM
AMOUNT
225.61
600.00
1,050.00
48.00
16.16
21.04
10.52
36.56
17.78
10.52
150.00
5.59
48.00
65.73
210.00
35.00
236,26
49.57
49.57
292.19
47.90
95.80
22.49
34.55
186.81
7.58
14.71
350.00
41,067.40
100.00
70.00
32.00
35.00
125.00
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
225.61
1,650.00
48.00
16.16
96.42
150.00
119.32
210.00
35.00
236.26
99.14
702.03
350.00
41,067,40
170.00
32,00
35,00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4
09/21/00 08:10 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK DHECK
NUMBER DATE
64650 09/21/00
64650 09/21/00
64650 09/21/00
64651 09/21/00
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
003~7 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
003~7 IKOR OFFICE SOLUTIONS
003737 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
ISLAMIC CENTER OF TEM V
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TRAVEL
OR-SITE TRAINING & ASSISTANCE
TRAVEL
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
320-199-999-5261
320-199-999-5261
320-199-999-5261
190-2900
ITEM
AMOUNT
95.00
968.75
95.00
100.00
DHECK
AMOUNT
1,283.75
100.00
64652 09/21/00
64653 09/21/00
64653 09/21/00
64653 09/21/00
64653 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64654 09/21/00
64655 09/21/00
64656 09/21/00
64657 09/21/00
64658 09/21/00
64659 09/21/00
64659 09/21/00
64659 09/21/00
64659 09/21/00
64660 09/21/00
64661 09/21/00
64662 09/21/00
64663 09/21/00
64664 09/21/00
64665 09/21/00
64666 09/21/00
003948 J D S A ELECTRICAL ENER
002140 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS
002140 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS
002140 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS
002140 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
003631 KLEINFELDER INC
000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT INC
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN L.
LEBEDEFF, DAVID & THERS
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI
004141 MAINTEX INC
004107 MASSA'LAVITT, SANDRA
002693 MATROS, ANDREA
000944 MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY I
000843 MCDANIEL ENGINEERING
003448 MELODYS AD WORKS
MINEGAR-SMITH
ELECT DESIGN-2ND STREET PRKLOT
NOVELL ZENWORKS DESKTOP-USERS
REVISED 1NV:USER LICENSES
NETWORK CLIENT SERVICES
CREDIT:ORIG INV WAS REVISED
TEMP HELP W/E 08/13 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP W/E 08/13 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP W/E 08/13 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP W/E 08/20 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP W/E 08/20 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP W/E 08/20 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP ~/E 08/27 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP ~/E 08/27 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP W/E 08/27 CAMMAROTA
TEMP HELP ~/E 09/03 CAMMAROTA
GEOTECHNICAL TEST-SR CENTER
DAYCAMP BUS:KNOTTS BERRY FARM
REFUND: ADMIN CITATION 5703
LDSCP AGRMNT PMT- PALA BRIDGE
JUL SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT
JUL SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT
AUG SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT
AUG SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT
CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
CONSULTING SVCS:8/29-9/13/00
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
MAINT/REPAIR SUPPLIES:TRF DIV
AUG PROF SVCS:PALA BRIDGE:9715
SEPT PROF SVCS - OLD T~N
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LDOO-O12GR
210-165-828-5802
320-199-999-5211
320-199-999-5211
320-199-999-5248
320-199-999-5211
001-111-999-5118
001-110-999-5118
001-111-999-5118
001-110-999-5118
001-111-999-5118
001-110-999-5118
001-111-999-5118
001-111-999-5118
001-110-999-5118
001-111-999-5118
210-190-163-5802
190-183-999-5340
001-161-4255
210-165-631-5804
001-101-999-5285
001-101-999-5285
001-101-999-5285
001-101-999-5285
190-182-999-5212
001-161-999-5248
190-183-999-5330
001-164-602-5242
210-165-631-5802
280-199-999-5362
001-2670
2,000.00
2,006.74
9,713.23
826.02
9,713.23-
129.78
117.81
161.28
84.20
304.92
248.44
38.72
203.83
41.58
280.67
1,066.98
408.55
50.00
2,500.00
1,127.95
9,337.86
1,241.10
9,912.54
193.52
2,657.28
441.60
126.07
115.74
2,000.00
995.00
2,000.00
2,832,76
1,611.23
1,066.98
408.55
50.00
2,500.00
21,619.45
193.52
21657.Z8
441.60
126.07
115.74
2,000.00
995.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5
09/21/00 08:10 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
64667 09/21/00 002952 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM OCT LEASE OF COPIER @ CRC 190-182-999-5239
162.70
162.70
64668 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: B. GUTIERREZ 001-150-999-5222
64668 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-150-999-5222
64668 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS QTY 1000 ENVELOPES - RDA 165-199-999-5222
64668 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS QTY 1000 ENVELOPES - RDA 280-199-999-5222
646~ 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 165-199-999-5222
646~ 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 280-199-999-5222
64668 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: B. LEVY 001-165-999-5222
64668 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-165-999-5222
64668 09/21/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: OSVOLD/AUSTIN 001-162-999-5222
102.50
7.94
44.21
44.20
3.43
3.42
38.25
2.96
82.43
329.34
64669 09/21/00 000233 NELSON, SHAWN
64670 ~9/21/00 NORDEN, BARBARA
64671 09/21/00 003570 NORM REEVES
64671 09/21/00 003570 NORM REEVES
64671 09/21/00 003570 NORM REEVES
64671 09/21/00 003570 NORM REEVES
ANNUAL LEAG.CF:ANAHEIM:9/6-9 001-110-999-5258
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
90-001 VAN INSTALLED BELTS 190-180-999-5214
INSTALLED NEW DRIVE SHAFT 190-180-999-5214
INSTALLED STABILIZER BAR 190-180-999-5214
INSTALLED NEW STEERING COUPLER 190-180-999-5214
27.00
100.00
113.80
551.78
83.16
172.50
27.00
100.00
921.24
64672 09/21/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT RECRUIT AD:SR LDSCP INSPECTOR 001-150-999-5254
68.44
68.44
64673 09/21/00 004191 NORTH COUNTY TIMES-PMT ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION:219397 001-161-999-5228
90.00
90.00
64674 09/21/00 002292 OASIS VENDING
64674 09/21/00 002292 OASlS VENDING
COFFEE/KITCHEN SUPP:CITY HALL 340-199-701-5250
COFFEE/KITCHEN SUPP:MAINT FAC 340-199-702-5250
290.59
129.30
419.89
64675 09/21/00 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR HR DEPT 001-150-999-5220
64675 09/21/00 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CM OFFICE 001-110-999-5220
96.78
79.91
176.69
64676 09/21/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
64676 09/21/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
64676 09/21/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
6/+676 09/21/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
64676 09/21/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
64677 09/21/00 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY
64677 09/21/00 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY
64677 09/21/00 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY
64677 09/21/00 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY
64678 09/21/00 004023 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPME
64679 09/21/00
PEOPLES CHURCH OF THE V
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
PARAMEDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES
PARAMEDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES
PARAMEDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES
PARAMEDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES
RENTAL OF 36~ BOOM TRUCK ' PW
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
64680 09/21/00 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
64680 09/21/00 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
64680 09/21/00 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
64680 09/21/00 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
64680 09/21/00 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES# RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
001-161-999'5214
001-161-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
001-164-601-5214
001-163-999-5214
001-171-999-5311
001-171-999-5311
001'171'999-5311
001'171'999-5311
001'164-601-5238
190-2900
001'2390
165'2390
190-2390
192-2390
193'2390
118.98
185.45
29.19
61.81
54.44
32.89
85.40
163.81
786.00
1,029.02
100.00
25,491.66
471,71
4,651,02
11,61
364.07
449.87
1,068.10
1,029,02
100.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6
09/21/00 08:10 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
64680 09/21/00 000246
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEESI RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEESI RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEESI RETIRE
000246 PERS RET 194-2390 98.09
000246 PERS RET 280-2390 222.66
000246 PERS RET 300-2390 127.82
000246 PERS RET 320-2390 1~036.69
000246 PERS RET 330-2390 202.88
000246 PERS BET 340-2390 579.18
000246 PERS-PRE 001-2130 167.16
000246 SURVIVOR 001-2390 95.66
000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 1.17
000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 18.42
000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 .05
000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 1.54
000246 SURVIVOR 194-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 280-2390 .69
000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390 .46
000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 3.72
000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 1,39
000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 2.65
33,550.66
64681 09/21/00 000247 PESTMASTER
R.O.W. SPRAYING - CHANNELS 001'164'601'5402
795.00
795.00
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
64682 09/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
001'161-999-5261
001'170'999-5229
001'170'999'5229
001'170'999'5261
001'170-999-5242
190'183-999-5370
001'2175
001'162-999-5261
190'183'999'5370
001-164-601'5215
001'164'602'5242
001'165'999'5222
190'180-999-5222
001-164'604'5263
190-183-999-5340
001-161-999'5260
190-18:5'999'5320
190'183'999'5320
2.00
8.03
2.23
31.50
21.54
17.10
7.6:5
50.00
19.37
18.32
20,98
4.75
25.34
29.00
4.17
52.23
27.19
100.00
441.38
64683 09/21/00 PIKE, DANIEL
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD99-197GR 001-2670
995.00
995.00
64684 09/21/00 POTTS, EARL
64685 09/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
64685 09/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
64685 09/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
64685 09/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
64685 09/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
64685 09/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
AUG DISPLAY ADS:CONCERT SERIES 190-180-999-5254
AUG DISPLAY ADS:CONST UPDATES 001-165-999-5256
AUG DISPLAY ADS:SUMMER NIGHTS 280-199-999-5:562
AUG PUBLIC NOTICE:98-0481 001-161-999-5256
AUG PUBL NTC:3.32.010/PROP ORD 001-120-999-5256
AUG VARIOUS PUBLIC NOTICES:PLN 001-161-999-5256
100.00
325.50
1,014.30
750.00
41.25
7.50
61.75
lO0.O0
2,200.30
II
VOUCHRE2
09/21/00 08:10
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
64686 09/21/00 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT
64687 09/21/00 002776 PRIME MATRIX 1NC
64687 09/21/00 002776 PRIME MATRIX INC
64688 09/21/00 002880 PRO-CRAFT SASH & SUPPLY
64689 09/21/00 002612 RADIO SHACK INC
64690 09/21/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
64690 09/21/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
64690 09/21/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
64690 09/21/00 000947 RANCHO SELL BLUEPRINT C
64690 09/21/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
64690 09/21/00 000947 RANCNO BELL BLUEPRINT C
64690 09/21/00 000947 RANCNO BELL BLUEPRINT C
64691 09/21/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
64691 09/21/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
64692 09/21/00 002654 RANCNO FORD LINCOLN MER
64693 09/21/00 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC
64693 09/21/00 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC
64693 09/21/00 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC
64694 09/21/00
ROBERT JOHN NAPIER SOEC
64695 09/21/00 RODRIGUES# TINA
64696 09/21/00 ROMERO, JOHNNY
64697 09/21/00 SCOTT, EUGENE
64690 09/21/00 003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVI
64698 09/21/00 003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERV1
64698 09/21/00 003801 SELF~S JANITORIAL SERVI
64699 09/21/00 SIMON, JOSEPH
64700 09/21/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
64700 09/21/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
64700 09/21/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
64700 09/21/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
64700 09/21/00 000537 SO CAL1F EDISON
64701 09/21/00 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
64701 09/21/00 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
64701 09/21/00 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
64701 09/21/00 001212 S0 CALIF GAS COMPANY
64701 09/21/00 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
EQUIP RENTAL FOR PW MAINT CREW
AUG CELLULAR SVCS - SR VAN
AUG CELLULAR SVCS - CITY VAN
RES IMPRV PRGM: PINO
MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES
DUPL BLUEPRINTS:CAMPOS VERDES
DUPL.BLUEPRINTS:CAMPOS VERDES
BLUEPRINTS:OLD TOWN PRK LOT
ADDIL BLUEPRINTS:PALA BRIDGE
ADD~L BLUEPRINTS:PALA BRIDGE
ADD'L SLUEPRINTS:PALA BRIDGE
ADD'L BLUEPRINTS:PALA BRIDGE
SEPT VARIOUS WATER METERS
SEPT VARIOUS WATER METERS
REPAIR/MAINT - CITY VEHICLE
STENCIL SUPPLIES FOR PW MNTC
FREIGHT
SALES TAX
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFUND: SUMMER DAY CAMP
LDSCP AGRMNT PMT-PALA BRIDGE
REFUND: SUMMER DAY CAMP
SEPT CUSTODIAL SVCS:PARKS
SEPT CUSTODIAL SVCS:TES
SEPT CUSTODIAL SVCS:6TH PK LOT
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
SEP 2-19-184-0511MARGARITA
AUG 2-19-999-9442 VARIOUS MTRS
AUG VARIOUS ELECTRIC METERS
AUG VARIOUS ELECTRIC METERS
AUG VARIOUS ELECTRIC METERS
SEP 021-725-0775-4 SR CTR
SEP 091-024-9300-5 CRC
SEP 091-024-9300-5 CRC
SEP 095-167-7907-2 STH #84
SEP 101-525-0950-0 TCC
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-164-601-5238
190-180-999-5208
190-180-999-5208
165-199-813-5804
320-199-999-5221
001-161-999-5222
001-161-999-5222
210-165-828-5804
210-165-631-5804
210-165-601-5804
210-165-631-5804
210-165-631-5804
190-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
001-2030
001-164-601-5218
001-164-601-5218
190-2900
190-182-4984
210-165-631-5804
190-182-4984
190-180-999-5250
190-186-999-5212
001-164-603-5250
190-2900
190-180-999-5319
190'180-999-5319
190'180'999-5319
190-180-999-5240
193'180'999-5240
190-182-999'5240
190-186-999-5240
190'184-999-5240
ITEM
AMOUNT
127.30
31.47
29.94
508.00
90.14
58.67
53.23
12.09
75.74
75.74
75.75
36.54
3,616.29
3,098.04
156.82
47.40
8.96
3.67
100.00
155.00
250.00
10.00
3,440.00
210.00
210.00
100.00
79.52
917.50
539.40
41.02
14.26
16.87
353.13
166.00
88.85
10.47
PAGE ?
CHECK
AMOUNT
127.30
61.41
508.00
90.14
387.76
6,714.33
156.82
60.03
100.00
155.00
250.00
10.00
3,860.00
100.00
1,591.70
VOUCHRE2
09/21/00 08:10
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
64701 09/21/00
64701 09/21/00
64702 09/21/00
64702 09/21/00
64703 09/21/00
64704 09/21/00
64704 09/21/00
64705 09/21/00
64706 09/21/00
64707 09/21/00
64708 09/21/00
64709 09/21/00
64710 09/21/00
64711 09/21/00
64711 09/21/00
64711 09/21/00
64712 09/21/00
64713 09/21/00
64714 09/21/00
64714 09/21/00
64715 09/21/00
64716 09/21/00
64716 09/21/00
64717 09/21/00
64717 09/21/00
64718 09/21/00
64718 09/21/00
64718 09/21/00
64718 09/21/00
64719 09/21/00
64719 09/21/00
64719 09/21/00
64719 09/21/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
SEP 133-040-7373-0 MAINT FAC
SEP 181-383-8881-6 MUSEUM
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR WED CNPL PEST CONTROL SVCS
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR MUSEUM PEST CONTROL SVCS
002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C CARPET CLEANING - MAINT FAC
STEFFEN MARLYSE
STEFFEN MARLYSE
003449 T H E SOILS COMPANY
004260
004274
003228
003228
003228
000332
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
ADD'L ROOM RENTAL
PROF SVCS:SPRTS PRK LOT IMPRV
TEMECULA STAMP & GRAPHI OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FIRE
TEMECULA VALLEY SECURIT GRC LOCKSMITH SVCS
THOMPSON, SUMMER REFUND: PARENT/ME SWIM LESSONS
TIM SHOOK COMPANY REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LDOO-O11GR
TURNBULL, RAYMOND & DOR LDSCP AGRMNT PMT-PALA BRIDGE
U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL ANNUAL TRUSTEE FEES CFD 88'12
U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL ANNUAL TRUSTEE FEES CFD 98-1
U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL ANNUAL TRUSTEE FEES ROA BONDS
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE AUG PLAN CHECK SVCS - B&S
VAUGHT, KENDALL
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
004200 VERIZON WIRELESS LLC
001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
REFUND: SPORTS-BB FUND BEG.
SEPT XXX-O073 GENERAL USAGE
SEPT XXX-5072 GENERAL USAGE
SEPT-DEC PAGER SERVICES
CRC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES:TCSD
001601 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES PROF SVCS-CIRCULATION ELEMENT
001601 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES PROF SVCS-CIRCULATION ELEMENT
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
JUL METER USAGE:5765 COPIER
AUG BASE CHRG:DC20 COPIER
AUG BASE CHRG:5343 COPIER
7/24-9/06/00 5765 METER USAGE
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
FIRST AID SUPPLIES FOR MPSC
TCSD VEHICLE AID KITS UPDATED
TCSD VEHICLE AID KITS UPDATED
FIRST AID SUPPLIES FOR SR CTR
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
340-199-702-5240
190'185-999-5240
190-185-999-5250
190-185-999-5250
340-199-702-5250
190-2900
190-182-4990
210-190-175-5804
001'171'999-5220
190-182-999'5212
190-186-4970
001-2670
210-165-631-5804
261-199-999'5227
471'199'999'5227
380-199'999'5227
001-162-999-5248
190-183-4982
320'199'999'5208
320'199'999-5208
320-199-999-5238
190-182-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
001'2030
001'2030
330-199-999-5217
001-171-999-5215
330-199-999-5217
330-199-999-5217
190'181'999-5301
190'180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
190'181'999-5301
ITEM
AMOUNT
19.03
14.82
32.00
42.00
155.00
100.00
3.50'
888.00
87.49
30.00
35.00
995.00
4,000.00
3,500.00
4,qO0.O0
4,702.50
2,911.38
20.00
1,782.20
6,024.62
139.58
28.45
29.42
8,067.50
5,582.50
1,286.74
159.00
242.77
11662.62
69.04
196.31
150.00
62.74
PAGE 8
CHECK
AMOUNT
669.17
74.00
155.00
96.50
888.00
87.49
30.00
35.00
995,00
4,000.00
12,302.50
2,911.38
20.00
7,806.82
139.58
57,87
13,650.00
3,351.13
478.09
TOTAL CHECKS 218,334.94
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 10
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
165 RDA DEV- LO~/MOD SET ASIDE
190 COHNUHITY SERVICES DISTRICT
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
210 CAPITAL IHPROVEHENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPRENT AGENCY - CZP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORHATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE
AMOUNT
137,262.90
5,933.71
24,787.83
24.67
11f746.54
3,110.99
1,306.86
773.44
7,129.22
673.33
3~202.37
336,782.50
TOTAL 533,075.69
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CNECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
928 09/28/00 003228 U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL
TCSD COPS DEBT SVC PMT 390-1040
64720 09/22/00 004289 EDEN SYSTEMS USER CONFE 10/9-10/12 EDEN SYSTEMS CONF 001-140-999-5258
64720 09/22/00 004289 EDEN SYSTEMS USER CONFE 10/9-10/12 EDEN SYSTEMS CONF 001-140-999-5261
64720 09/22/00 004289 EDEN SYSTEMS USER CONFE 10/9-10/12 EDEN SYSTEMS CONF 001-150-999-5261
64720 09/22/00 004289 EDEN SYSTEMS USER CONFE 10/9-10/12 EDEN SYSTEMS CONF 320-199-999-5261
336,782.50
300.00
700.00
300.00
200.00
336,782.50
1,500.00
64721 09/25/00 003376 ARTS COUNCIL, THE COUNTRY FESTIVAL 2001 FUNDING 001-101-999-5286
64722 09/26/00 003502 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOC 9/26 BUILDING INDUSTRY LUNCHEO 001-100-999-5260
64722 09/26/00 003502 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOC 9/26 BUILDING INDUSTRY LUNCHEO 001-110-999-5260
10,000.00
45.00
45.00
10,000.00
90.00
64723 09/26/00 003502 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOC ADDTL CHRGES:BUILDING INDUSTRY 001-100-999-5260
64723 09/26/00 003502 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOC ADDTL CHRGES:BUILDING INDUSTRY 001-110-999-5260
30.00
30.00
60.00
64724 09/27/00 001256 MARRIOTT HOTEL
418.14
418.14
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 24,330.27
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 372.93
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 4,886.33
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 14.30
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 379.13
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 118.58
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 181.05
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 83.15
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 1o040.35
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 250.16
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 532.50
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 5,834.78
383131 09/28/00 000283 IHSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 106.78
383181 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 1,359.07
388181 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 2.34
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 193-2070 89.74
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 20.37
383131 09/28/00 000283 IHSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 48.86
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDIGARE 300-2070 30.56
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 253.74
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 61.94
383131 09/28/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 140.06
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 001-2070 102.86
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 165-2070 4.32
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 91.83
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 193-2070 2.18
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 1.01
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 3.56
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 330-2070 4.12
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 6,665.16
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 104.98
383167 09/28/00 000444 [NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 1,076.37
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 192-2070 4.23
40,136.99
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE 2
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 83.80
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 194-2070 33.99
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 48.96
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 300-2070 18.18
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320-2070 217.73
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 56.08
383167 09/28/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 116.55
64727 09/28/00 003394 AIRGAS FIRE PROTECTION
SEMI-ANNUAL FIRE SYS TEST:C.H. 340-199-701-5250
600.00
8,635.91
600.00
64728 09/28/00 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE BLO~ DRAWS WITHIN CITY LIMITS 001-170-999-5328
42.00
42.00
64729 09/28/00 004022 AMERICAN MINI STORAGE, OCTOBER STORAGE RENT 001-120-999-5277
64729 09/28/00 004022 AMERICAN MINI STORAGE# OCTOBER STORAGE RENT 001-120-999-5277
64730 09/28/00 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS STAFF RECERTIFICATION-TCSD 190-186-999-5261
64730 09/28/00 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS STAFF RECERTIFIOATION-TCSD 190-186-999-5261
64730 09/28/00 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS JUNIOR LIFEGUARD CERTIFICATES 190-186-999-5261
114.00
10.00
300.00
90.00
20.00
124.00
410.00
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. CREDIT:OVRCHG HITCHCOCK 3regSo 001-161-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/02 ROSA 001-162-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/02 BRUNER 001-162-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/02 WESTHAVER 001-162-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/02 HITCHCOCK 001-161-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/02 REID 001-120-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/09 ROSA 001'162'999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/09 BRUNER 001'162'999'5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/09 WESTHAVER 001-162'999'5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP ~/E 09/09 HITCHCOCK 001'161'999'5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/09 MATTESON 001'161-999'5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/16 ROSA 001-162-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/16 BRUNER 001-162-999'5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP ~/E 09/16 WESTHAVER 001-162-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 09/16 HITCHCOCK 001-161-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP ~/E 09/16 MATTESON 001-161-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. CREDIT:OVRCHG BRUNER BY 4 HRS 001-162-999-5118
64731 09/28/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. CREDIT:OVRCHG WESTHAVER BY 1.5 001-162-999-5118
64732 09/28/00 B G PAINT & DRYWALL
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
122.85-
214.08
265.86
468.00
444.60
85.80
107.04
202.56
380.25
374.40
374.40
214.08
151.92
468.00
468.00
374.40
50.64-
17.55-
100.00
4,402.35
100.00
64733 09/28/00 002541 BECKER, WALTER KARL
64734 09/28/00 BECKMAN, DAVID
R&R SIDEWALK TO RE-ROUTE SPKLR 001-164-601-5402
REFD DEPST:LD99-O65GR PM19580 001-2670
1,535.00
595.00
1,535.00
595.00
64735 09/28/00 00237'/ BEST BUY COMPANY INC
64735 09/28/00 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC
SAMSUNG DVD PLAYER-TEAM PACE 001-2175
SALES TAX 001-2175
169.89
13.17
183.06
64736 09/28/00 BONILLA, SILVIA
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
100.00
100.00
64?37 09/28/00 003567 C C MYERS [NC AUG PRGSS:OVRLD OVRCRS PW95-11 210-165-604-5804 400.00
64?37 09/28/00 003567 C C MYERS INC RETENTION FOR AUG PRGSS:PW9511 210-2035 40.00- 360.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
64738 09/28/00 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIAL STAFF ED:ELMO/ROSSINI/FORMOE 001-162-999-5261
455.00
455.00
64739 09/28/00 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIAL STAFF ED:OSV/ZUN/AUS/MCK/RED 001-162-999-5261
455.00
455.00
64740 09/28/00 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY RECREATION SUPPLIES FOR TCC 190-184-999-5301
28.34
28.34
64741 09/28/00 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY I CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES
300-199-999-5205
506.97
506.97
64742 09/28/00
CELSOC-CONSULTING ENGIN PUB:3 SUBDIVISION MAP ACT/INDX 001-161-999-5228
256.01
256.01
64743 09/28/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-110-999-5263
64743 09/28/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-170-999-5262
64743 09/28/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-601-5263
44.33
34.89
12.81
92.03
64744 09/28/00 004203 CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIO 004203 AR CHILD 190-2140 12.50
12.50
64745 09/28/00 001555 CHRISTOPHERSON FIRE PRO SEMI-ANNUAL FIRE SYS TEST:CRC 190-184-999-5250
65.00
65.00
64746 09/28/00 001193 COMP U S A INC MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221
979.27
979.27
64747 09/28/00
CONCERTS OF PRAYER, INC REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
100.00
100.00
64748 09/28/00 CSAIA
C.S.A.I.A.TRAINING:IO/3-6:T.C. 001-170-999-5261
375.00
375.00
64749 09/28/00 002106 D A FAMILY SUPPORT 002106 SUPPORT 190-2140 82.50 82.50
64750 09/28/00 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES OCT RENT:SATTELITE OFFICE 001-170-999-5229
64750 09/28/00 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES CAM CHGS FOR SATTELITE OFFICE 001-170-999-5229
64750 09/28/00 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES SEPT RENTAL-SATTELITE OFFICE 001-170-999-5229
64750 09/28/00 004123 D L PRARES & ASSOCIATES CAM CHGS FOR SATTELITE OFFICE 001-170-999-5229
64751 09/28/00 002990 DAVID TURCR & ASSOCIATE RETAIN PUBLIC ADVOCACY FIRM 001-110-999-5248
64752 09/28/00 DE ANDA, SHEILA CLOTH COVERS FOR AUDIO EQUIP 320-199-999-5210
1,000.00
255.00
1,100.00
255.00
4,000.00
150.00
2,610.00
4,000.00
150.00
647'53 09/28/00 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO SUPPLIES FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL 001-164-601-5218
322.80
322.80
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
64754 09/28/00 001380
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 SALAZAR
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 WILLIAMS
TEMP HELP ~/E 09/08 CHU
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 GALLARDO
TEHP HELP W/E 09/08 THORNSLEY
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 HILLBERG
TEHP HELP W/E 09/08 LUQUE
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 LUQUE
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 EBON
TEHP HELP W/E 09/08 EBON
TEHP HELP W/E 09/08 SHAH,MALA
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 HAMSEN
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 RANSEN
TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 THURSTON
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-164-604-5118
001-165-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
165-199-999-5118
340-199-701-5118
340-199-702-5118
340-199-701-5118
340-199-702-5118
001-163-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-120-999-5118
190-186-999-5118
801.78
246.24
1,736.39
2,293.54
1,647.88
1,850.40
853.20
284.40
306.18
102.06
1,395.86
884.79
742.41
420.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
64754 09/28/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 09/08 THURSTON
64755 09/28/00 EMERALD COAST COMMODITI REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
190-186-999-5118
190-2900
1,082.24
100.00
14,647.37
100.00
64756 09/28/00 002517 ERHIE B'S RESTAURANT REFRESHMENTS:RUSSIAN VISITORS 001-110-999-5260
70.00
70.00
64757 09/28/00 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION
64758 09/28/00 005959 EVERETT & EVERETT PAINT
AUGUST PLAN CHECK SVCS
RESID IMPROV PRGM: VOLK
001-162-999-5248
165-199-813-5804
64759 09/28/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-165-999-5230
64759 09/28/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 1NC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 280-199-999-5230
64759 09/28/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230
64759 09/28/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-150-999-5230
64759 09/28/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS IRC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-140-999-5230
64759 09/28/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS IRC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230
64759 09/28/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-165-999-5250
64759 09/28/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-150-999-5230
3,236.74
1,650.00
26.05
12.20
23.21
12.20
20.52
15.56
26.05
17.53
3,236.74
1,650.00
153.32
64760 09/28/00 000166 FIRST AHERICAR TITLE CO LOT BOOK REPT-CALDERON
165-199-999-5250
150.00
150.00
64761 09/28/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288:JONES:EARTHLINK 320-199-999-5211
64761 09/28/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288:JONES:TRAINING MATER. 001-120-999-5261
64761 09/28/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288:JONES:SUPPLIES 001-100-999-5265
64761 09/28/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARO CENTER XX-5288:JONES:NET~ORK SOLUTION 320-199-999-5211
64761 09/28/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288:JONES:SOFTWARE SUPPL. 320-199-999-5221
166.98
338.84
37.76
140.00
87.88
771.46
64762 09/28/00 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS 001-150-999-5250
740.00
740,00
64763 09/28/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5220
64763 09/28/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5220
126.28
5.86
132.14
64764 09/28/00 001093 FRAZEE PAINT RES IMPROV PRGM:FIGUEROA,LYNN 165-199-813-5804
64765 09/28/00 002528 GLASS BLASTERS PITCHERS/GLASSES:PLANNING COMM 001-161-999-5272
64765 09/28/00 002528 GLASS BLASTERS SALES TAX 001-161-999-5272
176.60
204.00
15.81
176.60
219.81
64766 09/28/00 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE HP TONER FOR LJ 5L 320-199-999-5221
64766 09/28/00 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE DLT4 TAPE CARTRIDGE 320-199-999-5221
64766 09/28/00 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE YELLOW CAT 5 PATCH CASLE 320-199-999-5221
64766 09/28/00 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE FREIGHT 320-199-999-5221
64766 09/28/00 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE SALES TAX 320-199-999-5221
289.95
517.93
95.80
23.57
71.31
998.56
64767 09/28/00 001609 GREATER ALARM COMPANY I SKATE PARK ALARM MONITORING 190-180-999-5250
105.00
105.00
64768 09/28/00 GUERRERO# ANTHONY & PAT REFUND:PLANNING APPL PA00-0114 001-171-4036
64768 09/28/00 GUERRERO, ANTNONY& PAT REFUND:PLANNING APPL PA00-0114 001-161-4116
64768 09/28/00 GUERRERO# ANTHONY & PAT REFUND:PLANNING APPL PA00-0114 001-163-4388
64768 09/28/00 GUERRERO, ANTHONY & PAT REFUND:PLANNING APPL PA00-0114 001-163-4116
64768 09/28/00 GUERRERO, ANTHONY & PAT REFUND:PLANNING APPL PA00-0114 001-170-4125
96.00
532.00
47.00
98.00
115.00
888.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEN
AMOUNT
CHECK
ANOUNT
64769 09/28/00 GUEVARA, TERESA REFUND:GYMNASTICS-KINDER RHYTH 190'183'4982
64770 09/28/00 001517 HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM 001-150-999-5248
76.00
476.16
76.00
476.16
64771 09/28/00 001158 HOLIDAY INN
HTL:C.S.A.I.A.TRAINING:IO/3-6 001-170-999-5261
712.32
712.32
64772 09/28/00 000194
64772 09/28/00 000194
64772 09/28/00 000194
647'/2 09/28/00 000194
64772 09/28/00 000194
647'/2 09/28/00 000194
64772 09/28/00 000194
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 001'2080 2,278.12
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 165-2080 250.00
C H A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 190-2080 405.85
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 193-2080 30,00
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 194-2080 16.04
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 280-2080 83.33
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 300-2080 50.00
64773 09/28/00 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
64773 09/28/00 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS
POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS
190-186-999-5250
190-186-999-5250
137.60
142.23
3,113.34
279.83
64774 09/28/00 004079 JENKENS & GILCHRIST AUGUST LEGAL SERVICES
001-130-999-5247
315.00
315,00
64775 09/28/00 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES 2/2-6/20 ENGINEERING SVCS 001-163-999-5248
647/5 09/28/00 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES WORKERS' COMp PREMIUM 001-1182
64775 09/28/00 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 001-1182
3,972.50
10.42-
· 11.60'
3,950.48
64776 09/28/00 004281 K T M K F.M.
RADIO BROADCAST:SUMMER NIGHTS 280-199-999-5362
425.00
425.00
64777 09/28/00 KEETON CONSTRUCTION
64777 09/28/00 KEETON CONSTRUCTION
REFUND:EXEMPT FROM CEQA FEES 001-161-4129
REFUND:EXEMPT FROM CEQA FEES 001-163-4129
571.25
45.00
616.25
647'/8 09/28/00 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 09/10 CAMMAROTA 001-111-999-5118
287.60
287.60
64779 09/28/00 004104 KINETIC SYSTEMS INC SVC CALL:HVAC UHIT @ CRC 190-182-999-5212
60.00
60.00
64780 09/28/00 000206 KINKOS INC CREDIT:OVERPAYMENT ON INVOICE 190-180-999-5222
64780 09/28/00 000206 KINKOS INC POSTERS:SUMMER SUNSETS CONCERT 190-183-999-5370
64780 09/28/00 000206 KINKOS INC POSTERS:HOT SUMMER NIGHTS 280-199-999-5362
287.69-
154.08
239.21
105.60
64781 09/28/00 003631 KLEINFELDER INC GEOTECHNICAL SVOS:SLURRY SEAL 001-164-601-5248
64781 09/28/00 003631 KLEINFELDER INC GEOTECHNICAL SVE:SR CENTER 210-190-163-5802
64782 09/28/00 002784 MAILBOX, THE ANN'L SUBSCRIPTION:INTERMEDIAT 190-184-999-5301
4,342.50
2,674.00
44.95
7,016.50
44.95
64783 09/28/00 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS SIGNS/HARDWARE-PW MAINT CREWS 001-164-601-5244
276.38
276.38
64784 09/28/00 004280 MICROTRANS INC
TRIP GENERATION SOFTWARE-PW 001-164-602-5242
400.00
400.00
64785 09/28/00
MINECAR CONTRACTING REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD99-O51GR 001-2670
995.00
995.00
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS QTY 1000 ENVELOPES - P.D. 001-170-999-5222
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-170-999-5222
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS QTY I000 POLICE LETTERHEAD 001-170-999-5222
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-170-999-5222
66.30
5.14
54.93
4.26
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: J. MEYER 280-199-999-5222 55.22
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: J. MEYER 165-199-999-5222 55.22
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: B. SMITH 190-180-999-5222 38,25
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 190-180-999-5222 2.96
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: M.WIECHEC 190-180-999-5222 38.25
64786 09/28/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 190-180-999-5222 2.96
323.49
64787 09/28/00 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 190-180-999-5212 340.00
64787 09/28/00 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI SALES TAX 190-180-999-5212 26.36
366.36
64788 09/28/00 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-170-999-5262 175.16
64788 09/28/00 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 190-180-999-5263 12.42
64788 09/28/00 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-161-999-5263 50.62
64788 09/28/00 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-604-5263 4.91
64788 09/28/00 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-604-5263 38.75
64788 09/28/00 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-161-999-5214 5.00
286.86
6/+789 09/28/00 003715 MORTON TRAFFIC MARKINGS STENCIL TRK PAINT/SUPPLIES-PW 001'164-601-5218 2°549.38 2,549.38
64790 09/28/00 MURRIETA ROTARY
UNITED WAY KICK OFF MTG:IO/02 001-150-999-5265 200.00 200.00
64791 09/28/00 000915 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIA 5 YR MEMBERSHIP:M.BALLREICH 001-120-999-5226 125.00 125.00
64792 09/28/00 001599 NORTH COUNTY BASKETBALL ADMIN FEES-BASKETBALL LEAGUE 190-187-999-5250 385.50 385,50
64793 09/28/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT RECRUITMENT AD:ENGINEERING 001-150-999-5254 75.52
64793 09/28/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT AUG DISP.ADS:VAR.CIP UPDATES 001-165-999-5256 658.36
?33.88
64794 09/28/00 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE 001-140-999-5220 45.07 45.07
64795 09/28/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-165-999-5214 19.19
64795 09/28/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MA1NT 001-164-601-5214 121.79
140.98
64796 09/28/00 003852 ON TRAC OVERHEAD DOOR C RES IMPRV PRGM: NICHOLS 165-199-813-5804 994.00 994.00
64797 09/28/00 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC JUNE 2000 INSPECTION SVCS 001'2030 9#221.00
64797 09/28/00 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC 3/20'6/30/00 MILEAGE CHARGES 001'2030 777.28 9,998.28
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-100-999-5208 529.06
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-110-999-5208 227.62
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-150-999-5208 99.04
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 190-180-999-5208 510.33
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-120-999-5208 109.08
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVC5:8/09-9/08 320-199-999-5208 212,82
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-161-999-5208 559.37
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-162-999-5208 718.39
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE $ER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-140-999-5208 54.14
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-165-999o5208 404.86
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-164-604-5208 54.46
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-164-602-5208 154.95
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08 001-164-601-5208 162.42
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER
64798 09/28/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER
64799 09/28/00 004023 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPME
CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08
CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08
CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:8/09-9/08
RENTAL OF 36~ BOON TRUCK-PW
001-163-999-5208
280-199-999-5208
280-199-999-5208
001-164-601-5238
256.12
56.55
.01
210.12
4,109.22
210.12
64800 09/28/00 003218 PELA
64801 09/28/00 PENFOLD, LADD
JUL PLAN CHECK SVCS - PLANNING 001-161-999-5250
REFUND-BLDG PERMIT:BOO-2118 001-162-4285
3,425.00
48.00
3,425.00
48.00
64802 09/28/00 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 154.60
154.60
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5261
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5242
6/,803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5242
6/,803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5242
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5220
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5263
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-163-999-5260
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5218
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5261
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5220
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-604-5220
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-120-999-5220
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5260
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-171-999-5261
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5262
64803 09/28/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-16/,-601-5218
5.00
20.00
19.37
19.37
19.37
7.33
19.00
20.00
7.27
20.00
17.67
20.00
28. O0
25.80
40.93
9.07
40.00
14.00
31.20
5.78
389.16
64804 09/28/00 000252 POLYCRAFT INC CITY SEAL DECALS FOR POLICE 001-170-999-5214
64804 09/28/00 000252 POLYCRAFT INC SALES TAX 001-170-999-5214
269.60
20.89
290.49
64805 09/28/00 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-120-999-5230
64805 09/28/00 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-164-604-5230
64805 09/28/00 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-161-999-5230
37.00
15.75
30.60
83.35
64806 09/28/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
64806 09/28/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE CONPAN
AUG VARIOUS RECRUITMENT ADS
AUG VARIOUS RECRUITMENT ADS
001-150-999-5254
001-150-999-5254
64807 09/28/00 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT EQUIP RENTAL - PW MAINT CREWS 001-164-601-5238
1,771.11
1,619.80
60.30
3,390.91
60.30
6/,808 09/28/00 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE EQUIP RENTAL:SUMMER NIGHTS 280-199-999-5362
20.00
20.00
64809 09/28/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUPL BLUEPRINTS:PALA RD IMPRV 210-165-668-5802
64809 09/28/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUPL BLUEPRINTS:R.C./YNEZ RD 210-165-611-5802
64809 09/28/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUPL BLUEPRINTS-LAND DEV. 001-163-999-5268
64809 09/28/00 000947 RARCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUPL BLUEPRINTS-CIP DIV 001-165-999-5250
10.88
5.44
26.60
20.19
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAHE DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
64809 09/28/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUPL BLUEPRIHTS:PALA RD IMPRV 210-165-668-5802
60.67
123.78
64810 09/28/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST SEP 01-18-02200-1LA SERENA 190-180-999-5240
64810 09/28/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DZST SEPT VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240
64810 09/28/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST SEPT VARIES WATER METERS 193-180-999-5240
64811 09/28/00 RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH REFUND:LOT LINE ADJ:PA99-0449 001-161-4108
64811 09/28/00 RANCNO COMMUNITY CHURCH REFUND:LOT LINE ADJ:PA99-0449 001-163-4388
64811 09/28/00 RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH REFUND:LOT LINE ADJ:PA99-0449 001-163-4108
2,435.60
3,418.14
11,044.74
230.00
34.00
600.00
16#898.48
864.00
64812 09/28/00 003761 RANCHO METALS & SUPPLY VARIES PARKS METAL SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5212
54.14
54.14
64813 09/28/00 REICH~ LAURA
REFUND: EXERCISE-HATHA YOGA 190-183-4982
43.00
43.00
64814 09/28/00 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE WEED ABATE/CLEAN-UP VAR.CHNNLS 001-164-601-5401
64815 09/28/00 000266 RIGHTWAY OCT EQUIP RENTAL - RIVERTON PK 190-180-999-5238
3,000.00
62.89
3,000.00
62.89
64816 09/28/00
RIVERSIDE CO. TRANSPORT PROF MTG:R,ROBERTS:10/12/O0 001-100-999-5260
22.00
22.00
64817 09/28/00 004278 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIF 004278 GARNISH 001-2140 212.70
212.70
64818 09/28/00 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. SCAG CONF:WASH.DC:9/13-15/O0 001-100-999-5258
64818 09/28/00 0008;5 ROSERTS, RONALD H. TRNS.STEER.CF:SAN JOSE:9/21-23 001-100-999-5258
64818 09/28/00 000873 ROSERTS, RONALD H. URBAN LND CF:SAN DIEG0:9/18-19 001-100-999-5258
64819 09/28/00 004258 SCHNEIDER, KEITH NETWORK CLIENT SERVICES 320-199-999-5250
70.00
45.82
12.50
360.00
128.32
360.00
64820 09/28/00 000645 SMART & FINAL INC REC SUPPLIES FOR TCC 190-184-999-5301
64820 09/28/00 000645 SMART & FINAL INC REC SUPPLIES FOR HIGH HOPES 190-183-999-5320
64820 09/28/00 000645 SMART & FINAL INC REFRSHMNTS:MAKE DIFFERENCE DAY 194-180-999-5254
273.66
322.00
133.25
728.91
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEP 2-11-007-0455 6TH ST 001-164-603-5240
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEPT 2-20-302-1373 JEFFERSON 190-180-999-5319
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEPT 2-20-302-1563 JEFFERSON 190-180-999-5319
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEP 2-14-204-1615 FRNT ST RDIO 340-199-701-5240
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEPT 2-19-525-2143 RNDW CYN 190-180-999-5319
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEP 2-18-937-3152 MORENO 190-185-999-5240
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEPT 2-19-111-4834 BEDFORD CT 190-180-999-5319
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEP 2-02-351-4946 SR CTR 190-181-999-5240
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEPT 2-18-348-6315 MARGARITA 190-180-999-5319
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEP 2-18-049-6416 FRONT ST PED 001-164-603-5319
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEPT 2-18-799-7911 MORENO RD 190-180-999-5319
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEP 2-19-171-8568 WED CHAPEL 190-185-999-5240
64821 09/28/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON SEPT 2-21-487-8746 CAMPANULA 190-180-999-5319
64822 09/28/00 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR CITY HALL PEST CONTROL SERVICE 340-199-701-5250
301.40
41.62
144.10
20.82
157.48
766.20
76.01
1,338.83
143.82
176.16
57.09
51.7'
61.54
56.00
3,336.84
56.00
625.00
64823 09/28/00 000574 SUPERTONER SEPT LASER PRINTER MAINTENANCE 320-199-999-5215 625.00
64824 09/28/00 000305 TARGET STORE AQUATIC SUPPLIES 190-186-999-5301 14.41
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9
09/28/00 14:34 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERZODS
VODCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
64824
64824
64824
64824
64825
64825
64825
64825
64825
64825
64825
64825
64825
64825
64826
64826
64826
64826
64826
64826
64826
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
000305 TARGET STORE
000305 TARGET STORE
000305 TARGET STORE
000305 TARGET STORE
AQUATIC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES FOR PW DEPT
MZSC SUPPLIES FOR PW DEPT
MISC SUPPLIES FOR PW DEPT
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COHP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP
001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COHP) 001065 DEF COMP
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
190-186-999-5301
001-163-999-5220
001-165-999-5220
001-1(}4-604-5220
001-2080
165-2080
190-2080
192-2080
193-2080
194-2080
280-2080
300-2080
320-2080
340-2080
001-2160
165-2160
190-2160
193-2160
280-2160
320-2160
330-2160
ITEM
AMOUNT
59.93
13.31
13.31
13.31
9,033.54
101.16
1,790.65
3.75
91.67
18.75
101.16
83.33
1,333.32
190.00
1,102.16
106.32
1,044.02
23.38
30.80
38.20
44.06
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 001-2120 281.75
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 165'2120 11.00
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 190-2120 31.10
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 192-2120 .05
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 193-2120 1.90
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 194-2120 .35
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 280-2120 3.50
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 300-2120 1.25
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 320-2120 9.00
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 330-2120 4.00
64827 09/28/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 340-2120 .60
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
64828
64828
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
6/.829
64830
003970 WESTCON ELEVATOR INC
003756 WHITE HOUSE SANITATION
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
000346 YATES, GRANT
ZACCURI, GABRIELLE
64831
64831
64831
64832
64833
64834
09/28/00
SEPT XXX-O074 GENERAL USAGE
SEPT XXX-3564 ALARM
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
SEP MUSEUM ELEV. MAINT/INSPECT 190-185-999-5250
CLEANING SVCS:BTRFLD STAGE R.R 190-180-999-5250
AUG LEASE OF DC220 COPIER
AUG MAINT/SUPPLZES DC220 COPR
AUG INTEREST OF DC 220 COPIER
330-2800
330-199-999-5217
330-199-999-5391
FIRST AID SUPPLIES - CRC 190-182-999-5301
REIMB:LEAGUE CONF:9/06-08/00 001-110-999-5258
REFUND:FEE OVRPMT:LDOO-O34GR 001-2670
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
09/28/00
257.68
55.13
120.00
50.00
123.10
52.30
77.57
102.93
41.15
2,000.00
CHECK
AMOdNT
114,27
12,747.33
2,388.94
344.50
312.81
120.00
50.00
252.97
102.93
41.15
2~000.00
TOTAL CHECKS 533,075.69
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2
09/28/00 14:54 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AMOUNT
109,181.76
38,935.00
22,253.00
131,841.22
323,014.40
6,804.64
TOTAL 632,030.02
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMEEULA PAGE 1
09/28/00 14:54 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
64837
64838
64838
64838
64838
64839
64840
64840
648/+1
64841
6/.841
64841
64841
64841
64842
64843
64843
64843
64843
64844
64844
64845
64845
64846
64847
648/.8
64849
64850
64850
64851
64852
64852
64852
64852
64853
64853
CHECK
DATE
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
10/10/00
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE V
003567 C C MYERS INC
003567 C C MYERS INC
003567 C C MYERS INC
003567 C C MYERS INC
003629 CALTROP ENGINEERING COR
001945 E A MENDOZA CONTRACTING
001945 E A HENDOZA CONTRACTING
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001511 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOC
003815 GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIA
003815 GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIA
003815 GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIA
003815 GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIA
003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATE
003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATE
001719 L P A INC
001719 L P A INC
003935 MELAD & ASSOCIATES
002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC
003218 PELA
000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D
002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION
002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION
004186 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION-
003576 S Y S TECHNOLOGY INC
003576 S Y S TECHNOLOGY INC
003576 S Y S TECHNOLOGY INC
003576 S Y S TECHNOLOGY INC
004264 SYNCHRONEX
004264 SYNCHRONEX
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
AUG ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES 001-172-999-5255
AUG PRGSS:OVRLD CRSS PW95-11
AUG PRGSS:OVRLD CRSS PW95-11
CR: PLAN REVISIONS: PW95-11
RETENTION:OVRLD CRSS PW95-11
11,086.36
210-165-604-5804 7,977.38
210'165'604-5804 1,500.00
210'165-604-5804 1,768.00-
210-2035 947.74'
JUL/AUG 1St ST BRIDGE INSPECTI 280-199-807-5801
AUG PRGSS:R.C. SPRT PRK PRKLOT 210-190-175-5804
RETENTION FOR AUG PRGS:PW00-05 210-2035
8,944.00
SEP LDSCP SVCS:MED1ANS
SEP LDSCP SVCS:STREETSCAPE
SEP LDSCP SVCS:SPORTS PARK
SEP LDSCP SVCS:SOUTN SLOPES
SEP LDSCP SVCS:NORTH SLOPES
SEP LDSCP SVCS:NEZGHBORHOOD PK
69,044.00
6,904.40-
190-180-999-5415 1,975.00
190-180-999-5415 106.00
190-180-999-5415 25,325.00
193'180'999'5415 13,375.00
193'180'999-5415 8,878.00
190-180-999-5415 11,529.00
ADVISORy SVCS:CFD RORIPAUGH 001-140-999-5248 6,572.50
JUL SVCS:MARGARITA IMPROVEMENT 210'165'706'5802 230.17
JUL SVCS:MARGARITA IMPROVEMENT 210'165-713'5802 21.83
JUL SVCS:MARGARITA IMPROVEMENT 210-165-706-5802 14,566.53
JUL SVCS:MARGARITA IMPROVEMENT 210-165-713-5802 1,381.58
SURVEY SVCS:R.C. @ TWN CENTER 001'164'602-5412 7,800.00
SURVEYING SVCS:MERCANTILE&BLCK 210'190'167'5802 5,617.32
AUG DESIGN SVCS:LIBRARY PRJT 210-199-129-5802 40,750.94
REIMBURSABLES:AUG SVCS:LIBRARY 210-199-129-5802 371.61
AUG 2000 TEMP HELP - PALHER 001-162-999'5118 7,120.00
AUG BLDG INSPECTION SVCS 001'162-999'5118 19,000.00
AUG PLAN CHECK SVCS - PLANNING 001-161-999-5250 5,435.00
CAL-ID FYO0-01 MEMBER ASSESSMT 001-170-999-5284 37,126.00
AUG PRGS PHT#6:IST ST BRG:9508 280-199-807-5804 314,070.40
RET.W/H PMT#6:IST ST BRG:9508 280-2035 31,407.04-
RELEASE RET:IST ST BRG:9508 280-1035
31,407.04
HP 3150XI PRINTER
HP OFFICEJET G95 C6740A
HP 2100XI PRINTER
SALES TAX
320-199-999-5242 1,739.25
320-199-999-5242 1,904.00
320'199-999'5242 2,671.96
320"199'999'5242 489.43
2 WIRELESS VIDEO DETECTION SYS 001-164-602-5412 13,960.00
SALES TAX 001-164'602-5412 1,081.90
11,086.36
6,761.64
8,944.00
62,139.60
61,188.00
6,572.50
16,200.11
13,417.32
41,122.55
7,120.00
19,000.00
5,435.00
37,126.00
282,663.36
31,407.04
6,804.64
15,041.90
TOTAL CHECKS 632,030.02
ITEM 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
October 10, 2000
City Treasurer's Report as of August 31, 2000
Finance Directo
PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant
William B. Pattison, Senior Accountant
RECOMMENDATION:
as of August 31, 2000.
That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report
DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio,
receipts, and disbursements are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004
respectively. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report which provides this information. Also
attached are reports that provide information regarding the City's assets, liabilities, and fund
balances as of August 31, 2000.
The City°s investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and
53635 as of August 31, 2000.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments: 1. City Treasurer°s Report as of August 31, 2000
2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of August 31, 2000
3. Fund Equity Detail by Fund as of August 31, 2000
CitydTemecula
C~ Tmmu~'s
As of Allgull 31, ~000
56,888,058
3)51,579
(6,723,140)
53,516.497
Cmh and hwmmems Pro'folio:
Matudty/ Cmu-a~ud/
TaminUre Market par/Bo~
P~ C~ ~, $ 1,5~ S
~ ~ ~ ~a (7,569) ~,569) (1)
~ ~ ~) ~ U.S. T~)
~ ~)
~)
~~)
~~)
~~)
~~)
~~)
~~)
~~)
~~)
$ 53,516,497
Allinv~an~sn~liquidsMa~fly,vilsbk.
Tl~CityofT~a~ada~poafolioisi~oamplim~with~h=br~tm~ntpolioy. A~fundswillb~avsilablcton~.
bud~andaetmda~oft~City.ffT~a~daf~tfi~n~askngmth..
Total aucts
Disuic~ Aaency D/~cts (2)
$ 36,859,761 $ 1,832,046
8,221,308 1,100
1,628,061 19,220
530,401
91,876
300,368
1,234~629
$ 48,8C~,404 $ 1,852,366 S 14,454,091 $
4,942,4~1
ToUl
$ 53,516,497
10,691,217
1,647,281
2,633,454
91,876
300,368
1,234,629
Tc~l Ihb~ti~
Trot hnd ~uit~
11~245r401 162~803 1,869,873
1,281,781
1,008,991
10,329,019 1,527,241 13,063,101
25,011,974 267,094 (478,883)
(10~762) (104,7T2)
371621,003 1,689t563 17~584,218
48,866,404 $ 1,852,366 $ 14,454,091
4,908,631
4,908,631
3,500
30,330
33,830
4,942,461
$ 1,647,281
3,577rg27
18t186,708
1,281,781
1,008,991
24,922,~1
24,83o,515
(us,ss4)
51,928,614
70,115~22
(l) ]n~ud~C~gral Fund, ClP Fund, GuTax Fund, and oO~r ajgial r~v~nu~fm~it
(2) Includes CFD 88-12 (Yn~z C43aidm*) taxi CFD 98-1 (W~ Hills).
(3) Rcgrvatlom and d~iSnatiom of fund babtw~ ar~ dmiled mt the following pagm.
J~
ITEM 5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
~4~Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support
October 10, 2000
Purchase of Large Format Scanner
Services
Prepared by:
Thomas Hafeli, Information Systems Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the purchase of a large format scanner, for Records
Management and GIS for use in scanning blue prints, plans, maps, and other large documents that
require retention by the City from DLT Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, in the amount of
30,243.27.
BACKGROUND: The City has experienced issues with quality control and security of City
documents while using outside contractors scanning the City's large format documents. As a
result, it has been determined that this process should remain within the City's Record
Management preview.
Staff has researched the various large format scanners currently available on the market, and
found that such systems are notwidely available. Ofthefourmanufactures, theVIDARAtlas pro
Color Scanner is the only scanner that meets all of the City's requirements in providing full color
and black-and-white scanning of drawings and photographs requiring high grayscale quality.
VIDAR's exclusive color separation software will also allow for easily extracting of specific colors
from scanned images for building layers of information for use in GIS and AutoCAD systems.
The VIDAR Atlas Pro Color Scanner is available on a Federal Government Services Administration
(GSA) Pricing Schedule through DLT Solutions, Inc. of Herndon, Virginia at a savings of $1,542.98
over the list price. A search of vendors was conducted and only twenty (20) were found in the
United States, two (2) in the state of California (None in the Temecula vicinity), and only DLT
Solutions, Inc. of Herndon, Virginia is authorized to sell this product on the GSA schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds were appropriated in the 2000-01 Fiscal Year Budget for
Information Services Internal Service fund to accommodate this purchase through GSA at the unit
price of $28,068.00 with a total amount of $30,243.27, including tax.
ATTACHMENT: VIDAR GSA SCHEDULE PRICE LIST (GS-35F-4543G)
9/1312000
VIDAR GSA SCHEDULE PRICE LIST
Parffi
9905-1005P
1
9905-1055P
9905-1660P
1
9905-1565P
9905-1570P
9905-1575P
9905-1580
1
9905-1590P
9905-1595P
9905-1600P
9905-1605
9905-1610
9905-1615
1
9905-1625P
9905-1630P
9905-1635P
9905-1640
9905-1645
9905-1650
1
9905-1800P
9905-1805P
GS-35F-4543G
Effective 4/t/97-3/31102
DLT Solutjons, Inc.
360 Hemdon Parkway, Suite 700
Hemdon, Virginia 20'170
Phone: {888) 447-2223
Fax: (703) 709-8450
Emaih vidar~dlt. com
GSA Schedule #:
Term:
Business Size:
Federal Tax ID#:
CEC Code:
CAGE Code:
DUNS Number:
Payment Terms:
FOB:
GS-35F-4543G
4/1/97 - 3/31102
Small
54-1599882
78-747-829G
OSOH9
78-646-8199
Net30
Destination
Please address all purchase orders to:
DLT Solutions, Inc.
Attn: (Inse~t Preferred VIDAR Reseller)
360 Hemdon Parkway, Suite 700
Hemdon, VA
Description
Large Format Scanners
Flash Monochrome Scanner
VIDAR Flash Monochrome Large Format Scanner (pdcin9 e~ires 10/31/00)
This pricin9 includes a $200 discount on Flash scanner ~ratld until 10/31/00
TruScan Surveyor and Designer Scanners
V~DAR TruScan Surveyor High-Accuracy Color G IS Scanner (promotion expires 10/31100)
This pdclng includes a $400 discount on Surveyor Scanner valid until 10/31/00
VIDAR TruScan Designer 1600 High Resolu0on Color Scanner
This pricing includes a $300 discount on Designer Scanner valid until 10131100
TruScan Select Table Top Scanners
VIDAR TruScan Select Monochrome Table Top Scanner (pricing expires 10131/00)
VIDAR TruStart Select Rus Monochrome Table Top Scanner (pricing expires 10/31/00)
VIDAR TruScan Select P¢o Monochrome Table Top Scanner (pricing expires 10/31/00)
This pricing includes a $200 discount on Select Scanner valid until 10131/00
Upgrade TruScan Select to Select Plus (/~) upgrade path to Sel6ct Pro)
Titan Scanners
VIDAR Titan II Color Scanner (pricing expires 10131/00)
VIDAR Titan II Plus Color Scanner (pdcing expires 10/31/00)
VIDAR Titan II Pro Color Scanner (pricing expires 10/31/00)
This pricing includes a $300 discount on Titan II Scanner valid until 10/31/00
Upgrade Titan II to Titan II Plus
Upgrade Titan II to Titan tl Pro
Upgrade Titan tl Plus to Titan II Pm
Atlas Scanners
VIDAR Atlas Color Scanner (pdcin9 expires 10/31/00)
VIDAR Atlas Rus Color Scanner (pdclng e~ires 10/31/00)
VIDAR Atlas Pro Color Scanner (pdclng expirss 10/31100)
This phcing includes a $300 discount on Atlas Scanner valid until 10131/00
Upgrade Atlas to Atlas Plus
Upgrade Atlas to ABas Pro
Upgrade Atlas Plus to Atlas Pro
CopySystem Software Bundles
TruScan Select bundled with CopySystems B/VV software (pricing expires 10131100)
TruScan Select Plus bundled with CopySystems B/VV sobNam (phcing e~pires 10131100)
List GSA
Model No. Price Price
10820 S21,900,00 $20,859.00
13952+14157+13647 $35,500.00
13718+11730+13986 $17,500,00
13994 $9,995.00.
13995 $12,800,00
13901 $17,000.00
I
$33,737.00
$16,528.00
$9,411.00
$12,109.00
14001 $3,500,00 $3,36600
I
13983 $17,500,00 $16,528.00
13984 $22,500.00 $21,336.00
13985 $26,000.00 $24,702,0Q
14003 $6,00000 $5,770.00
14005 $10,200.00 $9,808.00
14004 $4,200.00 $4,039.00
I
13979 $21,000.00 $19,894.00
13980 $24,900,00 $23,644.00
13981 $29,500.00 $28,068.00(
14008 $4,680,00 $4,500,00
14010 $10,200.00 $9,808,00
14009 $5.520.00 $5,308.00
I
14393+12863 $ 12,300,00 $11,528.00
14394+12863 $ 15,000.00 $14,424.00
Page 1 of 2
Part~
9905-1810P
9905-1815P
9905-1120P
9905-1820
9905-1825
9905-1830
9905-1835P
9905-1140P
9905-1145P
9905-1840
9905-1845
9905-1850
1
9905-1155
9905-1730
9905-1735
9905-1170
9905-1285
9905-1290
9905-1295
9905-1300
9905-1690
9905-1695
9905-1700
1
9905-1175
9905-1180
9905-1195
9905-1200
9905-1210
9905-1215
9905-1220
9905-1225
9905-1230
9905-1665
9905-1670
8905-1675
9905-1680
9905-1685
9905-1705
9905-1710
9905-1715
9905-1720
9905-1245
1
9905-1235
9905-1240
Descdptton
TruScan Select pro bundled with CopySystems B/VV sotbvare (pridng expires 10131/00)
This pridng includes $300 discount on Select Copysystems bundle valid untj110/31/00
VIDAR Titan fi bundled with CopySystems (pricing expires 10131/00)
Cop/Systems Titan II Plus Color Copying System (pridng expires 10/31100)
CopySystems Titan li Pro Color Copying System (pdcing expires 10/31/00)
This pddng includes a $400 discount on Titan Copysystems bundle valid until 10/31/30
Upgrade from Titan II with CopySystems to Titan II Plus with CopySystems
Upgrade from Titan fi with Cop/Systams to Titan II Pro with CopySystems
Upgrade from Titan II Plus w~th CopySystems to Titan II Pro with CopyS'/stems
VIDAR Arias bundled with Cop/Systems (pricing expires 10/31/00)
CopySystems Arias Plus Color Copying System (pdcing expires 10131/00)
Cop/Systems Arias Pro Color Copying System (pricing expires 10/31/00)
This pricing includes a $400 discount valid until 10/3t/00
Stand Alone Software
Accessories
Scanner Stands
Model NO.
13901+12863
12282+13873
12283+12861
12284+12862
14003+12867
14005+12868
14004+12869
13466+13873
12955+12861
12956+12862
14008+12867
14010+12868
14009+12869
13847
12889
12890
12891
11773
11293
11293
11293
13986
13878
14017
12870
12871
12874
12875
12877
12887
12878
12879
12880
13973
13974
13975
13976
13977
13871
13872
13920
13921
12913
12453
12454
List
Price
$ 19,000.00
$ 20,520.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 36,000.00
11,592.00
20,028.00
8,450.00
23,850.00
32,000.00
39,500.00
$ 10,272.00
$ 20,028,00
$ 9,756.00
$3,995.80
$8,760.00
$12,290.00
$3,000.00
$3,100.00
$450.00
$350.00
$199.00
$295.00
$290.00
$290.00
$700.00
$1 ,OOO.OO
$1,800.00
$1,800.80
$2,700.00
$840.00
$840.00
$1,2O0.OO
$450.00
$4,995,00
$1,495.00
$995.00
$695.00
$249.00
$800.00
$2,800.00
$1,000.00
$140.00
$595.00
$595,00
GSA
Price
$19,732.00
$28,848.00
$$4,218.00
$19,259.00
$8,126.00
$22,535.00
$30,372.00
$37,584.00
$9,878.00
$19,259.00
$9,382.00
I
$3,842.00
$8,424.00
$11,618,00
$2,885.00
$2,981,00
$433,00
$337.00
$191.00
$284,00
$279.00
$279,00
I
$673.00
$962.00
$1,731.00
$1,731.00
$2,596.00
$808.00
$80800
$1,154,00
$43300
$4,80300
$1,438 O0
$957,00
$668.00
$23900
$76900
$2,693,00
$962.00
$1.077.00
$135.00
I
$572.00
$572.00
Page 2 of 2
ITEM 6
APPROVAL E~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City ManagedCity Council
)usan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services
October 10, 2000
SUBJECT: Purchase of Microsoft Office 2000 Professional
Prepared by:
Thomas Hafeli, Information Systems Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the purchase of 165 licenses of Microsoft Office 2000
Professional Suite from Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc., Riverside, California in the amount of
$33,090.02.
BACKGROUND: Microsoft Office 2000 is an upgrade from Office 97, making it easier for an
individual to access vital business information and provides innovative analysis tools that help people
make better, more timely decisions. The City wants to provide our employees with better access to
our information, and Office 2000 responds with tools that integrate with and leverage existing
environments. Rich analysis tools, new Office Web Components and improved database connectivity
in Office 2000 enable users to access, analyze, track and respond to changing information.
Microsoft Office 2000 is available on a Microsoff Master Licensing Agreement with the State of
California Pricing Schedule through Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc. of Riverside, allowing the City
to benefit from the volume purchasing of the State of California. This will result in an actual savings
of $18,459.47 over the current list price.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds were appropriated in the 2000-01 Fiscal Year Budget for
Information Services Internal Service fund to accommodate this purchase.
ATTACHMENT: Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc. quote of September 25, 2000
Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc.
4135 Indus Way
Riverside, CA 92503
Ph: 909-273-7950
FAX: 909-734-5615
hrtp://~vww.jaguar. net
September 25. 2000
City ol'Temccula
Tom Hafli
Subjecl: MS Licenses
Jaguar/MicroAge, since 1978, has established a reputation in the Local Govermnent community by
providing a single vendor solution set approach to marketing and supporting its product offerings.
As strategic net~vorking Business Partner with our clients, our corporate mission has provided the
opportunity to offer itffonnation technology, office automation, responsive on-site teel'mical support. and
educational/consulting services at cost efti:ctive tales. Part of the professional network support learn
that Jaguar MicroAge fields from our 17,000' facility in Riverside.
1742698
1744248
Description Qty Price Extended
Price
MS Office Pro 2000 165 $186.00 $30,690.00
Media kit for MS Oilice Pro 2000 I $20.00 $20.00
Sub Total
Tax (7.75%) Exclnding labor
Total
$30,710.00
$2,380.02
$33,090.02
All pricing is good for 30 days fi'om the date of this quote. All products lis~,ed above are available and
can be delivered within 5 to 7 working days from date of order unless otherwise stated above. All
hardware products have a 1 years warranty unless otherwise stated above.
Thank You
Roy Finch
Sales Account Manager
ITEM 7
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
/',l,J/b~/illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
October 10, 2000
Authorize Temporary Partial Street Closures for "Race for the Cure" Event
October 22, 2000, in the Promenade Mall area (Margarita Road, Solana
Way, Ynez Road, and Overland Drive).
PREPARED BY:
Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Clement M. Jimenez, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTIAL STREET
CLOSURES FOR INLAND EMPIRE "RACE FOR THE CURE"
EVENT ON OCTOBER 22, 2000 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL
EVENT.
BACKGROUND: The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation/Temecula Chapter
has applied for permission to close podions of public streets in order to hold the Inland Empire Race
for the Cure on Sunday, October 22, 2000, on and around the Promenade Mall area. Coordination
for the activities on the Promenade Marl site has been negotiated with the Mall Site Management. A
number of sponsors aro suppoding this event.
The directly affected streets, including Ynez Road, Solana Way, Margarita Road, and Overland
Drive would require some partial or full closures on the event date. The Mall Ring Road, a private
road, will also be partially closed for the event. Provision for traffic movements along the race reute
and abutting streets have been reviewed and revised to meet traffic concerns along both major
traffic routes and neighboring residences and businesses during the proposed event period.
The race route begins at the starting line located on the Mall Ring Road, proceeds to the Mall
Entrance Road opposite North General Kearny Road easterly over three (3) traffic lanes, then
southerly along Margarita Road over two lanes of traffic, then westerly along Overland Ddve over
four lanes of traffic to Promenade Way where the beginning of a raised landscaped median on
Overland Drive reduces the leg to two lanes of traffic, then southerly along Ynez Road over one lane
of traffic, then easterly along Solana Way over one lane of traffic, then northerly along Margarita
Road over two lanes of traffic to Overland Drive where the leg is reduced to one lane of traffic to
Winchester Road where the course u-turns and proceeds southbound on Margarita Road over two
I
r:\agdrpt~000\1010\RaceForTheCureStreetCIosure
lanes of traffic, then westerly along before said Mall Entrance Road over two lanes of traffic to the
Mall Ring Road and the finish line located in a parking lot drive aisle off of the Mall Ring Road.
The following summarizes the extent of street closures and the times of closure during the event:
Overland Drive - Overland Drive, between Margarita Road and Promenade Way, will be fully closed.
Overland Drive, between Promenade Way and Ynez Road, will be partially closed. The two (2)
eastbound lanes will be closed forthe event. This street will be closed between 7:45 AM and 9:30
AM.
Ynez Road - Ynez Road, between Overland Drive and Solana Way, will be padially closed. The
easternmost northbound lane will be closed for the event.
Solana Way - Solana Way, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road, will be partially closed. The
northernmost westbound lane will be closed for the event. This street will be closed between 8:00
AM and 9:30 AM.
Margarita Road - Margarita Road, between Solana Way and Overland Drive, will be partially closed.
The two (2) southbound lanes will be closed for the event. Margarita Road, between Overland Drive
and Winchester Road, will be partially closed. The westernmost northbound lane will be closed for
the event. Margarita Road, between Winchester Road and the Mall Entrance Road, will be partially
closed. The two (2) southbound lanes will be closed for the event. This street will be closed
between 7:45 AM and 10:15 AM.
Mall Entrance Road (Private Street) - The entire Mall Entrance Road, the one opposite North
General Kearny Road, will be closed entirely for the event. This street will be closed between 6:00
AM and 11:00 AM.
Mall Ring Road (Private Street) - A portion of The Mall Ring Road, between the start and finish lines,
will be closed entirely for the event. The traffic control plan shows the limits of closure.
Under Vehicular Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways", local authorities, for those
highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for,
among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local
special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the
closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who a re to use that portion of the street
during the temporary closing".
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-96 on September 10, 1991, which provided standards
and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public right of way.
While a process was established for reviews and approvals, no mechanism was provided for
delegating authority to temporarily close streets, or portions of streets, for these special events,
The recommended resolution delegates the authority to approve temporary street closures for the
Inland Empire "Race for the Cure" Event sponsored by The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer
Foundation/Temecula Chapter. This authority is limited to and delegated to the City Engineer (or an
authorized representative) only. Any other special events requiring temporary street closures,
construction related closures, etc., remain subject to the approval of the City Council subject to rules
and regulations established by the City Council. These rules and regulations shall also be adopted
by resolution in accordance with California Vehicular Code Section 21101.
The basic race course and event schedule is attached hereto. The approved traffic control plans will
more effectively allow the movement of traffic in and to the Promenade Mall and other businesses in
the adjoining areas, the residential neighborhoods, and the Solana Ridge Apartments.
2
r:\agdrpt~2000\1010\RaceForTheCureStreetCIosure
FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated costs for services provided by the Public Works Department
Maintenance Division and Police Services have not been determined at this time anticipating
changes in the race route, traffic control, and the timing required to facilitate minimum street closure
blocks of time. These costs are normally negotiated between the affected departments and the
sponsors.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 2000-
Sponsor's Proposed Traffic Control Plan & Event Hours
Sponsor Event Brochure
3
r:~agdrpt~2000\1010\RaceForTheCureStreetClosure
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY
PARTIAL STREET CLOSURES FOR INLAND EMPIRE "RACE
FOR THE CURE" EVENT ON OCTOBER 22, 2000, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE PERMIT FOR
THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
WH EREAS, The California State Vehicular Code provides for the promulgation of rules and
regulations for the temporary closure of public streets by local authorities by Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish rules and regulations for the temporary
closure of public streets in the interest of promoting safety and protection; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula desires to authorize the partial closure of public streets for
the Inland Empire Inaugural "Race for the Cure" Event sponsored by The Susan G. Komen Breast
Cancer Foundation/Temecula Chapter, for which such temporary street closures promote the safety
and protection of persons using or proposing to use those streets for the special event: and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to facilitate the issuance of permission to temporarily
close public streets for the Inland Empire Temecula "Race for the Cure": and,
NOW, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Engineer to approve
temporary street closures for the Inland Empire "Race for the Cure" sponsored by The Susan G.
Komen Breast Cancer FoundationFFemecula Chapter, and to establish the general rule that all other
proposed temporary street closures shall be reviewed and approved subject to conditions, or
disapproved, by the City Council; and,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby
authorizes the City Engineer to permit temporary street closures for the Inland Empire "Race for the
Cure" Event on October 22, 2000.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 10th day of October 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W.Jones, CMC, City Clerk
4
r:\agdrpt~2000\1010\RaceForTheCureStreetCIosure
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2000- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
th
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10 day of October 2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
5
r:\agdrpfi2000\1010\RaceForTheCureStreetCIosure
~ I::lldlN3 (3NV'INj" ~ ~ ¢~ '~
Komen Inland Empire Race for the Cure®
The Susan G. Komen
Breast Cancer Foundation
36450 Inland Valley Drive, Suite 211
Wildomar, CA 92595
INLAND
EMPIRE'S LARGEST RUN/WALl( IN
HISTORY.
.~.
CJ
jlI
j I
ITEM 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
October 10, 2000
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit
Construction Bids for Margarita Road Widening - Phase I, Project No.
PW99-01
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer
Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and
Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for
Margarita Road Widening - Phase I, Project No. PW99-01.
BACKGROUND: The first phase of Margarita Road widening consists of widening and
improving Margarita Road from Pio Pico Road to Hwy 79 South. This project will include pavement
widening, pavement rehabilitation, construction of curb and gutter, raised medians, irrigation
system, landscaping, signing, striping, driveway reconstruction, and interconnect conduit.
The Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be
advertised for construction bids. The Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's
office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $1,100,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: Margarita Road Improvements, Phase I, is funded in the Capital Improvement
Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 through Development Impact Fees-Street Improvements (DIF).
These DIF fees will not be collected until the Fiscal Year 2001-2002. When bids are received and
the contract is to be awarded, staff will recommend an advance of Capital Improvement Reserves
until DIF fees are collected.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Location
2. Project Description
r:~agdrpt~000~1010\pw99-01 .bid
Old
CD
CD
ITEM 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER /2/¢
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
October 10, 2000
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit
Construction Bids for Pavement Management System - Project No. PW99-
17, Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer
Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and
Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for
Pavement Management System - Project No. PW99-17, Jefferson Avenue Pavement
Rehabilitation.
BACKGROUND: With the Pavement Management System (PMS) in place, a five (5)
year Pavement Management System Program has been formulated. All streets within the City were
physically inspected, evaluated and prioritized during the implementation of the Pavement
Management System. Based on these priorities, streets were grouped into areas that would
provide for the most cost-effective projects while providing maintenance where it would be most
beneficial.
The Public Works Department is proposing to rehabilitate the pavement on Jefferson Avenue from
the northerly city limits to 300' north of Overland Drive. The work to be performed will include cold
planning existing pavement, removing & replacing pavement and base material, resurfacing with a
layer of asphalt concrete, crack sealing, treating of all oil stains and replacing of all traffic loops,
striping and street legends.
The Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be
advertised for construction bids. The Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's
office. The estimated total cost for this project is $700,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Jefferson Avenue Pavement Management Improvement Project is
budgeted in the FY2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program budget and is funded by Capital
Project Reserves and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Location
2. Project Description
r:'tagdrpfi2000'd 010~pw99-17,bid
Z
ITEM 10
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
October 10, 2000
Modification No. Two (2) to Assistance Agreement No. AG8J5000051, U.S.
Depadment of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs & City of Temecula - Pala
Road Bridge Improvement Project Project No. PW97-15
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer
Julie Dauer, CIP Specialist
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Modification No. Two (2) to
Agreement No. AGBJ5000051, between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and City of Temecula, providing for a total amount not to exceed $5,622,293.00.
BACKGROUND: City Council approved the original "Assistance Agreement" for a total
amount not to exceed $6,000.000, at their September 19, 1995 meeting. The original agreement
was due to expire, September 19, 2000, prior to completion of all improvements required by the
Pala Road Bridge Improvements, Project No. PW97-15.
This Modification to the Agreement extends the performance period one (1) year, assuring funds
are available for the completion of the imposed mitigation measures including environmental
mitigation, landscaping and sound wall construction. The new expiration date will be September
19, 2001. In negotiating this time extension, Mr. Kanu Patel of the BIA requested that any funds not
needed for the project be released for use on other BIA projects. A conservative estimate of the
projected cost to complete the project was prepared and forwarded to Mr. Patel. Provisions
included in this modification reduce or de-obligate $414,276.00 of the original funding obligation,
resulting in a revised total not to exceed of $5,622,293.00.
It is anticipated that this "Modification of Assistance Agreement" will compensate for all future costs
associated with the completion of the Pala Road Bridge Improvement, Project No. PW97-15.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: Modification of Assistance Agreement
r:~agdrpt~000\1010~pw97-15 B IA agrmt
MODIFICATION ~JMBER
Two (2)
UNrl-~n STATES
DEFABTMENT OF THE
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIFS
MODIFICATION OF A~SISTANCE
EFFECTIVE DATE
9/14/00
Page 1 of 2___
3. REQUISITION NU~ER
ISSUED BY
U.S. Deparunent of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Pacific Rs~/o--1 Office
2800 Cotra~e gay
Sacramento CA 98~25
7. RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Dr.
P.O. Box 9033
Temecuin, CA 92590
Greg Butler, Senior PrOject Manager
(909) 694-6411
8. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT D~] GRANT
NO. GSJS000051
DATED 9/18/95
5. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA
002/J00450 96/99 93712'J5445300 411c - $414,276.00
DEOBLIC. ATION
6. FUNDING INFOR/t%.TION
RECIPIEITr BIA
THIS Decrease
OBLIGATION S 20Z $- $414,276.00
PREVIOUS
0BLIGAT10N $ 20I $ $6,036,569.00
TOTAL
OBLIGATION $ 20% $ $5,622,293.00
9. THIS SUPPLENENTALAGREIltlIrr IS ENTERED INT0 PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY 0F:
Public Law 102-240 and Title. 23, USC Section 144
It modifies the above numbered assistance agreement as sec fnrnh in Bloc~ 8.
10. DESCRIPTION OF HODIFIGATIDN: Deobligation of funds and extension of performance period.
TITLE OF THE AGREEHENT:
Replacement of the Pala Read Bridge
Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of t~e document referenced in Block 8,
as heretofore thanBed, remain uricheaped and in full force and e£fecc.
i1. Acceptance of this Hodificacion in
accordance vith the terms and
conditions contained herein is
of hereby made on behalf of
ACceptance of this Modification in
accordance vi=h the terms and c~nditions
contained herein is hereby made on behalf
the United States of America, Bureau of
~nd~=. Affairs.
BY
aTTY OF TEMECUI,A
NAME OF RECIPIENT
SIGNATURE
JEFFREY E. STONE
TYPED NAME
DATE
BY
4
SIGNATURE DATE
G'RACIE A. MURILLO / DENISE STORMS
TYPED NAME
TITLE MAYOR
TITLE Grants & Cooperative A~reementS Officer
PHONE (909) 694-6411 PHONE (916) 978-6025 (916) 978-6026
Cooperative Agreement No.
AG5J5000051
Modification No. Two (2)
Page 2 of 2
Block No. 10 (continued):
ADJUSTMENT OF FUNDING AMOUNT:
Based on project savings the total amount of this Agreement is hereby decreased from
$6,036,569.00 to $5,622,293.00, a decrease of $414,276.00.
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE ADJUSTMENT:
Based on the environmental mitigation measures imposed on this project, the period of
performance completion date is extended from September 19, 2000 to a new completion date of
September 19, 2001, consisting of a one ( 1 ) year extension.
All other terms and conditions remain in full force and effect.
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF 12'qDIAN AFFAIRS
Pacific Regional Office
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramemo~ California 95825
September 15, 2000
RECEIVED
SEP 19 ZOO0
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
City of Temecula
Attention: Greg Butler
43200 Business Park Dr.
P.O. Box 9033
Temecuta, CA 92590
Subject: Modification No. Two (2) to Agreement No. AG8J5000051,
Replacement of the Pala Road Bridge
Dear Mr. Butler:
Enclosed is an original and two (2) copies of Modification No. Two
(2) to Agreement No. AG8J5000051, which provides a decrease of
funds based on savings, and a one year extension to the performance
period.
Once reviewed and agreed to,
copies back to this office.
your file.
please sign and provide two original
You may keep the third original for
Should you have any questions please contact Denise Storms at (916)
978-6026.
Sincerely,
GRACIE A. MURILL0
Grants/Cooperative Agreement Officer
Enclosure
cc: PRO Roads Branch
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Pacific Re~onal Office
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento. California 95825
September 15, 2000
RECEIVED
SEP 19 2000
CITY' OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
City of Temecula
Attention: Greg Butler
43200 Business Park Dr.
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Modification No. Two (2) to Agreemenu No. AGSJ5000051,
Replacement of the Pala Road Bridge
Dear Mr. Butler:
Enclosed is an original and two (2) copies of Modification No. Two
(2) to Agreement No. AG8J5000051, which provides a decrease of
funds based on savings, and a one year extension no the performance
period.
Once reviewed and agreed to,
copies back to this cffice.
your file.
please sign and provide two original
You may keep the zhird original for
Should you have any questions please contact Denise Storms at (916)
978-6026.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
GRACIE A. MURILLO
Grants/Cooperative Agreemenu Officer
cc: PRO Roads Branch
ITEM 11
APPROVAL_C
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
rtA)~William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
October 10, 2000
Award of Construction Contract for the Pala Road Bridge Landscape
Environmental Mitigation/Median & Parkway Landscaping
Project No. PW97-15 (Landscape)
PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Senior Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Award a construction contract for the Pala Road Bridge Landscape - Project No. PW97-15
(Landscape), to Diversified Landscape Co. for a base amount of $174,961.75 and authorize
the Mayor to execute the contract.
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $17,496.00, which is equal to 10% of the base contract amount.
BACKGROUND: On October 13, 1998 the City Council approved the solicitation for
public construction bids for the Pala Road Bridge improvements. The majority of these
improvements were completed under the bridge replacement contract. This contract encompasses
the imposed environmental mitigation measures required to re-vegetate the area within Temecula
Creek disturbed during the bridge replacement contract. This project also involves installing
enhanced landscaping in the newly completed Pala Road median and parkways.
Six (6) bids were publicly opened on September 21,2000, and the results for the bid are as follows:
1. Diversified Landscape $174,961.75
2. Natures Image $213,019.00
3. Habitat West $229,540.00
4. Geoscene Const. $232,648.00
5. S & M Landscape $369,722.00
6. E & M Landscape $491,900.00
Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found Diversified Landscape Co, Inc. to be the lowest
responsible bidder for this project Diversified Landscape Co. has satisfactory completed other
projects for the City in the past.
The specifications allow 45 working days for the completion of this project followed by a five (5)
year maintenance period. Work could begin by mid November 2000.
r:%agdrpt\00\1010%pw97-151andscape.awd/ajp
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project is funded with Bureau of
Indian Affairs Funds, Capital Project Reserves and Developer Impact Fees. Adequate funds are
available for this work in Account No. 210-165-631-5804.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Project Location
2. Project Description
3. Contract
2
r:~agdrpt%00\l 010\pw97-151andscape.awd/ajp
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PW97-'15 (Landscape)
PALA ROAD BRIDGE LANDSCAPE
Environmental Restoration
Median and Parkway Improvements
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 10th day of October, 2000, by and between the
City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Diversified
Landscape Company, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR."
WITNESSETH:
That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree
as follows:
1.8.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract
Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance
Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO.
PW97-15 (Landscape) Pala Road Bridge Landscape, Environmental Restoration,
Median and Parkway Improvements, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all
modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications (1992 Ed.) where specifically referenced in the
Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by
the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American
Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as
amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical
Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW97-15 (Landscape) Pala Road Bridge
Landscape, Environmental Restoration, Median and Parkway Improvements.
Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher:
Building New, Incorporated
3055 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90034
(213) 202-7775
The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials,
and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General
Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO.
PW97-15 (Landscape) Pala Road Bridge Landscape, Environmental Restoration,
Median and Parkway Improvements.
In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract
Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in
lieu of, such conflicting portions.
CONTRACT CA-1
R:~cip~projects\pw97-15~rnedian & parkway\contract Landscape
Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in
complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed
and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise
specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and
incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract.
The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be
as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other
Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract.
SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed,
shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable
equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following:
PROJECT NO. PW97-15 (Landscape)
PALA ROAD BRIDGE LANDSCAPE
Environmental Restoration
Median and Parkway Improvements
All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict
accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract
Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY.
CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished
and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to
the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives.
CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR
agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE DOLLARS
and SEVENTY FIVE CENTS ($174,961.75), the total amount of the base bid.
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed forty-five (45)
working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction
shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY.
CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except
that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order,
changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as
established by the City Council.
PAYMENTS
LUMP SUM BID SCEHDULE:
Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to
the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the
work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its
accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the
City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's
payment requests.
CONTRACT CA-2
R:~cip~projects\pw97-15~edian & parkwayScontract Landscape
UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE:
Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days
after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be
paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed
according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or
about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses.
The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be
made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR
filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on
forms provided by the CITY.
Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law,
accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work
for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the
terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under
the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be
considered as an acceptance of any part of the work.
Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty
(30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract
Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference.
In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the
retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the
Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project
is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to
reduce the retention to the Engineer.
WARRANTY RETENTION. Commencing with the date the Notice of Completion is
recorded, the CITY shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure warranty
performance and correction of construction deficiencies according to the following
schedule:
CONTRACT AMOUNT
$25,000 0 $75,000
RETENTION PERIOD RETENTION PERCENTAGE
180 days 3%
$75,00- $500,000
180 days
$2,250 + 2%ofamountin
excess of $75,000
Over $500,000
One Year
$10,750 + 1% of amount
in excess of $500,000
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government
Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed
beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be
deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum
shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated
damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or
negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is
required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay.
CONTRACT CA-3
R:~cip~pmjects~pw97-15~nedian & parkwayScontract Landscape
10.
11.
12.
WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph
6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as
to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of
the
payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release
of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required
to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment.
PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of
the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per
diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each
craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the
Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City
Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula.
CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the
adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the
provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the
CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each
laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for
any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in
violation of the provisions of the Contract.
TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract.
INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction
or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR
alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its
officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons
(CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or
indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by
CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY.
The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any
and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project.
The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the
13. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents,
or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or premises to CITY's employees,
agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing
favorable treatment with respect thereto.
14. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage
relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee,
or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this
project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been
employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids.
15.
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this
Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all
workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors
CONTRACT CA-4
R:~cip\proiects~pw97-15Vnedian & parkwayScontract Landscape
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against
the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an
affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has
been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.
NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge
that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely
performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof,
including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY.
BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part
thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable
times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its
authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and
places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers.
CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and
convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner
as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and
acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final
inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work.
DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will
not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion,
national origin, color, sex age, or handicap.
GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the
State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties
to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation
concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district
court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation
between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the
Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
incurred in the litigation.
PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or
of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the
contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member,
officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-
contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the
contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to
the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such
information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest
would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section
1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the
Government Code of the State of California.
ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor
is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-
336, as amended.
CONTRACT CA-5
R:~cip~rojects~pw97-15~nedian & parkwayScontract Landscape
23.
WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract
Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents,
and to the CITY addressed as follows:
William G. Hughes, Director
Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
of Public
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the
date first above written.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR:
Diversified Landscape Company
33801 Washington St
Winchester, CA 92596
(909) 926-7444
By:
Paul J. Morales, President
DATED:
CITY OF TEMECULA:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
CONTRACT CA-6
R:%cip%projects~w97-15%median & parkway\contract Landscape
ITEM 12
APPROVAL
CItY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
/h~'/~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
October 10, 2000
Amendment to Cooperative Agreement between the City of Temecula and
County of Riverside for the Construction of the Traffic Signal and Safety
Lighting Improvements at Rancho California Road and Butterfield Stage
Road Project No. PW98-11
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Approve the Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside for
the installation of a traffic signal and safety lighting at the intersection of Rancho
California Road and Butterfield Stage Road, Project No. PW98-11.
Approve an advance of $33,150.00 from the General Fund Reserves for the installation
of the traffic signal and safety lighting improvements in cooperation with the previously
approved Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside
BACKGROUND: On August 22, 2000 The City Council approved the Cooperative
Agreement between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside and authorized payment
of fifty percent (50%) for the construction and installation of the traffic signal and safety lighting
at Rancho California Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The original agreement provided for the
County to invoice the City for the estimated share of the cost for construction in the amount of
$58,150.
On September 27,2000 the County opened bids for improvements to Rancho California Road
east of Butterfield Stage Road which includes the Rancho California Road and Butterfield Stage
Road Traffic Signal improvements. The price bid for the signal installation was $166,000.00
that is considerably higher than the estimated and previously approved amount.
The County of Riverside is schedule to award the contract on October 17th. They have
requested that the City of Temecula amend our cost sharing agreement to reflect the actual bid
amount. The Amendment is currently being prepared and will be delivered to the City prior to
the October 10th City Cou cil meeting. The City's share is now $ 83,000.00.
n
I
R:~agdrpt~000\1010\pw98-11 add funds/ajp
The forthcoming amendment to the cost sharing agreement will provide for the increased cost
resulting from the low bid. The County of Riverside will act on the City's behalf and administer
the public works contract for the construction of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road project is a Capital
Improvement Project funded by Development Impact Fees - Traffic Signal and Riverside
County Reimbursement Cooperative Agreement. The new appropriation of funds in the amount
of $33,150 from the General Fund Reserves is necessary to cover the construction and 10%
contingency for this signal. The advance of funds from the General Fund Reserves will be
repaid by future Traffic Signal Mitigation revenues.
ATTACHMENTS:
Project Description
Project Location
Amendment to Cooperative Agreement (will be delivered by the County prior to the City
Council Meeting).
2
R:\agdrpfi2000\1010~pw98-11 add funds/ajp
ITEM 13
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF
CHAPTERS Ill AND IV SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE OLD
TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter III, Section G, Sign Regulations, for the Old Town Specific Plan are
hereby amended:
A. Subsection 3 (c), the first paragraph is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Any project that proposes to provide space for more than one tenant shall provide a
comprehensive sign plan. The comprehensive sign plan shall indicate the size and
approximate location of all signs to be erected on the property at the time of initial
application. Signs shall be shown on elevation drawings with accurate dimensions
provided. The Director may also require the following information:"
B. Subsection 5. Prohibited Signs in Old Town. The first bullet item is hereby modified
to read as follows: "Freestanding signs on lots with less than 150' of frontage on a single street
and buildings with front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet or less".
C. Subsection 6. Permitted Signs in Old Town. Add a new bullet at the beginning of
this section to read as follows: "Mini-Monument Signs for lots with buildings that have actual front
yards of more than ten (10) feet that were constructed prior to 1994."
D. Subsection 7. (d) Sign Standards shall be modified to allow the provision of Mini-
Monument signs. This section is hereby modified to read as follows:
"d. Monument Signs - one of the following sign types may be permitted per site
if the following requirements are met:
Monument - A maximum of one double face sign if said street frontage is over
150 feet on any one street. The maximum square footage of a freestanding
sign shall be 16 square feet. Height of sign shall not exceed six (6) feet above
grade. Width shall not exceed four (4) feet. Each tenant placard shall not
exceed 12" high. Sign may only be indirectly illuminated. Internal illumination
is prohibited.
Mini-Monument- Maximum of one double face sign if said street frontage is
less than 150 feet on any one street, if the building existed prior to 1994 and if
the building is set back ten (10) feet or more from the street. The maximum
sign area is six (6) square feet with a maximum height of four (4) feet. The
sign may be placed in the front yard setback for increased visibility, but not
within the public right-of-way. No illumination is allowed. If a building has
R:Ords~2000-11 I
more than one tenant or building per lot, there shall only be one Mini-
Monument allowed. If a sign is placed on a creative, time appropriate
architectural eIement such as a covered wagon, wagon wheel, railroad cart,
etc. (as defined in Subsection 9.7.p.), the height may be increased. The
architectural element must be reviewed and approved by the Old Town Local
Review Board and the Director of Planning."
E. Subsection 7 (h) Sign Standards shall be modified to insert the following sentence at
the end of the existing paragraph:
"Each tenant may have a projecting sign, however no tenant may have both a
projecting sign and a Mini-Monument sign."
as follows:
The following amendments are typographical errors and should be amended to mad
Subsection 7 (n), in the first line, the word "year" should be replaced with "rear".
Subsection 7. (o) the word "are" should be replaced with "area".
Section 2. Chapter IV of the Specific Plan shall be amended to read as follows:
A. Subsection A. 4 (e), add a new 7th bullet to read as follows: "Mini-Monument
signs located on architectural features that exceed the standard height requirement to four
feet."
B. Subsection E. 2, Guideline 3 - Sign Color, revise the third bullet, first line to read
as follows: "Limit colors to four on a single sign."
C. Subsection G. 4 (c), add a sentence to the end of the existing paragraph which
reads "Generic directional signs may be added to the existing street name poles provided the
signs are approved by the applicable City Departments."
Section 3.
following findings:
Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the
A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the
Old Town Specific Plan because it helps promote the revitalization of Old Town by assisting
businesses to have adequate signage to enhance business opportunities.
B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment promotes the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing businesses with appropriate
signage to help promote business opportunities in Old Town.
C. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment ensures the development of desirable
character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the
surrounding area and would promote the preservation of the historic character of Old Town.
R:Ords\2000-11 2
Section 4. Environmental Determination. These minor amendments to the sign
ordinance concentrate on signage for buildings that were in existence prior to the adoption of the
Old Town Specific Plan. Approval of these modifications does not have the potential to cause a
significant impact on the environment. Any potential physical impacts to the environment
associated with implementing the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative
Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the City General Plan. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061 (b) (3).
Section 5. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 10th day of October, 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:Ords~000-11 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby cedify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 2000-11 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the 26~ day of September, 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City,Council of the City of Temecula on
the 10'" day of October, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:Ords~O00-11 4
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AUGUST 22, 2000
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:52
P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President
Comerchero presiding.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT:
5 DIRECTORS: Nagger, Pratt, Roberrs, Stone, and
Comerchero
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
2
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of July 25, 2000.
First Amendment to the Tree Maintenance Services Contract with West Coast Arborists,
Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
2.2
Approve the First Amendment for the extension of the Tree Maintenance
Services Contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. through June 30, 2001 in an
amount of $75,000.00;
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $7,500.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2.
motion was seconded by Director Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
DISTRICT BUSINESS
3 City of Temecula Heritage Award and Heroes Wall Honorees
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the recommended honorees for Heritage Award Plaque;
The
Minutes.csd~082200 I
3.2
Approve the procedure for the establishment and operations of the City of
Temecula Wall of Heroes.
Deputy Director of Community Services Ruse presented the staff report (as per agenda
material).
Not personally having much information about the recommended honorees and although he
does not doubt each individual's contribution to the heritage of this City, District Member Naggar
advised that he would be abstaining with regard to staff recommendation 3.1.
Having reviewed the provided material with regard to the honorees, President Comerchero
commented on the Subcommittee's difficulty in making the proposed recommendation.
For Councilman Pratt, Deputy Director of Community Services Ruse advised that information
with regard to each honoree will be provided at the Museum.
MOTION: District Member Stone moved to approve the staff recommendation. District Member
Roberrs seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of District
Member Naggar who abstained.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
Commenting on another successful Summer Camp Program and advising that summer activities
are winding down, Deputy Director of Community Services Ruse invited everyone to attend the last
two Summer Concert Series and noted that holiday activities are gearing up.
In response to District Member Naggar, Ms. Ruse advised that Family Free Swim Night has been
very successful.
For District Member Pratt, Ms. Ruse advised that there currently is a concession stand at the Sports
Park and that consideration could be given to the City contracting with an ice cream vendor.
District Member Stone apprised Ms. Ruse of some brown grassy areas at Nicolas Road Park,
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
Reiterating Ms. Ruse's invite, General Manager Nelson encouraged the public to attend the last two
Summer Concert Series.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
No comments.
Minutes,csd~082200 2
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:02 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday,
September 12, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Jeff Comerchero, President
A']'I'EST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
Minu~s.csd\082200 3
ITEM 2
APPROVA~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
October 10, 2000
Community Services Recreation Brochure
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Julie Crowe-Pelletier, Recreation Superintendent
That the Board of Directors:
Award contract to Graphics Unlimited Lithography for the preparation and printing of six
(6) issues of the Community Services Recreation Brochure over a three (3) year period
in an amount of 935,547 annually.
2. Approve a contingency of 10% or 93,550 annually.
DISCUSSION: A Request for Proposal (RFP) was released by the City to solicit
proposals for the development and professional production of the Community Services
Recreation Brochure. The Winter/Spring issues will be distributed citywide on November 24,
2000, November 30, 2001 and November 29, 2002. The Summer/Fall issues will be
distributed May 25, 2001, May 24, 2002 and May 30, 2003. The brochure will include 32
pages with a glossy, full color, seventy-weight pages. Services provided will include design,
camera-ready artwork, typesetting layout, final printing, and delivery to the U.S. Post Office
for bulk direct mail delivery.
Request for Proposals (RFP) were sent to six (6) qualified printing and graphic professionals in
Temecula. In addition, a Public Notice was submitted to the local newspaper informing
potential printing and graphic professionals that the City was seeking printing and graphic
services. Staff received one proposal from Graphics Unlimited Lithography.
Based upon vendor's previous experience with the City, the ability to meet projected deadlines,
the superior quality of printing, and overall cost, staff is recommending Graphics Unlimited
Lithography. Staff has worked with Graphics Unlimited Lithography on several previous
projects and has been completely satisfied with their work performance. In addition, the
Community Services Department has received four previous statewide recognition awards for
recreation brochures that were produced by Graphics Unlimited Lithography.
FISCAL IMPACT: Cost to produce two (2) issues annually of the Recreation
Brochure is $35,547 plus a 10% contingency. Unencumbered funds exist in account #190-
180-999-5222.
R:\CROWEJ\AGENDAS\BROCHURE.AGN2000.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
GUIDE TO LEISURE ACTIVITIES BROCHURE
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of October 10, 2000 between the City
of Temecula Community Services District ("District") and Graphics Unlimited Lithography
("Consultant"). in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on October 10, 2000, and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than
June 30, 2003, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks descdbed and
set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set
forth in Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PAYMENT.
a. The District agrees to pay Consultant, in accordance with the payment rates and
terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon
actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and
schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Thirty -Five Thousand, Five
Hundred and Forty Seven Dollars and NO Cents ($35,547) per year of the Agreement unless
additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection
with its performance of this Agreement, which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such
additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall
be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City
Manager and Consultant at the time District's written authorization is given to Consultant for the
performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten
percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed three
thousand, five hundred and fifty-five dollars ($3,555.00). Any additional work in excess of this
amount shall be approved by the City Council.
c. Consultant will submit invoices for actual services performed. Payment shall
be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the District
disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt
of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
P~Agreements\Consultant 99 1
5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The District may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend
or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the District suspends or
terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the
District shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the District. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the District pursuant to Section 4.
6. DEFAULT OFCONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, District shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any
work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written
notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of
work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or
negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the
Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service
upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the
event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the District shall have
the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement
without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law,
in equity or under this Agreement.
7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by District that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of Distdct
or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give District the right to
examine and audit said books and records, shall permit District to make transcripts therefrom as
necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities
related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained
for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing
data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of
providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property
of the District and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the District without the
P~Agreements\Consultant 99 2
permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the
work, Consultant shall make available to the District, upon reasonable written request by the
District, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring and printing computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the District, its officers, agents and employees
may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or
damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of
or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only
liability arising out of the negligence of the District.
9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property,
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
fi)
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form
No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
(2)
Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01
06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the
Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to
the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.
(3)
Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has
no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's
compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall
execute a declaration that it has no employees.
(4)
Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form
providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance, Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
(1)
General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General
Liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
P~Agreements\Consultant 99 3
(2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
(3)
Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California;
Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for
bodily injury or disease.
(4)
Professional Liability coverage: One million ($1,000,000) per claim
and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall
procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the District, its
officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the District, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-
insured maintained by the District, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided
to the District, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to
the limits of the insurer's liability.
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cenceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the District.
P~Agreements\Consultant 99 4
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the District. Self-
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the District with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on
forms provided by the District. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the District
before work commences. As an alternative to the District's forms, the Consultant's insurer may
provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements
effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the District a wholly
independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither District
nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers,
employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the District. Consultant
shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against District, or
bind District in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, District shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for District. District shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all
local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
The District, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by
failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without District's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without
written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily
provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or
other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives District notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify District should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
P~Agreements\Consultant 99 5
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. District retains the
right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or
similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with District and to provide District with the
opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However,
District's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by District to control,
direct, or rewrite said response.
13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To District:
To Consultant:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
Graphics Unlimited Lithography
43171 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Stan Schroeder
14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of
the District. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this
Agreement, only Stan Schroeder shall per-Form the services described in this Agreement. Stan
Schroeder may use assistants, under his direct supervision, to perform some of the services under
this Agreement. Consultant shall provide District fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of
Stan Schroeder from Consultant's employ. Should he leave Consultant's employ, the Distdct shall
have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said
notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be
payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be
otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant.
'15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services
described in this Agreement.
16. GOVERNING LAW. The District and Consultant understand and agree that
the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the
parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation
PV~reements\Consultant 99 6
concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with
geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party
against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by
the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the
relief granted.
17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding
between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior
or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written,
are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering
into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's
own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herato have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first above written,
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeff Comerchero, President
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
P~Agreements\Consultant 99 7
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Graphics Unlimited Litho~raphy
By:
Name:
Title:
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
P~Agreements\Consultant 99 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
"EXHIBIT A"
RECREATION BROCHURE SPECIFICATIONS AND SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this project is to provide the City of Temecula with a professional guide to City
leisure activities. It is envisioned that the end result of this project will be used to inform the general
public of all leisure, sports, special events, social and cultural activities and services available
through the Community Services Department.
The Communi.ty Services Department shall:
1. Provide a typewritten copy of all activities for the brochure in a timely manner.
2. Review Vendors production schedule and provide input as applicable.
3. Promptly review and respond to all proofs submitted.
4. Reserve the right to review and reject any printed material that does not comply with
guidelines or is deemed inaccurate.
SPECIFICATIONS
1. Vendor shall have a minimum of three years experience in the printing/publishing industry.
2. Vendor shall provide evidence of insurance liability and abide by the City's Risk
Management procedures.
3. Vendor shall provide references and samples of at least three (3) similar publications that the
Vendor has produced or caused to be produced.
4. Vendor will be responsible for the coordination of the entire project. Vendor agrees to meet
and/or confer with City staff on an ongoing basis to develop, design, refine, and print a
Recreation Brochure.
5. Produce six (6) issues of the City of Temecula, Guide to Leisure Activities. Brochures
must be distributed November 24, 2000, May 25, 2001, November 30, 2001, May 24, 2002,
November 29, 2002 and May 30, 2003.
6. The brochure will be 8-1/2" x 11 ".
7. A minimum of 22,500 printed and bounded copies of each issue (six issue dates) will be
required for distribution.
8. The brochure will have thirty-two (32) total pages, cover included.
9. The brochure will have glossy, full color, seventy- weight outer cover of good ink and high
quality prints.
6
City of Temecula
"Exh ibit B"
PROPOSED FEES
The City recognizes the Fendor may not be able to project cost for a three (3)yearperiott
Please provide an estimated publication cost not to exceed 10%. Theproposed fees associated
with this project shall be submitted as follows, I have included all associated costs within this
quote:
Section I (Based upon a thirty-two page brochure at 22,500 copies)
November 24, 2000 publication cost $17.773.36
May 25, 2001 publication cost $17.773.36
November 30, 2001 publication cost $ 17 , 77~. ~6
May24, 2002publicatigncost $ 17,773.36
November 29, 2002 publication cost $17,7T~. ~ 6
May 30, 2003publication cost $17,773.~6
(Please include tax)
(Please include tax)
(Please include tax)
(Please include tax)
(Please include tax)
(Please include tax)
Section H (Additional cost should numbers of brochures necessary exceed 22,500 copies)
A. Per l,OOO copies $ 474.1c] (Please include tax)
By signing this Request for Proposal, Vendor has read and will comply with all terms and
conditions herein, which includes a penalty claus~
Signature of Authorized Representative
Name, Title and Date
NOTE: Above prices are quoted without possible paper cost increase.
All other production cost will remain without increase throughout
J the contract.
8
ITEM 3
APPRO~
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
General Manager/Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services~
October 10, 2000
Tract 23513 - Service Level B, and Service Level D Rates and
Charges (Located on the north side of Santiago Road between
John Warner Road and Margarita Road.)
PREPARED BY:
Barbara Smith, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A
REPORT WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B, AND SERVICE LEVEL D
RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23513 BEGINNING FISCAL
YEAR 2001-2002 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) operates under
the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting, and
refuse collection services to numerous residential subdivisions within the City of Temecula
through Service Level 'B", and Service Level "D". The boundaries of the TCSD are
coterminous with the City, and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the
TCSD.
Tract No. 23513 is a future 11 lot residential development. The development consists of
approximately 14,37 acres of vacant property located on the north side of Santiago Road
between John Warher Road and Margarita Road. The property owner has requested that the
TCSD establish the future parcel charges necessary to provide ongoing revenue for residential
street lighting, and refuse collection services within this development.
R:\smithb~Elections\23513 Election\Staff-Notice of Hearing.doc 09/27/2000
Beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the following TCSD rates and charges are proposed for
residential street lighting, and refuse collection services within Tract No.23513:
Service Level B
25.68 per residential parcel
Service Level D
72.56 per occupied parcel
Pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 218, the TCSD is required to hold a public hearing
and obtain voter or property owner approval in order to establish certain new rates and
charges. In addition, a report must be prepared and filed with the Secretary/City Clerk which
identifies all of the affected parcels and the amount of the proposed rates and charges. A
notice is mailed to the property owner identifying the proposed rates and charges and date of
the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing is held at least 45 days after the mailing of the
notices, If the proposed rates and charges are not rejected pursuant to a written protest,
then the TCSD will conduct a mailed ballot proceeding not less than 45 days after the public
hearing. The proposed rates and charges for Service Level B cannot be imposed unless the
property owner has approved the new charges. In accordance with Proposition 218, property
owners shall receive notice of the proposed charges for Service Level D, however, mailed
ballot proceedings are not required to impose rates and charges for refuse collection services.
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the resolution to accept the filing of the
report on the proposed residential street lighting and refuse collection services rates and
charges for Tract No. 23513 beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and schedule a public
hearing concerning this issue for November 28, 2000. Staff will then proceed with noticing
the owner(s) of Tract No. 23513 regarding the proposed rates and charges and the public
hearing date. If there is no majority protest against the rates and charges on November 28,
2000 staff will then proceed with the mailed ballot process for Service Level B.
FISCAL IMPACT: If voter approved, upon buildout of the development, the
proposed rates and charges of $25.68 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $282.48, for
the Service Level B. The proposed Service Level D charge of $172.56 per parcel will
generate an annual levy of $1 ,898.16. (Pursuant to Proposition 218, this amount may be
increased by the TCSD for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 after conducting an additional public
hearing. However, mailed ballot proceedings are not required to increase Service Level D rates
and charges.} Actual costs for providing long-term residential street lighting within Tract No.
23513 will be absorbed into Service Level B upon installation of said improvements. The
owner of Tract No. 23513 has paid the administrative and mailing costs associated with the
public notices and ballot information required per Proposition 218.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map (2)
Resolution of Intention
R:\smithb\ElectionsX23513 Election\Staff-Notice of Hearing.doe 09/27/2000
~AN._CHO V~STA /
SANTIAGO
DE
STATE HIGHWAy 79
VICINITY MAP
N .T.S.
TRACT NO. 23513
Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 945-010-001,003,004
Oi-
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING
OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B, AND SERVICE
LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23513 BEGINNING
FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICE DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND
ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, effective December 1, 1989, voters
approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District CTCSD"), to provide
specified services to properties within its jurisdiction.
Section 2. The TCSD provides long-term residential street lighting, and refuse collection
services in numerous residential developments within the City of Temecula. Pursuant to
Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates
and charges for residential street lighting (Service Level B), and refuse collection (Service Level D)
services furnished by it, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in
the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately
from, its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6,
inclusive.
Section 3. The TCSD hereby initiates proceedings to provide residential street lighting, and
refuse collection services within Tract No. 23513 beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD has caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared
and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD, which Report contains a description of the real property
and the proposed amount of the Service Level B, and Service Level D rates and charges required for
residential street lighting, and refuse collection services provided to each parcel within Tract No.
23513 beginning fiscal year 2001-2002. The TCSD proposes to collect the rates and charges at the
same time, in the same manner, by the same persons and together with and not separately from, the
property taxes collected within the TCSD. These rates and charges shall be delinquent at the same
time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such property taxes. All laws
applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement &property taxes, including, but not limited to,
those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, shall
be applicable to these rates and charges, except for California Revenue and Taxation Code Section
4831. However, if for the first year the charges are levied, the real property to which the charge
relates has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or ira lien of a bona fide
encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first
installment of such taxes appear on the roll, then the charge shall not result in a lien against the
R:\smi~hb\ElectionsX23513 Election\Resolution of Intention.doe 09/2712000
property, but instead shall be transferred to the ansecured roll for collection. The Report is described
as Exhibit A to this resolution.
Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby acknowledges the filing of the Report, and
appoints the day of November 28, 2000 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as feasible, in
the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590,
as the time and place for the public heating on the Report and the proposed Service Level B, and
Service Level D rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors will hear and
consider all objections or protests, if any, to the Report. The Board may continue the hearing fi'om
time to time.
Section 5. The Secretary of the TCSD is hereby directed to give notice of the filing of the
Report and of the time and place of hearing on the Report pursuant to the requirements of
Govemment Code Section 61765.2 and Section 6 of Article XII1D of the Califomia Constitution.
Section 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community
Services District this 10th day of October 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comemhero, President
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/District Secretary for the Temecula Community Services District, do
hereby certify that Resolution No. CSD 2000- was duly and regularly adopted by the board of
Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at a regular meeting thereof held on 10m
day of October, 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BOARD MEMBERS
BOARD MEMBERS
BOARD MEMBERS
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
R:Xsmithb\Elections\23513 Election\Resolution of Intention.doe 09/27/2000
Exhibit A
CITY OF TEMECULA
TRACT NO. 23513
INITIAL LEVY REPORT
Service Levels B, and D
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
Commencing Fiscal Year 2001/2002
INTENT MEETING:
PUBLIC HEARING:
October 10, 2000
November 28, 2000
INTRODUCTION:
Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula ("City"), effective December 1, 1989, voters
approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District CTCSD'') to
provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction previously provided by the
County of Riverside ("County"). The boundary of the TCSD is coterminous with the
City boundary, and includes all parcels within the City with the City Council acting as the
Board of Directors ("Board") for the TCSD. The TCSD collects property-related fees
and charges ("Charges") in order to provide services and maintain the improvements
within the TCSD. The TCSD was formed, and Charges are set and established, pursuant
to the Community Services District Law, Title 6, Division 3 of the Califomia
Government Code, CCSD Law").
Each fiscal year, an Annual Levy Report is prepared, filed and approved by the Board.
This Annual Levy Report describes the TCSD, any changes to the TCSD and the
proposed Charges for the fiscal year. The Charges contained in the Annual Levy Report
are based on the historical and estimated cost to service properties within the TCSD. The
services provided by the TCSD and the corresponding costs are budgeted and charged as
separate Service Levels and include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, and revenues.
Each parcel is charged for the services provided to the parcel.
The TCSD provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope
maintenance, refuse collection in numerous residential developments, and road
improvement and maintenance within specified areas of the TCSD. Pursuant to
Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and
collected rates and charges for residential street lighting (Service Level B), perimeter
landscaping and slope maintenance (Service Level C), refuse collection (Service Level
D), and road improvement and maintenance (Service Level R) services furnished by the
TCSD, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the
same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not
separately from, its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Govemment Code Sections
61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive.
Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 61621.2, this Initial Levy Report ("Report") is
prepared and presented to the Board to prescribe Service Level B and Service Level D
Rates and Charges for the parcels and territory identified as Tract No. 23513 beginning in
FY 2001-2002.
The territory and properties identified and described in this Report includes all parcels
within Tract 23513, a future residential development that consists of 6.12 acres of vacant
property located on the north side of Santiago Road, between John Wamer Road and
Margarita Road, with 11 planned residential units. The owner of record (sole property
owner) has requested that the TCSD establish the parcel charges necessary to provide
ongoing revenue for residential street lighting, and refuse collection services within this
future residential development.
Pursuant to Article XIIID of the Califomia Constitution ("Proposition 218") and CSD
Law, the TCSD is required to hold a protest hearing (the "Public Hearing") and a ballot
proceeding in order to establish certain new rates and charges. In addition, a report must
be prepared and filed with the District Secretary/City Clerk that identifies all of the
affected parcels and the amount of the proposed rates and charges. A notice is mailed to
the property owner identifying the proposed rates and charges and the date of the Public
Heating. The Public Hearing is held at least 45 days after the mailing of the notices. If
the proposed rates and charges are not rejected pursuant to a majority written protest,
then the CSD will conduct a mailed ballot proceeding not less than 45 days after the
Public Hearing. The proposed rates and charges for Service Level B cannot be imposed
unless the property owner has approved the new charges. Ballot proceedings are not
required to impose rates and charges for refuse collection services (Service Level D).
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
A. General Description of TCSD Services
The TCSD provides certain property related services consisting of four (4)
separate Service Levels to parcels throughout the TCSD. Each parcel within the
TCSD is charged for the proportional cost of the services attributable to the
parcel. Each Service Level has differing costs depending upon the services
provided. All parcels identified within a Service Level share in the cost of the
service. The costs associated with the service are proportionately spread among
all properties within that Service Level to which the service is provided. The
Service Levels are identified as follows:
· Residential Street Lighting
· Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance (Not applicable to this
Development)
· Refuse Collection
· Road Improvement and Maintenance (Not applicable to this
Development)
TRACT 23513 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The property (Tract No. 23513) is situated in the State of Califomia, County of
Riverside, City of Temecula, and is described as follows:
The land referred to is situated in the State of California, County of Riverside,
City of Temecula, and is described as follows:
Parcels 1, 2 and 3 together with Lettered Lots A, C, E and F of Parcel Map 8755,
in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of Califomia, as per map
recorded in Book 43, Page (s) 52 and 53, of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County.
Description of Service Levels
The proposed services applicable to parcels within Tract No. 23513 for which the
charges will be imposed beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002 include: residential
street lighting (Service Level B) and refuse collection (Service Level D).
Service Level B, Residential Street Lighting - includes all developed single
family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the TCSD
provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of local street lighting
improvements. The current rate for Service Level B is $25.68 per residential
parcel and shall be applied to parcels within Tract No. 23513 beginning Fiscal
Year 2001-2002.
Service Level C, iS currently not applicable to this development.
Service Level D, Refuse Collection - provides for the operation and
administration of the refuse collection program including recycling and street
sweeping services for all single family residential homes within the TCSD. The
current rate for Service Level D is $172.56 per single family residential home
(developed residential parcel) and will be applied to all parcels within Tract No.
23513 that have been identified as developed with a residential home, beginning
in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Pursuant to Proposition 218, the rate and charges for
this service may be increased by the TCSD after conducting and additional protest
hearing on the matter. Mailed ballot proceedings are not required to establish
Service Level D rates and charges.
Service Level R, is not applicable to this development.
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The cost to provide services within Tract No. 23513 will be fairly distributed
among each assessable property by the same methods and formulas applied to all
parcels within the various Service Levels of the TCSD.
The following is the formula used to calculate each property's TCSD charges and
is applied to Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting); and Service Level D
(Refuse Collection):
Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcels (in Service Level) = Parcel Charge
The following tables (Table I and II) reflect the levy calculations for each Service
Level.
TABLE I
Parcel Charge Calculation for
Service Level B
Parcel
Property Type Unit X
Single family residential 1.00
Single family vacant 1.00
Charge Per Parcel
Parcel = Charge Multiplier
$25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel
$25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel
A charge is imposed on all residential parcels developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space areas,
easements and non-buildable parcels are not assessed.
TABLE II
Parcel Charge Calculation for
Service Level D
Property Type
Single family residential
Parcel
Unit X
1.00
Charge per
Parcel =
$172.56
Parcel
Charge
$172.56
Multiplier
Per Parcel
This charge is imposed only on developed single family residential parcels (with a residential
home). Pursuant to Proposition 218, this amount may be increased by the TCSD after conducting
an additional protest hearing.
TCSD LEVY SUMMARY AND PROPOSED CHARGES
Each Service Level within the TCSD provides different and specific services to
various parcels within the TCSD. The rates and charges prescribed for each
service and level of service are proportionately spread to only those parcels that
are provided each respective service (Service Levels).
Table III below provides general levy information for the various Service Levels
within the entire TCSD for Fiscal Year 2000-2001.
TABLE III
TCSC Budget and Service Level Summary
For Fiscal Year 2000-2001
TCSD Budget and Charges Adopted in Fiscal Year 2000-2001
SERVICE LEVEL
Total Levy Charge Per Total Levy
Budget Levy Unit Units
Service Level B
Residential Street Lighting $351,765 $25.68
Service Level C
Local Landscaping and Slopes
Rate Level #1 (C-l) $47,886 $46.00
Rate Level #2 (C-2) $93,340 $89.00
Rate Level #3 (C-3) $191,516 $116.00
Rate Level #4 (C-4) $226,100 $175.00
Rate Level #5 (C-5) $0 $70.00
Rate Level #6 (C-6) $0 $225.00
13,698
1,041
1,060
1,651
1,292
0
0
Service Level D
Refuse Collection $2,550,609 $172.56
14,781
Service Level R
Road Maintenance
Rate Level #1 (C-l)
Rate Level #2 (C-2)
$7,146 $115.26 75
$4,511 $121.92 56
Table IV provides estimated annual levy information for the various TCSD
Service Levels proposed for Tract No. 23513 beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
TABLE 1V
Proposed Service Level Charges
For Tract No 23513
Estimate Budget and Charges for Fiscal Year 2001-2002
SERVICE LEVEL
Service Level B:
Residential Street Lighting
Total Levy Charge Per Planned Total
Budget Levy Unit Levy Levy
Units Units
$282 $25.68 11 11
Service Level D:
Refuse Collection $1,898 $172.56 11 11
The "Total Levy Units" and the resulting "Charge Per Levy Unit" (shown in
Tables III and IV), reflect a method of apportionment that most fai~y apportions
the costs of the services to the parcels in that Service Level.
APPENDIX A - PARCEL LISTING (FY 2000-2001)
The actual parcels subject to rates and charges for Service Level B, and Service
Level D beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002 shall be those parcels within Tract No.
23513 identified on the Riverside County Secured Roll at the time all TCSD rates
and charges are submitted to the County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the
tax roll for that fiscal year.
The rates and method of apportionment outlined in this Report are consistent with
the rates and methods previously approved by the TCSD Board of Directors for
each applicable Service Level contained herein. However, all rates and methods
described in this Report are subject to revision and modification within the
prescribed parameters of the law. The actual rates and charges applied on the tax
roll each fiscal year shall be apportioned and submitted according to the rates and
method described in the final TCSD Annual Levy Report presented and approved
by the Board of Directors at an annual Public Heating.
The following pages encompass a complete listing of all parcels within Tract No.
23513 subject to the TCSD Service Level B and Service Level D rates and
charges beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002. The rates and charges applied to each
newly subdivided residential parcel will reflect the services provided and the
development of each respective parcel at the time the rates and charges are
applied. The table below provides a summary of the total proposed rates and
charges for all properties within Tract No. 23513 based on the existing rates and
charges per subdivided single family residential unit:
SERVICE LEVEL
Service Level B:
Residential Street Lighting
Charge per Total Levy Total Levy
Levy Unit Units Budget
$25.68 11 $282
Service Level D:
Refuse Collection $172.56 11 $1,898
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AUGUST 22, 2000
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:02
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT:
5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone,
and Chairman Roberts.
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None.
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of July 25, 2000.
MOTION: Agency Member Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion
was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No comment.
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
No comment.
R:~vlinutes\082200 1
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:02 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, September 12, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Ron Robe~s, Chairman
ATI'EST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\082200 1
ITEM 2
APPROVAL ;~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIREC
CITY MANAGER
TEMECULAREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
John Meyer, Redevelopment Director ~
October 10, 2000
First Amendment to Lease between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Temecula and Butterfield Enterprises with respect to restrooms located at Butterfield
Square
RECOMM EN DATION: That the Agency Board authorize staff to renew the five year lease between
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Butterfield Enterprises with respect to
restrooms located at Butterfield Square in the amount of $9,912 annually.
BACKGROUND: In October of 1995, the Redevelopment Agency entered into a five-year
agreement to lease restrooms at Butterfield Square for public use. In addition, the agreement called
for the Redevelopment Agency to fund improvements to the restrooms to meet ADA requirements.
Those improvements were completed and staff and Butterfield Enterprises feel the arrangement has
worked very successfully for the last 5 years.
Therefore, consistent with Section 7 of the original lease agreement, the Redevelopment Agency
and Butterfield Enterprises have agreed to renew the lease for an additional five years. The Lease
rate of $826 per month is proposed to remain unchanged.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $9,912 have been allocated in this year's budget in 280-
199-999-5234.
ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment to Lease Agreement
Original Lease Agreement (October 9, 1995)
R:~Amendments~thromstaffrept2000Ldoc
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AND
BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of October 10, 2000 by and
between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("Agency" and
Butterfield Enterprises ("Lessor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:
A. On October 9, 1995, the Agency and Consultant entered into that certain
agreement entitled "Lease Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula
and Butterfield Enterprises with respect to restroom located at Butterfield Square." ("Agreement").
Amendment.
2.
B. The parties now desire to renew the Agreement as set forth in this
Section 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. TERM. The Term of this lease shall be for a period of five years
commencing November 1, 2000.
3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
R: MMENDMENTS'IBA THROOMLEASE2000. DOC ]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written,
CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
Shawn D. Nelson, Executive Director
ATTEST:
BY:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
Agency Secretary/City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
BY:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
LESSOR
BY:
NAME:
TITLE:
BY:
NAME:
TITLE:
LEASE
This Lease is entered into as of October 9, 1995 by and between Butterfield
Enterprises ("Landlord") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, a Public
Body Corporate and Politic ("Agency") with respect to the restroom ("Restroom") located at
Butterfield Square, City of Temecula.
1. TERM. The Term of this lease shall be for a period of five years
commencing November 1, 1995.
2. RENT. The Agency shall pay a monthly rent to Landlord in the amount of
$826.00 commencing upon completion of the ADA Improvements set forth in Paragraph 4
and continuing on the lst_ day of each month thereafter during the term of this Lease. The
monthly rent shall be adjusted as of the first day of January, 1997 according to the following
computation:
The base for computing the adjustment is the index figure for the month of October,
1995 (the index date) as shown in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all Urban Consumers
for the Los Angeles/Long Beach area based on the years 1982-1984 equal 100 as published
by the U.S. Department of Labors Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The index for the adjustment date shall be computed as percentage of the base figure.
That percentage shall be applied to the monthly rent figure. In no event shall the monthly
rent be less than the initial monthly rent. If the described index shall no longer be published,
then another generally recognized index shall be substituted by agreement of the parties.
LAX2:130995.6
3. USE. The Restroom shall be used as a public restroom and shall be available
for public use seven (7) days a week between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or later
when in conjunction with a special event in Old Town.
4. IMPROVEMENTS. The Landlord shall with ninety (90) days of full
execution of this Lease take all reasonable steps to bring the Restroom into compliance with
the American Disability Act CADA"). Said improvements will include design, permits and
construction. All plans shall be approved by the Agency prior to construction. Promptly
upon completion of said improvements, the Agency shall reimburse the Landlord for all
direct costs not to exceed $12,600 relating to upgrading the Restroom to comply with ADA
requirements. Upon pulling of City required building permits for the construction of the
ADA Improvements, Agency shall pay $5,000 to Landlord as an advance payment for the
ADA Improvements.
5. INSURANCE. The Agency shah maintain a general liability insurance policy
in the mount of $1,000,000 insuring against claims resulting from the use of the Restroom
by the general public naming the l~ndlord as an additional insured.
6. MAINTENANCE. Landlord shah repair and maintain the Restroom in a
neat, clean and safe condition and shall be responsible for the cost of repairing the Restroom
and for cleaning and supplying the Restroom on a daily basis during the term of this Lease.
I~n_dlord shah be responsible for opening and closing the Restroom each day. In addition,
Landlord shah be responsible on a daily basis for emptying Agency or City of Temecula
trash cans (not to exceed 20 in number) located near the Restroom and in other agreed upon
areas in Old Town.
-AX2:130995.6
7. OPTION TO RENEW. The Agency shall have an option to renew this Lease
for an additional five year period upon giving the l-qndiord notice of exercise of said option
at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the original term of this
Lease.
8. OPTION TO TERMINATE. Each party shall have the option upon one
hundred twenty (120) days notice to the other to terminate this Lease at any time. In the
event Landlord terminates the Lease pursuant to this provision during the initial five year
term, Landlord shall, concurrently with the termination of the Lease, reimburse Agency for
the unamortized cost over the initial term of the Lease of improving the Restroom to ADA
standards.
9. SIGNAGE. The Agency shall provide and instal| signage identifying the
Restroom as a public restroom.
10. SUCCESSORS & ASSIGNS. This Lease shall be binding on and inure to the
benefit of the paxties successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WI-Ih"REOF, the parties hemto haze executed this Lease as Of the date
I
LANDLORD
ATTEST:
LAX2:I~0995.6
I~FBEVI~LOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ronald E. Bradley, Execu~iv~ireceor
ITEM 14
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR.OF FINANCE _~,
CITY MANAGER
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
October 10, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Appeal of Development Plan) - Temecula Ridge
Apartments, located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the
intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road
PREPARED BY:
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division
recommends that the City Council:
ADOPT a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN), AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS
PROJECT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AN D OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE-STORY
APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING
AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND
FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED
THERETO.
BACKGROUND:
On August 16, 2000 the Planning Commission approved the Temecula Ridge Apartment project,
after first hearing the case on May 3, 2000. Subsequent continuances to the May hearing followed
on June 7, 2000 and July 5, 2000. On August 18, 2000 the Notice of Determination was filed on the
R:\D P\994)317 Temecula Ridge ApLs\CC Appeal - Staff Report - 10-10-00.doe 1
project by the Riverside County Clerk. On August 24, 2000, Councilman Mike Naggar appealed the
Planning Commission action stating that a project of this magnitude warranted City Council review.
DISCUSSION:
At their May 3, 2000 hearing on this case, the Planning Commissioners indicated that they favored
the project's design, but were concerned that the project density was not at the lowest allowable
density range, and therefore might not be consistent with the Growth Management Plan Action
Program. The Commission expressed the need for further clarification of the types of "amenities"
which should be considered under Section 2.B. 1. of the Growth Management Plan Action Program
in deciding upon an appropriate density for a project within the range set forth in the General Plan.
In an effort to provide further direction to the Commission, staff held meetings with the City Attorney
and the Council General Plan Update Subcommittee. The full City Council discussed the matter
further and scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on August 1,2000. At the joint
meeting the Council directed the Commission to consider each project on a case-by-case basis and
to determine what factors make the project a valuable asset to the community. The Council noted
that there were no hard-and-fast rules regarding these factors, and understood that the
Commission would employ creativity, flexibility and subjectivity in their decision-making.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The 246-unit Temecula Ridge Apartments will be assessed $545,138 given the current
Development Impact Fee (DIF) for single family attached residential units. No DIF credits have
been applied to this project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2000- denying the Appeal of Planning Application No. 99-
0317 (Development Plan), and upholding the approval by the Planning Commission - Blue
Page 1
a. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 2
2. Appeal filed by Councilman Naggar - Blue Page 3
3. Correspondence - Blue Page 4
a. Start Wright, dated August 15, 2000
b. Robb VanKirk, undated
Meeting Minutes - Blue Page 5
a. Draft Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2000
b. Joint Planning Commission / City Council Meeting Minutes of August 1, 2000
Planning Commission Staff Reports - Blue Page 6
a. August 16, 2000
b. July 5, 2000
c. June 7, 2000
d. May 3, 2000
R:\D P\994)317 Temecula Ridge Apts\CC Appeal - Staff Report - 10-104)O.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), AND
UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND
THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88
NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, BASED
UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, AGK Group, LLC filed Planning Application No. 99-0317 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 99-0317 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 99-0317 on
May 3, 2000, June 7, 2000, July 5, 2000 and August 16, 2000, at duly noticed public hearings
as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to,
and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 99-0317;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to the Appeal of
Planning Application No. 99-0317 on October 10, 2000, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. 99-
0317;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a draft copy of the Commission proceedings and
Staff Report regarding Planning Application No. 99-0317;
BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 1. Findings. The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. 99-
0317 (Development Plan), hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General
Plan designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The
project proposes a density of 11.78 units which is within the range specified. It is in
R:\D P\99-0317 Teraecula Ridge ApEs\City Council Reso to deny appeal ,doc
conformance with the policies as stated in the General Plan and with all applicable requirements
of State Law and other ordinances of the City including the Development Code, Ordinance No.
655 (Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare. The type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General
Plan, Growth Management Program Action Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping
Ordinances. The project is consistent with the documents and conditions of approval have been
placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards.
Access and circulation are adequate for the general public and for emergency vehicles.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was
prepared for this project, which determined that the proposal could potentially affect land use
and planning, geology and soils, water, biological resources, noise, and cultural resources.
However, these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures
previously agreed to and incorporated into the project. The IES for the project was sent to the
Governor's office of Planning and Research, in order that the State Clearinghouse circulate the
document for public review for a 30-day period. Additionally, the IES and Mitigation Monitoring
Program were revised to address correspondence received from the State Department of Fish
and Game and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Agency. Staff concluded that both revisions to
the IES are not considered substantial because no new or avoidable significant effect was
identified. The new information added merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant
modifications to the negative declaration. On the basis of such inclusion, any potentially
significant impacts are mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels. Accordingly the Planning
Commission adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the project.
Section 3. Conditions. The City of Temecula city Council hereby approves Planning
Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan), for the design, construction and operation of a
246-unit, two and three-story apartament complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot
lot on 20.88 net acres, located on the south side of Rancho California Road southeast of the
intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
944-290-011, subject to the project specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. The August 24, 2000 Appeal of
Councilman Naggar is denied.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this tenth day of October, 2000.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
R:\D P\99-0317 Temccula Rjdgc Apts\City Council Reso to deny appeal.doe
2
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2000- was duly and regularly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the tenth day of
October, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:B) P\99&317 Temecula Ridge AptsXCity Council Reso to deny appeal.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Final Revisions - August 16, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) -Temecula Ridge Apartments
Project Description:
Development Impact Fee Category:
Assessor's Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
The design, construction and operation of a 246-unit, two and
three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout
building and tot lot on approximately 21 acres
Residential Attached, $2,167.83 per unit
944-290-011
August 16, 2000
August 16, 2002
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One
Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One
Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee. required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of such failure
of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect 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 the Planning Application
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the
way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period.
The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
1
said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs.
City shall refund, without interest, any unused podions of the deposit once the litigation is
finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
permittee/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. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may
terminate this land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
If phasing of the project is proposed, the applicant shall submit a Phasing Plan, with
appropriate filing fees, to the Planning Manager for review and approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "El"
thru through "E4" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development
Department - Planning Division.
The Site Plan shaft show a bus turnout on Rancho Califomia Road, at a location
approved by the City Engineer and the Riverside Transit Agency.
The design of the swim facility shaft be modified to include an Olympic sizcd a
Junior Olympic-sized swimming pool (25 meters in length X 6 lanes in width).
(Added and modified by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "H1" thru "H3" (Landscape
Plan) or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be
continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is
determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have
the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with
the appreved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be
the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest.
Ligustrum or other large evergreen shrubs approved by the City shall be used to
screen parking areas and shall be spaced at no more than 3' on center to
provide a screen in a reasonable time period.
All parking areas shall be fully screened using evergreen shrubs that can be
maintained at a minimum height of 3'.
All plantings shall be compatible with adjacent existing plantings as approved by
the City.
All parking row ends shall be provided with a minimum 5' wide planting area.
This planting area shall be clear of any hardscape and shall be provided with a
minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground cover.
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
2
Queen Palms, Canary Island Date Palms or other City approved palm shall be
used in place of Washingtonia robusta.
Final shrub species selection and placement is subject to the review and
approval of the City.
City appreved substitutes shall be provided for Lantana species and Myoporum
pacificum. These species are subject to freeze in the Temecula area.
All off-site graded areas shall be planted and irrigated to the satisfaction of the
City Landscape Architect to provide erosion and dust control. All off-site slopes
graded or created by this project shall be planted and irrigated and shall meet
code planting requirements for slope areas.
AI__I utilities shall be shown on the landscape construction plans. All utilities shall
be screened as approved by the City Landscape Architect. Utilities shall be
grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. The applicant shall plan planting
beds and design around utilities.
Code requirements for slope plantings and irrigation shall be met. Code requires
slope banks 5' or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to
3:1 to be landscaped at a minimum with an appropriate ground cover, one 15
gallon or larger size tree per 600 square feet of slope area, and one 1 gallon or
larger shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area. Slope banks in excess of 8'
in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also be provided with
one 5 gallon or larger tree per 1,000 square feet of slope area in addition to the
above requirements.
All requirements of the City water efficient ordinance, Chapter 17.32, shall be
met.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "FI" thru "F7"
(Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department -
Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view
by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
appreved colors and materials and with Exhibit "J" (Color and Material Board) contained on
file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from
the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning Manager.
Material Color
Building walls -Color One
-Color Two
Garage Doors -Color Three
Trim -Color Four
Trim -Color Five
Roof -Premium Slate Tile
Ledger Stone
"Kabuki"
"Burgundy"
"Eldorado"
Sinclair #CM8550
Sinclair #CM8510
Sinclair #CM8509
Sinclair #S-3-33T
Sinclair #966
Monier Life $ #5733
(Modified by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000.)
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.doC
3
10. The applicant shall allocate 2% of the apartment units for seniors, low or very low income
residents.
(Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
11.
The project swim facility shall be made available to the local Temecula Swim Club for
practices and workouts. The apartment management shall coordinate and schedule regular
access and make arrangements with the Swim Club, for use of the facilities for the duration
of the Temecula Ridge project.
(Added and modified by Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
13.
Prior to any ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall address the impacts to coastal
sage scrub or any other sensitive resource, as required by the United States Department of
the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) incidental take permitting process. The
applicant shall acquire compensatory mitigation off the project site, or comply with any other
requirement by the FWS, and shall provide the City a copy of the incidental take permit
issued for the proposed development, prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit.
14.
The applicant shall arrange for a qualified Native American Resource expert to conduct a
complete walkover of the project site, and to prepare and submit a report with findings and
recommendations to the Planning Manager, prior to the issuance of grading permits for any
ground-disturbing activities. If any cultural resources or human remains are identified, a
qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resource. If discovered
resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect,
curate and report these resources.
(Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
15.
A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the applicant for consultation
and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/
archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community
Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert,
redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils, cultural resources or human
remains. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be
provided by the applicant to collect, curate and report these resources in accordance with
standard archaeological management requirements.
16.
The applicant shaft work with the Public Works Department to accelerate the modifications
to the traffic signal at Moraga Road, or provide an altemative plan to minimize the impacts
on Rancho California Road of truck hauling activities during construction.
(Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
17. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
R:\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLANdOC
4
18.
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "E," "F," "G," "H," "1" and "J" (Site Plan, Elevations, Floor
Plans, Landscape Plan, Grading Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final
conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department -
Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy
photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "J" (Color and Materials Board) and of the
colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the
Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
Exhibit "H-3" shaft be revised to reflect an 8-foot decorative wrought iron perimeter
fence along the south property line.
(Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000)
10.
Thc applicant shall submit to thc Community Dcvclopmcnt Dcpartmcnt Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approvcd Exhibit "C"
(Color and Materials Board) and of thc colorcd vcrsion of approvcd Exhibit "F" the colorcd
architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall bc
rcadablc on the photographic prints.
(Deleted by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000)
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
20. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
21.
A noise review letter shall be submitted to the Planning Manager for review and acceptance
as confirmation that noise barriers will not be required to mitigate noise impacts from
Rancho California Road, as identified and discussed in the Preliminary Noise Analysis
prepared by Mestre Greve Associates dated February, 2000.
Mechanical ventilation shall be installed in those dwelling units closest to Rancho
California Road which require that windows remained closed in order to meet the
interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. Mechanical ventilation shall be noted on plans.
22.
The developer shall limit construction activities to the hours between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30
p.m. Monday through Friday, and to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on
Saturdays. No construction can occur on Sundays or holidays.
23.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
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. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.doC
5
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
24.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any
signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the
approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
An Administrative Development Plan application for a comprehensive sign program
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager.
25.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall 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.
26.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department -
Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
27.
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 parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
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.
28.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
29. 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 site
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
6
plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement
constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
30. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and
improvements shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
31.
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.
32.
All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median 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.
33. Lot "A" shall be restricted to right in/right out vehicular movements.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
34. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private
property.
35.
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.
36.
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of 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.
37.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
38.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and
identify impacts to downstream propedies and provide specific recommendations to protect
the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream
facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make
required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
39.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage
facilities shall be installed substantially in conformance with the conceptual grading plan.
The Drainage Study shall investigate whether the storm drain shall enter empire creek
upstream or downstream of the existing concrete lined sewer line crossing. Improvements
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.doC
7
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
in the southeast region of the development shall be constructed in such a manner as to not
increase flows into the existing Tract 8369-1 storm drain structure at any of its entry points.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners as specifically
shown in the conceptual grading plan for the release of concentrated or diverted storm
flows into the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be
submitted to the City for review.
All on-site drainage improvements shall be constructed substantially in conformance with
the conceptual grading plan, which calls for a storm drain system designed for the 100 year
storm.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Department of Public Works
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.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to approval of the
grading plan, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide
for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs
shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by
the Developer, at the Developers cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the
City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN,doc
8
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
49. improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. 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.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402.
e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula s Standard
No. 113.
g. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section.
h. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
50.
i. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades.
j. 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.
k. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
Improve Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised
landscaped median.
Improve Moraga Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' RAN) to include dedication
of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of full-width at the
intersection with Rancho California Road and then transitioned to half-width street
improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water
and sewer).
The Developer shall design and construct a 14-foot wide raised landscape median
on Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards- 110' R/W)from Moraga
Road to Lot "A" (along property frontage). The Developer is eligible to receive
Development Impact Fee credits for one-half width of the raised landscaped
median. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
9
51.
d. Modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Moraga Road/Rancho California
Roadfrom a three way to four way signal to include signal interconnect. A traffic
signal plan shall be prepared by a registered engineer or traffic engineer and
approved by the Director of Public Works.
e. The Developer shall acquire an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along the west side
of Moraga Road between Rancho California Road and 200' nodh of the intersection
of Moraga Road and Rancho California Road along with required construction
easements. The additional right-of-way is necessary to accommodate a through
lane to access the site as pad of required offsite improvements. If the Developer
cannot acquire the right-of-way, then the Developer shall petition the City to acquire
the needed right-of-way in accordance with the terms of Section 66462.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act and Condition 18 of these Conditions of Approval even though
this is not a final map.
f. The Developer shall connect Moraga Road to existing pavement section of Via Las
Colinns to the west of the development as approved by the Director of Public
Works.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
52.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic
signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Sewer and domestic water systems
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
e. Traffic signal modification at the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California
Road
The Developer shall improve Lot "A", private road and shared vehicular access easement,
to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer). The horizontal alignment shall be approved by the Director of Public
Works.
Lot "A" driveway opening from Rancho California Road shall be constructed per
City Standard No. 207A.
b. No parking shall be allowed along Lot "A". "No Parking" signs shall be posted.
53.
The Developer shall obtain an easement on Lot "A" over the adjacent properly for ingress
and egress and emergency vehicles.
54.
The Developer shall grant an easement to the adjacent property for ingress and egress and
emergency vehicles on Lot "A".
55.
The Developer is responsible for constructing a minimum 24-foot wide driveway, completely
within his property, in case he is unable to get permission from the adjacent property owner
to construct the east half of Lot "A". The driveway shall be designed to meet Fire
Department and City Standards.
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COAoDEVPLAN.doC
10
56.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of
Public Works.
57.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for Rancho California Road.
58.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works.
59.
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 Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
60.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
61. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
62.
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
63.
All public improvements, including raised landscaped median on Rancho California Road
and modification to the signal at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road shall be
constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of
the Director of the Department of Public Works.
64.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
65.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
66.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building
and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,dOC
11
67.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
68.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
69. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
70.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
71.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
72.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
73.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
74.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
75.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
76. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
77.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the stad of the
building construction.
78.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
79. Show all building setbacks
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
80.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
81.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2250 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doC
12
total fire flow of 2650 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic
fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ili-
A)
82.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-I II-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"
x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and
adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B).
83.
As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this
project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
84.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord 460)
85.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
86.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
87.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (
CFC sec 902)
88.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
89.
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
90.
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
91.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans am signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
13
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
92.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
93.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The
numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for
suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the
suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4)
94.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display
monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home
parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which
indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire
hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be
submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
95.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
96.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC
Article 10)
97.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by
the alarm system. (CFC 902.4)
98.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The TCSD has reviewed the Development Plan for the aforementioned project and conditions the
project as follows:
General Conditions:
99.
Prior to installation of arterial street lighting, the developer shall file an application with the
TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lighting into
the respective TCSD maintenance program.
100. All parkway landscaping and slope areas adjacent to the development shall be maintained
by the property owner.
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
14
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits:
101.
The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment
of in-lieu fees cquivalcnt to 1.62 acrcs of parkland, based upon the City's thcn currcnt land
c';ck~ct~cn Parkland Dedication Formula in the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. Said
requirement includes a 50% credit for private recreational opportunities provided on-site
and shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of each building
permit requested.
(Modified by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
102.
Any damages caused to the existing Class II bike lane on Rancho California Road as a
result of construction shall be repaired or replaced, as determined by the Department of
Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
103.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal dated August 26, 1999, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or
money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by
the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
104.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittals dated August 19, 1999 and March 22,
2000, copies of which are attached.
105. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districts transmittal dated August 18, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
R:\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
15
DAVID P- ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
City of Temecula
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: .~")'T'~LIE (_TI~IFFII't
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STP, EET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51180.1
:-.
Re: gn 6/9 - D3t 7
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not Inn check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for suchp cases. Distnot comments/recommendations for such cases are norma y m ted
to items of specific ~nterest to the Distdct including Distdct Master Drains e Plan facilities, other re ional flood
control and drains e facilities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master ~lan s stem,
and Distdct Area Brainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general ns~usre is
provided.
The Distdct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply Distdct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
v'/ This prpject would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional ~nterest proposed.
This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will acce t ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~P~rds, and Distdct plan check and
inspection will be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a Io ical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The Distdct would] consider accepting ownership of such fac~hbes on written request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards, and DIstdct plan check and inspection will
be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
V/ This project is located within the limits of the Distdct's UR~/gI,q (A~.~- TFI'4gLU/,,q ~.qcc~ Area
check or money order on y to ~e Flood Control Disthct prior ~o~ issuance of building or gradin permits
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of ~he actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from th~ State Water
Resources Con~ol ~]oard. Clearance for grading recordation or other final approval should not be given until the
C ty has determ ned that the project has been granted a perm t or s shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should
require t~e applicant to provide all studies calculations plans and other reformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMRI pdor to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~domia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean PV~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten correspondence from these a encies
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Cert~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
5Kc:P1
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: August 19, 1999
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Steve Griffin
FROI~ KEGOR DELLENBACH, Envirm~.mentai Health Specialist iV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99~0317
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0317 and
has no objections. Sanitary sewer and waler services are available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOIVING ITEJI'IS Ilr:ILL BE
REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters t~om the watering ~d sewering agencies.
b) Three complete sets of plans ii3r the swimming pool/spa will be submitted, in order to
ensure compliance with the California Administrative Code, California Health and
Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code.
GD:dr
(909) 955-8980
stand3a.doc
iTuesdey April./% 1900 8:2~6am -- Page
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HFALTH
DATE: March 22, 2000
CITY OF IEM~ULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Steve C_nfiffin. Project planner
FROM: ~GRP_f, JOR DELLENBACH, Environmental HemIlia Specialist IV
RIg: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0317
Department of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-
0317 and has no objection. SanitaW se~,~r and water ~etvice~ my be available in this area.
PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBbtlITAL, updated 'h~all-serve' letters fxom the sewering
agency will be rcqui~ed,
GD:dr
(909) 955-8980
.f
itansho
Wmr
Jeffrey L, Minkler
George M. Woods
John F, Hennigar
General ,Manager
Phillip L Forbes
Dtrector of Financi.
E. P. 'Rob" Lemons
Direc~lr of Engqnt, enng
Kenneth C. Dealy
& }.lamtenance
Perry R, ~uek
Conlroller
Linda M. Fregoso
C. Michael Coweft
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counstl
August 18, 1999
Steve Griffin, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS
PORTION OF LOT NO. 23 OF TRACT NO. 3334
APN 944-290-011
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0317
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
Engineering Services
99\SB:mr144'j=012-T6XFCF
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
APPEAL FILED BY COUNCILMAN NAGGAR
City of Temecul:,
Comm,nlty Development Department
43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula, CA · 92590
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula · CA * 92589-9033
(909) 694-6400 · FAX (909) 694-6477
The purpose of the appeal procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or
dissatisfied with an action taken by an administrative agency of the City in the administration or
enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code.
B. Fll .TNG REQUIREMENTS
1. Development Application.
2. Appeal Form.
3. Filing Fee.
C. NOTICE OF APPEAI.- TIME, I,IMIT
A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by
him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be
acted upon unless filed within ~f~n (15) calendar days afar service of written notice of the decision.
Specify exac~y what is being appealed:
Reason or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue which
the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every item
of evidence. (Attach separate sheet of paper if necessaxy).
, / ,:,
DeaLred action to be taken:
In the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then
the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant
shall be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to reffie the notice of appeal.
ATTACHMENTNO. 3
CORRESPONDENCE
STAN WRIGHT, DATED AUGUST 15, 2000
8-15-2000
City of Temecula Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92591
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
The reason that I am writing is because I am in opposffion to project 99-0317 or the Temecula Ridge
Apartments proposed to be constructed at the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California Roads.
I have lived in Temecula for approximately 20 years and have witnessed mast of the growth, good and bad
in our area.
It is clear to myself and other citizens that the above project will bdng the following to our community:
1. Increased ~'affic - an additional 800 to 1000 cam will definitely make gddlock worse in our city. In the
immediate area you might almost double the projected increase because of the visiting vehicles going in
and out of the complex for vadous reasons. A traffic study bought and paid for by a developer, although
by a so called independent company, will report what ever is necessary to salt the project off to the city.
After all, it is paid for by the developer.
2. Overcrowding of already packed school classrooms - Let's face it, our school class rooms are already
over crowded at all levels. This trend leads to less education and lower test scores for our students.
Apartment houses, rather than single family home developments, hurt the community when it comes to
our childrens' education.
3. Lower propony values to neighboring single family homes - Some people, depending on when they
purchased their propany, paid a premium for their home based on view and considered peace and privacy
for location of their purchase. In this general area, some people purchased their home with an existing
Arabian horse ranch on their side thinking that apartments could never be built in such a place or ruin their
view of our gorgeous valley. If a project such as the one proposed is built, the current residents will view
apartments rather than the valley and no potential buyer will want to purchase a single family home located
next to huge and dense aparlment complex no matter how 'High End" they are. Propany values are
sure to plummet in the Alta Vista tract. This is certainly not fair or wise planning for our citizens. In fact, it is
illogical, poor in thought and criminal to allow a project of any kind to ruin propany values of any adjoining
propony in our town. It Is the planning commissions job to plan our community to be desirable as well as
attractive to altrather than meet the special interest needs of a few. I do not feel that any member of the
planning commission would want a 35 foot tall apartment building and complex within 150 feat of their
single family home.
4. Increased Cdme - Let's face it, apartments are histodcally the worst areas of cities over time. In this city,
a significant perdon of our cdme is cantered around the existing apartments. Apartments will increase
noise in genarai to the neighboring area which is a violation called 'disturbing the peace". Other cdmes
associated with apartments include drug dealing as well as easy access and get away form neighbedng
single family homes for burglary.
The proposed project, in design, has the following characteristics which is a detriment to the community
and neighboring proparties.
1. The project only has the developers interest in mind. This is evidenced by the following:
:
A. This project has always been proposed for maximum density rather than minimum density.
This violates our currant planning regulations now in force. Too much density ruins nice rural
areas like Temecula. The current zoning laws stressing less is more is correct.
B. The buildings themselves, at 3 stories, give an Embassy Suite or Hotel approach to building.
This is unsightly to the community but increases the developers profit with more unite in a
confined spaco. This more than violates normal height restri~ons in all cities where view is a
premium. I feel that view is a premium in our area and should be respected, valued and enjoyed
by all.
C. The project was stated by the developers representative, Mr. Larry Markum. to be invisible to
Rancho California Road. As proposed this is true. It is true because the developer is avoiding the
grading costs to move the project down the hill and away from adioining single family homes. The
project is invisible to the frontage road but it is in the face of the neighboring residents. The
developer designed the buildings to be no more than 150 feet from an adjoining single family
residence. People do not realize that looking at a 3 story building from 150 feet away is very
imposing. For comparison, an average flag lot ddveway in the Alta Vista housing tract is 150 feet
long or the same distance of the design setbacks to the apartment complex. This is outrageous
planning and architectural violation to the adjoining properties and neighborhoed.
A projected view by the developer at one meeting showed a building roof at least 2 stories taller
than a neighboring house. The apartment dwellers would look down on such a rasidence and
the home would view the side of a building. This is not good and ruins the privacy of a single
family home. Mr. Markum tried to make commente about 'View Shed'. It is clear that the only
people with a view would be the apartment building dwellers rather than neighboring
homeowners. In fact, the apartments with a view would rent for more. Imagine that.
D. The landscape plan shown by the developer is very mature. I am sure that 'Mature
landscaping" is promised for "show and tell" to sell the project concept to the city but will not be
planted due to cost.
One of the more illogical facts about the above project is the stated or proposed rente as well as the
description of the proposed residents. A $1,200 a month rant is roughly equivalent to a house payment
on a $180,000 property. This is the price range of the adjoining neighborhood of single family homes.
Why would the average parson rant at that pdce when they could buy ? Is this because they are transient
which leads to the original problem stated ? Why would a higher income family rent around a lower
income residential neighborhoed ? Usually higher income families want to rant in upscale neighborhoods
such as in our own Santiago Rancho area.
Another illogical fact about this project is that there are no considerations for rezoning the whole general
area whera this project is currently proposed. We have too many apartments in Temecula already. We
have a disproportionate amount of apartments in this general area as well as a disproportionate amount of
apartments as compared to a city like Muraleta. The new community plan cells to preserve the "opan
spaces" left in our city. Whera are these "opan spaces", We have a dedicated sports park but how about
a large dedicated regional park in this entire proposed area where people can have a picnic, throw a
frisbee, take a nap under a tree on a free afternoon, have a barbecue or conduct a low impact workout in a
safe environment ? What about nice single family homes to bland in with the adjoining homes ? Just
because an old and outdated master plan from KACOR or Bedford Properties had this area dedicated and
zoned for apartments does not make it right. Changes to old zoning that does not work for the community
is good. Not changing bad zoning based on the current needs of the community or repaating past zoning
mistakes is bad. Allowing these apartments is a mistake for the community and thera are other viable
altamatives for the land use.
Local Politicians are elected by a stated platform. Did those platforms state that the elected officials will
promise to let population planning run amuck, increase traffic gridlock, overpopulate the schools, increase
cdme and lower our property values ? I do not think so. These are the hot buttons of the local people and
the politjcians promised to fix these problems if elscted. The planning commission, I understand, gets
direction from the city council. So why would this project be allowed if it contributes to the overcrowding of
our city, increases gridlock, contributes to the overcrowding of our classrooms, adds to the cdme rate and
lowers property values ? This projest is illngical and not right for the community and should not be
approved.
I have observed several meetings regarding this proposal. In my opinion Mr. Markurn is hired to say and do
whatever it takes to get this project approved. He has had a few local people with special interests directly
related to the project speak as well as several out of area peol;}le with no ties to our community speak in
favor of this project. Other than the purported esthetics of the design and the fact that it is the best
"apartment" proposal ever proposed, I was not shown or convinced of any positive effect or positive
influence that such a proposal would offer the community. In contrast, every local citizen that I have talked
to that lives in this area and owns a home in this area is opposed to such a project for the four major
reasons stated in the beginning of my letter. Sadly enough, the busy schedules of common citizens
keeps them from coming to voice their views. Developers count on this so opposition is not voiced. It is
also sad that the planning commission would be wooed by so called esthetics rather than the desires of
the local citizens as well as the concept of rozoning the area to a more beneficial zone for the community.
Based on my observed general conduct and tactics of Mr. Markum, it is illogical to me that he has any
credibility at all with the members of the planning commission. I beg of you to please not let the special
interests of a hired gun and an out of area developer who could not even get approval for this project in his
own city, due to height resffictions, ruin our city. Too many apartments ruined other areas of the Inland
Ernpira, such as Moreno Valley, and I beg of you to not let this happen to our beautiful City of Temocula.
Esthetics or not there is no positive effect or benefit to the community offered by this project. Therefore
there is no need.
Thank you for reading this letter to the attending audience.
Sincerely,
Stan Wdght
' Ordinary and common citizen of Temecula for 20 years.
ROBB VANKIRK, UNDATED
Dear Councilman Naggar,
I am writing in regards to the Temecula Ridge Apartments project.
Although I am not one of the homeowners living adjacent to the proposed project, I am,
nonetheless, concerned about the impact this project will have on them.
I amended the recent Planning Commission headng, and heard many cencems expressed about
density, traffic, visual impacts, etc. While many of these types of concerns are repetitive at any
Planning Commission hearing, I am in particular agreement with those individuals who paid
premiums for view lots and will have those views destroyed by a 3-story apartment complex.
From what I was able to glean from the headng, the parcel to be developed is of significant depth;
yet, it appears that the apartment units am being placed well to the mar of the lot. If these
apartments are as beautiful and well designed as their proponents claim, it would seem
reasonable to me that they should be placed further forward on their lot. This will enhance the
streetscape, while helping to mitigate the visual impact to those view lot homeowners whose
houses sit a mere 150' feet away. I too, live on an elevated view lot (at the end of a cul-de-sac),
but Richmond Amedcan Homes, the developer of the land immediately behind me, did a superb
job of placing structures so as to minimize intrusions into my lines of sight. No one who has paid
a significant sum of money for a view lot ever wants to lose the enjoyment and value of their view.
And it doesn't seem fair for the homeowners who were there first, and paid for their views, to
have them taken away through subsequent development - especially, if through thoughtful
planning, those views can be significantly preserved, oradverse impacts to them mitigated. In
my opinion, the burden should fall more heavily on the follow-on developers to preserve the views
bought by pdor homeowners. It just seems fundamentally dght to me that the dghts of those who
came first should have priodty over the dghts of those who came later on.
It would also make a lot of sense to me that the visual impact of a 3-story apartment could be
reduced by making the parking garages subterranean. Then them would only be 2 stories above
grade. Of course, I can understand that the developer doesn~ want to do this because of the
additional costs of excavating and hauling dirt. But as I stated earlier, this should be one of the
potential dsks assumed by follow-on developers - particularly if they am proposing a
development which impacts existent views previously purchased by abutting homeowners.
Alternatively, excavation and hauling costs for subterranean parking garages can be eliminated if
there is sufficient room on the parcel to build free-standing carports separate from the
apartments, which is the way apartment parking is typically constructed. And in this case too, the
apartments themselves would still be only 2 stodes high.
In closing, may I ask you, as you give thoughtful consideration to the merits of this project, to also
weigh carefully the impact that this development, as currently designed, will have on the dghts of
the adjacent homeowners?
Very truly yours,
Robb VanKirk
41756 Humber Drive, Temecula, CA
(909)699-9269
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DATED AUGUST 16, 2000
2
R:PlanCommlminutes,/081600
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 16, 2000
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday August 16, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
None.
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
City Attorney Thorson,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Anders, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 16, 2000.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Review and approve the minutes of June 21, 2000.
2.2 Approve the minutes of July 5, 2000.
r ~
and three sto~ apa~ment complex with pool,
clubhouse, workout buildin~ and tot lot on approximately 21 acres, located on the
south side of Rancho California Road southeast of the intemection of Rancho
California Road and Mom~a Road - Camle Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-
0317;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-03'1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-03t7 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS) - THE
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-
UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT
COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT
BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 944-290-0'11, AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED
THERETO.
Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this
Agenda Item, and therefore left the meeting at 7:09 P.M.
Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the proposed project (of
record); provided an overview of the meetings and discussions related to the Growth
Management Plan and its relation to this project, reiterating the Council's direction to
the Planning Commission with respect to making a determination based on the
proposed amenities in relation to the proposed densities; noted the inclusion in the
staff report of the data related to this particular projecrs proposed densities and
amenities; relayed that with respect to the rear yard fencing, the applicant has agreed
to increase the size of the wrought-iron fence from six feet to eight feet; with respect to
the correspondence received from the Pechanga Cultural Resources Supervisor
regarding their desire for a "walkover" at the sight, noted that the initial study and the
Mitigation Monitoring Measure have been revised to include provision for the
"walkover;" regarding the Conditions of Approval, noted the following corrections: with
respect to Condition No. 6B, relayed that the phrase Olympic-sized swimming pool
should be replaced to reflect Junior Olympic-sized swimming pool, 25 meters in length
and six lanes wide; with respect to Condition No. 9 (regarding the colors and
materials), noted that the "$" denotation should be corrected to indicate "#;" with
respect to Condition No. 99, noted that the existing factors should be removed, adding
6
R:PlanComm/min~tes/081600
the following language after the phrase "through the payment of in-lieu fees": in
accordance with the parkland dedication formula in the Temecula Subdivision
Ordinance; and relayed that the a plicant has provided the colored drawings which
had been presented at the May 3r~PPlanning Commission meeting (via supplemental
agenda material), briefly reviewing the renderings.
With respect to Condition No. 10 (regarding the agreement with the local swim club),
Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether this condition should be more clearly defined;
Commissioner Mathewson queried whether the reference to the local swim club should
be more specific as to a specified entity. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe
relayed that to the best of her knowledge there was solely one swim club in the City of
Temecula, advising that the applicant would provide additional information with respect
to the agreement with the Swim Club.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified the modification
with respect to Condition No. 99 (regarding the parkland requirements); and confirmed
that the Resource Agencies had reviewed the Environmental Assessment.
For the record, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that a letter dated August 15,
2000 from Mr. Stan Wright, noting his opposition and concerns with respect to the
project had been copied and distributed to the Commission; and for Chairman
Guerriero, provided Mr. Wrighrs address.
For the record, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he had participated in ex-parte
communications with Mr. Markham (the applicanrs representative).
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the applicanrs
discussions with the Swim Club's representative, noting the modification of the size of
the pool in order to satisfy the request of the Swim Club, relaying that a fee would be
charged for the maintenance of the facilities, advising that in conjunction with an
aquatic approval board the days and hours of use would be arranged; for Chairman
Guerriero. relayed that a length of time for the Swim Club Agreement had not been
specified, noting that the applicant would be willing to establish specifications; for
Commissioner Chiniaeff, provided additional information regarding the export of
42,000 yards of material, relaying that the material would be exported off-site; with
respect to area proximate to A Street, advised that the applicant has worked with the
adjacent property owner to develop an agreement that would entail the developer who
first proceeds with development in this area to provide the other with reciprocal
ingress/egress utility easements; with respect to the proposed landscaping on the
slopes, provided additional information regarding the landscape plan on the southerly
property line which has been coordinated with Mr. Oder (the adjacent property owner)
relative to his concerns with respect to drainage, erosion, screening, and security; and
for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the landscaping.
Commissioner Mathewson noted his concern with respect to the grading quantities of
200,000 cubic yards.
With respect to the exported material, Chairman Guerriero relayed concern with
respect to the number of truck trips, and the route to be utilized, noting his concern
regarding traffic disruption on Rancho California Road. In response, Mr. Markham
relayed that the developer would have to obtain permits, which would require submittal
R:PlanComrnlrninutes/O81600
of a route plan, times and days of operation, and traffic provisions, in accordance with
the Public Works Department.
For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero commented on the lack of adequately
trained flagmen on alternate projects within the City.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed
that at the Moraga Road/Rancho California Road proposed signal site, staff would
investigate the timing of the installation with respect to aiding in the construction truck
traffic.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the
extension of La Colina to Moraga Road, relaying that the direction of truck travel had
not been established, advising that the applicant would be willing to add a condition
requiring the applicant to work with staff to ensure a safe travel route, noting that if this
required accelerating the four-way signal at Moraga Road or placing the signal under
manual control, that the applicant would be agreeable; and provided additional
information regarding the grading plan.
With respect to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the corner monumentation,
Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the proposed extensive
monumentation program, noting the enhanced landscaping along Moraga and Rancho
California Roads in order to screen the buildings from the roadway; and confirmed that
the applicant has been conditioned to improve the existing landscaped median.
For Commissioner Mathewson, with respect to the habitat issues, Mr. Markham
provided additional information regarding the applicant's current process to acquire off-
site mitigation lands, noting that there were no Checkerspot Butterflies sited in either
season; and with respect to the grading issues, noted the applicanrs assiduous efforts
with staff to develop the project which was now before the Commission, providing
additional information regarding the issues that have been addressed.
The following individuals relayed their opposition to the project:
Mr. David Michael
Ms. Pamela Miod
(representing Citizen's First of Temecula Valley)
Mr. Don Leonard
Mr. Charles Rich
30300 Churohill Court
31995 Via Saltio
31336 Paseo De Las Olas
42403 Carino Place
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following
reasons:
Concern with respect to the proposed densities, increased traffic, and the impact
on the schools.
Challenged the credibility of Mr. Markham (the applicant's representative), stating
that his interest was solely involved with the project's development.
· Queried which amenities were for the provision of community benefits.
8
· Noted the negative impact with respect to the existing residents' view.
Queried the rationale for the lack of consideration regarding the neighboring
residents' comments.
Concern regarding the availability of water and utilities due to the existing
shortages.
Relayed that numerous residents located in the City of Temecula to avoid dense
development, and to enjoy a more rural lifestyle.
Concern regarding the impact the project would have with respect to lowered
preperty values.
Noted that the standard of living for the existing neighboring residents would
decrease.
The following individuals were proponents of the project:
ca Mr. Lon Brusegard
ca Dr, Robert Wheeler
(representing EMA and the Resources Conservation District)
ca Mr. Bob Oder
[] Ms. Helon Oder
[] Mr. Robert Oder
(representing the Mira Loma Apartments)
r~ Ms. Evie Hughes
23766 Via Madrid, Murrieta
29090 Camino Alba, Murrieta
29911 Mira Loma Drive
29911 Mira Loma Drive
29911 Mira Loma Drive
27727 Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta
The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following
reasons:
The need for affordable housing in the City of Temecula.
Noted the importance of a mix of different types of housing developments within
the overall City development.
Relayed the importance of constructing apartments within the City rather than
solely in the rural areas.
Noted the economic need for this type of housing, referencing the Husing Report.
Opposed a "No Growth Policy," relaying the negative impacts.
Relayed that this high quality proposed project was a far greater project than
previously proposed projects at this site.
Noted that the applicant worked diligently with the neighboring property owners,
addressing the concerns.
Advised that this was an overall superlative apartment project plan, which would
enhance the community.
9
Relayed strong opposition to the previously proposals at this site.
R:PranComm/minutes~81600
Via overheads, compared the densities of alternate apartment complexes in this
area.
Relayed a desire for an apartment development with attached garages, noting the
safety issues associated with the provision.
Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, representing the applicant, thanked staff and the Commissioners
who have worked diligently with respect to this matter; for the record, noted that this
project has been under review for approximately two years; sited various goals,
policies, amenities, and Land Use Elements represented in the General Plan; provided
an overview of the amenities that this project would provide in the community; relayed
the need for apartment housing in the City of Temecula, siting a one-percent (1%)
vacancy factor in existing units; and provided additional information regarding the
Growth Management Plan and its relation to this project.
In rebuttal of the community comments, Mr. Markham addressed Mr. Leonard's
concerns, with respect to the water and utilities issues, relaying that this project would
be immensely more water efficient, and energy conserving than existing older
developments; with respect to the neighboring residents' view, via overheads,
displayed the existing topography, and the proposed landscaping with the proposed
project, noting the efforts of the applicant to address the viewshed issue; relayed that
there were three community meetings held in order to hear the concerns of the
residents; and provided an overview of the previously proposed project and
subsequent approval at this site, noting the reduction in the current proposed
densities, and the improved site and design plans.
For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Alhadeff, and Mr. Markham provided additional
information regarding the community meetings, which the applicant held regarding the
project.
Mr. Tom Dodson, CEQA consultant representing the applicant, provided an overview
of the analysis of the energy consumption, water consumption, and waste water
generation issues, providing additional information regarding the ability to meet water
and energy demands, additional information regarding the existing and proposed
power plants which would provide the electricity to supply power for the long-term
range, and additional data regarding the waste water treatment systems.
The Commission relayed concluding remarks, as follows:
For informational purposes with respect to the residents who had expressed concern
with the development of a project proximate to their neighborhood, Commissioner
Telesio relayed that some growth was inevitable unless one purchased the
surrounding properties; noted that in his opinion, the applicant had addressed the
concerns of the neighboring properties, specifically commending the landscape plan;
commented on the previously proposed projects for this parcel, relaying that this
project far exceeds previous proposals; commented on the timing of the Growth
Management Plan's (GMP) adoption in relation to this project which has been in the
review process for approximately two years; advised that this project supercedes the
10
City's requirements; with respect to amenities, noted that the quality of the project
would be an asset to the community; relayed that this particular project would,
additionally, improve the view along Rancho California Road (i.e., per the landscape
plan); noted the availability of the pool for community use; and referenced Councilman
Naggar's comments relayed at the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop at
which time he stated that if you are going to increase the density above the minimum,
make sure it is a "darn good project," advising that in his opinion, "This was a darn
good project."
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that his concern was not based on the quality of
the project, the diversity of housing provisions, or the comparison between alternate
projects proposed for this site; relayed that his focus was to determine the following: 1)
whether this project on this site was appropriate, meeting the criteria of the General
Plan, the GMP, and "good planning sense," and 2) whether it met the cdteria of that
site based on the current Land Use regulations; with respect to the proposed amenities
qualifying for the criteria to grant the density bonus, noted that in his opinion the
proposed amenities do not warrant the densities proposed per the GMP,
acknowledging that this determination was subjective; noted his rationale in drawing
this conclusion was based on the following: 1) that garages were proposed as an
amenity, while acknowledging the positive visual aesthetic element, and the safety
provisions, advised that in his opinion this was not a qualifying amenity. 2) the
development of three-story buildings on the site would have significant negative
impacts on viewsheds (i.e., from Rancho California Road), 3) with respect to the pool
being available to the Swim Club, noted that in his view, this was a limited community
benefit, relaying that it was an on-site amenity, advising that in his opinion a qualifying
amenity would be a community benefit over and above what would normally be
associated with the development, noting that the tot lot, the barbecues. and the
pool/spa area were standard amenities for this type of project, relaying that the
developer would get a credit for these on-site amenities relative to the Quimby
requirements, providing additional information regarding the lack of reciprocity, 4) with
respect to the additional landscaping proposed, relayed that in relation to the
significant amount of grading and degradation of the natural environment it was not his
opinion that the landscape plan balanced this significant impact, and 5) with respect to
the monumentation and decorative elements, relayed that these features did not
supercede alternate development's proposals; and in conclusion, advised that due to
the previously mentioned rationale in his opinion this project did not qualify for a
maximum density under this land use designation.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with respect to the pool issue, that the
availability of the pool to the Swim Club was a community benefit; with respect to the
provision of the on-site amenities (i.e., the pool, tot lots, barbecues), noted that these
proposals would lessen the impact on the community parks and recreational facilities;
with respect to the proposed garages in lieu of carports, relayed that this amenity
aided in the creation of an upscale project, providing a multi-housing opportunity that
has not been provided with alternate similar projects (siting one exception); with
respect to the viewshed issue, concurred with Commissioner Telesio that there was no
guarantee that when one purchased property that the adjacent property would remain
undeveloped, noting the rights of the property owner to develop their property, advising
that grading was a part of this aspect of the property owner's rights; relayed that this
project would be an attribute to the community, providing numerous amenities as
denoted in the General Plan; and advised that he would support the project.
11
Chairman Guerriero relayed that when the City Council/Planning Commission
Workshop was held that he had referenced this project numerous times since in his
opinion this project merited exactly what the General Plan stated, as in Policy 5. 1
(regarding the denoted amenities), advising that after queries to the Council for
direction, it had been confirmed that the General Plan's denotations for amenities were
acceptable, relaying that the GMP was not in contradiction with the General Plan;
advised that the reason for people locating in the City of Temecula was due to the
diligent efforts thus far in developing the City; clarified that it was not the City of
Temecula's desire to change property rights; commented on the City's efforts to
address a multitude of issues when development proceeds (i.e., water and electricity
needs); noted the desire of the City to provide housing for all income levels; relayed
that he would request the applicant to provide one-percent (1%) of the project for
senior housing, and/or low-income housing; applauded the developer for increasing
the size of the pool to accommodate the Swim Club, advising that the availability to
swim clubs should extend for a specific duration (i.e., the life of the project) rather than
for a short duration; commented on the loss of view, relaying that this was inevitable
with growth in a community, advising that this project had addressed this issue;
commended the applicant for the increased landscape plan, advising this was a
community amenity; applauded the developer for the proposed monumentation at the
intersections; and relayed that he would support the project, noting that this was a
great project; and reiterated his recommendation for the applicant to provide one to
two percent (1-2%) of the project for Senior Housing and/or low income housing units.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staffs recommendation, subject
to the following:
Add-
The amended conditions recommended by staff (see page 6 of the minutes,
specified in Associate Planner Donahoe's staff report presentation).
That the applicant work with the Public Works Department in accelerating
the modification of the signal at Moraga Road to provide for traffic control for
truck traffic.
That the applicant's agreement with the Swim Club continue for the life of
the project, modifying the arrangement in order to not negatively impact the
use for the residents.
That the applicant provide two percent (2%) of the units for either Senior or
Low/Moderate Income Housing.
Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion.(Ultimately this motion passed; see
page 13.)
Mr. Alhadeff noted that he had a handicapped son, and advised that without reservation
the applicant has relayed that he would be agreeable to the two percent (2%) provision
of housing for seniors and/or low-moderate income levels; with respect to the pool,
relayed the applicanrs commitment to make the pool available to the Swim Club; and for
Chairman Guerriero, relayed that the applicant would work with staff regarding the
12
/I
spec~ ~c~ y of the
recommendations.
R:PbnCommlmin~es~81600
Agreement with the Swim Club in order to address his
At this time voice vote was taken, reflecting approval with the exception of
Commissioner Webster who abstained and Commissioner Mathewson who voted n__o.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
No input.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the American Planning Association
(APA) would be holding a Planning Commissioners Forum on September 9,
2000, noting that she would have additional information regarding the forum on
August 20, 2000.
B=
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that there would be a tour of developments
in Orange County to review developments similar to what was being proposed in
the Harveston Specific Plan; and invited two Commissioners to attend the tour.
C=
For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Senior
Planner Rockholt had resigned, noting that the staff was holding interviews,
seeking individuals to fill the position.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:32 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday,
September 6, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula.
non Guerriero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
13
PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES DATED AUGUST t, 2000
lo
2 Growth Mana<3ement Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff on the density and
amenity issues associated with the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Deputy City Manager Thomhill provided an overview of the Council's adoption of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). noting the implementation of the program, relaying that staff and the
Commission desired to have additional clarification with respect to Policy No. 2, Section B
(regarding the Planning Commission's approval of projects above the lowest densities if the
project provided onsite or community amenities), specifically regarding what constitutes an
amenity;, and relayed Councilman Naggar's query with respect to the Council's and
Commission's view regarding tentative tract and parcel maps that have been previously
appreved. and are now requesting time extensions.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that on the Commission there was not a consensus with respect to
what the Council viewed as an amenity;, and referenced the General Plan, page 222, Section
5.1 regarding this issue which sited examples of amenities.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero clarified that with respect to the Planning Commission's approval
of the lowest density levels, that the GMP pertained to Specific Plans and large development
plans; noted that the Council was seeking, in terms of amenflies, major infrastructure
improvements, and community benefits; clarified that the policy was not a mandate to approve
projects solely at the lowest density range, noting his concern if there was no flexibility in the
approval process; and recommended that although guidelines were necessary, each project
should be approved on a case-by-case basis.
Councilman Naggar relayed that his recommendation would be to not add additional spedflcity
to the guidelines, but that the Planning Commission should initially consider the minimum
densities in relation to the project's benefits to the community; advised that he had every
confidence that the Planning Commission could adequately make the determination whether the
qualifying amenities were certain read improvements, or other community assets; concurred
with Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero's comments, that the City did not desire to limit development
stdctly based solely on the lowest densities (siting Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero's example that if
a developer proposed a project with higher densities while offedng to build a City Library), and
that the City did not desire to remove all flexibility, basing approval only on the lowest end of the
density range if the project had alternate medts.
In addition to referencing the amenities denoted in the General Plan, Chairman Guerdero
provided examples of amenities that had been presented to the Commission on previous
projects (i.e., a community pool which was increased in size and permitted via written
agreement to be utilized by the Swim Team, and specific read improvements); clarified that the
Commissioners' opinion differed with respect to qualifying amenities. relayed that in his opinion
additional landscaping should be a qualifying amenity, siting a project that had been presented
which proposed a forty-seven percent (47%) landscape plan in lieu of the twenty percent (20%)
requirement, advising that at this time there was no data to support this asset as a qualifying
amenity.
Referencing the GMP, and the General Plan, Commissioner Chiniaeff queded that vadance in
the language of the documents, noting that the General Plan reflected that the target density
was mid-range, while the GMP reflected that the target range was the lowest range, questioning
R:PlanComrnMVlinutesM)80100
5
whether the General Plan needed to be amended to reflect the GMP guidelines. In response,
City Attorney Thorson advised that the GMP indicated that each project shall be considered on
its own merit in accordance with the General Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance, confirming
Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments that the direction of the GMP in Section 2, B, was for the
Planning Commission to consider approval with these guidelines; specified that the direction
was for the Planning Commission to focus on whether or not the density was creating a
negative impact, and whether or not there could be Findings under the General Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance to address this factor, clarified that the GMP was not an amendment to the
General Plan, and therefore could not compel the Commission or the Council to solely approve
a project at the lowest density; and provided additional information regarding staffs direction to
developers.
Referencing the General Plan which stated that Future residential development is expected to
occur at the target levels of density, as stated in the table (which denoted mid-range densities).
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that if this was not the City's desire, that the General
Plan should be amended. In response. City Attomey Thorson clarified that the General Plan did
not state that the density would be mid-range, but that it was expected; relayed that on a case-
by-case basis each project would be reviewed in order to determine if the densities proposed
were appropriate under those certain circumstances, and to determine the impacts to the
community.
Councilman Naggar relayed that with respect to the General Plan density table figures which
were previously referenced, that he interpreted that to mean that these figures would represent
the expected average densities with Citywide development; noted that he viewed the GMP as a
philosophy that the Council was communicating to the Planning Commission, relaying that upon
review of development proposals the Council would begin with the concept of appreving
projects in the lower density level, but would take into account other aspects of the project.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the General Plan was spec'ffic in that the expected density
was the mid-range, based on the previously mentioned table, advising that a process was
followed with the development of that language in the General Plan at that point in time; and
reiterated his recommendation that if there was a change in the Council's philosophy, that the
new policy ought to go through the same process.
Deputy City Manager Thomhill clarified that the referenced density range (via the General Plan)
did not apply to medium and high density, advising that it was it was the desire to not
discourage the development of affordable housing.
In light of the desire to not discourage development of affordable housing, Commissioner
Mathewson queded how a high density development proposal that would have rents not
qualifying for affordable housing should be viewed; and queded whether the target range would
be applicable in a case such as this.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero relayed that in the
past, the Commission had questioned whether an applicant would be willing to designate a
portion of a development for senior housing or low-income housing, advising that if the applicant
was not agreeable that this would eliminate one of the amenities that the City was seeking.
Chairman Guerriero advised that the Commission desired to have a more definitive direction
with respect to the specific amenities that would qualify for approving a higher density, or to
incorporate a General Plan amendment.
R:PlanComm~VlinutesM)80100
6
Councilman Pratt advised that in his opinion the Planning Commission was qualified to struggle
with these issues in determining whether or not a project should be approved; and noted that
since the future held additional growth in the City there would need to be plans for improvement
with respect to transportation issues.
For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified the density levels represented
on the referenced table in the General Plan, noting that due to the calculations the City utilized
in the circulation modeling that there was a buffer, since the medium and high-density projects
have never been developed at the highest level; relayed that if it was the desire of the Council to
amend the General Plan in order to revise the target density levels, that there would still be
flexibility within that range dudng the approval process; recommended processing an
amendment to the General Plan pdor to the update process in order to create clarity with
respect to targeted densities, noting that staff needed information in order to direct applicants
who would begin planning projects that could encompass a one to one-and-half year pedod of
time.
Mr. Robert Oder, representing Mira Loma Apartments, relayed his concern with the lack of
definition of what the Council considered an amenity with respect to an apartment complex, or
rental housing; advised that there was a universal understanding in the industry that an amenity
was an asset to the property which enabled the preberty owner to receive higher rents (i.e.,
swimming pool, recreation center, microwave ovens); referencing the Temecula Ridge project,
noted that this proposal had multiple amenities; and concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeffs
comments that the GMP appears to state that the lowest density range was the desire of the
Council, whereas the General Plan codi~es what has to be done, relaying that he would be
more comfortable applying the GMP if it was submitted to the same review procedure as the
General Plan.
In response to Mr. Oder, and for informational purposes, Councilman Naggar commented on
the Temecula Ridge Project, noting that this prepesal was near the high end of the density
range; and relayed that he could support changing the term amenity, noting that in his opinion
the amenities the Council were seeking were for the purpose of attaining community value.
Councilman Roberts relayed that in his opinion, amenities could refer to internal amenities that
would reduce the generation of traffic (i.e., a proposed 25-meter pool, a large tot lot, and
barbecues) which would reduce the need to leave the complex.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchem relayed that it was clear to him that the term amenity was not
viewed the same by the Council as it was by the apartment development industry, advising that
it might be appropriate for the GMP to change the word amenity;, and noted that the Council,
when adopting the GMP, was seeking major community Citywide amenities, relaying a desire to
ciadfy this issue. In response, Mr. Oder relayed that an apartment complex with multiple
amenities created a higher quality of life, and thereby was an improvement to the community.
For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Oder relayed that it was his opinion that including affordable
housing in a luxury apartment project (i.e.. the Temecula Ridge Project) would not be
appropriate, noting that it was his opinion that low income housing was better suited in single
detached dwellings.
Mr. William Gdffith, representing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, viewed the GMP as an
implementation document via growth management (i.e., balancing the issue of establishing
roads, and ensuring adequate traffic circulation); noted that the General Plan was a legislative
document providing density ranges, identifying amenities. trade-off elements, and housing
R:PlanComm~JVlinutes'~080100
7
elements; noted his difficulty with Section B1 of the GMP due to the application process, the
environmental review, and the design of infrastructure; noted the confusion with respect to when
a development application was deemed complete, relaying the process; noted that per an
anonymous phone call to staff, it had been relayed that the densities were to be at the lowest
end of the range in future development proposals; provided an overview of the proposals in the
Wolf Creek Specific Plan, noting the planning pedod of approximately two years; and
recommended that the GMP and the General Plan be disconnected. reiterating that the GMP
was solely an implementation tool.
Mr. Barton Buchalter, 30000 Block of Rancho California Road, relayed that from a developer's
standpoint, if it was the desire of the Council to approve projects at the lowest densities that the
General Plan should be amended, noting that there was certainty needed which would affect
property rights, and the individual's due process; opposed the inconsistencies between the
GMP and the General Plan, reiterating his recommendation that the General Plan be amended
in order to create an equitable situation for developers; noted that required amenities should be
differentiated on smaller sites; relayed the acceptable density ranges in alternate areas (i.e., the
City of Irvine); and advised that the City may lose quality development if this issue was not
resolved.
Councilman Pratt relayed his support of the GMP, noting the importance of the community's
comments with respect to the issue of growth management.
Councilman Naggar relayed that he did not view the GMP as inconsistent to the General Plan,
noting that if the viewed inconsistency had been the target density, that this issue had been
clarified; with respect to Mr. Gdffith's quedes, recommended that when preparing a project for
the approval process that the developer ensure that if the densities were higher than the lowest
range that there be an accompanying excellent project package (i.e., read improvements. fire
stations, libraries); and reiterated that the GMP was a philosophy, relaying that if growth was not
managed it could create a cdsis situation especially in light of the County's developmental
impacts on the City of Temecula.
In response to Councilman Roberts, City Attomey Thorson relayed that the GMP specified that
each project must be determined on its own medt in terms of its consistency with the General
Plan. the Zoning Ordinance, and with State and Federal Law, advising that there was not a
conflict with the General Plan, noting that it would not create legal liability issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero concurred with Councilman Naggar, noting that he did not view the
GMP as inconsistent with the General Plan, clarifying that the language of the GMP stated
direct the Planning Commission to consider, advised that the Council's direction to the
Planning Commission was that the Council trusted the Commission to make the decisions within
the parameters of the direction provided; clarified that the direction was for the Planning
Commission to initially consider development at the low end of the density range and to take
into account proposed community benefits; with respect to the amenities represented in the
General Plan which Chairman Guerdero had presented, noted that he concurred that those
denotations as acceptable amenities; and relayed that the target density level could still be the
mid-range if there were community benefits proposed with the project.
Chairman Guerriero clarified that the density issue was not the issue needing clarification,
advising that the matter of confusion was with respect to a clear definition of qualifying
amenities; noted that if the Council desired to utilize the 11 amenities denoted in the General
Plan, that the Planning Commission could move forward with a clearer understanding;
recommended adding an additional qualifying amenity to the list: an increased percentage of
R:PlanCommWlinutes~080100
8
landscaping, relaying that in his opinion if a project proposed an approximate fffiy percent (50%)
landscape plan this amenity should qualify as a community asseL
In response to Chairman Guerdero, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that the Council did
not desire to limit the qualifying amenities, directing the Commission to determine whether a
proposed amenity qualified as a community benefit.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that with respect to the amenity of proposed increased
landscaping, that there would need to be a balance on a case-by-case basis, advising that there
may be projects that have significant impacts on the site (i.e., signfficant grading impacts),
reiterating the need for a balancing effect; relayed that he could move forward with the Council's
direction, noting that the GMP did not state shall consider, but may consider, advising that there
was flexibility; and with respect to qualifying amenities, concurred with Councilman Roberts'
comments that a reduction in the generation of vehicular tdps should be considered an amenity,
while noting that some amenities (i.e., a swimming pool ) could reduce tdps for residents not
needing to leave the complex, that if the facility was open to the public it could also be an
attractor of traffic.
Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred that a reduction in vehicular tdps was a public benefit;
relayed that it was his opinion that there was a lack of information available to the development
community; noted that via the development community, roads, houses and commercial centers
were built in a community, advising that in his opinion the City owed the developers a fiduciary
responsibility to have a degree of certainty as to a more specific direction with respect to
densities; noted that the General Plan was not clear if in the approval process the GMP was
included; reiterated that the General Plan specffically stated that the target density was mid-
range, relaying that in exchange for special public benefits the Council and the Planning
Commission might allow the densities to be between the target density and the maximum
density; advised that due to the explicit direction in the General Plan, that if the densities desired
have changed, the General Plan should be amended; noted that it was the Planning
Commission's charge to enforce the guidelines and polldes in the General Plan; relayed that in
his opinion, the Coundl's direction was leaving the development community in a no-man's-land;
and recommended that if the Council's desire was to have a Growth Management Policy it
should be part of the General Plan.
At Councilman Naggar's request, City Attomey Thorson noted the preceding policies of the
General Plan which listed eight or nine policies to be considered; clarified that the General Plan
addressed a range of densities, not specifying one density for each land use area; advised that
the General Plan provided a mechanism to determine the manner that densities would be
adjusted in the preceding policies; confirmed that it stated that the expected target density range
was mid-range, advising that guidelines could be developed determining the evaluation of
varying densities; and relayed that the General Plan was acceptable, as written, as a legal
minimum.
Advising that it was not his desire that anyone should be left in a no-man's-land, Councilman
Naggar advised that any individual who was considering making a sizeable investment by virtue
of development in this City, one should be able to bank on something, and to have a certain
degree of certainty.
Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated the lack of clarification with the direction for developers to
pursue.
R:PlanComm~linutes~080100
9
In response to discussion comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that most of the
apartment projects that have been constructed in the City of Temecula have been in the 14-16
units per acre range, advising that to the best of his knowledge there were no development
projects close to the 20 units per acre range.
In response to City Manager Nelson's quedes with respect to the consistency of the GMP with
the General Plan, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while he concurred with City
Attorney Thorson's comments from a legal perspective, that from a planners point of view it was
his preference that there be certainty in the General Plan, and that the language of the General
Ran (which was the bible for development direction for developers) cladfy the basic policy
standards; recommended that the language of the General Plan include additional specificity
with respect to the amenities; and relayed that clarification would aid in staffs communication
with the developers.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that if the
amenities were more cleady defined there would still not be absolute certainty, but that the
ambiguity would be reduced if there were no conflicts between the General Plan and the GMP;
and advised that if the two documents (the General Plan and the GMP) were consistent, then
the negotiations could begin with the amenities issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero suggested that there be development of a matdx, whereby 20
qualifying amenities could be denoted, and pdodtized in order of the most important assets to
the community, and then have that data be placed in the form of a table; noted that it could be
specified that for a certain amenity there could a be certain percent increase in density. In
response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that this was a feasible concept, noting that
staff could work with the Commission and bring foRNard to the Council recommendations.
Councilman Pratt commented on the importance of the concepts expressed from the community
residents with respect to growth management.
Councilman Naggar relayed that although the City Council could meet to determine additional
speci~city with respect to qualifying amenities. that it would reduce the flexibility the Planning
Commission currently had, querying whether that was the desire of the Commission; and noted
that he could support the concept of developing a matdx table as suggested by Mayor Pro Tem
Comerchero.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with respect to identifying specific standards,
advising that General Plans were intended to be general; noted that there was subjectivity in the
approval process; and relayed that if standards were furlher specified. the approval process
may be bound to specifics that were not applicable for some projects, while cladfying that he
would support expanding the list of qualifying amenities.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that while the General Plan did not have to have language that
was specific, it should provide guidance with respect to siting the amenities that would be
considered when approving densities above the densities outlined in the General Plan; and
recommended that dudng the General Plan update process that there be revisions to reconcile
the GMP with the densities, and to provide what community benefits (i.e., tdp reductions) could
be utilized to offset increase in densities.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with clear direction in
the General Plan, the approval process would still have flexibility.
R:PlanCornrn~linutes\080100
10
Commissioner Telesio relayed the desire to review the projects with definite guidelines on a
case-by-case basis, with an element of flexibility; and advised that after discussion of this issue,
he felt comfortable to move forward with the General Plan and GMP, as written.
Mayor Stone relayed his complete confidence in the Planning Commission; reiterated that he
was a streng supporter of property dghts and due precess; noted that it was not his desire to
limit the appreval precess with the development of a matrix table; concurred with Commissioner
Chiniaeff' comments that there was confusion with respect to the General Plan and the GMP,
relaying that potential land buyers should be able to have certain expectations, advising that
there was a conflict between the legal verbiage and expectations, recommending that the
language be clarified so that a potential land buyer could have prevision of expectations within a
certain range.
Councilman Roberts relayed that he did not support the matfix concept, noting that the latitude
in the appreval precess was necessaW.
Councilman Naggar commented on the balance between approving greater densities and the
amenities a developer proposed; and recommended leaving that discretion to the Planning
Commission.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's quedes, Chairman Guerriero relayed that if it was
the City Council's desire to grant latitude to the Planning Commission to determine whether the
amenities preposed qualffied for approving higher densities, that he could move forward with
that direction.
In concurrence with Mayor Stone's comments, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that
when the update process took place that clarfficetion be added with respect to the relationship
of the GMP to the General Plan; and relayed that he felt comfortable to move forward with the
approval precess with his interpretation of the GMP and the General Plan.
Mayor Stone queded whether the Commission was dear that the Commission could grant a
density incentive for an on-site improvement proposed to be utilized solely for the residents
living in the project.
In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could support granting
density incentives for on-site improvements due to fact that a better quality development would
be a benefit to the community.
In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the discussion comments
regarding provision of density incentives; and relayed the importance of the planning staff
having a dear understanding of the development expectations since staff would be addressing
future applicants.
Councilman Naggar commented on on-site amenities, clarifying that the City desired quality
development and that in his opinion microwave ovens or tile floors would not be qualifying
amenities.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that within the subjective judgement of the Planning
Commission, certain amenities would carry greater weight than others (i,e,, an amenity that
bene~ted the entire community rather than one that bene~ted solely the project's residents),
R:PlanCommV,/linutes~080100
11
Chairman Guerriem recommended that with projects that were highly visible in the community
that there be consideration to require some type of a landscape monumentation or a statement
element; and provided additional information regarding the visual buffer landscaping could
provide.
In response to Mayor Stone's previous query regarding a developmenrs provision of an on-site
amenity (i.e., a pool), Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would balance the amenity with
how it benefited the community, as a whole.
It was noted that at 8:42 P.M. the meeting recessed, mconvening at 8:59 P.M.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill miterated the request for the City Council to provide direction
with respect to requests for time extensions on Tentative Tre ct Maps and Tentative Parcel
Maps; and provided an overview of the existing review process of gre nting the extensions.
Councilman Naggar recommended that the Planning Director consider the GMP when
considedng the request of the time extensions.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed opposition to changing
allowable densities on a previously approved map, advising that the landowner would lose
entitlements they had previously obtained; and noted that most likely numerous maps would
expire with respect to the ability to request time extensions dudng the next two-to-three year
pedod.
Councilman Naggar advised that the landowner would be able to maintain the density level if
there were proposed amenities (i.e., horse trails).
Councilman Roberrs, echoed by Mayor Stone, recommended that the process of approving the
map time extensions remain, as is.
In response to Councilman Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thomhill advised that when
reviewing the time extensions that staff reviewed the projects with respect to the State Law that
pertained to granting those extensions, considering whether it was consistent with the General
Plan and whether them were public health and safety issues that may exist now that did not
exist at the time of the approval, ensudng that the maps appropriately addressed these two
issues.
For Councilman Pratt, Deputy City Manager Thomhifi relayed staffs efforts to ensure that trail
easements were obtained on properties adjacent to the creeks.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that if them were areas of concern in the review process
that staff would bump up the appre val process of the time extension request to the Planning
Commission level.
City Attomey Thorson relayed that the City could not condition a map extension, advising that it
could either be granted or denied, while noting that the property owner could agree to a
condition; provided additional information regarding the remaining lots; advised that when a
request for a time extension was submitted, that there was an automatic 60-day extension per
State Law, noting that the final map could be perfected during the period, bypassing the
extension process altogether;, noted that if the City requested trails, there would have to be
Findings to justify the fact that there were different circumstances at this time that did not exist
R:PlanComm~linutes~080100
12
when the map was approved; and for Councilman Naggar, provided additional information
regarding the trail system being added to the General Plan.
3 General Plan Proclress Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Provide comments on the Elements (i.e. Land Use, Circulation, Growth
Management) that should be examined during the update of the City's
General Plan.
Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the request for
input from the Commission and the Council with respect to the General Plan update; relayed
that the matters staff had preliminary identified for addressing were with respect to the following:
1) the landfill land issues. specifically with regard to the remaining vacant land, 2) the process of
addressing Open Space preservation issues, 3) investigating alternate transit options. 4)
addressing built-out traffic conditions, 5) investigating the effect of regional growth issues. and
6)ultimately to research the sustainability of the community; relayed that the new traffic analysis
would be conducted intersection-based rather than read segment-based; advised that staff
would request the consultant to provide a ten-year infrastructure recommendation; relayed that
there would be additional noise and air quality studies; and reiterated the request for the
Commission and the Council to provide input with respect to any policies, focuses, or issues to
address at this time in the updating process.
Councilman Roberts recommended that there be a Transit Element investigated during the
General Plan update precess in order to consider the feasibility of the matter, noting that
Councilman Pratt had made recommendations in the past regarding this issue.
For Councilman Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that there was a transit
corridor on Winchester Road, relaying that staff has been ensuring provision of those
easements as development occurs.
Mayor Pro Tern Comerchem relayed concurrence with including a Transit Element in the
update, advising that it should be tied into the Land Use Element, specifically with regard to the
relationship between the two; in response to Senior Planner Hogan's query, noted that it was his
opinion that the General Plan should, additionally, address art in public places.
Chairman Guerriere recommended that there be investigation with respect to undergreund
parking facilities (i.e., in the Old Town area, or in the second phase of the mall), and to
investigate tunneling (underpasses) as opposed to overpasses (i.e., in the Highway 79 area);
and recommended that the City develop sbecffied truck routes.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that Land Use, Circulation, and the Growth
Management clarification be addressed, as well as the Community Design Element, specifically
with respect to architecture, landscaping, and monumentation; recommended that the Open
Space Element address recreational facilities; and with respect to the Housing Element,
recommended investigating financial transfers to alternate communities in order to address the
regional housing impacts. querying the Council for their input regarding this issue.
In response to Mayor Stone, City Attomey Thorson relayed that staff could bdng back the issue
of financial transfers in order to provide the Council with additional background information.
R:PlanComm~linute$~080100
13
W'~th respect to the Western Bypass Project, Councilman Pratt recommended that in order to
accommodate the area on the western portion of the creek, that there be a circular circulation
route (creating a circular route around the City) whereby the Sport's Park would be accessible
from alternate portions of the City without travelling through the center of town.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding the Community Design and
Architecture Element, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that while the larger projects were
scrutinized with resbect to this issue that there be closer attention paid to the smaller projects,
as well; and recommended that a major issue needing to be addressed in the update was the
sphere of influence.
in response to Councilman Naggar, with respect to transit issues, Deputy City Manager
Thornhill relayed that while it was possibly too late for the planning of fixed routes, that there
were numerous options for non-fixed reutes.
W~th respect to the process of updating the General I~lan, Commissioner Mathewson
recommended that there be efforts to incorporate citizen involvement (i.e., workshops in
neighborhoods). In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that staff had involved the
community dudng the last update, confirming that this was an integral part of the process, noting
that staff would incorporate community involvement.
Councilman Naggar relayed the importance of expediting the process of completing the update.
Mayor Stone relayed that this Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop had been
productive, recommending that the workshops be held at a minimum of twice a year.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:28 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services Distdct and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and Mayor Stone formally adjourned the Joint City
Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesday,
August 8, 2000, 7:00 P.M., and to the next Plannini~Commission regular meeting on
Wednesday, August 2, 2000, 6:00 P.M., City Coun~:il Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve,
Temecula, California.
Ron Guerdero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
R:PlanComm~Vlinutes\080100
14
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED AUGUST 16, 2000
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 16, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan)
TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission
1. ADOPT a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0317;
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE
APARTMENTS) THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 246..UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY
APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT
BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST
OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
944-290-011, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION RELATED THERETO.
STATUS
PA 99-0317 was heard by the Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 at which time the Commission
continued the matter and asked staff to address their concerns with respect to the Growth
Management Program Action Plan.
While Commissioners favored the project's design, they were concerned that the project might not
be consistent with the Growth Management Program Action Plan adopted by the City Council on
March 21, 2000. The Action Plan directs the Planning Commission to consider approving residential
projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category. The project's density of 11.7
dwelling units per acre is clearly not at the lowest allowable density range. However, the Growth
Management Action Plan states that the Commission may consider approving a project above the
lowest density if the project provides onsite or community amenities. Commissioners requested
clarification as to exactly what was meant by "onsite or community amenities."
F:'~Depts~PLANNING~D PL~9-O317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.doc
1
the Subcommittee requested that the Commission continue the matter to July 5, 2000. On June 27,
2000. the full Council discussed the matter further and scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission. This meeting was held on August 1, 2000, at which time the Council directed the
Commission to consider each project on a case-by-case basis and to determine what factors make
the project a valuable asset to the community. The Coundl noted that there were no hard-and-fast
rules regarding these factors, and understood that the Commission would employ creativity, flexibility
and subjectivity in their decision-making.
Density Analysis
The General Plan designation for the site is M-Medium Density Residential, which has a density
range of 7-12 dwelling units per acre. With a net acreage of 20.88, the site can support 146 units
at the lowest range of 7 dwelling units per acre, and 251 units at the highest range of 12 dwelling
units per acre. With 246 units proposed, the density for the project is 11.7 units per acre. While the
proposed density is within the range of the Medium Density designation, it exceeds the target density
for the designation. If the project were to meet the target density of 9.5 dwelling units per acre, it
would have to propose 198 units, a decrease of 48 units. However, the General Plan states that the
target density does not apply to the Medium and High designations, in order for the City to ensure
consistency with the Housing Element.
Preiect Assets
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
269 Fully enclosed garages for all units (no carports)
43.2% of the site is landscaped
7,880 square foot Clubhouse
2, 162 square foot Workout facility
Olympic-sized swimming pool, spa, sundeck and arbor
Outdoor fireplace and barbecue
Tot lot with play equipment, seating and passive open space
Car wash area
Corner monumentations
Enhanced ledger stone entries with decorative pavement and arbors
Enhanced slope and berm screening and secudty fencing adjacent to single family
residences
Widening of Moraga Road off-site to accommodate turning lanes
Provision for a bus turnout on Rancho California Road in front of the project
115-foot Greenbelt along Rancho Califomia Road
Swim facility available to the local Swim Club for practices and workouts.
Rear Yard Perimeter Fencincl
Dudng the public testimony on May 3rd, the applicant indicated that he and the adjacent property
owner to the south had agreed upon increasing the wrought iron fenca height from 6 feet to 8 feet
in order to reduce the amount of trespassing and vandalism in the area. Due to the location of the
proposed fence line at the bottom of the project slope, staff concurs with the additional height and
has added a condition of approval that the applicant provide a revised Exhibit H-3 reflecting this
change.
F:~Depts~PLANNiNG',D PLqg-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.doc
2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was prepared for the project, which determined that the
proposal could potentially affect land use and planning, geology and soils, water, biological
resources, noise, and cultural resources. However, these effects are not considered to be sjgnificent
due to the mitigation measures previously agreed to and incorporated into the project. On the basis
of such inclusion, any potentially significant impacts are mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels.
Accordingly it is recommended the Planning Commission adopt a mitigated negative declaration for
the project.
The IES for the project was sent to the Governors Office of Planning and Research, in order that
the State Clearinghouse circulate the document for public review for a 30-day pedod. One response
from the State Department of Fish and Game was received, and a response to that agency was
prepared. As a result, the IES has been revised to include a minor revision regarding jurisdictional
wetlands and a detailed discussion of altematives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and
coastal sage scrub habitat.
Subsequent to the close of the review period for the IES, staff received correspondence from the
Pechanga Cultural Resources supervisor, John A. Gomez, Jr., dated May 3, 2000. He requested that
a complete walkover of the project site be required as mitigation to identify any cultural or
archaeological resources that may have been exposed dudng the twelve years of weather and
erosion since the Archaeological Assessment was completed in 1988. Staff finds that this request
is both reasonable and appropdate due to the ridge location of the property. When appdsed of the
request, the applicant's representative had no objections. Staff has amended both the IES and the
Mitigation Monitodng Program to include this measure,
In accordance with Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Pdor to Adoption, of the
California Environmental Quality Act's CEQA Guidelines, staff has concluded that the revision to the
IES is not considered substantial because:
1) A new, avoidable significant effect has not been identified.
2) No new measures are required.
3) New information has been added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies,
or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommends approval of the project because it is consistent with the City's General Plan,
Development Code and Design Guidelines. Analysis of the project with regards to access and
circulation, interrace with adjacent properties, architectural design, signage, traffic and grading are
described in Staffis Report to the Planning Commission dated May 3, 2000 (see Attachment 4). The
design of the project, the amenities offered, the architecture and materials, and the landscaping
proposed are equal to or superior to the previously appreved project for the site, Plot Plan No.
10864. Concerns regarding the project's compatibility with adjacent properties, traffic impacts, and
grading have been addressed by the design of the project, conditions of approval imposed upon the
project, and by the revised mitigation monitoring program attached to the project as a result of the
revised Initial Environmental Study.
F:~Depts~LANNING~,D P%99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS~STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-O0,doc
3
FINDINGS
The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan
designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre). The
project proposes a density of 11.78 which is within the range specified. It is in conformance
with the policies as stated in the General Plan and with all applicable requirements of State
Law and other ordinances of the City including the Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety,
and general welfare. The type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health
problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan,
Growth Management Program Action Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping
Ordinances, The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have
been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City
Standards, Access and circulation are adequate for the general public and for emergency
vehicles.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 6
Revised Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 7
Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 8
Staff Report dated May 3, 2000 - Blue Page 9
Excerpts from the Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 2000 - Blue Page 10
F:~Depts~LANNING~ P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 8.-16~O.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
F:~Depts~PLANNING',D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT,pC 8-16-00,doc
5
A'I'rACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-.__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE
APARTMENTS) - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY
APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT
BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CAUFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST
OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
944-290-011, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, AGK Group LLC filed Planning Application No. 99-0317 Development Plan (the
"Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application, on
May 3, June 7, July 5, and August 16, 2000, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law.
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the
project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
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 and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code;
A. 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 including the Development
Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance. The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan
designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project
proposes a density of 11.78 which is within the range specified.
F:\D~pts~PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Tcmeculs Ridgo Apts~RES-DP,PC 8-16-00.doc
1
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and general welfare. The type of improvements is not likely to cause sedous public health problems.
The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Growth Management
Program Action Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent
with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to
assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Access and circulation are adequate for
the general public and for emergency vehicles.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was prepared
for the project, which determined that the proposal could potentially affect land use planning, geology
and soils, water, biological resources, noise, and cultural resources. However, these affects are not
censidered to be significant due to the mitigation measures previously agreed to and incorporated
into the project. On the basis of such inclusion, any potentially significant impacts are mitigated and
reduced to insignificant levels. Accordingly it has been recemmended the Planning Commission
adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the project.
This Planning Commission hereby find that, on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and further that
the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgement and
analysis. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
this project and further adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program related thereto. The records and
materials relied upon are within the possession of the Planning Manager of the City of Temecula.
The IES for the project was sent to the Governors Office of Planning and Research, in order that
the State Cleadnghouse circulate the document for public review for a 30-day period. One response
from the State Department of Fish and Game was received, and a response to that agency was
prepared, which included a minor revision to the IES regarding jurisdictional wetlands, and a more
detailed discussion of alternatives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage
scrub habitat identified on the project site.
Subsequent to the close of the review period for the IES, staff received correspondence from the
Pechanga Cultural Resources supervisor, John A. Gomez, Jr., dated May 3, 2000. He requested that
a complete walkover of the project site be required as mitigation to identify any cultural or
archaeological resources that may have been exposed during the twelve years of weather and
erosion since the Archaeological Assessment was completed in 1988. Staff finds that this request
is both reasonable and appropriate due to the ridge location of the property. When apprised of the
request, the applicanrs representative had no objections. Staff has amended both the IES and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program to include this measure.
In accordance with Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption, of the
California Environmental Quality Act's CEQA Guidelines, staff has concluded that the revision to the
IES is not considered substantial because:
1) A new, avoidable significant effect has not been identified.
2) No new measures are required.
3) New information has been added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies,
or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
This Planning Commission further finds that the amended mitigation measures as set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program are the equivalent of, or more effective than, the originally prepared
mitigation measures and conditions of approval I the mitigation of potentially significant effects on
F:XI)epts\PLANN1NG\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\RES-DP.PC 8-16-00.doc
2
the environment and further finds that the substitute measures will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Coundl hereby conditionally approves
the Application for the design, construction and operation of a 246-unit, two and three story
apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot on approximately 21 acres,
located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the intersection of Rancho
California Road and Moraga Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011, subject to the
project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this sixteenth day of August, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
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 sixteenth day of
August, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\D~pts\PLANNING~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\P,E,S-DP.PC 8-16-00.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
REVISED INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
F:~Depts~PLANNING~D PLq9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.doc
7
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Revised 7-5-00
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula
Ridge Apartments
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Carole Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
(909) 694-6400
South side of Rancho California Road (RCR), at the southeast
quadrant of RCR and Moraga Road extended (APN:944-290-011)
AGK Group, LLS
35411 Paseo Viento
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
"M" Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre)
"M" Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units per acre)
The design, construction and operation of 246 apartment units in t~vo
and three story structures, along with one-story garage structures
and common recreation facilities including a clubhouse, pool, spa,
work-out room and tot lot, all on 20.88 acres.
The property is an east-west trending ridge that fronts upon Rancho
California Road. Existing apartments are located directly to the south
and southwest, and on the opposite side of Rancho California Road
to the north. Vacant land slated for office development is located to
the east and west, and a single-family neighborhood abuts the
southeast corner of the property.
County Department of Environmental Health, County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, Regional Water quality Control
Board, Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts,
Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison
Company, General Telephone Company, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
1
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 Planning
Population and Housing
Geology and Soils
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
X
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Signature:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
~ ~ Date
Revisions dated July 5, 2000:
Signature: Carole I_l_l~onahoe, AICP
July 5, 2000
F:\Depts\PLANN ING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
: ...... E Significant! Mitigation: Sitini~canl
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ,/'
natural community conservation plan?
No
fropact
Comments:
1 .a:
The property is an in-fill site on a major thoroughfare and surrounded by existing and proposed urban
development. The property is adjoining an existing single family neighborhood to the southeast, and is
abutting areas developed with or slated for multiple family or office development to the east, west and
south. The development of this site with apartments, along with other apartments, office development
and associated uses along the Rancho California Road corridor, has no potential to physically divide an
established community.
1 .b:
The project site is designated in the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code for Medium
Density Residential development (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project is proposed at 11.78
dwelling units per acre and is therefore within the use and maximum density parameters established by
the underlying planning and zoning for the property. The project is subject to review by City Staff and
approval by the City of Temecula Planning Commission to determine its consistency with other
applicable policies, guidelines and standards of the General Plan, Development Code and Design
Guidelines. Review by Staff and approval of the project by the Planning Commission will ensure
consistency with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations.
1 .C;
The project site is located in the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-Term Habitat
Conservation Plan and will be required to pay applicable SKR mitigation fees prior to grading. The site
is not identified as part of any other habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The payment of the standard SKR mitigation fee results in a less than significant impact.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
3
2, POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
:: :: .... ISs~Sand~Upporilng InformatiOn SoUrceS: ~::: ::: :!!~!:!! :ImpaCt: ::: :lncol-pora~6Kl!: ~ Jmpac~ Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
2.a'
The City General Plan designates the property for Medium Density Residential development. Since the
project is consistent with this designation it will not induce population growth beyond that envisioned in
the General Plan, and since it is an in-fill project with all major roads, utilities and other infrastructure in
place, a less than significant impact is anticipated from the population growth resulting from the project.
2.b.c: The project site is presently vacant and unoccupied. Thus the project has no potential to impact or
displace any housing or residents or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
4
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
~ .:: : :: i: E:E . : ! :::::: E::: : : SignifiCant : U ga on : :Sg~ifican No
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial ,/
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ./'
iv) Landslides? ~/'
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ,/'
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Comments:
3.a.i-iii:
According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Temecula is in Groundshaking Zone II which will
experience moderate to intense groundshaking in the event of a major regional earthquake. The site,
however, does not lie within or immediately adjacent to an AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor
within or immediately adjacent to an identified Liquefaction Hazard Area. According to a Geotechnical
Investigation completed for the project by CHJ (June 1999) no active faults are shown on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site on the published geologic maps, and no evidence of active faulting on or
immediately adjacent to the site was observed during the geologic field reconnaissance or on the aerial
photographs reviewed. Further, the potential for liquefaction is expected to be negligible provided the
site is graded in accordance with the recommendations in the CHJ report. The potential for an adverse
impact from groundshaking and liquefaction is therefore considered less than significant.
3.a.iv.b.c.d:
According to the CHJ investigation, both cut and fill slopes on the property should be stable from
landslides, although a small possibility exists that remedial measures such as buttress or stabilization
fills may be recommended during grading if unfavorable geologic conditions are exposed in cut slopes.
However, on-site soils are susceptible to erosion, subsidence and "medium" expansion. Loose to
medium dense young alluvial soils within the drainages and colluvial soils on the hillsides will have to
F:\Depts\PLANN ING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00+doc
5
3.e:
be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Also, on-site drainage will need to be designed and
maintained so as to prevent water from running across site and slope faces and causing erosion, and
unpaved surfaces should be planted immediately to stabilize the soils. With the incorporation into the
project of these and the other recommendations in the CHJ report, including the requirement that
grading operations be monitored by an Engineering Geologist, any potentially significant impacts will be
reduced to a level of less than significant.
The project site will be served by a sewer collection system so there is no potential for the site to have
adverse impacts related to use of subsurface wastewater disposal systems.
F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
6
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
~: ;; ::; ::: ~ :: :: ::1:: : !: :: ::: ::::: :! ;::::::::: : Potenlialty ~ SignificarrtUnless LessThan
.... SignifiCant : Mitigation : Significant
: ~::: : : Issues and Supporting:Information SOUFCeS: : Impact : IncorporaJed lrnpact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ,/'
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pro-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ,/'
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ,/'
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ,/'
g. Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami. or mudflow?
No
Impact
Comments:
4.a.f:
The project will be required to obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board and comply with the requirements of a 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 reduced to a level of insignificance.
4. b: The project site is located on a ridge which does not serve as a recharge location for surface runoff, nor
does the project include the extraction of groundwater. Therefore, the project has no potential to
adversely interfere with groundwater or groundwater recharge. The General Plan EIR addresses water
demand from development in the City of Temecula. The GPEIR concludes that cumulative water
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc 7
demand within the City can be met by the City's two purveyors without having a significant adverse
impact on the environment, including depletion of the areas groundwater supplies. Therefore, the
proposed project will not contribute to a significant cumulative, indirect adverse impact on the area
groundwater aquifers.
4.c.d.e:
The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or result
in the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. However, previous drainage patterns will be altered by
grading and drainage structures, and previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by the
construction of buildings and paved surfaces. While drainage patterns and absorption rates and surface
runoff will be modified, potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
through the implementation of measures and/or improvements recommended by a Drainage Study
which will be required as a condition of project approval. Potentially significant erosion and siltation
issues will be addressed and mitigated through the implementation of the recommendations of the
Drainage Study and the Geotechnical Report discussed under Geology and Soils directly above.
4.g.h.i:
The project site is located on a ridge and is not located in the vicinity of any identified 100-year flood
hazard area nor dam inundation area. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards will occur
from developing the project site as proposed.
4.j;
Since the project is not near any water body and is located on a ridge, no potential exists for the site to
be adversely impacted by inundation from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
8
m
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Comments:
5,3:
The land use designation is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan which has been
integrated into the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG's) Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide (RCPG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). Development of the project site with mitigation measures as outlined in the
SCAQMD "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" will not conflict with any applicable air quality plan.
5.b:
Air quality within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is improving, and development of the proposed
medium density project in conformance with the RCPG and AQMP will ensure that the long-term air
quality will not be violated.
5.C:
The CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains a screening table for operations and construction impacts.
The project falls below the threshold for potential cumulative significant air emissions and therefore
does not have a potential to cause a significant impact within the basin. The project will be required to
comply with standard City regulations to prevent nuisance impacts from grading and construction
activities.
5.d.e:
None of the activities at the project site will have a potential to generate significant volumes of
pollutants or odors or create substantial pollutant or odor concentrations that could harm sensitive
receptors or affect a substantial number of people.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
9
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
:Z:: Z~ : !!!: Z!!:: ~ Z :i::: POfenfiafly: zSi~ni~cantU~leSS LessT~n
Z ::: ! Z Z Z Z Z $kJnificanf ~: z Mitigatiorl: Significant . No
: ~ i ~ :~!:~:~:: ;:!: Issues alld SuppOrting jnf0~matioll Souraes : : : ~ : impact:; :~ Inaa~poraLed::: ~mpa~[: In~paGt
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ,/
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle tdps, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ,/
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ,/'
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ,/'
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ,/'
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Comments:
6.a.b:
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (Revised February 2000) for
a project with a total of 454 multiple-family units (including the units constituent to the Temecula Ridge
proposal) and a mixed-use retail and commercial village center on the project site and an adjacent 23+
acre parcel to the east. The TIA concluded the following regarding the area circulation system impacts:
"Under both year 2001 With and Without Project traffic conditions, the intersections of Rancho
California Road at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps, at 1-15 Northbound Ramps and at Ynez Road are
projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., worse than LOS D) during the PM peak
hour. With roadway improvements planned at these intersections, and with the opening of Overland
Drive overpass ... the three intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, for both the Year
2001 Without Project and With Project traffic conditions."
All of the intersection improvements noted above, as well as Overland Drive, have been completed.
Consequently, project impacts are considered less than significant as they are within applicable
General Plan LOS Standards, and therefore the TIA does not propose any specific measures to
mitigate project traffic impacts.
The developer will be responsible for extending Moraga Road south between Rancho California Road
and Via Las Colinas, and for payment of development impact (DIF) fees in accordance with the fee
schedule established by the City in order to pay their fair share of area-wide traffic improvements.
Based on the data and analysis contained in the TIA, with these measures the proposed project can be
implemented without causing significant adverse impacts to the circulation system.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5430.doc
10
6.c;
6.d.e:
6.f:
6og:
The project site is not located near any airport and has no potential to adversely impact any air traffic
patterns.
Emergency access to the project site and areas directly to the west will be facilitated with the proposed
extension of Moraga Road between Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas. Moraga Road will be
designed to City standards and thus will not present a hazard resulting from a design feature. Internal
ciroulation has been designed to meet emergency access requirements.
The applicant has provided adequate parking spaces to meet the City's Development Code
requirements. The Development Code requires 504 parking spaces, and 505 have been provided.
The project will be conditioned to provide any necessary alternative transportation facilities consistent
with the road improvements serving the project site. No conflict or adverse impact to adopted
alternative transportation policies, plans or programs is forecast to occur from implementing the
proposed project.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D pL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
11
Revised 4-12-00
7, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
: :!:: : :: !: :lssu~s:andSupportl~glnformation§eL~lceS ............
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modificatEons, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significal~t Unless
[ncorj?ola~_c-d
;7
Less Than
Significant
Impacl
'No
Impact .,.
Comments:
7,a:
According to a Biological Constraints Report (BCR) prepared by Merkel & Associates (June 1999) the
project site contains approximately 8.5 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) and a pair of California
Gnatcatchers were identified during field surveys. Therefore, prior to grading the developer will need to
obtain an incidental take permit from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in accordance with their
correspondence dated September 22, 1999. Consultation with the Service has already been conducted
by the applicant, and a determination was made that the applicant could provide mitigation under a
project specific incidental take permit (Section 10a consultation) at a 3:1 ratio, including appropriate
endowment. If either the AD161 Habitat Conservation Plan or the Riverside County Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan is in place, the applicant can provide mitigation in accordance with these
plans. Compliance with the incidental take permit will reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) Survey 45-Day Letter Report prepared by Merkel & Associates
(June 1999) noted that three patches of potential QCB habitat but no Quino Checkerspot Butterflies
were observed within the project area. No impact is therefore anticipated from the project.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
12
7.b.c:
7.d:
7.e:
7.f:
According to the BCR, the project site does not contain any identifiable stream channels or streambeds.
Therefore, development site does not contain any California Department of Fish and Game
jurisdictional wetlands subject to 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreements. The project will not
impact riparian or wetland resources.
The project site is surrounded by urban/suburban development and thus provides no regional or local
habitat links or wildlife corridors. Its development therefore has no potential to adversely impact wildlife
movement, according to the BCR.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated biological resources since there are no
tocally designated resources other than within Old Town Temecula.
The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Fee Area. The project is
required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation) which requires the payment of the SKR fee, Payment of the fee results in impacts which
are considered less than significant.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
E:i ~: ::: :~:! :i i ~i~ ~ i ::i::.E :i :! ! !:~ !:: ! :.::: !: :;~ :!! :::! :!: ~::: !! ! ! ! ! !: ~ ! ! Si9~Can| ! ! !! Mitigation E: ::~ ~ignffi~cant:: No
::~E:EE: ::::E!! :::: :: ISsue~an~!Supp0ritng:lnformatiol~S(~urCeS: : :::::: !ElmpaCt
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ,,/
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments;
8.a.b: According to the General Plan, there are no mineral resources within the City that are identified by the
State Department of Mines and Geology as being of regional or statewide significance, nor does the
General Plan identify any local minerel resource recovery sites of significant economic value. No
impacts are therefore anticipated as a result of the project.
F:\DSptS\PLANNING\D P%99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
14
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Crate a significant hazard to the public or the ,/
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ,/
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ,/
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ,/
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ,/
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, ,/
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
9.3:
The proposed project will consist of residential uses that do not involve any potential for routine
transport or use of hazardous materials or routine generation of hazardous wastes. Therefore, the
project has no potential to create a hazard to the public or the environment through its implementation.
9.b:
Since no significant quantities of hazardous materials will be used or hazardous wastes generated on
the site, no potential exists for significant impacts to the environment from upset or accidental release
conditions.
9.c:
Since no substantial quantities of hazardous materials or wastes will be handled on the project site,
there is no potential to emit hazardous emissions in quantities that could cause a significant public
health impact.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
15
9. d:
9.e.f:
9.g:
9.h:
The project site is not identified as a contaminated site under Government Code Section 65962.5, and
a Phase I Environmental Assessment conducted by DBM Environmental (August 1998) found no
evidence of contaminated soil or hazardous materials on the site.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private
airstrip and has no potential to adversely impact airport operations.
Rancho California Road is identified in the General Plan as a major east-west emergency and
evacuation route. Although the project fronts Rancho California Road, it will not take direct access from
that roadway. The project proposes to extend Moraga Road to the project entrance and to modify the
existing traffic signal at Moraga and Rancho California Road from a three-way to a four-way signal to
accommodate the project. Additionally, a secondary access roadway onto Rancho California Road will
be constructed at the east end of the project, with limited right in-right out vehicular movements. As
designed, the development of the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the ability
of Rancho California Road to function as an emergency and evacuation route.
The project site does contain a minimal wildland fire hazard based on the presence of coastal sage
scrub, but due to the surrounding urban development this fire hazard is not considered significant. The
development of the project would eliminate what potential wildland fire hazard exists on the property.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
16
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
E : : : ::: : : SignifiCant:: MifigafiOn: ! Significant
a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of ,/
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
,f
Less Than
No
,f
,f
Comments:
10.a.b.c:
According to a Preliminary Noise Analysis (PNA) prepared by Mestre Greve Associates (February
2000), the project would be exposed to worst case noise levels from Rancho California Road of 60.7
CNEL at the first floor units, and 64.9 CNEL at the second and third floor units. Both of these levels are
below the adopted General Plan exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL. The PNA recommends that a
noise review letter be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to confirm that noise barriers
will not be required.
The units closest to Rancho California Road will require that some of the windows remain closed in
order to meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL as specified in Title 24, Part 2 of the California
Code of Regulations. As a result, these units will require mechanical ventilation per the
recommendations of the PNA. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, and the confirming
noise review letter noted above, potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant
level.
lO.d:
Construction noise levels will be above background noise levels, but the City requires construction
noise mitigation by prohibiting construction activities between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m
Monday through Friday, and 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays. No construction can occur on
Sundays or holidays. With implementation of this measure the short-term noise impacts are not
forecast to be significant to the surrounding land uses.
10.e.f: The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and has no
potential to be exposed to significant airport operation noise impacts.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
17
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:
: Potentially
.... Significant!
· tssues and Supporting Information Sources : ::: Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provision or need for new or
physicaily altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
b. Fire protection? ,/
c. Police protection? ,/
d. Schools? ,/
e. Parks?
f. Other public facilities?
Potentia]ly
Signi~sanl Unless LessThan
Mitigation Significant
incorporated ' impact
No
{mpacl
Comments:
11.a.b.c.d.e.f:
The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered govemment
facilities and services, including fire, police, schools, parks and recreation, or other public facilities.
Although the project will incrementally increase the need for these services, the development will be
required to contribute its fair share for services and facilities through the City's Development Impact
Fee (DIF), and the payment of school fees for the provision of school facilities. Accordingly, a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
18
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlemerits and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No
Impacl
Comments:
12.a.b.e:
The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new
treatment facilities, nor significantly affect the capacity of treatment proriders. Although the project will
have an incremental affect upon existing systems, the General Plan EIR found that the implementation
of the General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services. Since the project is consistent
with the General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated from the project.
12.c:
The project is not expected to require the construction or expansion of any facilities that would have a
significant environmental effect. As a condition of project approval and prior to grading, the developer
will be required to submit a drainage study for review and approval. The study shall identify all existing
or proposed on- or off-site public or private drainage facilities, and include a capacity analysis verifying
the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading of drainage facilities necessary to convey storm water
runoff, along with any other mitigation measures necessary to ameliorate associated impacts shall be
provided as pan of the project.
12.d:
The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements.
The project will have an incremental effect upon existing water systems, but the Genral Plan EIR states
that the EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their
service areas. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of the project.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
19
12.f.g: The project will not result in the need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste
created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling
programs that are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the
project.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00,doc
20
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
~ !!::: :!.: !!:~::: ' : ;Iss~es:an~SUpp~rilng info~rnaiion ~0Urces: :::: ::: :::::::: Impact:incorporated ~rnpac/L :Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ,/'
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ,7
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ,/'
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ,/
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
13.a.b:The proposed project will in-fill an undeveloped area along the Rancho California Road corridor. The
site is not considered to be within a scenic vista, nor is it located on a state scenic highway. Further,
there are no major tree resources, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the project site.
13.c:
The project site is a prominent ridge located adjacent to existing single- and multi-family dwellings. It is
also located on Rancho California Road, which is a major gateway and corridor into and through the
City. The project has been designed to increase the setback along Rancho California Road, and the
closest unit is 115 feet from the right-of-way line. The project design also places two story units (rather
than three story) 112 feet from the property line adjacent to single family dwellings to the southeast.
Design policies, guidelines, and standards have been applied to the project to achieve a less than
significant impact on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
13.d:
The subdivision and grading of the property will have no effect on light and glare in the area. However,
the development and operation of the project could have potentially significant impact on light and
glare. The project is conditioned to comply with the City's Light Pollution regulations (Ordinance No.
655). With this standard mitigation in place, impacts are considered less than significant.
F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
21
Revised 7-5-00
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
: !!! : !:!: !: ~:::: :~: !: : !:: : ! ~:!Z: :! :: :: I I Potentially :
j . } Polenlially ~ Signi~cartt Urlless Less Than
. ' ' ' ' Significant ! M~tigation S pn ticant
· issues and Suppoding tnFormation Sources · Impact Ir~lxlrpQraled Impact ·
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ,/'
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ,/'
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact
Comments:
14.a.b.d:
According to a Phase I Archaeological Assessment conducted by Jean Keller (December 1988) cultural
resources were not observed within the boundaries of the project site and further research was not
recommended. Correspondence from the author dated November 1, 1999, states that these findings
"remain relevant and applicable to the currently proposed project." Nevertheless, the Generel Plan EIR
identifies the project site as being within an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources. Due to the
extensive amount of grading and excavation proposed and the potential for such resources to occur in
the subsurface of the property, any grading will be conditioned upon the requirement that if any cultural
resources or human remains are exposed during grading, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of
the discovery shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted, and a qualified
archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resources. If discovered resources merit long-
term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources in
accordance with standard archaeological management requirements. With these measures in place,
effects upon cultural resources are anticipated to be less than significant.
On May 3, 2000, subsequent to the close of the public review and comment period and prior to the start
of the public hearing on the project, staff was handed a transmittal from John Gomez, Jr. Supervisor for
Pechanga Cultural Resources. Mr. Gomez reviewed the Archaeological Assessment on file in the
Planning Department and acknowledged the findings therein. However, due to the length of time since
the Assessment, and the amount of erosion that has occurred at the site due to wind, rain and other
factors, Mr. Gomez has requested that a field walkover be conducted before the issuance of grading
permits for the project, in order to ensure that cultural and archaeological resources are not uncovered.
Mr. Gomez requests, further, that a treatment plan and preconstruction agreement between the
applicant and the tribe be required of the project, including the presence of Native American monitors
during ground-disturbing activities. Staff has reviewed these requests and finds that the walkover prior
to grading is both appropriate and reasonable. Staff has conferred with the applicant regarding this
request and with their concurrence has added the walkover and compliance with the findings as a result
of the walkover, as a mitigation measure for the project. With regards to the remaining requests by Mr.
Gomez, staff believes that mitigation measures already placed upon the project (see above) are
adequate given the results of the Assessment.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D PL99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
22
14.c:
The General Plan EIR sensitivity map for paleontological resources identifies the project site as being
within a sensitive area for paleontological resources. Due to the potential for such resources to occur
on the property, a paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations, and during
grading and excavation activities a qualified paleontological monitor will be required to be present on
site and shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of
any exposed paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered, adequate
funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report on these resources to ensure the values inherent
in the resources are adequately characterized and preserved. With these measures, potentially
significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P%99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
23
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
: : ' :::::! : Z:::~: ::::: ~:: ~:: i~ : E: E:: :: : : EPOtentiar4y :Signi~ca~Unless: LessThen: :
~ : : ~:::: :: :! :: !: ! : : :. :!:22::: : : 222~2 ~; ;;;: ; SignifiOant:; ;MitigatiOn 222 SignifiCant No
~ : i: :~: ::: :: ~lsSuesand~Uppartlng InfOrmation SourceS :: ~ ~i .... ~!:: ~ ::impaCt: !::: I~c~rp~rated : Impact impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing ,/'
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require ,7
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
eNviroNment?
Comments:
15.a.b:The proposed project includes on-site recreation areas as part of the project, including a clubhouse,
swimming pool, spa, workout room and tot lot. All of these facilities are either centralized in the project,
or in the case of the tot lot, buffered from surrounding uses in order to avoid any adverse impacts on
surrounding uses. In addition, the developer will be required to satisfy the City's parkland dedication
requirements by the payment of an in-lieu fee with a credit for the provision of the private recreation
facilities on-site. Any impacts associated with the provision or expansion of park and recreation facilities
provided off-site to meet the needs of the residents associated with this project will be evaluated in
conjunction with those off-site facilities. With these measures, less than significant impacts to
recreational facilities is anticipated.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
24
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
: Mitlga!ion :: SigniFicant
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the maior periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
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?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
:N~ ~
Comments:
16.a:
For the majority (ten of sixteen) of environmental issues discussed in this Initial Study Environmental
Checklist Form (Population and Housing, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Mineral Resources,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, and
Recreation) no potential for significant adverse impact has been identified and no project specific
mitigation other than standard conditions utilized by the City will be required.
For the remaining seven issues, project specific mitigation will be required to ensure that
implementation of the proposed project does not cause significant adverse physical changes in the
environment. Specifically, mitigation is identified for Land Use Planning, Geology and Soils, Hydrology
and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise and Cultural Resources. The specific mitigation
measures are identified in the body of the checklist and restated in the attached Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
16.b:
The cumulative impacts from the project are considered less than significant because the site is
proposed to be developed in a manner consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. All
cumulative impacts from the land use and development scheme envisioned in the General Plan have
been analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the project's consistency with
the City's General Plan and General Plan EIR, cumulative impacts must be considered as less than
significant.
16.c:
No environmental impacts have been identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, directly or indirectly. Mitigation has been identified to reduce all environmental impacts to a
level of less than significant.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5-00.doc
25
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.
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.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the eadier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Comments:
17.a: The City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report, a copy of which is available at the
City of Temecula Planning Department.
17.b: Cumulative impacts from all of the issues discussed above were addressed and mitigated to one
degree or another in the General Plan EIR.
17.c: Mitigation measures associated with the present project and analysis are addressed in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program attached hereto.
2.
3.
4.
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Temecula Development Code
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
1999 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey, Merkel & Associates, June 10, 1999
Biological Constraints Report, Merkel & Associates, June 4, 1999
Correspondence from Jim A. Bartel, Assistant Field Supervisor for the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, dated September 22, 1999
Phase I Environmental Assessment, DBM Environmental, August 17, 1998
Preliminary Noise Analysis, Mestre Greve Associates, February 14, 2000
Geotechnical Investigation, CHJ, June 8, 1999
Archaeological Assessment, Jean Keller, December 1998
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, Wilbur Smith Associates, February 18, 2000
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P%,99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA - Revised 7-5~30.doc
26
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
F:~Depts',PLANNING~) PL~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT. PC 8-16-00.doc
8
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA99-0317
Temecula Ridge Apartments Development Plan
Revised 7-5-00
LAND USE PLANNING
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Conflict with habitat conservation plans
Compliance with the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-
Term Habitat Conservation Plan
Payment of $500.00 per acre SKR mitigation fee
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion
Ameliorate hazards from unstable soils
Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
report
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion
Identify adverse soil conditions and implement measures to
ameliorate impacts
Submit a Soils Report for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
F:\DepIs\PLANNING\D PX99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP - Revised 7-5-00.doc
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to soil erosion
Stabilize slopes and unstable soils
Submit an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to soil erosion
Stabilize slopes and unstable soils
Submit a Slope Planting Plan for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Planning Department
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
General Impact: The degradation of water and/or waste discharge quality
Mitigation Measure: Compliance with water quality and waste discharge
requirements
Specific Process: Obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board and comply with the requirements of the
NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Board.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Create excessive runoff exceeding the capacity of existing
facilities
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D PX99-0317 Texnecula Ridge Apts\MMP - Revised 7-5-00.doc
2
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Identify drainage impacts and implement measures to mitigate
impacts
Submit a Drainage Study for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
General Impact:
A increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and the
capacity of the existing street system
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of fees to contribute to City-wide traffic
improvements
Specific Process:
Payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) for residential
development
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
General Impact:
An adverse effect on endangered or threatened species or
sensitive habitats identified by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mitigation Measure:
Compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Specific Process:
Obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Responsible Monitor: Planning Department
F:~Depts\PLANNING\D PX99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptsXMMP - Revised 7-5-00.doc
3
NOISE
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to significant noise levels
Compliance with the recommendations of the Preliminary
Noise Analysis
Provide mechanical ventilation for the units closest to Rancho
California Road and submit a noise review letter
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Department of Building and Safety
CULTURALRESOURCES
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource
The developer shall arrange for a complete walk-over of the
project site by qualified Native American Resource expert, to
identify, recover, preserve and document resources of historical
and archaeological significance
Condition the project to require a complete walkover be
conducted and reported to the Planning Manager, as to findings
and recommendations. If any cultural resources or human
remains are identified, a qualified archaeologist shall be
brought to the site to evaluate the resource. If discovered
resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding
shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any ground-
disturbing activities at the site.
Planning Department and Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Adverse change in the significance of a historical
archaeological resource
Or
Identify, recover, preserve and document resources of
historical and archaeological significance
F:XDepIs\PLANNING\D PX99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP - Revised 7-5-00.doc
4
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Condition the project upon the requirement that if any cultural
resources or human remains are exposed during grading,
ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery
shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted
and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to
evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term
consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect,
curate and report these resources.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading
operations
Planning Department and Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Destruction of a unique paleontological resources
Identify potential locations of and attempt to recover fossils
Submit a paleontological assessment for review and approval
and provide a qualified paleontologist to monitor grading
operations with the authority to suspend work and undertake
recovery operations.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during grading
operations
Planning Department and Public Works Department
F:XDepts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP - Revised 7-5-00.doc
5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED JULY 5, 2000
CITY OFTEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
ORIGINAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commi ~'
Debbie Ubnosk~lanning Manager
July 5, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula Ridge Apts.
Planning Application No. 99-0317 was heard by the Planning Commission on May 3. 2000 at which
time the Commission continued the matter and asked staff to address their concerns with the
definition of "amenities" within the Growth Management Program Action Plan.
Ongoing discussions regarding amenities have taken place between staff and Councilmembers since
the May 3, 2000 hearing. On May 30th the Council General Plan Subcommittee asked that the
Commission continue the Temecula Ridge case to July 5, 2000. On June 27, 2000 the City Council
discussed the matter further and asked staff to arrange a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission during the first week in August. In so doing, the Council also recommended that the
Commission continue PA99-0317 until their second meeting in August. Staff concurs with the
recommendation to continue this case to August 16, 2000.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 7-5-00 Continuance.doc
1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED JUNE 7, 2000
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
June 7, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula Ridge Apts.
Planning Application No. 99-0317 was heard by the Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 at which
time the Commission continued the matter and asked staff to address their concerns with one aspect
of the Growth Management Program Action Plan. The clarification is needed because the applicant
is requesting approval of a project at the higher end of the density range. and the Commission wanted
to know what constitutes "onsite or community amenities."
In an effort to provide further direction to the Commission, staff has been meeting with the City
Attorney and the Council General Plan Subcommittee members. At the end of their May 30 h meeting,
the Subcommittee asked that the Commission continue the pending Temecula Ridge case, in order
to provide an opportunity for the entire Council to cladfy this issue. Staff concurs with the request and
recommends that a 30-day continuance to July 5, 2000 be approved.
F:~;)epts~PLANNING~D P*,99-03t7 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc
1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED MAY 3, 2000
14
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 3, 2000
O/?Is//V,4L
Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0317, DEVELOPMENT PLAN THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, 'I'VVO AND
THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON
APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
944-290-011
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: A.G. Kading, AGK Group, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Markham, Markham & Associates
PROPOSAL: To design, construct and operate a 246-unit, two and three story
apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot
lot.
South side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the intersection
of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road
M Medium Density Residential
North: H High Density Residential
South: H High Density and LM Low Medium Density Residential
East: PO Professional Office
West: PO Professional Office and H High Density Residential
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
1
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
N/A
M Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre)
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Woodcreek and Portofino Apartments
Mira Loma and Rancho Apartments, and single family dwellings on Levande Place
Vacant
Vacant & Summer Breeze Apartments; Rancho California Medical Plaza beyond
PROJECT STATISTICS
Building Footprint:
Landscaping
Parking, Streets
Hardscape
39 structures
Total Area:
Density:
Max. Building Height:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
20.88 acres
11.7 units per acre
40 feet
268 covered
7 accessible
269 covered
32 accessible
181,156 square feet
393,586 square feet
248,280 square feet
86,230 square feet
909,533 square feet
236 uncovered
7 accessible
236 provided
8 accessible
20.0%
43.2%
27.3%
9.5%
100.0%
8 motorcycle
8 motorcycle
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA99-0317 was received on August 11, 1999, as a request to construct
a 266-unit apartment project. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on
September 16, 1999. Subsequent to the DRC comment letter dated October 5, 1999 a second
submittal was received January 6, 2000. A third submittal was received on February 22, 2000. The
project was deemed complete on March 14, 2000 and the Initial Environmental Assessment was
sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, to circulate the
document for a 30-day review period.
Additionally, at the suggestion of the applicant, staff toured apartment projects in Orange County
to view first-hand similar architecture, materials, product finish, circulation, entry statements,
facades, parking clusters, amenities, open space, and density treatment as proposed by the
project.
Two neighborhood workshops on the project were noticed and held by the applicant on the
evenings of January 14, 2000 and February 11, 2000. At the February workshop 20 residents
attended who had concerns regarding the concentration of apartments in the area, the density of
the project, size of structures, grading, traffic, and impacts to schools. Property owners in the
vicinity had been previously invited to a community meeting on October 14, 1998 at City Hall,
prior to the actual submittal of the project. At that meeting, two residents on Mira Loma Drive,
three residents from Veradero and seven residents on Levande Place attended.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
2
The proposed site was the location of Plot Plan No. 10864, approved by the City of Temecula City
Council on December 11, 1990 as a referral of an appeal from the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. Plot Plan No. 10864 proposed a 260-unit condominium townhouse development, two
and throe-story in height, with pool, spa, tot lot, a 4,000 square foot clubhouse, indoor racquetball,
two tennis couds and 54,000 square feet of open recreation space. Plot Plan No. 10864 proposed
a density of 11.70 dwelling units per acre, but it has since expired.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Temecula Ridge Apadments are comprised of four differont building types, 22
separate residential buildings, with dwelling units that range in size from 775 square feet to 1,380
square feet (including deck). Three of the building types offer ground-level, fully enclosed garages,
with the dwelling units either in a single level or multi-level floor plan, in one, two or three stories.
Additionally, there are separate, single or double wide garage structures. No carports are
proposed within the project. Guest parking spaces are provided throughout the site. A portion of
both the garages and guest spaces are handicapped accessible.
The project offers a centrally located clubhouse that provides a recreation room, meeting room,
and kitchen for tenants. It adjoins the leasing offices and is easily accessible from the two
entrances to the site. A pool, spa and work-out room completes the activity aroa, which has
connecting walkways that link it to the residential buildings. Additionally, a tot lot with play
equipment and seating adjacent to open space is provided at the southeast end of the site.
ANALYSIS
Access and Circulation
The project has two entrances which take access from two roadways that each intersect with
Rancho California Road. As a result of project development, Moraga Road shall be extended
southward beyond its existing location, and shall matchup and connect to existing Via Las Colinns.
Street "A" is proposed as a cuPde-sac along the east side of the site, extending from Rancho
California Road southward. While the Moraga/Rancho California Road intersection will continue
to be signalized, the intersection of Street "A" with Rancho California Road will not be signalized,
and therefore, vehicular turning movements are limited to right in/right out only from this cul-de-
Sac.
The project's vehicular circulation comes off a main west-east spine drive, and generally there aro
loop drive aisles around the garage structuros. Both emergency vehicle access and handicapped
accessibility was analyzed during the design of the project. Pedestrian walkways are provided
throughout the site, adjacent to dwellings, through open space aroas, and to garages.
Interface with Adjacent Properties
The project site is zoned for medium density residential, while adjacent property to the south is
zoned for high density rosidential, as is a portion to the west, and property across Rancho
California Road. The high-density residential areas have developed into the existing Mira Loma
and Rancho Apartments to the south, Summer Broeze Apartments to the west and Woodcroek
and Portofino Apartments to the north. As designed, the project interface with these existing
apartments is acceptable.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
3
Of concern to staff was the interface with the single family residential homes at the end of the
Levande cul-de-sac. To address this concern, the applicant modified the project to provide a 112-
foot separation from the property line at this location to the nearest building. The buildings were
sited to have the narrower ends of the units face south and be limited to two stories, consistent
with adjacent single family homes. Berming and a four-foot high screen wall was added at this
location, and particular attention was given to the plantings provided along the slope. According
to the City Landscape Architect, the proposed acacias will grow very quickly, providing a decent
screening within two to throe years. The proposed redwoods will grow approximately three feet
each year. With the addition of evergroen shrubs along with these trees, a reasonable scroen can
be provided. The project is conditioned that final shrub species selection and placement is subject
to roview and approval by the City.
Architectural Desian
Staff worked with the applicant's architect to de-emphasize building mass. Large buildings and
garages were divided into smaller clusters. Building orientation provides visual interost and variety.
Building setbacks wero varied along the perimeter of the project, and the meandering spine drive
also varies the stroetscape within the project. Building designs have varied heights and roofiines,
strong vertical and horizontal articulation, and varied and broken facades. Windows and entrances
were extended or rocessed. Enclosed stairwells wero added.
Monument Signs
The project proposes corner monumentation at both the Moraga and Street "A" intersections with
Rancho California Road. Given the fact that the project sits on the ridge above Rancho California
Road and these monuments will be visible at stroet level, and given the fact that it would be
necessary for visitors to access the project from these intersections, the two monuments are
appropriate and necessary. Additional entry signage is proposed at each of the two physical entry
points to the project, in accordance with the "vehicular entry zone" concept as encouraged in the
City's Design Guidelines for multi-family projects.
Traffic
The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for a 40-acro project proposal which
includes the Temecula Ridge Apartments. The TIA was reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, who
approved the revised document dated February 18, 2000 by Wilbur Smith Associates. The
document analyzed peak hour traffic impacts at all signalized intersections on Rancho California
Road between Margarita Road and Interstate-15. However, the TIA was prepared prior to the
completion of roadway improvements at the Interstate-15 southbound and northbound ramps, the
intersection of Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, and the Overland Drive overpass. The
document states that with these roadway improvements, all intersections analyzed are projected
to operate at Level of Service "D" (LOS) or better, for both the year 2001 with or without the
project. Since all of the roadway improvements have now been completed and Overland Drive
overpass is now open to traffic, project impacts are within applicable General Plan LOS standards.
According to the City Traffic Engineer, the TIA adequately addressed the areas of concern and
identified mitigation recommendations for the project for the year 2001, such as the extension of
Moraga Road prior to occupancy, and the payment of Development Impact Fees for city-wide
roadway improvements. In addition, the City Traffic Engineer has conditioned the project to widen
Moraga Road, where it intersects with Rancho California Road, in order to provide the southbound
through lane roquirod by the project, while retaining the existing two left-turn eastbound lanes and
singular right-turn westbound lane.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
4
An issue raised at the neighborhood workshop was a perceived high accident rate on Rancho
California Road in front of the project site. The City Traffic Engineering Division prepared a "Traffic
Collision History Report" from 1/1/91 through 1/1/00, between Moraga Road and Humber Drive.
The repod indicates that there were a total of 25 collisions over the nine year period for the 0.43
mile segment. With an average daily traffic count of 32,000, the accident rate (collisions per million
vehicle miles) is 0.55. According to Caltrans in their analysis of roadways statewide, a rate of 2.4
is considered the basic average accident rate for a 4~lane divided roadway. Rancho California
Road, at the project site, is less than ¼ the statewide average.
Gradinq
Because the project site is a prominent ridge that runs in an east-west direction, descending both
to Rancho California Road to the north and to the residential developments along Mira Loma to
the south, staff worked with the applicant to develop an acceptable grading program for the
project, utilizing the Hillside Design standards within the Community Design Section IV.G. of the
General Plan. Staff asked that the applicant work as much slope into the interior portion of the
project as possible, and to blend the land with existing conditions at the boundaries of the site.
Staff asked that the applicant explore split-level units built into slopes, to minimize disturbance of
the natural terrain. The applicant opted to construct an upscale project with certain amenities,
particularly enclosed garages, which increased the need for graded pad sites. The applicant
proposes to treat the site in similar fashion as other apartment complexes in the City, and to
compete with comparable projects such as Tuscany Ridge and Solana Ridge Apartments. The
applicant provided additional site sections to indicate the amount of slope throughout the project
in relation to buildings, and in relation to existing topography. See Attachment 4.E. for these
sections.
Consistency with the Growth Manaaement Proclram Action Plan
Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the Growth Management Program Action Plan
adopted by the City Council on Maroh 21,2000. The Action Plan directs the Planning Commission
to consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category.
However, the Plan states that the Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest
density if the project provides onsite or community amenities.
The General Plan density range designated for the project site is 7-12 dwelling units per acre, and
at 11.7 dwelling units per acre, the project is not at the lowest allowable density. However, the
project does offer onsite amenities, and in particular, is the first of its kind to provide fully enclosed
garages for all units (no carports). The project provides benefits to the community by constructing
traffic circulation improvements in the vicinity in conjunction with development. By providing
multiple family housing, the project satisfies the need for equal housing opportunities for all
existing and future residents of Temecula. Given the fact that several high density developments
originally anticipated have been lost through the specific plan amendment process in recent years,
the project assists the City in meeting its General Plan Housing Element requirements. The
Growth Management Action Plan redirects urban development to urban areas. In this case, the
project site is in an area of already existing high density development, some with a density range
of 13-20 dwelling units per acre.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doC
5
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was prepared for the project, which determined that the
proposal could potentially affect land use planning, geology and soils, water, biological resources,
noise, and cultural resources. However, these affects are not considered to be significant due to
the mitigation measures contained in the project design and conditions of approval. Any potentially
significant impacts will be mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels.
The IES for the project was sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in order that
the State Clearinghouse circulate the document for public review for a 30-day period. One
response from the State Department of Fish and Game was received, and a response to that
agency was prepared, which included a minor revision to the IES regarding jurisdictional wetlands,
and a more detailed discussion of alternatives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and
coastal sage scrub habitat identified on the project site.
In accordance with Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption, of
the California Environmental Quality Act's CEQA Guidelines, staff has concluded that the revision
to the IES is not considered substantial because:
1) A new, avoidable significant effect has not been identified.
2) No new measures are required.
3) New information has been added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies,
amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
Existing zoning and General Plan designations call for Medium Density Residential development,
with a density range of 7 to 12 dwelling units per acre maximum. The project proposes a density
of 11.78 dwelling units per acre and is therefore within the density range and consistent with the
General Plan. The project as designed and conditioned, is consistent with the Development Code,
the General Plan and the Design Guidelines for the City.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Planning staff recommends approval of the project because it is consistent with the City General
Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. The design of the project, the amenities offered,
the architecture and materials, and the landscaping proposed are equal to or superior to the
previously approved project for the site, Plot Plan No. 10864. Concerns regarding the project's
compatibility with adjacent properties, traffic impacts, and grading have been addressed by the
design of the project, conditions of approval imposed upon the project, and by the mitigation
monitoring program attached to the project as a result of the Initial Environmental Study.
FINDINGS
The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan
designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre).
The project proposes a density of 11.78 which is within the range specified. It is in
conformance with the policies as stated in the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City including the Development
Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
6
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public
health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General
Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with
these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly
to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Access and circulation are
adequate for the general public and for emergency vehicles.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page
Exhibits - Blue Page
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Map
Surrounding Land Uses
Site Plan
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape Plan
Grading Plans
Color and Materials Board (under separate cover)
Color Elevations (under separate cover)
Color Landscape Plan (under separate cover)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
VICINITY MAP
F:~)EPTS~PLANNING~D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT, PC,doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
Apartments
Apartments
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0311 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
SURROUNDING LAND USES
F:%DEPTS%PLANNING%D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS~STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
~": 'i: i" :'..:. .." " ~ ..""'. ......":.' "-. ."~'=:"..:~s::":~ .R~:.~.:~;':.-,'~-':,:--: <!
~tz':' ';" ""' """' ':~ ' ~¢':' ""~ ! ......"'j ......' "" ': ": ""';~'~:i" ..-~..;,:v,!
:~.;] ,. '.: ." ..:'. "~:.'..':,.....,,~,.o~. v,',.. . .. ." ' .,..'... -..~ .,,
'; ;'R.-.' "" ".Z,.7,; '., ;.: ;"i"'--,.. ' ': .....'l] :~: ';" srTL" I" "'S~':.i"""?~ ' "'~-
;;~.":=,~'~!:~:;:..,':.:.':::.::ii'Z:':'::': "'i '..'::.""~: ;,~. ,:: :' ! !.. ~ '.,.. ~..: ~' ""' "~';/:~. :,., """""!~
.... '! ...' I. . '~ ',, ,:.~. ~
[
~' .'., ,.'-.. '-':,'-.' ..' .'' ' .' &. , t ,:~.~(.~'.'. ,,..~.~.~.~.~.. . ". '.
~.......-.v.,....,'.. ...... .. · ". 'i,...:':~..:-.:.;~.:-,:-,.':;.~..~,:....' "
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - Medium Density Residential
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre maximum)
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:~DEPTS%PLANNING%D PL~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts%STAFFRPT.PC.doc
12
CITY OF TEMECULA
"P,O." ZONE
"LM" ZONE
'H" ZONE
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
SITE PLAN
F:\Depts\PLANNiNG\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doC
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
SECTION G
SITE PLAN
SITE SECTION B
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
SITE PLAN
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANN[NG\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ILDING TYPE TWO - FRONT ELEVATION
_BUILDING TYPE TWO - LEFT ELEVATION_
BUILDING TYPE TWO - CORNER ELEVATION
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
RUILDING TYPE THQEE - LEFT ELEVATION
gUlLPING TYPE THREE - RIGHT ELEVATLOJ~
BUILDING TyPE THREE - REAR ELEVATION
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
mI I
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:%Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
I. EASIN0 OFFICES AND CLUBHOUSE - SOUTH
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
BUILDING TYPE ONE - THIRD FLOOR PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
IJ
BUILDINO TYPE ilNO -TNIRD FLOOR PLAN
BUILDINO TYPE T'~O - SECOND FLOOR PLAN
BUILDING TYPE TWO - FIRIT FLOOR PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
UNIT 1 B - FLOOR PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
UJNIT 2A - FLOQ~R.P, LAH
UNIT 3A - SECOND FLOOR PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\Depts~PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
LANDSCAPE PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
LANDSCAPE PLAN
F:~DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
TOTLOTENLARG~M~NT
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
LANDSCAPE PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
GRADING PLANS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doC
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
pLaNNING AppUCATION PA 99-03S7
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
GRADING PLANS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
19
ITEM 15
APPROL/,~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
C TY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Council/City.~_2,~er
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE:
October 10, 2000
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. PA00-0261 - a request to amend the text of the Margarita
Village Specific Plan, Planning Areas 8, and 10/11/12 to increase the maximum size
for the homes from 2,600 square feet to 3,700 square feet and to reduce the number
of floor plan provided from five (5) to three (3).
Prepared by:
Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the categorical exemption under Section 15061(b)(3) by making a
determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified
per Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, of the CEQA
Guidelines
2. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5), TO AMEND THE TEXT
WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN
GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND
VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN
PLANNING AREAS 8 AND 10111/12, GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE
CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKVVAY SOUTH OF
PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF
ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8.
BACKGROUND
Lennar Homes is requesting to amend the Chardonnay Hills (Village "B") portion of the Margarita
Village Specific Plan, which limits the size of homes that can be built in the remaining undeveloped
R:\S pMMargaxita Village SPXAmendment 5 PA00-026 l\Staffxpt CC.doc
areas. They are making this request in response to the changing demand for larger homes. This
podion of the specific plan is near completion with only a small area (Areas 8 and a podion of
10/11/12) remaining to be built. At this time, only 79 lots out of 578 lots remain vacant. Within
Village "B" there are 12 planning areas with a variety of completed product types, sizes, and floor
plan variations.
Throughout the Margarita Village Specific Plan a wide range of home sizes and product variations
have been proposed and built. As the applicant points out in their Letter of Justification, the Specific
Plan states, in Section III.A.; "The Design Guidelines provided heroin are intended as a living
document. They are subject to modification over time..." With the option available to request
change, the Applicant has filed for this Specific Plan Amendment.
This item was reviewed and supported by the Staff at the Development Review Committee Meeting
of August 3, 2000, and was taken to the Planning Commission on September 20, 2000, but
continued to the October 4, 2000. The Planning Commission heard staff's repod and only asked if
those lots affected by this amendment were large enough to accommodate larger homes. It was
explained that staff had reviewed these lots and they were larger than the typical lots sizes in the
specific plan as noted in the staff report. The applicant's representative expressed to the
Commission their desires to amend the specific plan and discussed the size of the lots and the
homes proposed to be built. Commission Webster asked how this affected the Iot coverage and was
told that the larger homes on larger lots would allow for similar lot coverages as smaller homes built
elsewhere in the area on smaller lots. It was also explained that a previous amendment to the
specific plan had removed any restrictions to lot coverages.
The Commission heard from one resident who felt the project was noticed incorrectly and was
opposed to the project because he felt larger houses would mean more people and more traffic, all
this in conflict with the City's Growth Management Plan. He was also concerned that the homes
would be bigger and boxier and that the mix of one and two story homes would be altered by this
amendment. Staff reviewed the notice received by the resident and discovered that he had just
received a notice for a future hearing on the applicant's proposed product review for the larger
homes if the amendment is approved by the City Council. Staff explained that there would be a
Director's Hearing on October 12, 2000, to consider the applicant's larger homes and their impacts.
With no further comments the Planning Commission voted, 3-2, (Chairman Guerriero and
Commissioner Mathewson abstained due to their residency within the project area.) to recommend
that the City Council approve this specific plan amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachment:
I - Draft Ordinance
2 - Planning Commission Resolution
3 - Staff Report dated September 20, 2000
R:\S PhMargarita Village SPXAmendment 5 PA00-0261XStaffrpt CC.dcc
-2-
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
R:\S pXMargarita Village SPXAmendmem 5 PA00-026 l\StalFrpt CC.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 00-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5), TO AMEND THE TEXT
WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN
GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND
VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN
PLANNING AREAS 8 AND 10/11112, GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE
CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF
PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF
ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
following findings:
Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the
Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes
and styles.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes
of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed
development in the surrounding area.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health, safety,
convenience orwelfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and
do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concerns.
Section 2. Chapter III - Design Guidelines, Section C.3. - Village "B" Architectural
Guidelines, for the Margarita Village Specific Plan are hereby amended:
A. Subsection b. Buildin¢l Mass, Form, and Scale, the first paragraph is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Home sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they may be
administratively approved by the Director of Planning without amending this Specific
Plan."
B. First bullet changed to delete Planning Areas 8 & 10/11/12.
"The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, 8, and 10/11/12 shall range in size from
1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. ft. and a minimum to five (5) floor plans
shall be provided."
C. New bullet added to change what had been 2,600 sq. ft. to 3,700 sq. ft. and five (5) floor
plans to three (3) floor plans.
R:~S PXMargarita Village SPXAtnendmgnt 5 PA00-0261XStaffrpt CC.doc
-4-
"The homes in Planning Areas 8 and 10111112 shall range in size from 1,500
sq. ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum to three (3) floor plans
shall be provided."
Section 3. Environmental Determination. These minor amendments affect only the unit
sizes and number of variations found in the Design Guidelines of the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
The Margarita Village Specific Plan includes a variety of design standards, which were pad of the
consideration of the previous Environment Impact Report for the Margarita Village Specific Plan, as
well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The changes requested are
all within the range of Design Guidelines previously considered. As a result, the project is exempt
from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and a determination of consistency with a project for
which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
of the CEQA Guidelines).
Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
10th day of October, 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
R:\S PXMargarita Village SPXAmendment 5 PA00-026 l\Staf~t CC.doc
-5-
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby cedify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. ~ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of October, 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the
day of ,2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
R:\S pXMargarita Village SPXAmendment 5 PA00-026 l\Staffrpt CC.doc
-6-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
R:\S PXMargarita Village SPXAmendment 5 PA00-026 l\Sta~apt CC.doc
ATTACHMENT2
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0261 (SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE
MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES,
FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING
AREAS 8 AND 10111112, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE
CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKVVAY SOUTH OF
PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF
ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8.
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes (the "Applicant") filed Planning Application No. PA00-0261 (the
"Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a noticed public hearing on
September 15, 1999, on the issue of recommending approval or denial PA99-0238 (Specific Plan
Amendment); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, due to a concern with the noticing and the possibility
there would be a lack of a quorum, continued Planning Applications No. PA99-0238 (Specific Plan
Amendment) to the Planning Commission Hearing on October 4, 2000;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this Application on October4, 2000 at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff, the Applicant, and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions after
finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findin.qs.
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Application, makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and
the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and
styles.
R:~S PWlargarita Village SP~mendment 5 PA00-0261XStaffrpt CC.doc
2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development
of homes of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed
development in the surrounding area.
3. The proposed Speci~c Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and
do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concerns.
Section 2. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve the modifications to the Design Guidelines for Village "B" contained in the Margadta
Village Specific Plan as contained in Exhibit A, substantially in the form contained herein.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of October,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~S PWlargarita Village SPXAmendment 5 PA00-0261\Staffrpt CC.doc
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
R:~S PLMargazita Village SDAmendm~nt 5 PA00-026 l\Sta~frpt CC.doc
-10-
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: September 20, 2000
Planning Application No. PA 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment)
Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0261 pursuant to
Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for
which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and
Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0261 (SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT No. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE
MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES,
FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING
AREAS 8 AND 10/11/12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE
CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH
OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING
OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8.
BACKGROUND
The Chardonnay Hills (Village "B") portion of the Margarita Village Specific Plan is near completion
with only a small area (Area 8 and a portion of 10/11/12) remaining to be built. At this time, only 79
lots out of 578 lots remain vacant. Within Village "B" there are 12 planning areas with a variety of
product types, sizes, and floor plan variations. In response to the changing demand for larger
homes the applicant, Lennar Homes, is requesting to amend the specific plan, which limits the size
of homes that can be built in the remaining undeveloped areas
Throughout the Margarita Village Specific Plan a wide range of home sizes and product variations
have been proposed and built. As the applicant points out in the attached Letter of Justification, the
Specific Plan states, in Section Ill.A.; "The Design Guidelines provided herein are intended as a
living document. They are subject to modification over time..." With the option available to request
change, the Applicant has filed for this Specific Plan Amendment.
R:\S P~vlargarita Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261 \STAFFRPT PC.doc
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will expand the flexibility of the unit sizes within
Chardonnay Hills by changing the maximum square footage and the number of variable floor plans
of Areas 8 and 10/11/12. The first request is to introduce language that will allow the Director of
Planning make administrative changes to home sizes without amending the Specific Plan.
Secondly, a change is proposed to increase the maximum unit size for Areas 8 and 10/11112 from
2,600 square feet to 3,700 square feet and to require a minimum of three (3) floor plans instead of
five (5). The 79 remaining lots are some of the larger lots (7,282 to 23,676 square feet) within the
Village "B" planning area and they are mixed with surrounding homes, in small clusters, or cul-de-
sacs. Although this request diminishes the number of floor plans, the Design Guidelines require
variations for each plan. Three floor plans would create at least nine variations. The layout and
separation of the remaining lots from one another will keep the homes from looking like a
continuous tract.
The amendments to the Design Guidelines are as follows:
Chapter III - Desiqn Guidelines, Section C. 3. - Villaqe "B" Architectural Guidelines:
b. Buildin¢l Mass, Form, and Scale:
1. Text added after the first sentence in the introductory paragraph stating:
"Home sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they
may be administratively approved by the Director of Planning without
amending this Specific Plan."
2. First bullet changed to delete Planning Areas 8 & 10/11/12.
"The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, 8, and 10/11/12 shall range in size from
1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. ft. and a minimum to five (5) floor plans
shall be provided."
3. New bullet added to change what had been 2,600 sq. ft. to 3,700 sq. ft. and five (5) floor
plans to three (3) floor plans.
"The homes in Planning Areas 8 and 10111/12 shall range in size from 1,500
sq. ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum to three (3) floor plans
shall be provided."
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
These minor amendments affect only the unit sizes and number of floor plan variations found in the
Design Guidelines of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The Margarita Village Specific Plan
includes a variety of design standards, which were part of the consideration of the previous
Environment Impact Report for the Margarita Village Specific Plan, as well as the Final
Environmental Impact Report forthe City General Plan. The changes requested are all within the
range of Design Guidelines previously considered. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) because a determination of consistency can be made fora project
for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines).
R:\S P~vlargadta Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261\STAFFRPT PC.doc
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The proposed changes to the Design Guidelines are consistent with the intent of the Margarita
Village Specific Plan and with the General Plan because they still promote variations in the size and
variety of homes being built.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed amendment to the Design Guidelines of the Margarita Village Specific Plan will allow
larger homes to be built within the designated planning areas and complete the build-out of
Chardonnay Hills while maintaining the character and intent of the Margarita Village Specific Plan,
FINDINGS
1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Margarita
Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and styles.
2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goal and objectives of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes of
desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in
the surrounding area.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and do
not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concerns.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance - Blue Page 7
2. Margarita Village Specific Plan Affected Pages - Blue Page 15
3. Statement of Justification - Blue Page16
4. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 17
5. Specific Plan Land Use Map - Blue Page 19
3
R:\S P, Margarita Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261 \STAFFRPT PC.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AFFECTED PAGES
15
R:~S P~vtargarita V'dlage SP~une'tclment 5 PA00-0261~STAFFRPT PC.doc
Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines
3. Village "B" Architectural Guidelines
a. Introduction
Village "B" shall contain two basic architectural motifs and a third custom area adjacent to the Vineyards
on the eastern boundary of the property. Because the two neighborhoods will comprise the majority of
Village "B", these guidelines will predominantly address those areas.
The basic architectural themes for Village "B" will be Spanish, Mediterranean, and French Manor.
Planning Area s 2, 3, 8, and 10/I 1 / 12 will have a combinati on of Mediterranean and French elevati on
styles. Planning Areas 4 and 6 will have a combination of Spanish and Mediterranean elevations. The
Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall combine all three elevation styles: French, Spanish and
Mediterranean. This is a natural combination of styles for the Rancho California area and will provide a
variety of elevations as well as giving each development area a separate character. The Mediterranean
style will provide the blend between the various planning areas and the Spanish and French will provide
the necessary agent to keep the visual interest within the projects. All design elements used in Village
"B" should work together to achieve a sense of neighborhood identity.
b. Building Mass, Form, and Scale
Village "B" shall include a range of dwelling unit sizes in proportion to the size of the project. home
sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they may be administratively
approved by the Director of Planning without amending this Specific Plan. There shall also be a
variety of elevation types per plan throughout the project. A sense of neighborhood will be accomplished
by manipulating the building mass, form, and scale within each planning area.
· The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, 8, and 10/11/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to
approximately 2,600 sq. sq. ft. and a minimum of five (5) floor plans shall be provided.
· The homes in Planning Areas 8, and 10/11/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to
approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum of three (3) floor plans shall be provided.
· The homes in Planning Areas 4 and 6 shall range in size from 1,200 sq. ft. to approximately 2, 100 sq.
ft. with a minimum of five (5) floor plans.
· The Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall have a minimum of 1,800 sq. ft. of living area.
· The structures will consist of one and two story elevations with the one story elements being used at
front setbacks and at comer lot configurations.
· The two story structures will have stepped back second floors to reduce any adverse visual impact as
well as one story roof elements to improve blend between adjacent structures.
· The combination of one and two story structures will provide vertical height differences within the
community.
Specific Plan No. 199: Amendment No. 5 Page III- 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION
16
Justification for Amendment No. 5:
Margarita Village Specific Plan
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors (Board) originally adopted the Margarita
Village Specific Plan in 1986. The Board approved Amendment No. 1 in September
1988. The City of Temecula City Council approved Amendments No. 2, 3 and 4 in
March, 1996, October, 1997 and January, 1998 respectively. The majority of the
Specific Plan area has been built out as of June 2000.
Lennar Homes is proposing Amendment No. 5 to the Specific Plan, to increase the
home sizes allowed in Planning Area 8 of the Specific Plan (TM 23100-6, TM 23100-7
and TM 23100-8), which is comprised of seventy-nine (79) parcels. This is within Village
"B" of the Specific Plan. According to Section III.C.3 (Village "B" Architectural
Guidelines), the current range in this Planning Area is 1,500 square feet to 2,600 square
feet. In response to market demand, Lennar Homes is proposing to increase the upper
end of the range to 3,700 square feet. They are proposing these homes on the largest
lots within the phases of TM 23100. As stated in Section III.A. (Design Guidelines,
Purpose and Intent): "The Design Guidelines provided herein are intended as a living
document. They are subject to modification over time so as to allow for response to
unanticipated conditions, such as changes in taste, community desire and the
marketplace, as well as amendments to the Specific Plan itself." It is with this Specific
Plan policy guidance that Lennar Homes is proposing the current Amendment.
Lennar Homes is not proposing any other Amendment to the Specific Plan. They have
reviewed the existing Development Standards and Design Guidelines and have
determined that the larger homes will meet the established setbacks, lot coverage,
height restrictions and design intent in effect under the current Specific Plan.
R:\S PMMargarita Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00*0261xjusti~cadon for SPA.doc 09/I 2/00
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
VICINITY MAP
17
R:~S P~Margad~ Village SP~a, metdmett 5 PA00-0261~STAFFRPT PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
J \
CASE NO.00 -0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 20, 2000
18
R:~S pWlargarita Viiage SP%Amendmefit 5 PA00-O261~STAFFRPT PC.doc
VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
19
R:~S Pq~argarlta Village $PV~'nendrnent 5 PA00-O261~STAFFRPT PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
VICINTTY MAP
M
MH
RGURE li-3
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #3
~ta Village
CASE NO.00 -0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 20, 2000
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
20
R:IS PWlargarita Village SP~Amendrnent 5 PA00-O261%STAFFRPT PC.doc
ITEM 16
APPROVAL L~
CITYATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OFFINANC
CITYMANAGER
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manage~City Council
"~/2t/(William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
October 10, 2000
SUBJECT:
Pala Road Interim Improvements and Widening, Project No. PW99-11
(Interim), Including a Traffic Signal at Pala/Loma Linda (PW98-14), and a
Traffic Signal at Pala/Wolf Valley (PW98-15)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Review the Project Plans and Specifications for the construction of Pala Road Interim
Improvement, Project No. PW99-11 (Interim), including road widening, a Traffic Signal at
Pala/Loma Linda (PW98-14), and a Traffic Signal at Pala/Wolf Valley (PW98-15).
Continue the matter to November 14, 2000 and direct staff to prepare a response to the
comments of residents and interested padies to the proposed project for the November 14,
2000 meeting.
BACKGROUND: The proposed improvements consists of: (1) The installation of traffic
signals at Pala Road and Loma Linda Road and at Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road; (2) the interim
widening of Pala Road from two lanes to four lanes from Murfield Drive to the Pechanga Casino;
and, (3) the repaving of Pala Road from Muffield Drive to the Pechanga Casino ("Project"). The
widening work will occur within the existing Pala Road right of way. The area being added to Pala
Road generally varies between 10 and 20 feet in width and will occur along the northeastern side of
the current Pala Road. The ultimate General Plan improvements consist of the widening of Pala
Road to six (6) lanes from State Route 79 South to Via Gilberto and possibly the installation of
sound walls on Pala Road from Club House Drive to Via Eduardo. The ultimate improvements are
described in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan which will be considered by the City Council at a public
hearing in November 2000.
As part of the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council authorized the
design of traffic signals at the intersections of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road, and at Pala Road
and Wolf Valley Road. Pechanga Development Corporation has received approval from the
Eastern Municipal Water District and an encroachment permit from the City to construct of a 24n
sewer main in Pala Road from Clubhouse Drive to Wolf Valley Road, which will be dedicated to
Eastern Municipal Water District. The sewer line is not a part of this Project. Upon completion of
the sewer project, the City is anticipating that the Pechanga Development Corporation will fund the
interim widening of Pala Road to accommodate two (2) lanes of traffic in each direction. Thereafter,
the City will restripe Pala Road in the four (4) lane configuration and construct the traffic signals.
R:~AGDRPTL'~30~1010~0w99-11 Interim Pala Rd. DOC
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City Community Development Department prepared an Initial Environmental Study on the
proposed traffic signals and interim widening of Pala Road from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes (the
"Project"). The Initial Study concluded that the proposed Project would not have a significant impact
on the environment. The Initial Study reviewed a great deal of information about the problems in
the area and the impact of the traffic signals and interim widening of Pala Road from two (2) lanes
to four (4) lanes. The Staff reviewed the City's General Plan, the City of Temecula General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report, the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, and the information in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Wolf Creek
Specific Plan. The Draft EIR for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan has received extensive review by the
Staff and the Planning Commission. It has been the subject of a formal statewide public comment
period and has been the subject of three (3) public hearings before the Planning Commission and
several informal public meetings held by the developer of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
The proposed Project is specifically designed to mitigate existing traffic problems in the Pala Road
area. It is not designed to accommodate new development in the area and will not provide
sufficient additional capacity to mitigate the impacts of new development in the area. It is limited in
its scope to provide some measure of relief to residents from existing traffic problems on Pala Road
until the permanent Pala Road improvements can be funded and constructed.
The Initial Study concludes that the proposed Project will not adversely affect traffic in the area of
the Project and will not add additional vehicle trips to the area. All of the improvements will occur
within the existing right of way for Pala Road. The Project is expected to improve vehicular
circulation and emergency access to the area by adding an additional lane to match lane
configurations at the northern edge of the Project. The interim widening portion of the Project is
designed to deal with existing traffic conditions in the area and are not expected to attract additional
vehicle trips to the area. The interim improvements of the Project are consistent with the City's
General Plan but do not represent the ultimate build-out condition of Pala Road under the General
Plan. The Project does not include the traffic improvements and mitigation measures described in
the Draft EIR for Wolf Creek, which have been determined to be necessary to allow the building of
the new projects proposed in the area. Implementation of those additional mitigation measures will
be part of the approval of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
The Initial Study also concluded that except for limited construction-related noise, no significant
noise impacts would occur from the Project. The Project provides relief for existing traffic problems
in the area until permanent improvements are constructed and will not attract additional vehicle trips
to the area. The noise measurements taken in 1992 as part of the General Plan indicate that
residents were already exposed to moderate traffic noise levels adjacent to Pala Road. Since that
time traffic volumes on Pala Road have increased as previously approved projects have been
constructed and occupied. With or without this Project, residents will be exposed to the same noise
levels from Pala Road traffic. With or without this Project, new development in the area will need to
provide for additional permanent improvements to mitigate the impacts of the development.
Despite the fact that the City Council has not approved the Project, Temecula Openspace
Preservation Organization filed a lawsuit against the City seeking an injunction to stop work on the
EMWD sewer line and the traffic signals/interim Pala Road widening project. Another group,
Sunset Homeowners Rejecting Unplanned Growth, has also indicated a desire to join this lawsuit.
The Temecula Openspace Preservation Organization alleges that construction of the sewer line
and the traffic signals/Pala Road interim widening will "result in increased traffic impacts, increased
noise impacts on adjacent residences and result in growth inducing impacts" and argue that an
environmental impact report should be prepared on the sewer line and the interim Pala Road
improvements
2
R:tAGDRP'FL~00\1010~'~99-11 Interim Pala Rd. DOC
FISCAL IMPACT: The Pala Road Interim Improvement Project has several components. The
construction of the two (2) traffic signals is a Capital Improvement Project and is funded through
Development Impact Fees (DIF) - Traffic Signals, for which adequate funds have been
programmed in the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 budget.
The widening and restriping of Pala Road to four (4) lanes is contingent upon funding and
construction pledged to the City by the Pechanga Development Corporation. Removal of the
existing striping requires a significant effort and expense. The Public Works Department is
proposing that Pala Road be slurry sealed as an alternative to removing the existing striping. The
slurry seal will cover the existing striping while at the same time providing a seal coat to the existing
pavement surface.
ATTACHMENTS:
Project Location
Project Description
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
3
R:',AGDRPl~2000\1010~ow99-111ntedm PalaRd,DOC
Z
Z
Z
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
Environmental Assessment No. EA-74 (Interim Widening of Pala
Road)
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
David Hogan, Senior Planner
(909) 694-6400
Pala Road south of Highway 79 (South) between Murfield Drive and
the entrance to the Pechanga Casino in the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside, California.
City of Temecula
General Plan Designation
Urban Arterial (6-lane divided) and Arterial (4-lane divided)
Zoning
Not Applicable
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Widen the current paved surface of Pala Road between Murfield
Drive and the entrance to the Pechanga Casino from two to four
lanes. The project includes both the replacement of pavement and
the installation of new asphalt along the northeast side of the existing
roadway. Specifically, the project would add between 10 and 20 feet
of new pavement along the northeast side of Pala Road for a
distance of about one mile. The project includes the installation of
traffic signals at the intersections Pala and Loma Linda Roads and
at Pala Road and Wolf Valley RoadNia Eduardo.
The majority of the land adjacent to the northeast side of Pala Road
is currently vacant. This area has been historically used for
agricultural purposes. Across Pala Road, most of the area is
currently occupied by single family residences. The Pechanga
Casino complex is also on the southwest side of Pala Road opposite
the very southerly portion of the proposed road improvements.
No outside agency permits are required.
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.dec
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 Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
,/
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
v'
Signature
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date
David Hoqan
Printed name
R:\EA\ea74%EA-74 Initial Study.doc
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant NO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incomorate~l Impact Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Comments: The proposed interim road widening will not physically divide an established community,
conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, and does not conflict with any applicable habitat
plans Pala Road currently separates an area of single family homes from a vacant area that is proposed
for future development. The proposed roadway improvements are consistent with the City's General
Plan, but do not represent the ultimate buildout condition of Pala Road. As a result, no significant
impacts are expected to occur.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
C,
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact Impact
,/
Comments: The proposed interim road widening will not displace any housing units or local residents.
The widening is also not expected to induce substantial population growth in the area. The interim expansion
is intended to meet current infrastructure needs. This existing need is created by the existing homes along the
southwest side of Pala Road, county area developments in the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas (that did not
mitigate the traffic impacts to Pala Road), the Pechanga tribal casino, as well as from rural areas farther to the
south. The existing need has been created by the County of Riverside through a sustained pattern of non-
mitigation of development approvals that began in this area in the 1980's. The ultimate build-out of Pala Road
to General Plan standards will be required by the proposed Wolf Creek Specific Plan that is adjacent to most of
the northeast side of Pala Road adjacent to the project. Finally, the ultimate improvements to Pala Road, to
meet the General Plan standards, will be addressed once the design of project is finalized. As a result, no
significant impacts are expected to occur.
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.doc
3
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
impact Incorporated Impact
No
impact
v'
i)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
,/
v'
Comments: The proposed interim road widening will not expose people or property to any significant
impacts or effects caused by geology or soils. As a result, no significant impact effects are expected to
OCCUr.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.doc
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact ~ncorporated Impact
NO
/
v'
v'
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
issues and Supporting information Sources
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or/Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No
¢,
Comments: The proposed road widening is adjacent to an existing bypass channel along Pala Road.
However the project will not effect the capacity of this channel but may result in a small incremental
increase in runoff volumes because of the increased paved surface. The proposed interim road widening
is not expected to effect hydrology or water quality standards beyond current roadway runoff levels.
The project will not change the direction of surface or ground water flows. The widening will not expose
people or property to any new significant impacts or effects caused by flooding. As a result, no
significant impact effects are expected to occur.
5, AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless MitigationSignificantNo
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially '/
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
,/
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.doc
5
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
NO
Impact
Comments: The proposed interim road widening will not impact or adversely effect air quality. Some
limited local improvement in air quality may result from increased two-way traffic flow and reduced
congestion along Pala Road. As a result, no significant impact effects are expected to occur.
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? '/
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? v'
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs v'
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporateg Impact Impact
v'
v'
Comments: The proposed interim road widening will not impact or adversely effect area circulation.
The area being paved and repaved generally varies between 10 and 20 feet in width and will occur along
the northeastern side of the current Pala Road. The two new traffic signals will also occur within this
area. All the improvements will occur within the existing right-of-way. The project is expected to
improve vehicular circulation and emergency access by adding an additional lane through this area to
matching lane configurations farther to the north. The new traffic signals are also expected to improve
traffic and pedestrian safety though this area by providing safer turning and crossing movements at the
important intersections with Loma Linda Road and Wolf Valley Road/Via Eduardo. The purpose of these
interim improvements is to meet current circulation needs in this area. These interim improvements are
not expected to attract additional vehicle trips to this area. The proposed improvements are also
consistent with the City General Plan, but do not represent the ultimate build-out condition of Pala Road
under the General Plan. The citywide impacts of the widening of Pala Road to ultimate build-out were
also considered in the EIR for the General Plan. As a result, no significant impact effects are expected to
occur.
R:\EA\ea74~EA-74 Initial Study,doc
6
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federatly protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impaci~
v'
Comments:. The proposed interim improvements will not significantly effect important biologic
resources. A visual inspection of the area indicated that the roadway shoulder and an adjacent area that
is largely covered with common roadside plants, trash, and debris. The area is located within the
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area but the project is exempt from payment of the regional impact
mitigation fee. No significant impacts are anticipated.
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.doc
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Signilicant NO
Impact incorporated impact Impact
,/
v'
Comments: The proposed interim widening of Pala Road entails the use of a small increment of
commonly used construction materials. In addition, this interim widening will not reduce locally
important mineral resources. As a result, no effects are expected from this project.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
issues and Supporting Information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crete a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
,/
,/
v'
,/
v'
v'
Comments: The interim widening of Pala Road will not expose area residents to any hazardous or
materials not already transported through this area of found in the adjacent neighborhoods. , The
widening is expected to result in some incremental reduction in the potential hazards by improving the
flow and safety of traffic through this area. The project site is not located within the safety area for any
public or private airports. As a result, no impacts are expected from this project.
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.doc
8
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporated impact impact
./
,/
v'
Comments: Some additional construction-related noise is expected to occur while the project is being
constructed. However, these impacts will be of relatively short duration and will largely be confined to
daylight hours when most residents are less likely to bothered or effected. Future (ultimate) build-out
noise levels were addressed in the Noise Element of the adopted General Plan. According to the adopted
Noise Element, the existing Community Noise Level 100 feet from the centerline of Pala Road ranged
from 61.9 to 62.6 CNEL. The equivalent values at build out are projected to be 53.9 to 68.5 CNEL.
Finally, daytime noise measurements taken in 1992 along Pala Road between Loma Linda and Via
Eduardo/Wolf Valley Road measured decibel levels of 71,5 decibels at 3:15 p.m. This measurement
indicates the existing residents were already exposed to moderate traffic noise levels adjacent to Pala
Road. As a result, the environmental analysis in the General Plan addressed the impacts on the current
residents of this area. Finally, traffic volumes (and associated noise levels) on Pala Road have increased
over time as previously approved projects have been constructed and occupied. The use of Pala Road by
residents and visitors will continue increase future road noise levels even without these improvements.
This means that some incremental increase in vehicle noise will continue occur even without these
Improvements. The project does not include an airport component and could not expose people to
increased aircraft noise. As a result, not impacts are expected.
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.doc
9
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:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
b. Fire protection?
c. Police protection?
d. Schools?
e. Parks?
f. Other pubtic facilities?
No
impact
Comments: The proposed interim widening of Pala Road will not effect the demand for, or adversely
effect, public services. This project may result in a small incremental increase in road maintenance
costs. However, part of this project represents current City road maintenance functions. The interim
widening is also expected to provide some incremental improvement in the provision of police, fire and
ambulance services by improving traffic flow and reducing potential response times. As a result, no
effects are expected from this project.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
,/
,/
v'
,/
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.doc
10
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
,/
Comments: The proposed interim widening of Pala Road will not effect public utilities or service
systems. The project is expected to tie into and to use the existing storm runoff system serving this
area. As a result, no effects are expected from this project.
13. AESTHETICS, Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant NO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact {rapact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
v'
¢-
Comments: The proposed interim widening of Pala Road will not noticeably effect current views or
vistas in this area. Some slight benefits are expected to result from the widening of Pala Road. These
visual benefits include: moving southbound travel lanes farther away from current residents and enabling
a greater spacing between vehicle using the road. This increased spacing will mean that adjacent
residents may notice that their current view less obstructed during busy travel times. Also, Pala Road
has not been designated as a scenic roadway. As a result, no effects are expected from this project.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues ancl Supporting Inlormation Sources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant UnlessMitigation Signihcant
Impact incorporated impact
No
Impact
/
,/
,/
,/
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study,doc
Comments: The roadway and shoulder areas have extensively graded and modified over the years and
the discovery of cultural resources is not expected occur in such highly disturbed soil conditions. As a
result, no impacts are anticipated.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No
impact
,/
Comments: The proposed interim widening of Pala Road will not effect the demand for, or adversely
effect, recreational facilities. As a result, no effects are expected from this project.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
PotentiaUy Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal 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 impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
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?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
No
Impact
,/
v'
Comments: The proposed interim widening of Pala Road will meet current traffic and circulation needs
along the Pala Road corridor. This existing need was created by the existing homes along the southwest side
of Pala Road, county area developments in the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas (that did not mitigate the traffic
impacts to Pala Road), and the Pechanga tribal casino. The existing need was created by the County of
Riverside through a sustained pattern of non-mitigation of development approvals that began in this area in the
1980's. The purpose of these interim improvements is to address this previously unmitigated need. Finally,
the cumulative impacts of the ultimate build-out of Pala Road (to General Plan standards) was addressed in
the City General Plan that was adopted in November of 1993.
R:\EA\ea74\EA~74 Initial Study.doc
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.
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.
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.
The Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan is available for review at the public counter for the
Planning Department located at 43200 Business Park Drive in Temecula.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
R:\EA\ea74\EA-74 Initial Study.doc
13
bocA- ...s..v,.al
Ttlg P~gSS-~NTg~BlSg THE PRO~E~E
GOLD
~ m'R~92.9 L~
............ ~ er THE BUSINESS P~ss ~ ~
DIAMOND ~ PACIFIC BELL ~ ~ ~
MediaOne.
B
I"'"
CRYSTAL nc.~neA
FAST SIBS COUNTY R~ll IG~INE
DIRSIFIED ST~JI~G ENDAR EQUINE MUffiGANS FilLY (E~ER
IASSY SUI~S
BL~M & ~AP PHOTO WORKS IN~ND EiPIRE IG~INE
IERIGN IEDIA SPARK~ FALBR~K ~ONAL
~RI~ ~lll~G MOIREONE DINE N DEU~RY /
MIN~ ~ESS J~WS EUROP~N DELl & GTERING
ER~S ~STOM ~TERING
PNN~D ~ SO ~L EDISON COMPLY
ANDR~ ~RR~T PASEO DEL SOL ~E~ VALUY DE~LOPER
NO~ COU~ B~K ~ ~ GAS COMPLIMENTS &
aEGAR PRI~NG ~PLOYEES COMP~INTS & COMPLY
R~ PARW PA~CE TOWN CE~ER ~E~ COM~UNDIHG
STAtiONERS P~
· a
LU
The Susan G. Komen
Breast Cancer Foundation
R
Presented by JCPenney
J Presented Locally by:
a~Alhettsonff ~avon.
Sunday, October 22, 2000
at the Promenade Mall
Temecula, CA
JA-LIIV-LIdSOH MOAIAH~SJ
JSOHVMV MOAIAHfiSJ
'as.~no3 pun a~e:ts u!stu
.xno uo .tuatnum3.D:tua aA.qluasa~d
II!~ suofi3npo~d 'p'Xtatu!.L
luotuulelJalu9
'uopeuop e s~ pasn aq IE~ luatuX~3d moi pun spunJaz
l[pa a./aq,L 'sa3uglsuxn3x!3 atu~.axa o3 anp Xiuo in33o ~ uo!l~I
-Ia3u~D 'au!qs .m upsa Jn33o FEa luaaa s!q~L uopelia:,u~3
· as.moa aq:a uo pa,~,offe :lou a.rs pu~
papnI:~xa aq :asnm s.lad pue 'sal~4s auff.u!/sapqa .:allolt
'msl,,a,t ~,,f, a.qnba, suo.m.,.ns:u aauransu1
oaua~aM!p
noX 2u~ou-4__iF Jo p.rs~aj :saq aqi Xo.fua ii,noX 'sazud
o~pa[d ~u/osa.~.~ o:~ uoplppe uI uaau~3 asga~q ~suti~
:q~ aql ~oddns ol :ue~ ~ ~o~ noX auo~3
'9 ~aqmaaoN Elun ~ou moJJ spu~ as~a 'Xsp a3~H uo sn
u~o[ ~snf 1,uop 'saX sTql PW '°a°l noX ~uoomos
-mozd ~ aqeN '~o~am ~ zouoH 'aoA~ns ~ a~aqalaD
· ~unm~o3 ao
-u~ l~old-uou lSa~jEI aql OS~ S[ uamoN 'uam0~am
aa~dm3 pugNi jo spugsnoql ol uopDalap ii~a
Jo a~Essam ~u~sajH
ql~aq lsEa2q ~3o
'jaau~3 lsEajq ol X[aios palD}pp qa~saJ
jo uapu~ algA~jd lsa~js[ s,uopEu oql Jo auo 'uogEpuno~
uamoN aql Jo s:us~ qDjgasaj
l~oddns spaa~ojd a3EH lau aql jo %g~
sod ;ouom
{AGE GROUP AWARDS J ed2 ; rr
the "Women Only" Race and men in the "Coed
Race" finishers in each age grou will receive
beautiful commemorative awar~.
ITEAM COMPETITIONIRec~it you
friends and
NLAND~2 VALLEY familY to be a f?art °f
..................... Inland Empire s
largest team competition. Come run, widk or
cheer. All teams, from five to 1,000 or more, are
welcome in the Inland Empire Komen Race for the
Cure'. Come enjoy the team photo area, tailgate and
captain kick off.
Corn ete in two categories, Most Money Raised
and ~:rgest Team categories! All teams are made
up of 5 or more members. All entries must be
received in one envelo e b October 11. Call the
team hofline today at r~0~ 677-9781 for a com-
plete team packet. Team captains will pick up
/daeir team members' bibs and T-shirts at Inland
Valley Regional Medical Center on October 12,
from noon until 6:00 PM.
HEALTH & FITNESS EXPO
S onsored by
~Pgme and see all the cur-
rent health and fitness
products and services for
women and men.
KID'S EXPO [
paructp.ate :n
:nteractxve kids' activities
including a climbing wall.
KID'S EXPO ART CONTEST
All youths are invited to submit a design
for the 2001 IGd's Ex o Lo o. The
winner will receive a fl00.~B Gift
Certificate to the Mnlli an Family F
Center. Entry's shonld~e sent to
the Komen Inland Em ire
Office: 36450 Inland ~e Dr.,
Suite 211, Wildomar, CA ~2595;
by September 1. The winner will
be announced at the race.
t ge Prizes
cAN A O,.=E. EUCel
Our goal is to raise an average orS100 per participant.
$100 will provide a lifesavin mammogram for the
underserved women in the ~grdand Empire. Take your
pledge sheet every~.~here you go. And don't forget cor-
porate matching ~ift programs.
I GRAND PRIZES I In addition to the individ-
ual premiums earned, for each $100 pied e you turn in,
ou will receive a free drawing ticket for t~e GRAND
~RIZES. First Place: air transportation for two on
American Airlines and/or American Eagle
to any destination in the contiguous U.S.
Second Place: a Ford Explorer etaway
weekend for two. Drive a Ford~ lorer
for the weekend and enjoy two ni;~ts at a
Santa Barbara hotel.
You must de osit all tickets in the stage draw-
ing box on ~ce Day before 10:00
PLEDGE PRIZE LEVELS
Raise Earn
$ 2,000 $200 Gift Certificate from JC Penney
$1,000 $100 Gift Certificate from Albertsons/Savon
$ 750 New Balance Shoes
$ 500 Inland Empire Race for the Cure'
Embroidered Fleece Pullover
$ 300 Cotton Pink Ribbon Pajamas
$ 250 Inland Empire Race for the Cure'
Embroidered Sweatshirt
$ 100 Inland Empire Race for the Cure'
Chambray Cap
YOUTH PLEDGE PRIZES
Raise Earn
$ 400 All Day Mulligan's Pass
$ 250 Mulligan's 3 Hour Unlimited Use
$ 150 Mulligan's Round of Golzl~Blaster Boat Ride
10 Arcade Tokens
$ 50 Mulligan's Round of Miniature Golf
Rules. All prizes awarded corcespond to the dullax amount raised.
Prizes a~e not cumulative. All paRidpants must pay their entry fees
in addition to their pled e monies. EnuT fees are not counted
towards pledge rizes. ~ pledge participants are e~gible for the
Grand Prize. ~ pled es must be turned m no later than 10:00 AM
to be eligible for the ~rand Prize Drawin . We reserve the right
to substitute prizes of equal or greater v~gde. Please allow 4 to 6
weeks for delive . We hoe to raise a minimum of $100 per tun-
please send pied mone to the lnlanaP Empire Komen Race for
the Cure*, RO. ~ox 828, ~alto, CA 92377.
TO R GISTER
WALK-IN REGISTRATION
EGISTER ONLINE September 29 - October 18
w~vw. KinaneEvents.com Promenade Mall .......................... Temecula
provided by: Active.com
BY US MAIL
Send completed entries and entry fees, no later than October 14,
to Inland Empire Race for the Cure', P.O. Box 828, Rialto, CA
92377. Don't forget to sign your entry form. Pledge money may
be brought to the event or mailed before November 6. For entry
confirmation and bib number by mail, please include $1.00 for
bib number mail back
FOR MORE INFORMATION: (909) 600-1369
Additional entry forms available at Ford dealers, JCPenney,
Albertsons/Savon, Chewon stations and local sponsors.
JC Penhey ................. Gallefia at Tyler, Riverside
JC Penhey ...................... Moreno Valley Mall
Temecnla Valley Bank ......................Fallbrook
Promenade Mall Pre-Race Registration and T-shitrJBib Number
Pick-up: Friday, October 20, 5:00 - 8:00 PM
AND Saturday~ October 21, 11:00 - 3:00 PM
Race Dayl 6:30 AM
Ed~wards Cinema ........... Promenade Mall, Temecula
SEE MAP
Individual Entry/Donations Form <please prinO LLLL LLLLL
FEELFREETOMAKECOPIESOFTHEENTRYFORMFORFRIENDSANDFAMILY! TeamNumber OfficialUseOnly
Mail completed entry form, entry fee and pledge donations to: Inland Empire Inaugural Race for the Cure', EO. Box 828, Rialto, CA 92377.
Make checks payable to Intand Empire Inaugural Race for the Cure'. Please do not send cash.
Check Appropriate Box(es):
~ 1 wish to be recognized Race day as a Breast Cancer Sarvivor ~ 55-59 13 70-74
i3Women's5KRun/Walk ~3Coed5KRun/Walk {31Mile Fun Run/Walk C16064 075-79
O Please send Youth Pledge Prize f3 Please send Adult Pledge Prize t365-69 O 80.
C1 All Team Entries must be mailed together in one envelope by October 11, 2000
Name (first) (last)
L/LLLLLLLLLLLLI-LLL ,22.®,
Sex M F Age Race Day Birthdate $ 25,~0
I_L LL LL LL LL ,
Address S 20.00
LLLLLLLLLLI_LLLLLLL s
City State Zip S
LLLLLLLLLL LL LLLLL '
Phcme T-shin 8ize ~ ~ M L 7ulU ~
LLL LLL_LLLL LLLLLL
Team Captain (first) (last) Phone
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLL LLL LLLL
Team Name E-mail
LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
R ACE R H ,EASE (Must be si~ned by n~icipant) ...... . ..................... :- .~; ......~ ~r0 a volant ,adici
- , 't · ' · ..... . 2 , cer ~u~ndation. In(, its lo~m~C
5K DIVISIONS
O 12 & under C325-29 C140-44
O13 17 330-34 O45-49
~ 18-24 ~ 35-39 O 50 54
FEES (e.~ fee~ include race T-shirt)
Adult Entry
(after 10/14/00)
Youth (17 &under) mad
Senior (60+) and Survivors
(after 10/14/00)
Bib # MaLl Back
Total Pledge Donations Enclosed (tax deductible)
Additionalnon-pledgedonationstoTheKomenFoundation
Total Amount Enclosed
t ge Form
PARTICIPANT NAME:
GOAL:
DONOR NAME: AMOUNT:.
TOTAL:
To assure pledge credit, please write your bib number on al~
checks in the memo section.
Photocopies of this form are acceptable. Please submit pledge
forms and pledge money together at one time by U.S. mail, a~t
walk-in registration, on Race day, or before November 6.
For more information 909.600.1369.
For accommodations, please contact the Embassy
Suites Hotel (909) 676-5656.
Complimentary refreshments generously donated by
KeLlogg's', Q~aker Crispi Mires, Yoplait Yogurt,
Success Rice, Suntori Ice Tea and much more will be
offered to all registered participants. Spar!alerts will be
providln water at all water stations along the race
course. ~ot food will be available for purchase courtesy
of Promenade Mall Merchants.
I c o u R s E I Z snct%% kr t2n : - ilTc0o4& and
starts and finishes behind the Edwards Cinema. The
course features rolling hills, a downhill finish, mile splits
and live entertainment. Race Central will provide com-
puterized results and finishline.
Ti~e event starts and fipishes
IDIRECTIONSl ema
Temecula. Please arrive at least on__e hour before your
scheduled start time to allow fur parking, walking to
the start area. From the 15 Freeway turn east on
Winchester Rd., or Rancho California Rd. and follow
the signs to ample parking in the Mall.
iI