HomeMy WebLinkAbout010901 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 houm 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 I~]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JANUARY 9, 2001 - 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.
6:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency pursuant
to Government Code Sections:
Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 64956.8 concerning acquisition of real property approximately 40
acres northwesterly of Ynez Road and Empire Creek. The negotiating parties
are the City of Temecula, Rancho Highlands, LLC, and Donna Reeves Trust.
Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment of the real property
interests proposed to be acquired. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson and
Jim O'Grady.
Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 54966.8 concerning acquisition of real property located at 27500
Jefferson Avenue. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Temecula and Norm Reeves Honda, Donna L. Reeves Trust and
Richardson RV. Under negotiation is the price and terms of the real property
interests proposed to be acquired. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson and
Jim O'Grady.
¸4.
Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to GOVernment
Code Section 64956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation
involving the City. The following case/claim will be discussed: 1) GTE Inc./
Verizon v. the City of Temecula,
Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government code
Section 54956.9(b) (1) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With
respect to such matters. 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.
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:~genda\010901
1
CALL TO ORDER:
Prelude Music:
Invocation:
Flag Salute:
ROLL CALL:
Mayor Jeff Comerchero
Eve Craig
Pastor McComas of Hope Lutheran
Councilmember Stone
Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comemhero
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 2001-01
Resolution: No. 2001-01
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Status Report from Traffic Commission - Emergency Traffic Circulation Plan
Citizen Opinion Survey Presentation - Godbe Research and Analysis
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.
R:~Agenda\010901
2
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
3
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of October 24, 2000;
2.2 Approve the minutes of November 14, 2000.
Resolution Approving List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 0t-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2000
State of California Enerqy Commission Grants and Loans Office - Peak Loan Reduction
Pro.qram - LiRht Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Si.qnal Conversion Grant Award
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TIlE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND
DESIGNATING THE DIREC?OR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY
ENGINEER AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO
IMPLEMENT AND CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE
GRANT AWARD OF $'140,870.00 TO REPLACE
INCANDESCENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTS WITH LIGHT
EMITTING DIODES AT EACH TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
INTERSECTION WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
R:~Agenda\010901
3
Quitclaim Public Utility Easements as dedicated on Tract Map No. 3334 within a portion of
Lot 27, that portion being Tract Map No. 28810, a resubdivision of Tract Map No. 3334
(located on Margarita Road east of Mora.qa Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 0t-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING QUITCLAIM OF PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN A PORTION OF LOT 27 OF
TRACT MAP NO. 3334, THAT PORTION BEING TRACT MAP
NO. 28810, A RESUBDIVlSlON OF TRACT MAP NO. 3334, TO
THE UNDERLYING FEE OWNER
7 Evaluation of Multi-Way Stop Controls on Via Cordoba
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Extend the evaluation period and maintain the temporary multi-way stop signs until
other viable alternatives are evaluated.
8
Acceptance of certain Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System within Tract
No. 23583 (located northeasterly of intersection of Calle Madero at North General Kearny
Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 0t-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO
THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT
NO. 23583)
9
Completion and Acceptance for the FY99-00 Pavement Management System - Various
Streets (Ynez Road from Santiago Road to East Vallejo Avenue) - Proiect No. PW00-14
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Accept the project FY99-00 Pavement Management System - Various Streets
(Ynez Road from Santiago Road to East Vallejo Avenue) - Project No. PW00-14 -
as complete;
9.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond and accept a one-year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
R:~Agenda\010901
4
10
9.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing the Notice of
Completion, if no liens have been filed.
Resolution of Support
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA URGING IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION BY
FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT TO REFORM THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC ENERGY MARKETPLACE
11 Community Development Block Grant application Proposals for FY 2001/07
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
recommendation from the Finance Committee and staff;
11.2 Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub-Recipient Agreements and to
reprogram CDBG funds from completed projects in accordance with the current
budget resolution for general administration of the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Community
Development Block Grant Funds.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
R:~Agenda\010901
5
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 2001-01
Resolution: No. CSD 2001-01
CALL TO ORDER:
President Jeff Stone
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of December 19, 2000.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 23, 2001, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\010901
6
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 2001-01
Resolution: No. RDA 2001-01
CALLTO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts
ROLL CALL
AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
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.
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of December 19, 2000.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 23, 2001, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\010901
7
RECONVENETEMECULACITYCOUNCIL
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 the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or
in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
12
Request to adopt a resolution initiating the annexation proceedin.qs for a 640-acre portion
of the Roripau.qh Ranch Specific Plan Area (Plannin.q Application No. PA94-0073)
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Continue the public hearing to the January 23, 2001 City Council Meeting.
13 Wolf Creek Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 200t-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. t2 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0482) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-
0484 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETVVEEN
LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW ROAD (FORMERLY
FAIRVlEW AVENUE) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL
NOS. 950-tt0-002, -005, -033, AND 950-t80-00t, -005, -006,
AND -010 BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT
R:~Agenda\010901
8
13.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-
0481 - WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 ON PARCELS
TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PALA ROAD, BETVVEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER
HOLLOW ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS.
950-'1'10-002, -005, -033, AND 950-'180-00t, -005, -006, AND-
010 BASED UPON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
13.4 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 200'1-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-
048'1 - THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MATRIX FOR THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. '12 ON PARCELS TOTALING 557
ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-tt0-002, -
005, -033, AND 950-180-001, -005, -006, AND -0'10
13.5 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 200'1-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE
SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH
CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE
AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. '12, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER
HOLLOW ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS.
950-tt0-002, -005, -033, AND 950-t80-001, -005, -006, AND -
010
COUNCIL BUSINESS
14 Spring Concert on the Green at the Temecula Duck Pond
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Consider allocation $12,000 to the Arts Council of Temecula Valley to provide a
Spring Classical Concert on the Green at the Temecula Duck Pond on May 13,
2001.
R:~Agenda\010901
9
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next adjourned regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, January 16, 2001, at 5:30 P.M., for the
purpose of a Riverside County Integrated Plan Workshop and at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose of a
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
R:~Agenda\010901
10
PROCLAMATIONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 24, 2000
The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and convened in a regular meeting
at 7:02 P.M., on Tuesday, October 24, 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 Ellie Macdondald.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Member Ciera Saunders of Baha'i Community of Temecula.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Roberts.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Ms. Evelyn Hughes, 27475 Ynez Road, addressed the need for leadership as well as the
need for elected leaders to represent all City residents and not just a few special group activists
which, in her opinion, tend to not represent the opinions of the majority population. In closing,
she thanked Mayor Stone for his leadership.
B. Mr. Chris Pedersen, 31052 Wellington Circle, reiterated previously noted concerns with
regard to Spencers (located in the Mall) and the display and sale of adult paranephalia.
Mayor Stone advised that the City Council is aware of the issue of concern and that
efforts are underway to ensure that sensitive store items are safeguarded out of the view of
children.
C. Mr. and Mrs. Scott and Shani Wolf, 31274 Jan Steen Court, Winchester, representing
the non-profit MaryLou Pickle.organization, apprised the City Council of the organization's
mission to promote world respect and requested assistance with a scheduled canned food drive
at JoAnn's on Saturday, November 11, 2000, advising that the collected food cans will benefit
the Team Community Pantry benefiting families in the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta. In
closing, they noted that the organization will be trying to break the Guinness World record of
collected canned food (9,974 cans).
D. Ms. Ana Vlahes, 30600 Feather Court, voiced dismay with regard to comments made at
the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting as well as comments pertaining to child care.
Apologizing for his comments, Councilman Roberts suggested that the City provide child
care for City Council nights to ensure that the entire family, if desirous, may attend the meetings
and, thereby, also providing an alternative to a certain segment of people that would otherwise
not have the ability to attend meetings.
R:\Minutes\102400
1
E. Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, informed the City Council that Citizens
First of Temecula Valley will pursue an initiative to purchase the proposed site for Temecula
Ridge Apadments as open space and to preserve it as open space. She requested that the City
provide to her information as to what undedicated land parcels within the City are available for
purchase.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Commenting on the tremendous outcome of the Race for the Cure event, Councilman
Naggar commended and thanked the volunteers associated with the Race for their efforts.
B. Councilman Naggar noted that a Trails Master Plan Workshop has been scheduled for
Saturday, October 28, 2000, at 10:00 A.M., at the Community Recreation Center, and
encouraged the community to participate in the Temecula Community Clean-Up Day on
Saturday, November 4, 2000.
C. Councilman Pratt requested that it be determined by the Council if staff time could be
utilized to complete a land use inventory for the City which would examine the following:
· in-fill parcels to determine availability of residential units
· parcels with the intent to purchase for specific plan residential development
· present to public in a map/chart form with accompanying financial analysis
· receive public input
· ultimate goal to put the matter before the voters of the City by calling for a
special election to approve an assessment for the purchase of these targeted
properties.
D. By way of a video, Councilman Roberts provided a detailed description of the Magnetic
Levitation (MagLev) test track in Germany, noting the following:
· test track in Germany is 28 miles
· top speed is 240 miles per hour
· Southern California is one of seven areas which is applying for the $950 million
grant to build the MagLev
· If a grant were awarded, track should be built by 2009
Mr. Roberts noted that he will be traveling to Germany to visit the test track and that he
will keep the Council and public apprised.
E. Although he would not support a City Council imposed sales tax initiative for the
purchase of open space, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchere relayed his support of the public's right to
vote for a sales tax increase.
F. Commenting on the need for increased patrols/controls for red-light runners, Mayor Pro
Tem Comerchero advised that he continues to receive public input with regard to this safety
issue and, therefore, requested that the matter be agendized for the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission meeting of November 16, 2000, to ensure the matter is addressed.
G. Advising that he, on behalf of the City, had received a commemorative, platinum-level
plague for the City's participation in the Race for the Cure, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero
commended the outcome of this Race and the presented the plague to the City.
R:\Minutes\102400
2
H. Advising that the Race for the Cure had raised $800,000 of which $600,000 will directly
benefit the City of Temecula, Mayor Stone thanked all the corporate sponsors, especially
Albertson's, as well as the Police Department with keeping everything organized, and also
thanked Lt. Governor Bustamonte for his attendance.
I. In resp(~nse to a resident suggestion in an effort to address crosswalk safety concerns,
Mayor Stone requested that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission explore the option of painting
crosswalks. To address this safety issue, Mayor Stone advised that four motor officers have
been assigned to address the problem. Mr. Stone suggested that the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission explore a program which would allow those four officers to target particular
intersections each month and, thereby, creating a focused observance at highly trafficked
intersections.
J. Commending the Enforce Responsible Alcohol Consumption in Temecula (ERACIT)
Program, Mayor Stone commented on the success of eliminating drunk drivers from City streets
and thanked the Police Department for its strong efforts.
K. Concurring with Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero's comments, Mayor Stone relayed his
interest in the concept of a local initiative to buy open space but relayed his opposition to
support a sales tax increase and to utilize the City's reserve.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard O~inance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motionto waivethe reading ofthetext ofallo~inancesandresolutionsincludedinthe
agenda.
2
Resolution approving List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
3
Extension of Contract for Banking Services
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve a four-year extension of the City's contract for banking services with Union
Bank of California;
3.2 Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute all necessary agreements.
R:\Minutes\102400
3
4 Award of Construction Contract for the Pala Road Bridge Soundwall Project - Project No.
PW97-15SW
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Award a contract for Pala Road Bridge Soundwall- Project No. PW97-15SW- to
R.J. Bullard Construction, Inc. for a base amount of $320,000 and authorize the
Mayor to execute the contract;
4.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $32,000 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
5 Purchase of Microsoft Office 2000 Professional
6
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Authorize the purchase of 165 licenses of Microsoft Office 2000 Professional Suite
from MicroAge of Sacramento for the total amount of $32,435.55.
Mayor Stone noted that staff did consult with local stores in the area and were advised
that none of those stores could supply the need.
Adoption of Resolution denying Planning Application No. 99-0317 - Temecula Ridge
Apartments (located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the,
intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road - approximately 20.88 net
acres)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-03t7 AND DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0317, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN
APPLICATION FOR A 246-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD (ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 944-290-011)
(This item was pulled for separate discussion; see pages 5-11.)
7 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 2000-12 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Adopt a ordinance entitled:
R:\Minutes\102400
4
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-12
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/t2
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD OFF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY, SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE, AND
NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN
TRACT NOS. 23100-6, -7, AND -8
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. I - 5 and 7
(Item No. 6 was pulled for separate discussion; see pages 5-11). The motion was seconded by
Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION
6
Adoption of Resolution denying Planning Application No. 99-0317 - Temecula Ridge
Apartments (located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of th~,
intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road - approximately 20.88 net
acres)
RECOMMENDATION:
7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-03'17 AND DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0317, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN
APPLICATION FOR A 246-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD (ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 944-290-01'1)
City Attorney Thorson presented the staff report (of record), advising that at the October 10, 2000,
City Council meeting a public hearing was held for the consideration of Temecula Ridge
Apartments; that at the conclusion of that public hearing, the City Council voted 4-1 (with Mayor
Stone dissenting) to instruct him to prepare a resolution of denial with the appropriate findings; and
that he has prepared that resolution based on the City Councilmembers' comments and concerns
raised at the October 10, 2000 meeting. Because State law requires that written findings be made,
Mr. Thorson stated that the appropriate vote for the denial of the project would be a yes vote for the
proposed resolution.
In response to Mayor Stone, City Attorney Thorson advised that public speakers wishing to address
the matter at this time will be limited to two minutes each.
R:\Minutes\102400
5
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 41530 Enterprise Circle, representing the applicant, requested that the City
Council take one of two following actions this evening:
Continue the matter for two weeks to discuss matters of concern
Provide the opportunity, this evening, to verbally respond to the proposed findings
and supplement verbal responses with additional writings.
Mr. David Rosenthal, 40575 California Oaks Road, Murrieta, representing the Southwest Riverside
Manufacturing Council, addressed the need for affordable housing within the City and the lack of
apartment complexes in the City.
Mr. Bent Christensen, 419 Main Street, Huntington Beach, partner of A.G. Kading Group, LLC,
commented on diligent efforts expended by the applicants and representatives with the City's
Planning Department; stated that, in his opinion, the City Council has unfairly treated the applicants;
relayed his opposition to the construction of a Iow-costJlow-rent development on the site of
discussion and, therefore, appealed to the City Council to delay the denial of this project and work
with the applicants in an effort to construct a complex which would be acceptable to all individuals.
Advising that this project started two years ago, Mr. A.G. Kading, the applicant, 35411 Paseo
Viento, Capistrano Beach, noted that he and his representatives have closely worked with the ·
Planning Department which has resulted in numerous redesigns; that the project received approval
from staff; and that the project received approval from the Planning Commission. During this
process, Mr. Kading noted that he was never asked to change the density of the project; that there
were never any implications that the project would not be in compliance with the General Plan and
that no other suggestions were offered. He, therefore, requested that the matter be continued in
order to further address the issues.
In response to Mr. Kading, Councilman Naggar advised that he had met with Mr. Kading's
representatives and had expressed concerns about the project as did other City Councilmembers.
In light of the request to continue this matter in order to find an equitable resolution, Mayor Pro Tern
Comerchero relayed his willingness to resolve the concerns with the inclusion of reducing the
proposed density to some degree.
Ms. Kathleen Kading, 35411 Paseo Viento, Capistrano Beach, relayed the applicants' desires to
maintain a quality project; addressed the proposed density of 11.7 units per acre; commented on
the property tax generation; requested clarification as to the term amenity as noted in the City's
Growth Management Policy; and encouraged the City Council to have a vision for the City which
would reflect and represent the overall community and not a small interest group.
Mr. Lon Brusegard, 23766 Via Madrid, Murrieta, representing Southwest Riverside's Manufacturing
Council, encouraged the development of a mixed-use community; spoke in support of the project;
and noted that no growth/slow growth will not benefit to the City.
Mr. Tom Dodson, 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, representing the applicant, relayed
his opposition to the content of the resolution for denial based on the following:
Findings are not substantiated by the record for this particular project
Intent of Policy 5.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is for the City to
provide incentives to the developer to encourage development of transit facilities.
Ms. Monica Sams, 30221 Mira Loma Drive, commented on the need for such housing and
encouraged the City Councilmembers to strive for a balanced community.
R:~linutes\102400
6
By way of overheads, Mr. Robert Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, representing Mira Loma
Apartments, reviewed maximum occupancy standard guidelines of neighboring properties such as
90 persons per acre, 78.5 persons per acre, 72.4 persons per acre, and 65 persons per acre,
advising that the proposed project would be 47 persons per acre. Mr. Oder requested that the City
Council continue this matter in order to further discuss issues of concern.
Mr. Bob Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, relayed his opposition to stopping growth in the City and
noted his support for the project.
Having herself spoken to the potential neighbors of this project, Mrs. Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma
Drive, noted that the majority of those individuals are in support of the project. She relayed her
opposition to the construction of Iow-cost housing and expressed her support of the proposed
project.
Ms. Tamar Stein, 2049 Century Park East, attorney representing the Oder Family, questioned the
adequacies of the findings to support the resolution of denial, noting the following:
· That because this project will include 50% one bedrooms, the project will have fewer
children than most multi-family projects; therefore, questioned the finding that too
many school-aged children and proper paths and shuttled to schools are not
provided for them; that the School District voiced no opinion;
· That garages were rejected as an amenity;
· That the 25 meter pool was rejected as an amenity.
Councilman Naggar noted that the School District provided information to the applicant as to how
many children would be anticipated and where these children would be attending school.
Because the project, as designed, would withstand the requirements of the City's General Plan and
because the proposed findings are inadequate, Mr. Bart Buchauter, 30000 Rancho California Road,
noted that denial of this project would have adverse consequences to the City and, therefore, urged
the City Council to reconsider the matter.
Ms. Linda Egbert, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, resident/apartment manager, relayed her support of the
project.
Mr. Harold Provin, 44750 Villa Del Sun, stated that, in his opinion, Councilman Naggar should have
abstained with regard to this matter; commended Mayor Stone on his principles; and spoke in
support of the project.
In response to Mr. Provin, City Attorney Thorson advised that Councilman Naggar was legally able
to participate in the matter because the proximity of home was more than 2,500' from the project,
noting that the proximity of 300' would presume a conflict and 300' to 2,500' the impact would have
to be evaluated.
In light of the comments with regard to the proposed findings and because of Mr. Kading's
willingness to address changes, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero viewed it as the City Council's
obligation to create an atmosphere where resolution would be a viable option and, therefore, spoke
in support of a continuance in order to give the City Councilmembers, staff, and property owners the
ability to discuss and resolve the issues of concern. If resolution of those concerns were not
possible, Mayor Pro Tern Comemhero noted his support for the resolution of denial.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to continue the matter to the November 14, 2000,
City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman' Roberts. (The motion ultimately
reflected approval; see page11.)
R:\Minutes\102400
7
Because this matter has been discussed, Councilman Naggar relayed his opposition to a
continuance, noting that the issue is not whether or not to construct apartment complex but that it is
about density, impacts, adjacent land compatibility, and safe routes for school children. Mr. Naggar
reiterated that he has, at four different meetings, discussed with the developers' representatives his
concerns and proposed suggestions, noting that none of his suggestions were implemented such
as a trail system. Noting that certain individuals are not present this evening because they were of
the opinion that the project had been denied, Mr. Naggar relayed his opposition for a continuance.
Although sympathetic with the property owners and the associated expenses for this project,
Councilman Pratt stated that until the City's traffic situation is resolved, such projects cannot be
approved.
Mayor Stone requested clarification from Councilman Pratt, questioning whether it would be his
desire that the City resume the discussion of a moratorium to which Mr. Councilman Pratt
responded in the affirmative.
Differing in opinion with his Council colleagues, Mayor Stone addressed the proposed validity of the
written findings and mentioned the following: {The bolded text reflects verbiage from the
proposed resolution.)
· Issue of fairness - the applicant followed the blueprint of the City's General Plan.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill, in response to Mayor Stone, noted that the proposed
project is in conformance with the City's General Plan and that Planning Department
staff has met with the applicant for the past 11/2 years to guide the project through
the General Plan process;
City Attorney Thorson noted that if the City Council were to adopt this resolution, the
Council would be making the finding that this project would not be in conformance
with the density requirements (medium density allowing a range of 7 to 12 dwelling
units per acre) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, noting that the
proposed project would be at the higher density (11.7). If the Council were to adopt
this resolution, the Council would be requesting that the project be completed at the
lower end of the density range. Mr. Thorson advised that the Planning Department
staff made a recommendation based upon their view of the General Plan and their
expertise, as Planners, but that the City Council is the ultimate decision-making
authority as to the project's conformance with the General Plan;
· Density -
At the time the Growth Management Plan was considered, Mayor Stone stated that
he was of the opinion that this Plan would be applicable to larger Specific Plans not
to a 20-acre parcel which may have the potential density of 7 to 12 units per acre.
· Compatibility between uses (Seciton IV.A.I) -
In light of the surrounding uses, Mayor Stone noted that the proposed project would
be ensuring compatibility between uses. It was stated by Mayor Stone that the
developer has agreed to reduce grading to ensure the retention of views for three
residential homes adjacent to this project.
R:~vlinutes\102400
8
Policy 5.t of the Land Use Element of the General Plan -
Mayor Stone noted that the developer has agreed to waive their 50% Quimby credit
and will be paying 100% of the Quimby Fee which will be a direct public
benefit/amenity. Mr. Stone as well advised that the developer is required to provide
25% landscaping and that 43% of landscaping is being provided;
25 meter, Olympic-sized swimming pool has been offered to the use of swim teams;
General Plan does not require the applicant to provide enclosed garages; that
carports provide less of an attractive architectural amenity; that garages are more
expensive to provide but provide a desirable safety feature to the residents of the
complex;
Developer has designated units for Iow-income housing;
Section 2.B.1 of the Growth Management Action Plan -
Growth Management Plan is a policy by the City Council; that it is a guide toward
development but that it is not a part of the General Plan and until it becomes a part of
the General Plan, these written findings cannot be supported;
Mr. Stone noted that the Planning Commission voted to approve the project. He
recommended that staff continue to work with the applicant and spoke in support of
the project;
Specific density 7 to 12 dwelling units per acre range of the Medium Density
land use designation has not previously been established for the site by the
City -
Mayor Stone stated that the surrounding densities are higher than what is being
proposed;
Proposed density of the project is too high and should be established at the
lowest density of the medium land use designation range because the project
does not have sufficient amenities to support the highest density -
Mayor Stone stated that the proposed project will provide many features which will
make it an attractive multi-family housing; that amenities such as a tot lot, recreation
center, swimming pool, enclosed garages, and street improvements are public
amenities which would not be provided by a Iow-moderate project;
Mr. Stone noted that the project could be decreased to a two-story structure, garages
could be detached, and, thereby, the additional landscaping would be eliminated;
Increased landscaping is not an amenity sufficient to support the highest
density on this site because the landscaping is both required by Chapter 17.03
of the Temecula municipal Code and is to adapt the project to the hilly
topography of the site -
Mayor Stone noted that if this rule were applied to this developer, same rules would
need to apply all future developments;
R:~Minutes\102400
9
· improvements to the Moraga Drive and Rancho California Road intersection -
It was noted by Mr. Stone that those improvements were not ones imposed on the
developer but were offered by the developer;
· Project does not provide added parkland beyond the requirements of the
Temecula Municipal Code -
Mayor Stone stated that the developer has offered to waive the Quimby
requirements and, therefore, is providing added parkland in the way of money which
he would view as an amenity;
· Extensive grading (200,000 cubic yards of soil) -
Mayor Stone questioned what impact the grading will have on the health and safety
of the residents, noting that another developer in the City will be removing more
cubic yard of soil than the proposed project;
· Intersections of Rancho California Road at 1-15 southbound ramps, at 1-15
northbound ramps, and at Ynez Road are operating at level of service D -
Mayor Stone questioned whether the intent of the findings would be to reject this
project because of the unforseeability of County projects developed in the
unincorporated areas of Riverside County, east of the City of Temecula, which will
utilize Rancho California Road; if that were the intent, he stated that such a policy
should then apply to all future developments;
· Bus and shuttle service for the residents is not being provided by the owner of
the project-
Mayor Stone questioned since when does the City impose such a condition on the
approval of a project;
Project inconsistent with Policy 3.2 of the Community Design Element of the
City's General Plan. A sufficient buffer does not exist between the high-
density, multi-family residential units proposed for the project site and the
single-family residential neighborhoods southerly and easterly of the project
site -
Mayor Stone advised that the existing ridge view of the neighboring two or three
residential units will not be impacted; and that the developer had already indicated a
willingness to address that issue;
Mayor Stone stated that, in his opinion, the process the developer has had to follow has not been
fair and that the outcome of this process is an example of why individuals are distrustful of
government. He noted that the project adheres to the City's General Plan; that staff has worked
with the applicant to ensure compliance to the General Plan; that this project followed through the
process prior the City's adoption of the Growth Management Plan; that the project will be providing
amenities, justifying the density approval; and that the proposed project would be at a lower density
than any other apartment complex in the City. Were the City Council to deny this project, Mayor
Stone stated that such action could create a legal disaster for the City with economic impacts; that
the denial of this project could result in a Iow-moderate development at the site which would permit,
as per State law, a 50% density bonus resulting up to 360 total units. Referencing Mr. Tom
R:\Minutes\102400
10
Dodson's comments, Mr. Stone reiterated that multi-family developments create less traffic than
single-family dwelling units. In closing, Mr. Stone stated that he would view the proposed project as
a visionary project for the City.
Noting that a City Council decision was made with regard to this project at the October 10, 2000,
City Council meeting, Councilman Pratt stated that the City Attorney has prepared the appropriate
resolution for denial and the City Council should vote on it.
At this time, Mayor Stone requested that a roll call vote be taken on the previously made motion to
continue the matter to the November 14, 2000, City Council meeting.
AYES:
Comerchero, Roberts, Mayor Stone
NOES: Naggar, Pratt
ABSENT: None.
At 9:01 P.M., Mayor Stone called a short recess and reconvened the City Council meeting at 9:15
P.M. At 9:16 P.M, the City Council convened as the Community Services District and the
Redevelopment Agency and reconvened the City Council meeting at 9:18 P.M.
8 Rancho Hi,qhlands Drive General Plan Amendment (Plannin,q Application No. PA99-0451)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0451;
8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR A LOCATION ON
RANCHO HIGHLANDS DRIVE FROM OPEN SPACE TO
HIGHWAY TOURIST COMMERCIAL IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-330-019 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-045'1)
Planning Director Ubnoske presented the staff report (of record), reviewing the application,
advising that staff would view the proposed recommendation as a clean-up or mapping error on
the General Plan Land Use Map and, therefore, it is being recommended to change the
designation of the 1.4 acres from open space to highway tourist commercial. She advised that
the Planning Commission had denied the request, voicing concerns that the amendment would
increase developable area and, thereby, as well could potentially increase traffic. By way of an
exhibit, Planning Director Ubnoske relayed that the County's Specific Plan identifies general
boundaries for the planning areas. While the area of discussion is designated as open
space/manufactured slope, she noted that it would be staffs opinion that these general
boundaries were established with the intent of being refined once projects were submitted to the
City and stated that it would be staffs opinion that the site was originally envisioned to contain
manufactured slopes which would have provided a buffer between two the planning areas.
Referencing the conceptual grading plan, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the area of
discussion has been listed as natural open space but noted that there are actually no areas of
R:~Minutes\102400
11
natural open space on the exhibit. She stated that, in staffs opinion, the open space areas
were eliminated when the Specific Plan was amended in 1988. Subsequent to the Planning
Commission meeting, Ms. Ubnoske advised that the City Attorney had received information
indicating that on an approved map the site of discussion is reflected as a commercial parcel
and that a commercial assessment has been levied on the property of discussion by way of
CFD 88-12.
For Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated that the property owner
has been paying a commercial assessment.
With the property owner paying a commercial assessment, City Attorney Thorson advised that
this would be one in a number of factors indicating that the property in question has been
treated as commercial property and because the Specific Plan does not reflect precise meets
and bounds descriptions of open space/manufactured slopes/commercial, it would be necessary
to review all the various factors with respect to the Tentative Maps.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that an application for
the site of discussion has been received by staff; that staff has been talking with the
representatives regarding the construction of a hotel; that staff, after some research, had
previously determined the mapping error but had not presented it to the City Council for action
until an application had been presented to staff; and that the applicant was unaware of the park
and ride requirement but that staff will work with the applicant.
To his understanding, Councilman Naggar noted that Planning Area 2 was divided into three
separate lots (Marie Callendars, hotel, and open space). Because the Specific Plan as well
requires the construction of a park and ride, Councilman Naggar questioned where it would be
staffs intent to construct the park and ride. For Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske
clarified that the requested amendment would not eliminate the Specific Plan requirement for a
park and ride; advised that the park and ride requirement was placed on both Planning Area I
and 2 and, therefore, it may be constructed in either Planning Area; stated that a park and ride
may not be constructed on property designated as open space; and clarified that the City
currently has one park and ride by Carl's Jr. (VVinchester Road) and that three additional sites
'are planned - one at the mall, one on SR79, and another at the site of discussion.
In light of the potential of a Freeway Flyer, Councilman Roberts spoke in support of the park and
ride at the site of discussion and stated that the area has no use as open space.
City Attorney Thorson, for Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, confirmed that the proposed General
Plan amendment will not waive the Specific Plan requirement to construct a park and ride.
At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing.
Ms. May Lorah, 35555 Monte De Oro, representing Citizens First for Temecula Valley, relayed
her opposition to the proposed amendment and stated that under the California Environmental
Quality Act, the amendment must be evaluated for environmental impacts and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Report should be completed.
Mr. Bill Johnson, 29400 Rancho California Road, primary property owner of the Rancho
Highlands Plan, noted that the open space designation along the freeway is an important part of
the Specific Plan as well as the General Plan; that the site of discussion would give the City the
opportunity to create a desirable entrance development to the City of Temecula, along Rancho
California Road; and that in light of this property being the last remaining entry property to the
City, he recommended that careful attention be given to the site.
R:'A, linutes\102400
12
There being no additional input, the public hearing was closed by Mayor Stone.
If a General Plan amendment were necessary to ensure the development of a park and ride on
the site of discussion, Councilman Naggar, echoed by Councilman Pratt, relayed his support of
the request. If the amendment were not necessary for the park and ride, Mr. Naggar relayed his
opposition to the amendment.
Mayor Stone as well relayed his support for a park and ride.
City Attorney Thorson noted that the City Council must decide whether the site of discussion
should be designated as highway commercial or open space. If the open space designation
were determined, a resolution would need to be adopted by the City Council. If it were
determined to leave the designation at highway commercial, then the resolution before the City
Council should be adopted. Mr. Thorson noted that the park and ride issue should be treated as
a separate issue and reiterated that the park and ride, to his understanding, may be either
constructed on Planning Area I (of record) 2.
Since there is no urgency with regard to this matter, Mayor Stone suggested to continue the
matter and discuss the feasibility of constructing a park and ride in the area of discussion and if
not there, staff to determine other possible alternatives.
MOTION: Mayor Stone moved to continue this matter off calendar and to renotice the issue
when it is reagendized. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
9 Planning Application No. PA99-0261 - Zoning Amendment, Map Change, and Planning
Application No. PA99-0371 - General Plan Amendment - Temecula Creek Village Project
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Receive the Subcommittee's verbal report and provide the appropriate direction.
Having met with the applicant, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchere advised that Councilman
Naggar and he served on the subcommittee which is recommending the development of a
project with approximately 150 residential units and the balance to be commercial.
At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing.
Mr. Marasco, 12625 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, applicant of the project, advised that the
County had imposed an assessment on the property and, thereby, making an assumption of
City zoning which, in turn, imposes a certain economic factor on the property; that there was
a downzoning, which now makes the assessment inconsistent with the zoning; and that,
therefore, it is being requested to approve the amendment to the zoning map.
For Mayor Stone, Mr. Marasco advised that the subcommittee's recommendation would not
be a viable solution; that downsizing the property would be inconsistent with the County's
action; and, therefore, would further exacerbate the problem.
Mr. Charles B. Christensen, 444 West C Street, San Diego, Old Vail Partners, requested
that his letter of October 27, 2000, be incorporated into the record; stated that these 32
acres have been taxed as commercial property from the time District No.159 was formed;
that an economically viable solution must be approved; and that he would encourage
approval of the request.
R:\Minutes\102400
13
There being no additional input, Mayor Stone closed the public hearing.
City Attorney Thorson clarified that when this matter was discussed in Closed Session
approximately one year ago at the request of the applicant, it was for the discussion of the
Settlement Agreement, not the actual approval of the zoning.
To determine the issue of economic viability, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero questioned
whether it would be feasible for the City to hire an independent consultant to review the
issue and make a recommendation as to viability.
Mayor Stone stated that the issue of discussion has been a political/legal issue for the past
eight years; that the General Plan endorses the Village Center concept; and that he would
support the project.
For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Christensen advised that the project (32 acres), as a whole,
would equate to 12 units per acre. Mr. Christensen informed the City Council that he
would be willing to enter into a Settlement Agreement and requested that the City Council
make a decision this evening regarding this matter.
In light of Mr. Christensen's comment, the following motion was offered:
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to convene into Closed Session based on
potential litigation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
At 10:22 P.M. the City Council convened in Closed Session and reconvened in Open
Session at 10:35 P.M.
City Attorney Thorson advised that no action was taken in Closed Session and that
discussion included the litigation aspects and liabilities if there were release of the
previous lawsuits.
City Attorney Thorson noted that the ordinance approving the requested zoning
amendment will require a second reading during which time the details of the release,
signed by the applicant, could be formulated and would go into effect contingent upon the
language of the release.
MOTION: Councilman Pratt moved to introduce the ordinance contingent upon the
language of the release. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79
(SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 96t-0t0-006, AND ADDING
SECTIONS 17.22.130 THROUGH 17.22.138 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0261
R:~vlinutes\102400
14
COUNCIL BUSINESS
10 Community Services Funding Program Committee Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2000-
01
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Review and approve the 2000-01 Community Service Funding Program grants per
the committee's recommendation of 43 organizations totaling $160,000;
10.2 Approve an operating transfer of $10,000 from the unallocated Capital Reserves.
Mayor Stone reviewed the staff report (of record).
With regard to No. 56 (Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4089), Councilman Roberts requested
that the maximum allocation of $5,000 be approved. Advising that the additional allocation of
funds would be possible, Finance Director Roberts noted that it would require an additional
transfer of funds from unallocated Capital Reserves.
Having had some difficulty in the past with obtaining the necessary financial data, Mayor Pro
Tern Comerchero commended T.E.A.M. - Community Pantry - on a job well done.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to approve the recommendation with an amendment to
the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization to receive the maximum $5,000 and, thereby,
approving fund transfer from unallocated Capital Reserves. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
11 Holiday Schedule for City Council Meetings
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Direct the City Clerk to set the schedule for City Council meetings during the holiday
season and to perform the appropriate postings and noticing requirements of the
Government Code.
City Clerk reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material).
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to schedule a joint meeting for November 21,
2000, at 7:00 P.M., with the City of Murrieta to honor Congressmen Calvert and Packard and to
schedule the December meetings for December 12!h and 19th, 2000. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
12 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Appointment
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Appoint one applicant to serve a full three-year term on the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission through October 10, 2003.
As a subcommittee member along with Councilman Roberts, Mayor Stone relayed the
subcommittee's recommendation to reappoint Mr. Scott Lanier.
R:\Minutes\102400
15
Having been out of town, Councilman Roberts apologized for not having contacted all the
applicants. Commenting on the number of qualified applicants, Mr. Roberts, echoed by
Councilman Naggar, commended Mr. Lanier on a job well done.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to reappoint Mr. Scott Lanier to a full three-year term.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
13 Consideration of Emergency Traffic Circulation Plan
(Placed on the agenda by Councilman Pratt)
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Consider steps as recommended by Councilmember Pratt in his report dated
October 10, 2000, Emergency Traffic Circulation Plan.
Due to the lateness of the meeting and the importance of this issue, Councilman Pratt
recommended that the matter be continued for 30 days.
City Clerk Jones advised that she had received a faxed letter (copies of which were distributed
to the City Council) from Mr. Terry Gilmore, relaying his opposition to the addition of a vehicle
tax.
MOTION: Councilman Pratt moved to continue the matter for 30 days. The motion was
seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comercherc and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
14 SATISFY 2020 Implementation Committee Agreement for the development of a
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee in Southwestern Riverside County
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Approvethe Implementation Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement;
14.2 Appoint a Councilmember and alternate to the Implementation Committee that will
be formed pursuant to the agreement.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff report (of record), advising that Councilman
Roberts has been engaged in this process for the past 11/2 years and, therefore, suggested that
Councilman Roberts be appointed to the Implementation Committee.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve the staff recommendation and to appoint
Councilman Roberts to the Implementation Committee and that Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero be
appointed as the alternate. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
No additional comments.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
R:\Minutes\102400
16
City Manager Nelson confirmed that the Community Clean-Up Day will be Saturday, November
4, 2000, noting that information regarding this event will be provided by way of a press release
as well as the City's Website.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council discussed two of the three potential litigation
matters; that only the item with respect to real estate negotiations with Kearny Real Estate
Company was discussed; that no reportable actions, under the Brown Act, were taken with
respect to these matters; and that the City Council adjourn this meeting to Wednesday, October
25, 2000, at 5:30 P.M. to discuss Closed Session items only.
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:05 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Wednesday, October 25,
2000, at 5:30 P.M., in the Main Conference at City Hall, for the purpose to discuss Closed
Session Items only, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:~¥1inutes\102400
17
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER '14, 2000
The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and convened in a regular meeting
at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, November 14, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula
City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar*, Pratt, Stone
*Councilman Naggar had arrived at 8:05 P.M.
Absent:
Councilmember: Roberts.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Matthew Cappiello.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Randy Ponder of Lamb's Fellowship.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Naggar.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Problem Oriented Policing (POP) Team Presentation
As supervisor of the Special Teams Unit, Sgt. Aim introduced Officers Henderson, Potter, and
Quinata who, by way of a PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview of the many
community-oriented policing programs this unit manages, highlighting the following:
Temecula against Graffiti (TAG) - assisted by the Temecula Public Works Department
308 Aid Program - Tobacco decoy unit ensuring tobacco is not furnished to minors
Off-Road Vehicle Enforcement Program - addresses noise, nuisance, etc.
Crime Free Multi-Housing Program - cooperative efforts among the Police Department,
the City's Code Enforcement Division, the Fire Department, and the apartment
managers/owners to ensure good quality of life; that of the 25 apartment complexes, 17
are participating in the program; that apartments which are not participating in the
program, tend to require more calls of service; that there is no cost associated with
participating in the program; and that the only cost may be ensuring that requirements
are met such as landscaping, lighting, etc.
Mayor Stone requested that he be apprised as to which complexes are not participating,
advising that he would like to send those apartment managers/owners a letter on behalf of the
City and encourage them to participate in this worthy program.
Agency Decoy Program - oversees the Enforce Responsible Alcohol Consumption in
Temecula (ERAClT) Program, noting that no businesses, to date, within the City of
Temecula have been cited three times for selling alcohol to minors
R:\Minutes\l 11400
1
· Promenade Mall presence - that the Mall has now been open for one year
Dutch Heritage Day Proclamation
Extending her appreciation to the City Council for the receipt of this proclamation, Ms. Elizabet
Creemers accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Temecula Sister City Association and the
Voorburg Committee and invited the public to attend Dutch Heritage Festivities on Sunday,
November 19, 2000, at 2:00 P.M., at the Community Recreation Center.
Public Safety Week Proclamation
Accepting the proclamation, Assistant to the City Manager Yates invited the public to attend the
City's Third Public Safety Expo on Saturday, November 18, 2000, at 7:30 A.M., at Chaparral
High School.
National GIS Day Proclamation
Mr. Jim Baughman of ESRI extended his appreciation for the receipt of this proclamation and
thanked GIS Administrator DeGange for agreeing to provide a demonstration to the middle
school students at St. Jean.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. By way of an enlarged picture, Mr. Eion McDowell, 42600 Pradera Way, relayed his
concern with the increasing smog in Temecula Valley.
B. Expressing concern with regard to the County Morgan Hill project, Dr. Robert Wheeler,
29090 Camino Alba, Murrieta, commented, in his opinion, on the lack of City representation as it
relates to this project.
In response to Mayor Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that the City's position
with regard to Morgan Hill has been made very clear to the County.
Mayor Stone reiterated that City staff has received Council direction to voice opposition
to this project and that the City has been and will continue to be represented during this
process.
C. Commenting on the nominal jurisdiction County/City governments have over projects
conducted by Indian tribes, Mr. Peter Lucier, 31257 Hiawatha Court, advised that such projects
must adhere to the Gambling Compact, signed by Governor Davis, as well as CEQA
requirements and, therefore, requested that the City, as the County of San Diego has, ensures
compliance to those requirements.
Mr. Lucier as well questioned whether the City is working with either the County, State,
or Federal agency with regard to Rainbow Canyon Bypass.
Public Works Director Hughes advised that the City of Temecula as well as every other
city in Riverside County is involved with the County Community Environmental Transportation
Acceptability Process (CETAP) efforts; that several corridors, within the County, have been
identified as important transportation corridors for County buildout; that alternatives to those
transportation corridors have been explored and that several have been eliminated; that to
staffs understanding, the County CETAP will be exploring the route that could potentially
involve an eastern beltway/bypass and extend southerly around the Redhawk area and then
back through Rainbow Canyon Road near the 1-15 freeway; that this is a County effort; that
R:\Minutes\l 11400
2
advisory staff is involved with Riverside County Transportation Committee (RCTC), including
Councilman Roberts; and that environmental analyses will be conducted.
D. Mr. David Payne, 45089 Putting Green Court, requested that additional landscaping be
provided on the northwest corner of Pala Road and Rainbow Canyon Road.
If additional landscaping were provided, City Manager Nelson requested that Mr. Payne
possibly assist the City in negotiations with the homeowners association in providing assistance
with on-going maintenance of the additional landscaping.
Mayor Stone requested that a meeting be scheduled to discuss the issue.
E. Mr. Juliet-Anne Boysen, 44060 Margarita Road, addressed her concern with regard to
the relocation, by the City, of her fence; requested that once the existing fence is demolished,
the associated debris be properly removed; stated that she would like to erect her new fence but
that she has not been given an official placement from the City; and requested that this
information be provided to her to ensure continued protection of her property and that
consideration be given to the rare Silver Eucalyptus on the southeast corner of her property.
Mayor Stone noted that staff will attempt to expedite the surveying of her property; so
that she can be properly informed as to the location of the new fence.
CiTY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. As Council liaison to the Murrieta Creek Flood Control Committee, Councilman Pratt
advised that the efforts undertaken in 1993, after the flood, have greatly increased the flow
capacity of the Creek.
B. Having attended the Student of the Month pregrem, Councilman Pratt commended Ms.
Sally Myers on a job well done and relayed her desire to have the event video taped.
C. Relaying his efforts to foster relationships with the County of San Diego and cities within
the San Diego County, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that the process has started and
discussions are underway as how to ease the commute for community residents; that another
meeting has been scheduled to continue the progress; and that he will keep the Council/public
apprised.
D. As a Board member of the Riverside Transit Agency, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero
advised that the Board members have approved the Agency's budget for the next fiscal year
and within that budget, monies were appropriated for demonstration projects; that the City will
have a demonstration project - City of Temecula Christmas Shopping Shuttle - which will start
December 4, 2000 and will run through Christmas at a cost of .25; and that this Shuttle will
service Old Town as well as the Mall.
E. Mayor Stone informed the public that staff has been working with the County as it
relates to the annexations of Vail Ranch and Redhawk; that today the Riverside County Board
approved a potential plan to annex Vail Ranch; that the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) will be hearing the proposal on Thursday, November 16, 2000; and that most variables
have been defined.
F. Advising that two of the City's fire vehicles now have the Max Responder program,
Mayor Stone informed the attending public that a Fire truck has been made available to view
during Council break.
R:\Minutes\111400
3
G. Mayor Stone advised that Council Business Item No. 11 (Pala Road Interim
Improvements and Widening) will be continued off calendar to explore opportunities as it relates
to partnership and environmental impact mitigations but noted that public input would be
welcomed at the appropriate time.
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 Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of September 12, and September 26, 2000.
3 Resolution Approvin.q List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 2000.
5 Resolution in Support of California Ma,qlev Demonstration Project
Placed on the Agenda by Councilman Roberts
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA
MAGLEV DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
R:~vlinutes\l 11400
4
6 Contract Amendment/Field Training Costs
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Approve the first amendment to the agreement for law enforcement services
between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula to include field training
costs related to the hiring of additional patrol officers.
7 Joint Access and Easement Agreement between the City and Advanced Cardiovascular
Systems, Inc. (ACS)
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Approve and execute in substantially the form presented, the Non-Exclusive Joint
Access and Easement Agreement between the City of Temecula (City) and
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (ACS) to ensure reciprocal access rights to
and from certain real property owned by the City.
7.2 Authorize the City Clerk to record the document.
8 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for a
Low Flow Crossing of Murrieta Creek at Via Montezuma, Project No. PW99-1,~
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Low Flow Crossing of Murrieta Creek at
Via Montezuma, Project No. PW99-15.
9 Acceptance of Riqht-of-Way Dedication for Mar,qar ta Road - Valley Christian Fellowship
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-74
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION FOR
PUBLIC HIGHWAY, UTILITY AND SERVICE PURPOSES
WITHIN THAT PORTION OF LOT 26 OF TRACT NO. 3752
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 9. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Councilmembers Naggar and Roberts who were absent.
At 7:45 P.M., Mayor Stone convened as the Community Services District and the Redevelopment
Agency; after which, Mayor Stone called a short recess and reconvened the City Council meeting at
8:09 P.M. Councilman Naggar ardved at 8:05 P.M. and was present for the remaining portion of
the City Council meeting.
R:\Minutes\l 11400
5
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10 Approval of Recommendation for Use of Citizen's Option for Public Safety Pre,qram (COPS)
Fundinq
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Conduct a public hearing for the use of COPS funding per AB 3229 Citizen's Option
for Public Safety Program.
10.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE
OF AB 3229 FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-0t
Police Chief Domenoe reviewed the staff report (of [ecord), highlighting the requirements of AB
3229.
Mayor Stone opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Mayor Stone closed the
public hearing.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
11 Pala Road Interim Improvements and Widening - Approval of Proiect and Negative
Declaration
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING THE PALA ROAD INTERIM WIDENING PROJECT
NO. PW99-11 (INTERIM), INCLUDING ROAD WIDENING, A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT PALA/LOMA LINDA (PW98-14), AND A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT PALA/VVOLF VALLEY (PW98-'I 5)
Public Works Director Hughes reviewed the project (of record).
R:\Minutes\l 11400
6
Mr. Peter Lucier, 31257 Hiawatha Court, on behalf of the Wolf Valley Homeowners Association,
relayed the support of installing traffic lights at Loma Linda and Wolf Valley Roads and the City's
widenin9 of Pala Road (north of Loma Linda). Referencing his letters to staff regard the
proposed widening, Mr. Lucier commented on traffic congestion, immediate noise mitigations on
Pala Road, etc.
Dr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camino Alba, stated that, in his opinion, insufficient documentation
has been presented with regard to the environmental impacts.
Mr. Joe Terrazas, 31160 Lahontan, provided background information with regard to this project,
which initially started in 1991 at which time a four-lane widening was approved; stated that nine
years later, more people and more cars and still a four-lane widening project is being proposed;
and expressed concern with the "no impact" determinations noted in the Negative Declaration.
Councilman Naggar requested that Mr. Terrazas copy him on his background information with
regard to this project.
In response to Mr. Terrazas, Mayor Stone stated that the County Assessment District for this
widening project was mismanaged and, therefore, the necessary improvements were completed
by the City; and that newly imposed Federal environmental regulations, which the City had to
adhere to prior to the issuance of permits, further delayed the project.
For Mr. Terrazas, Mayor Pre Tern Comerchero clarified that the Negative Declaration reflects
the "no impact" responses because the project functions as interim improvements; that these
improvements were not designed to mitigate Wolf Creek impacts or future casino construction
projects; and that these improvements were solely intended to mitigate existing conditions.
Advising that the project was administered by the County of Riverside until 1996/97, City
Manager Nelson noted that the County should have conditioned the construction of Pala Road,
Pala Bridge, and SRE 79 South prior to the construction of any homes on Pala Road.
Viewing future construction at the Pechanga site as a hidden element, Councilman Naggar
requested that staff determine what the future intent will be at the Pechanga site.
Mayor Stone noted that Councilman Roberts is the Pechanga Tribal Council Liaison.
MOTION: Mayor Pre Tem Comerchero moved to approve continuing the item off calendar.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent.
12 Paramedic Services Program
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Receive and file report.
By way of overheads, Division Fire Chief Brown presented the staff report (of record),
highlighting the average response times of the Paramedic Assessment Squad and that of the
independent private provider.
In an effort to ensure retention of the average response times (5 - 6 minutes), Division Fire
Chief Brown relayed the importance of fire personnel and City staff to discuss future
development.
R:\Minutes\l 11400
7
For Councilman Naggar, Mayor Stone noted that the Max Responder has been installed in two
of the fire units.
Once the effectiveness and benefits of the current two Max Responders has been properly
evaluated, City Fire Chief Windsor advised that the addition of eight more Max Responders will
be explored. Mr. Windsor thanked City Council and City staff for their assistance with regard to
this matter.
City Manager Nelson noted that the addition of eight Max Responders has been placed in the
Operating Budget and thanked City Fire Chief Windsor and City staff for their assistance in
moving this project to the forefront, noting that the City of Temecula is the only City in Riverside
County to have this emergency medical services resource.
In light of Division Chief Brown's reassignment, Mayor Stone thanked Mr. Brown for his efforts
associated with the program as well as many others which have been in the best interest of the
residents of the City and presented to him a Certificate of Appreciation.
Mr. Brown thanked the City Council for the Certificate of Appreciation and praised City staff on
its professionalism and helpfulness and stated that he will greatly miss City staff.
Mr. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena, encouraged the City Council to add another paramedic squad.
Thanking Fire personnel for their efforts, Mayor Stone directed that this report be received and
filed.
Consideration of Amendment to Boys and Girls Club Loan
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve in concept an amendment to the loan to the Boys and Girls Club that would
provide for funding of approved programs in lieu of cash loan payments.
Assistant City Manager O'Grady reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material),
summarizing the Subcommittee's recommendation (comprised of Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero
and Councilman Roberts).
At the request of the Board of Directors of the Boys and Girls Club, Mayor Pre Tern Comerchero
advised that the Subcommittee had reviewed the request and clarified that the existing loan is
structured as a $1,500 per month payment with the remainder of the loan being paid through in-
kind services (total loan $374,846). After consideration of the request, Mayor Pro Tern
Comerchero noted that it was the Subcommittee's recommendation that the monthly payment of
$1,500 be repaid by way of programs structured to solely provide services to Temecula youth.
Commending the Boys and Girls Club on its services to the youth, Mr. Chuck Washington,
29605 Solana Way, encouraged the City Council to support this request but suggested that
versus an annual term that it be extended to a longer period of time to ensure financial flexibility
for the organization.
City Manager Nelson, for Mayor Stone, clarified that the portion of the loan repaid by way of in-
kind services will remain as is and that only the portion of the loan with regard to monthly cash
payments is being amended.
R:'A, linutes\l 11400
8
Mayor Stone suggested that the monthly payment loan be structured to a three-year term to
which Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero voiced no objection as long as the City receives yearly
documentation.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve the recommendation, amending that the cash
payment of the loan be amended as recommended for a three- year term and that annual
financial reports be submitted to the City. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern
Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who
was absent.
14 Discussion of Open Space Acquisition
Placed on the agenda by Councilman Pratt
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Consider the recommendations of Councilman Pratt and previde direction to staff. ·
Relaying his desire to have staff prepare an inventory of in-fill parcels within City limits,
Councilman Pratt requested that information with regard to zoning, owners, and estimated value
be provided for each parcel and that similar information be provided for major developments.
including properties west of Old Town.
Concurring with most of Councilman Pratt's comments, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero expressed
concern with staff providing such a list prior to determining whether property acquisition should
be pursued, noting that if such information were made public prior to such determination, it
could be a detriment to the negotiation process. Mr. Comerchero suggested that Councilman
Pratt's request be accomplished by way of the General Plan revision.
Although concurring with the concept of additional open space, Mr. John Dedovesh, 39450
Long Ridge, commented on the City's continual establishment of parks (21 parks total), viewing
them as open space and encouraged the acquisition of additional useable open space such as
parks.
Dr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camino Alba, Murrieta, relayed his support of Councilman Pratt's
proposal.
Viewing the acquisition of additional open space as noble, Councilman Naggar concurred that
the process of acquisition should be considered during the General Plan revision process;
advised that he would support open space for parks but not non-useable open space;
commented on the cost of maintaining open space; and noted that he would not support the
imposition of a tax to acquire open space.
As was previously suggested by Mayor Stone, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero commented on
capping the City's reserve at $10 million and that monies in excess of that be allocated into an
account for the purchase of open space which would then make monies available as
opportunities arise.
Concurring with comments made by Mayor Pre Tern Comerchero and Councilman Naggar,
Mayor Stone stated that the open space element should be discussed during the General Plan
revision process. Although he does concur with the acquisition of useable open space such as
parks, Mr. Stone as well expressed his support of the acquisition of untouchable open space
along the periphery of the City in an effort to create boundaries between the City and its
neighbors. He relayed his opposition to expending an exorbitant amount of stafftime
considering the monies necessary to accomplish these acquisitions would not be currently
R:\Minutes\l 11400
9
available. Mr. Stone reiterated his desire to cap the City's reserve at $10 million and that
excess monies be utilized to fund an account for the purchase of open space.
In response to Councilman Pratt, Councilman Naggar, confirmed by City Manager Nelson,
noted that the public could currently obtain a Land Use Map through the City's GIS Division,
which would depict vacant property throughout the City.
To further address Councilman Pratt's request, Mayor Stone suggested that a GIS Map
depicting vacant property as well as parks, fire stations, schools, etc. be published in the next
Quarterly Newsletter and that a copy of this GIS Map be posted at the Council's next meeting.
Councilman Pratt relayed his support of the suggestions.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to approve the inclusion of a GIS Map in the
Quarterly Newsletter, depicting vacant land, parks, fire stations, schools, etc and to assign the
review of this matter to the General Plan Subcommittee. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts
who was absent.
Councilman Naggar noted that he would envision that the Open Space Element would be a part
of the Trails Master Plan.
City Manager Nelson advised that staff would explore placing the GIS Map on the City's
Website.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Nelson wished everyone a Happy and Healthy Thanksgiving.
Not having been in attendance during the City Council Reports portion of the meeting,
Councilman Naggar informed the public, at this time, that a Water Park Workshop has been
scheduled for Monday, November 27, 2000.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no reportable actions, under the Brown Act, as it
relates to Closed Session.
R:\Minutes\l 11400
10
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:40 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Wednesday, November 28,
2000, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
A'I-I'EST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:~vlinutes\l 11400
11
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
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 $2,989,115.34.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 9th day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 2001-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OFTEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 2001- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 9th day of January, 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Resos 2001-
2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
12/14/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
12/21/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
12/28/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
O1/09/o1 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
12/21/00 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 01/09/01 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
120
165
190
192
193
194
210
280
300
310
32O
330
340
~ENERAL FUND
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND
RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FROJ. FUND
RDA-REDEVELOPMENT
INSURANCE
VEHICLES
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
$ 385,057.69
43,334.40
9,529.47
87,661.98
29,232.87
4,705.83
1,275,534.50
168,929.51
526,837.70
115,573.39
57,858.04
55,929.84
8,375.49
6,095.19
$ 198,882,96
290,079.92
139,480.00
2,146,213.02
214,459.44
$ 2,989,115.34
$ 2,774,655.90
001
165
190
192
193
194
28O
300
320
330
340
GENERAL FUND
RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL 8
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
RDA-REDEVELOPMENT
INSURANCE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST
TIM McDERMOTT, ASSISTANT FINAN7 DIRECTOR
JA~ES B~. O'GRADY, ASSISTANT CITY MANAG~__~
157,380.69
3,688.06
36,266.60
55.21
2,376.35
496.34
1,592.17
735.95
6,571.94
1,550.59
3,745.54
214,459.44
$ 2,989,115.34
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
VOUEHRE2
12/14/00
11:54
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 9
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
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
102,230.72
4,313.00
39,342.57
29,196.10
2,359.52
10,024.04
7,145.98
1,071.96
1,204.89
695.26
1,298.92
198,882.96
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
12/14/00 11:54 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
66369 12/12/00 HODSON, JACK
66372 12/14/00 004198 A 0 T PUBLIC SAFETY COR
66372 12/14/00 004198 A 0 T PUBLIC SAFETY COR
66373 12/14/00 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS
66374 12/14/00 003285 AMER[PRIDE UNIFORM SERV
66374 12/14/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
66374 12/14/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM BERV
66374 12/14/00 003285 ~51ERIPRIDE UNIFORM BERV
66374 12/14/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
66374 12/14/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
66374 12/14/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
66374 12/14/00 003285 AMER[PRIDE UNIFORM SERV
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, IRC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, IRC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ORE, INC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
66375 12/14/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
66376 12/14/00 003266 ARCUB DATA SECURITY
66377 12/14/00 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
66377 12/14/00 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
66377 12/14/00 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
66378 12/14/00 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS
66379 12/14/00 003817 BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL
66380 12/14/00 003126 BOOMG~RDEN, DENNIS
66381 12/14/00 002099 DUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES
66382 12/14/00 003138 CAL MAT
66383 12/14/00 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY
66384 12/14/00 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY
66385 12/14/00 CARRANZA, FRANK
66386 12/14/00 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
TEAM PACE CONTRIBUTION 001-2175
MAX RESPORDER SOFTWARE
MAX RESPONDER SOFTWARE
001-171-999-5606
001-171-999-5606
RED CROSS AQUATICS SUPPLIES 190-186-999-5261
MNT MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:PUB ~ORKS 001-164-601-5243
MNT MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:TDSD MNTC 190-100-999-5243
MRT MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:CITY HALL 340-199-701-5250
MNT MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:MRTC FAC 340-199-702-5250
MNT MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:SR CENTER 190-181-999-5250
MNT MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:CRC 190-182-999-5250
MRT MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:TCC 190-184-999-5250
MHT MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:MUSEUM 190-185-999-5250
TEMP HELP W/E IO/07/O0-ROBA
TEMP HELP W/E IO/07/O0-BRUHER
TEMP HELP W/E IO/07-WESTHAVER
TEMP HELP W/E IO/07-HITCHCOCK
TEMP HELP W/E IO/07-S[MPKINB
TEMP HELP W/E IO/07/O0-FIDERO
TEMP HELP W/E IO/07-MATTESON
TEMP HELP W/E 11/25/O0-HOBA
TEMP HELP W/E 11/25/O0-BRUNER
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-140-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-511B
TEMP HELP W/E 11/25/O0-WAYMERT 001-161-999-5118
TEMP HELP W/E 11j25/OO-SIMPKIN 001-161-999-5118
MICROFILM STORAGE-NOV 2000 001-120-999-5277
ELECTRICAL SVCS-MARG TENNIS CT 190~180-999-5212
ELECTRICAL SVCB- CRC 190-182-999-5212
ELECTRICAL BVCB- CRC 190-182-999-5212
TEMMY COLORING BOOK-DESIGN 190-180-999-5301
PARAMEDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES:FIRE 001-171-999-5311
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330
DEC LEASE:OLD TWN RESTROOM 280-199-999-5234
PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 001-164-601-5218
RECREATION BUPPLIEB-TCC
190-184-999-5301
CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES
300-199-999-5205
EMP COMPUTER PUR PGRM:CARRANZA 001-1175
ALARM MONITORING SERVS-SR CTR 190-181-999-5250
1,151.00
30,405.00
11,030.00
75.00
75.OO
70.00
94.50
39.75
56.91
105.52
48.06
35.25
107.04
202.56
348.08
450.45
468.00
60.71
383.18
200.70
101.28
280.80
269.10
825.50
385.00
130.00
316.19
1,300.00
26.70
194.40
826.00
457.41
25.70
1,071.96
2,000.00
45.00
1,151.00
41,435.00
75.00
524.99
2,871.90
825.50
831.19
1,300.00
26.70
194.40
826.00
457.41
25.70
1,071.96
2,000.00
45.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2
12/14/00 11:54 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
66387 12/14/00 001249 CENTRE FOR ORG EFFECTIV TRAINING CLASS: SMITH, PNIL
66388 12/14/00 COHEE, MARGIE REIMB:ARMA CONF:10/22-26/00
001-162-999-5261
001-120-999-5261
2,000.00
36.33
2,000.00
36.33
66389 12/14/00 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET
66390 12/14/00 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS
66390 12/14/00 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS
66391 12/14/00 004382 DEKRA LITE IRC
MOBILE RADIO-PW MAINT TRUCKS 001-164-601-5610
FACADE IMPROVE PGRN:GRACE GRDN 280-199-813-5804
FACADE IMPRV PGRM:ROOSTER CRK 280-199-813-5804
LIGHTS FOR XMAS TREE-DUCK POND 190-183-999-5370
1,349.83
1,303.65
4,464.44
300.62
1,349.83
5,768.09
300.62
66392 12/14/00
E M S PERSONNEL FUND EMS STATE CERT RENEWAL:AMESTOY 001-171-999-5226
130.00
130.00
66393 12/14/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 12/1/00 SALAZAR 001-162-999-5118
66393 12/14/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC CREDIT:OVERCHARGED ON TONY CHU 001-164-604-5118
854.07
10.75-
843.32
66394 12/14/00 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 95366-02 DIEGO DR LDSCP METER 193-180-999-5240
172.22
172.22
66395 12/14/00 002060 EUROPEAN DELI & CATERIN CATERING SERVICES-PLANNING 001-161-999-5260
58.63
58.63
66396 12/14/00 003623 EXCEL HARDWARE PW MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218
10.45
10.45
66397 12/14/00 001701 EXCEL RENTAL CENTER SUPPLIES:NOLIDAY LIGHT AWARDS 190-183-999-5370
75.00
75.00
66398 12/14/00 004310 FEDEX GROUND IRC
GROUND EXPRESS PACKAGE SERVICE 001-111-999-5230
73.92
73.92
66399 12/14/00 002832 FENCE BUILDERS
66399 12/14/00 002832 FENCE BUILDERS
RES IMPR PGRM: VASQUEZ, DAVID 165-199-813-5804
RES IMPR PRGM: REESE, KATHLEEN 165-199-813-5804
66400 12/14/00 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO LOT GOOK REPORT:MESSER 165-199-999-525D
66400 12/14/00 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO LOT BOOK REPORT:UNDERHILL 165-199-999-5250
66400 12/14/00 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO LOT ROOK REPORT:WESTLAKE 165-199-999-5250
66401 12/14/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY DAY TIMER SUPPLIES-FINANCE 001-140-999-5220
66/.01 12/14/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY DAY TIMER SUPPLIES-FINANCE 001-140-999-5220
66401 12/14/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY DAY TIMER SUPPLIES-FINANCE 001-140-999-5220
66401 12/14/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY DAY TIMER SUPPLIES-FINANCE 001-140-999-5220
66401 12/14/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY FREIGHT 001-140-999-5220
66401 12/14/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY SALES TAX 001-140-999-5220
2,307.00
526.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
42.40
50.40
31.60
38.28
10.80
13.44
2,833.00
450.00
186.92
66402 12/14/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
66402 12/14/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
66402 12/14/00 000177 GLERNIES OFFICE PROOUCT
66402 12/14/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PROUUCT
66402 12/14/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PROUUCT
66402 12/14/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
66/*02 12/14/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
66402 12/14/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-EM 001-110-999-5220
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-CM 001-110-999-5220
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE 001-140-999-5220
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-N.R. 001-150-999-5250
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-PLANNING 001-161-999-5220
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES'R&S 001-162-999-5220
OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY CLERK 001-120-999'5277
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES'EEO DEV 001-111'999'5220
64.46
83.71
366.00
254.56
54.39
327.03
80.67
23.42
1,254.24
66403 12/14/00 002659 GOVERNING SUBSCRIPTION: BROWN, MIKE 001-171-999-5228 15.00
66403 12/14/00 002659 BOVERNING SUBSCRIPTION:COMERCHERO, JEFF 001-100-999-5228 15.00
VOUCHRE2
12/14/00
V~CHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
66403
66403
66404
66405
66406
66407
66408
66408
66408
66409
66410
66411
66412
66413
66414
66414
66415
66415
66415
66416
66417
66418
66418
66418
66418
66419
66420
66421
66421
66422
66423
11:54
CHECK
BATE
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
002659 GOVERNING
002659 GOVERNING
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFF1
GRANT, KAREN
000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
003198 HOME DEPOT, THE
004217 HYDRO TEK COMPANY
004217 HYDRO TEK COMPANY
004217 HYDRO TEK COMPANY
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
SUBSCRIPTION:PARKER, HERMAN
SUBSCRIPTION:THORNHILL, GARY
SEMINAR REG. FEE:BROWN,PASCALE
POSTAGE:TCSD CONTEST MATERIALS
HARDWARE SUPPLIES - TCC
SUPPLIES:HOLIDAY LIGHT AWARDS
PRESSURE WASHER NOZZLES
FREIGHT
SALES TAX
001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
000203 JOGS AVAILABLE INC RECRUIT ADS:ASST ENG/ENG TECfl
002531 K A T Y FM RADIO LOCAL BROADCAST-SAFETY EXPO
004281 K T M K F.M. BROADCASTING FOR OLD TOWN
002424 KELLEY DISPLAY IRC BANNERS CLEANING & STORAGE SVC 001-111-999-5271
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-180-999-5228
001-161-999-5228
001-140-999-525B
190-187-999-5301
190-184-999-5212
190-183-999-5370
001-164-601-5242
001-164-601-5242
001-164-601-5242
001-150-999-5248
001-150-999-5254
001-110-999-5278
280-199-999-5362
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 11/26/O0:KELLY K 001-140-999-5118
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 12/03/O0-KELLY
001694 KNIGHT PRINTING
001694 KNIGHT PRINTING
001694 KNIGHT PRINTING
004392 L E A P S MUSEUM
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI
004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT IRC
004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT IRC
0042B0 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT IRC
004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC
004087 LOWERS
003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS
004141 MAINTEX INC
004141 MAINTEX INC
000217 MARC~ARITA OFFICIALS ASS
002693 MATROS, ANDREA
5000 BLDG PERMITS FORMS
SHIPPING FOR FORMS
SALES TAX
001-140-999-5118
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
SISTER CITY RECOGNITION AWARDS 001-170-999-5370
NOV BVCB'LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMNT 001-101-999-5285
POOL MAINT. SUPPLIES - CRC
POOL MAINT. SUPPLIES - CRC
FREIGHT
SALES TAX
SUPPLIES:HOLIDAY LIGHT AWARDS
190-186-999-5301
190-186-999-5301
190-186-999-5301
190-186-999-5301
190-183-999-5370
MISC SIGNS FOR REPAIR/REPLCMNT 001-164-601-5244
CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
NOV SOFTBALL UMPIRE SVCS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
190-182-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
190-187-999-5250
190-183-999-5330
ITEM
AMOUNT
15.00
15.00
630.00
8.00
30.76
150.00
90.00
4.64
6.98
487.32
138.00
250.00
100.00
315.70
445.60
396.00
1~490.40
50.00
115.51
112.00
1,034.25
350.00
49.75
6.94
30.98
300.00
264.85
157.36
136.20
1,249.60
345.60
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
60.00
630.00
8.bo
30.76
150.00
101.62
487.32
138.00
250.00
100.00
315.70
841.60
1,655.91
112.00
1,034.25
437.67
300.00
264.85
293.56
1,249.60
345.60
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4
12/14/00 11:54 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
66424 12/14/00 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC CAFR TAB REVISION
001-140-999-5222
160.55
160.55
66425 12/14/00 MCCLEARY, MIKE
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
100.00
100.00
66426 12/14/00 003935 MELAD & ASSOCIATES
66426 12/14/00 003935 MELAD & ASSOCIATES
66427 12/14/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS
66428 12/14/00 004378 MULLER, JAN[CE M.
OCT TEMP BLDG INSPECTOR SVCS
OCT TEMP BLDG INSPECTOR SVCS
BUSINESS CARDS: B&S DEPT
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
001-162-999-5110
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5222
190-183-999-5330
775.00
6,265.20
41.21
146.40
7,040.20
41.21
146.40
66429 12/14/00 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS
MISC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5215
3.19
3.19
66430 12/14/00 004390 NATELSON COMPANY INC
66431 12/14/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM
66431 12/14/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM
66431 12/14/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM
66431 12/14/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM
66431 12/14/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM
66431 12/14/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM
WATER PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 210-190-170-5802
QTY 325 W-2 FORMS FOR PAYROLL 001-140-999-5222
QTY 300 W-2 ENVELOPES 001-140-999-5222
QTY 300 1099 MISE FORMS FOR AP 001-140-999-5222
QTY 300 1099 ENVELOPES 001-140-999-5222
FREIGHT 001-140-999-5222
SALES TAX 001-140-999-5222
10,000.00
80.38
52.60
70.78
36.36
6.37
18.62
10,000.00
265.11
66432 12/14/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT DISPLAY ADS:SAFETY EXPO
001-110-999-5278
362.29
362.29
66433 12/14/00 002292 OASIS VENDING MAINT FAC SUPPLIES/SERVICE 340-199-702-5250
66433 12/14/00 002292 OASIS VENDING CITY HALL SUPPLIES/SERVICE 340-199-701-5250
116.91
464.98
581.89
66434 12/14/00 002100 OBJECT RADIANCE INC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330
793.60
793.60
66435 12/14/00 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S OFFICE SUPPLIES - HUM.RESOURCE 001-150-999-5220
66435 12/14/00 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE 001-140-999-5220
22.88
50.02
72.90
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
66436 12/14/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
190-180-999-5214
001-164-601-5214
001-164-601-5214
001-164-601-5214
190-180-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
001-164-604-5214
001-163-999-5214
001-164-601-5214
001-165-999-5214
001-164-601-5214
001-165-999-5214
001-164-601-5214
66437 12/14/00 002652 OSCARS RESTAURANT REFRESHMENTS FOR TREE LIGHTING 190-183-999-5370
66437 12/14/00 002652 OSCARS RESTAURANT SALES TAX 190-183-999-5370
19.19
35.00
146.34
87.47
322.55
426.96
20.00
177.05
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
97.67
577.35
44.74
1,412.23
622.09
66438 12/14/00 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC OCT TEMP BLDG INSPECTOR SVCS 001-162-999-5118 11,794.08
66438 12/14/00 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC CREDIT:EXCEEDS CONTRACT AMOUNT 001-162-999-5118 6,336.48~ 5,457.60
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5
12/14/00 11:54 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
66439 12/14/00 004023 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPME
66439 12/14/00 004023 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPME
66/*40 12/14/00 000733 PARTY PZAZZ
66/*40 12/14/00 000753 PARTY PZAZZ
66440 12/14/00 000733 PARTY PZAZZ
66440 12/14/00 0007'53 PARTY PZAZZ
RENT BOOM TRUCK-BANNER CHANGES 001-164-601-5238
ADD~L CBRG - BOOM TRUCK RENTAL 001-164-601-5238
QTY 72 BALLOONS-SAFETY EXPO
1 HELIUM TANK RENTAL
ADD~L HELIUM TANK RENTAL
SALES TAX
001-110-999-5278
001-110-999-5278
001-110-999-5278
001-110-999-5278
7-/1.60
338.22
11.69
22.50
18.31
.91
1,109.82
53.41
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66/,41 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY RASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CABB
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66441 12/14/00 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 CASB REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASR 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
001-100-999-5220
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5320
001-111-999-5260
001-110-999-5262
001-162-999-5261
001-140-999-5261
001-140-999-5262
001-171-999-5214
190-180-999-5212
001-140-999-5262
001-2175
190-180-999-5212
001-120-999-5222
001-120-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-171-999-5222
001-163-999-5222
BB1-161-999-5222
7.83
28.50
16.27
13.99
30.00
27.00
50.00
38.67
39.66
40.71
2.68
6.00
25.00
4.29
26.92
5.81
7.92
20.05
12.68
16.90
420.88
66442 12/14/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS
66442 12/14/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS
66442 12/14/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS
66443 12/14/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66443 12/14/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66444 12/14/00 004283 PRO MOTIoNs'BEST OF DES
66444 12/14/00 004283 PRO MOTIONS-BEST OF BED
66445 12/14/00 002880 PRO-CRAFT SASH & SUPPLY
66446 12/14/00 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE
66447 12/14/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
66/*47 12/14/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
66/*47 12/14/00 000262 RANCHO EAL[F WATER DIST
66447 12/14/00 000262 RANEHO CALIF WATER DIST
66447 12/14/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
66447 12/14/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
66447 12/14/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
66447 12/14/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
PHOTO DEVELOPING FOR CIP
NOV FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPMENT
NOV FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPMENT
001-165-999-5250
001-110-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
NOV PUBLIC NOTICES:CITY CLERK 001-120-999-5256
NOV PUBLIC NOTICES:PLAMNING 001-161-999-5256
EQUIP RENTAL:SUMMER NGHT:10/14 280-199-999-5362
EQUIP RENTAL:SUMMER NGHT:09/30 280-199'999'5362
RES IMPRV PRGM: CEDILLO
165-199-813-5804
SUPPLY RENT:POND TREE LIGBTING 190-183-999-5370
NOV 01-06-66000-3 CHLDRN'S MUS 190-180-999-5240
NOV 01-06-79380-1CHLDRHtS MUS 190-180-999-5240
NOV 01-06-81000-10.T. PRK LOT 210-165-828-5804
NOV 01-06-84~0-5 PUJOL ST 280-199-807-5801
NOV 01-02-98000-0 STN #84 001-171-999-5240
NOV 01-02-98010-0 STN #84 001-171-999-5240
NOV VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240
NOV VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-181-999-5240
49.01
11.57
57.13
207.27
39.25
200.00
200,00
1,030.00
310.90
70.60
12.03
24.04
51.89
11.68
169.77
3,961.78
134.49
117.71
246.52
400.00
1,030.00
310.90
VOUCHRE2
12/14/00
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
66447
66447
66447
66447
66/+47
66447
66447
66447
66448
66448
66448
66448
66448
66448
66449
66450
66451
66452
66453
66454
66455
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66456
66/+56
66457
66457
66457
66457
11:54
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAJ4E
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000266 RIGHTWAY
000268 RIVERSIDE CO HABITAT
004296
000815
003492
RIVERSIDE CO HEALTH SVC
RORY RIECK WEED ABATEME
ROWLEY, CATHY
SCHOLASTIC SPORTS
SECTOR~ THE
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST COHTR
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
NOV VARIOUS WATER METERS
NOV VARIOUS WATER METERS
NOV VARIOUS WATER METERS
NOV VARIOUS WATER METERS
NOV VARIOUS WATER METERS
NOV VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
190-182-999-5240
190-184-999-5240
190-186-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
340-199-701-5240
190-185-999-5240
001-164-603-5240
001-165-999-5250
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING
001-110-999-5214
001-110-999-5263
001-163-999-5214
001-164-601-5214
190-180-999-5214
PORTABLE RESTROOM:PARADE:12/01 190-180-999-5238
NOV K-RAT PAYMENT 001-2300
EMS CERTIFICATION:T.BUCKLEY 001-171-999-5261
WEED ABATEMENT SERVICES
001-161-999-5440
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
190-183-999-5330
WINTER PRGM/MEDIA GUIDE:TVHB 001-100-999-5250
ANN'L SUBSCRIPTION:G.WOLNICK 001'111-999-5228
DEC 2-17-214-0428 MEADOWS PKWY
DEC 2-06-105-0654 VARIOUS MTRB
DEC 2-10-331-1353 STN #~
DEC 2-18-363-1902 PAUBA RD
NOV 2-10-331-2153 TLC
DEC 2-22-057-2226 MARGARITA
DEC 2-22-057-2234 MARGARITA
DEC 2-19-538-2262 VARIOUS MTRB
DEC 2-20-798-3248 VARIOUS MTRS
190-180-999-5319
190-180-999-5319
001-171-999-5240
190-180-999-5319
190-184-999-5240
190-180-999-5319
190-180-999-5319
190-180-999-5240
190-100-999-5240
NOV 2-19-683-3255 FRONT ST PED 001-164-603-5319
DEC 2-02-351-5281 CRC 190-182-999-5240
DEC 2-02-351-5281 CRC 190-186~999-5240
DEC 2-01-202-7-330 VARIOUS MTRS 192-180-999-5319
DEC 2-01-202-7603 VARIO(JS MTRS 190-180-999-5319
DEC 2-05-7(21-8807 VARIOUS MTRS 190-180-999-5319
T.V.WED.CHAPEL PEST CONTROL SV
MAINT FAC PEST CONTROL BVCS
T.V.MUSEUM PEST CONTROL SVCS
SR CTR PEST CONTROL SVCS
190-185-999-5250
340-199-702-5250
190-185-999-5250
190-181-999-5250
ITEM
AMOUNT
489.65
162.98
165.71
2,187.30
437.78
69.18
296.92
102.91
12.00
12.00
40.94
6.00
8.00
6.00
611.63
2,835.00
50.00
2,424.16
192.00
220.00
49.00
193.55
2,357.63
718.93
87.42
529.99
38.96
71.07
92.46
495.73
533.63
3,062.41
900.91
29,196.10
11,119.96
4,247.14
32.00
40.00
42.00
29.00
PAGE 6
CHECK
AMOUNT
8,348.71
84.94
611.63
2,835.00
50.00
2,424.16
192.00
220.00
49.00
53,645.89
143.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA
12/14/00 11:54 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 7
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
66458 12/14/00 004060 T R Y ENTERPRISES IRC SECURITY GUARDS-PARADE:12/01 190-183-999-5370 180.00 180.00
66459 12/14/00 003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS REINSTALL BINS @ CITY HALL 340-199-701-5250 105.00
105.00
66460 12/14/00 000305 TARGET STORE SUPPLIES FOR PARADE 190-183-999-5370 102.12
102.12
66461 12/14/00
TEAM COMMUNITY PANTRY FYO0-01 COMM. SVC FUNDING AWRD 001-101-999-5267 5,000.00
5,000.00
66462 12/14/00 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY NAMETAGS FOR FIRE DEPT 001-171-999-5222 35.02
66462 12/14/00 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY PLATE ENGRAVING FOR PLAQUES 001-150-999-5265 7.54
42.56
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED REPAIRS & SERVICE TO PATCH TRK 001-164-601-5214 94.95
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 001-170-999-5262 3.19
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 190-180-999-5263 594.35
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 001-161-999-5263 11.89
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 001-162-999-5263 225.77
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 001-163~999-5263 140.65
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 001-164-601-5263 641.83
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 001-164-604-5263 100.77
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 001-165-999-5263 159.93
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED OCT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 001-165-999-5263 .01
66463 12/14/00 000919 TEMEGULA VALLEY UNIFIED FAC.USAGE-SAFETY EXPO-11/18/O0 001-110-999-5278 905.00
66464 12/14/00 002578 TEMEKU HILLS REC LLC BALANCE DUE:HOL.PARTY:12/08/O0 001-150-999-5265 7,321.33
66465 12/14/00 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY EMP. RECOGNITION/SERVICE AWRDS 001-150-999-5265 970.90
66465 12/14/00 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY EMP. RECOGNITION/SERVICE AWRDS 001-150-999-5265 283.05
66465 12/14/00 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY EMP. RECOGNITION/SERVICE AWRDS 001-150-999-5265 723.50
66466 12/14/00 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CIP 001-165-999-5220 129.73
66466 12/14/00 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS OFFICE SUPPLIES - LAND DEV. , 001-163-999-5220 11.67
66466 12/14/00 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CIP 001-165-999-5220 193.30
66466 12/14/00 000320 TONNE CENTER STATIONERS OFFICE SUPPLIES - PN ADMIN 001-164-604-5220 160.19
2,878.34
7,321.33
1,977.45
494.89
66467 12/14/00 004313 TRI-COUNTY OFFICIALS IN SPORTS OFFICIAL SVCS:11/16-30 190-187-999-5250 40.00
40.00
66468 12/14/00 002065 UNISOURCE PAPER SUPPLIES FOR COPY CENTER 330-199-999-5220 569.35
569.35
66469 12/14/00 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE NOV APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT SV 001-162-999-5250 630.00
630.00
66470 12/14/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA NOV XXX-1289 PRATT 320-199-999-5208 62.10
66470 12/14/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA DEC XXX-1941 PTA CD TTACSD 320-199-999-5208 56.91
66470 12/14/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA NOV XXX-2629 NAGGAR 320-199-999-5208 94.02
66470 12/14/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA NOV XXX-3539 GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 38.06
66470 12/14/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA NOV XXX-5509 GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 132.02
66470 12/14/00 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA NOV XXX-5759 GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 145.50
528.61
66471 12/14/00 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. DEC ACCESS-CRC OPEN PHONE LINE 320-199-999-5208 338.14
66471 12/14/00 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. DEC ACCESS-RVSD CO OPEN LINE 320-199-999-5208 338.14
676.28
66472 12/14/00 003850 NET PAINT GRAPHIC DESIG ARTWORK FOR ROD RUN BANNER 001-111-999-5270 195.00 195.00
VOUCHRE2
12/14/00 11:54
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CRECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
66473 12/14/00
~ETTELAND, KARLA
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
66474 12/14/00 000345
66474 12/14/00 000345
66474 12/14/00 000345
XEROX CORPORATION B1LLI NOV BASE CHARGE - DC20 COPIER
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI OCT-NOV BASE CNRG:5012 COPIER
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI NOV BASE CHARGE:5830 COPIER
001-171-999-5215
330-199-999-5239
330-199-999-5217
66475 12/14/00
66475 12/14/00
66475 12/14/00
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
FIRST AID SUPPLIES-PW MAINT 001-164-601-5218
FIRST AID SUPPLIES - SKATE PRK 190-183-999-5305
FIRST AID SUPPLIES - CRC 190-182-999-5301
ITEM
AMOUNT
100.00
105.99
45.60
80.31
154.11
197.07
95.36
PAGE 8
CHECK
AMOUNT
100.00
231.90
446.54
TOTAL CHECKS 198,882.96
VOUCHRE2
12/21/00
15:41
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 12
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
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
AMOUNT
191,341.97
4,946.47
46,595.02
36.77
2,346.31
316.10
6,343.98
5,234.92
1,331.43
19~329.18
7,461.50
4,796.27
TOTAL 290,079.92
VOUCH~E2
12/21/00
15:41
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 1
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
13209
66477
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/18/00
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PRES (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PRES (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PRES RET
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PRES-PRE
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PRES (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PRES (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYO
001-2390
165-2390
190-2390
192-2390
193-2390
194-2390
280-2390
300-2390
320-2390
330-2390
340-2390
001-2130
001-2390
165-2390
190-2390
192-2390
193-2390
194-2390
280-2390
300-2390
320-2390
330-2390
340-2390
CONF. OF MAYORS:JC:01/17-19/01 001-100-999-5258
25,493.44
651.49
4,717.92
11.61
371.83
98.66
282.59
127.82
1~066.72
206.19
544.08
140.96
85.80
1.87
18.42
.05
1.54
.36
.92
.46
3.72
1.39
2.65
750.00
33,830.49
750.00
66678
12/19/00
002185 POSTMASTER - TEMECULA
POSTAGE-TCSD WTR/SPR BROCHURE
190-180~999-5230
2,644.71
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 25,880.55
433443 12/21/00 000283 IHBTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 408.85
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 4,968.75
433443 12/21/00 000283 [NSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 14.30
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 369.85
433443 12/21/00 000283 [NBTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 118.99
433443 12/21/00 000283 [NSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 142.21
433443 12/21/00 000283 [NSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 70.67
433443 12/21/00 000283 [NSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 1,057.46
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 177.39
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 505.52
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 6,072.19
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 142.06
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 1,338.13
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 2.34
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDIGARE 193-2070 87.94
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 20.44
433443 12/21/00 000283 IRSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 60.64
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 28.16
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 271.34
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 52.38
433443 12/21/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 136.72
2,644.71
41,926.88
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2
12/21/00 15:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
433487
66481
66482
66483
66483
66484
66485
66486
66486
66486
66486
66486
66486
66486
66486
66486
66486
66486
66487
66487
66487
66488
66489
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INBTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 IRSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
004054
002877
002877
000110
ACCELA
ADKISON ENGINEERS INC
ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES
ALTA LOHA CHARTER LINES
AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE
AMOY, DONNA
000101 APPLE ORE, 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.
000101 APPLE ONE, IRC.
000101 APPLE ONE, IRC.
003827 AUTO CELLULAR
003827 AUTO CELLULAR
003827 AUTO CELLULAR
BAIZA, CATHI
000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SD!
000444 SDI
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
ACCELA CF:LB/CB:4/30-5/04
CIVIL ENGINEERING PW95-08
CHARTER BUS FOR HOLIDAY EVENT
CHARTER BUS FOR EXCURSION
POSTAGE METER MNTC AGREEMENT
REFUND: EXERCISE HATHA YOGA
TEMP HELP N/E 11/18/00 ROSA
TEMP HELP W/E 11/18/00 BRUNER
TEMP HELP W/E 11/18/00 WESTHAV
TEMP HELP W/E 11/18/00 MUSSER
TEMP HELP W/E 11/18/00 REID
TEMP HELP W/E 11/18/00 KS & KW
TEMP HELP W/E 12/2/00 ROSA
TEMP HELP W/E 12/2/00 BRUNER
TEMP HELP W/E 12/2/00 REID
TEMP HELP W/E 12/2/00 SIMPKINS
TEMP HELP W/E 12/20/00 KS/KW
NOKIA 8260 CELL PHONE FOR P.D.
LEATHER CARRY CASE FOR CELL PH
SALES TAX
REFUND:WHATS COOK/ARTS & CRAFT
ELECTRICAL SVCS-TCC
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-2070
165-2070
190-2070
193-2070
280-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2070
165-2070
190-2070
192-2070
193-2070
194-2070
280-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-162-999-5261
280-199-807-5804
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5350
330-199~999-5217
190-183-4982
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
190-180-999-5118
001-150-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-110-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-170-999-5242
001-170-999-5242
001-170-999-5242
190-182-4980
ITEM
AMOUNT
106.52
3.12
72.57
2.18
.61
7.44
2.17
.89
7,366.64
114.39
1,176.00
4.23
81.35
34.11
44.73
14.73
223.65
37.40
117.01
700.00
1,930.50
300.75
396.99
800.00
48.00
214.08
202.56
468.00
166.40
31.20
748.80
214.08
202.56
156.00
204.56
731.44
199.00
19.99
18.04
9.00
52.00
CHECK
AMOUNT
9,409.74
700.00
1,930.50
697.74
800.00
48.00
3,339.68
237.03
9.00
52.00
VOUCHRE2
12/21/00' 15:41
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
66490 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66491 12/21/00
66/*92 12/21/00
66493 12/21/00
66493 12/21/00
66494 12/21/00
66495 12/21/00
66496 12/21/00
66497 12/21/00
66497 12/21/00
66498 12/21/00
66499 12/21/00
66500 12/21/00
66501 12/21/00
66501 12/21/00
66502 12/21/00
66503 12/21/00
66504 12/21/00
66505 12/21/00
66506 12/21/00
66507 12/21/00
66507 12/21/00
66507 12/21/00
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
004206 BANUELOS, TERESA
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
BATCHELOR, BRIAN
002541 DECKER, WALTER KARL
002541 DECKER, WALTER K~ARL
BELCHER, DANA
BUFFETS INC
003138 CAL MAT
000128 CAL SUHANCE ASSOCIATES
000128 CAL DURANCE ASSOCIATES
CALIF. DEPT. OF FISH &
CARDEM ACADEMY
CHARETTE, DEBORA
000137 CHEVRON U S A INC
000137 CHEVRON U S A INC
004203 CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIO
CITIZENS UNIVERSITY COM
000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET
D F M ASSOCIATES
002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATE
003052 DE SMIDT, INTA
003052 DE BMIDT, INTA
003052 DE SMIDT, INTA
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 12/00
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
NOV WORKERS COMP PREMIUM PMT
REFUND: SPORTS BB MENS LEAGUE
GEN. ENGINEERING:VALLEJO/YNEZ
GEN. ENGIHEERING:JEFFRSN/RAHCH
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFUND:GRADING BOND LDOO-IOTGR
PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS
PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND:THORNHILL
PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND: NELSON
STREAMBED ALTERATION AGMNT FEE
REFUND= SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFUND= BREAKFAST N/SANTA
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEH:C.M.
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEH:P.D.
004203 AR CHILD
CITY MEMBERSHIP IN C.U.C.
PURCHASE/INSTALL RADIO IN VEH
ELECTION CODE BOOKS:CITY CLERK
RETAIN ADVOCACY FIRM:FED FUND
O.T.HOLIDAY ENTERTAINMNT:11/26
O.T.HOLIDAY ENTERTAINMNT:12/03
O.T.HOLIDAY ENTERTAINMNT:12/17
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-183-999-5330
001-2370
165-2370
190-2370
192-2370
193-2370
194-2370
280-2370
300-2370
520-2370
330-2370
340-2370
190-187-4961
001-164-601-5401
001-164-601-5402
190-2900
001-2670
001-164-601-5218
300-199-999-5200
300-199-999-5200
210-165-710-5802
190-2900
190-183-4982
001-110-999-5262
001-170-999-5262
190-2140
001-111-999-5226
001-162-999-5214
001-120-999-5228
001-110-999-5248
280-199-999-5362
280-199-999-5362
280-199-999-5362
ITEM
AMOUNT
170.00
3,102.89
65.15
1,077.85
.44
47.37
8.40
23.13
5.01
57.53
12.86
147.46
40.00
4,420.00
2,860.00
100.00
995.00
481.53
350.00
350.00
154.00
100.00
14.00
28.69
57.98
151.87
100.00
2,530.02
86.20
2,000.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
PAGE
CHECK
AMOUNT
170.00
4,548.09
40.00
7,280.00
100.00
995.00
481.53
700.00
154.00
100.00
14.00
86.67
151.87
100.00
2,538.02
86.20
2,000.00
450.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4
12/21/00 15:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
66508
66508
66509
66510
66511
66512
66512
66512
66512
66512
66512
66513
66514
66515
66515
66515
66515
66515
66515
66516
66517
66517
66517
66517
66517
66517
66517
66517
66517
66517
66518
66519
66519
66520
66521
66522
66522
CHECK
DATE
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
VENDOR
NUMBER
003511
003511
003006
004275
001669
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
000164
002037
000165
000165
000165
000165
000165
000165
000166
003347
003347
003347
003347
003347
003347
003347
003347
003347
003347
001135
000170
000170
004052
000177
000177
VENDOR
NAME
DELL COMPUTER CORPORATI
DELL COMPUTER CORPORATI
DEWITT CUSTOM PAINTING
DISCOUNT CRAFTS LLC
DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
ESGIL CORPORATION
EXPANETS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS IRC
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST SANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FREDERIC R HARRIS INC
GILLILAND, ROBIN
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
2 COMPUTERS FOR TEM. POLICE
SALES TAX
001-170-999-5604
001-170-999-5604
RES. IMPRV. PGRM: REESE
165-199-813-5804
REC SUPPLIES FOR TCC
190-184-999-5301
SUPPLIES FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL 001-164-601-5218
TEMP HELP W/E 12/01/00 EBON
TEMP HELP W/E 12/01/00 EBON
TEMP HELP W/E 12/1/00 HANSEN
TEMP HELP W/E 12/1/00 HANSEN
TEMP HELP W/E 12/1/00 HANSEN
TEMP HELP W/E 12/1/00 HANSEN
340-199-701-5118
340-199-702-5118
001-164-604-5118
190-180-999-5118
001'161'999-5118
001'120'999-5118
PLAN CHECK SERVICES-B&S
001-162-999-5248
PHONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL 320-199-999-5215
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES: H.R.
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES: P.W.
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES: P.W.
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES: P.W.
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES: FINANCE
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES: B&S
001-150-999-5230
001-165-999-5230
001-164-604-5230
001-163-999-5230
001-140-999-5230
001-162-999-5230
LOT BOOK REPORT: SPERA
165-199-999-5250
DEC XX-3083 MN PARADE SUPPLIES
DEC XX-3083 MN ULI-RL PURL.
DEC XX-0902 JO SISTER CITIES
DEC XX-0902 JO JOB FAIR MTG
X'5288 JONES:DEPT SUP/PROF MTG
X'5288 JONES:DEPT SUP/PROF MTG
X-5288 JONES:DEPT SUP/PROF MTG
X-5288 JONES:DEPT SUP/PROF MTG
X-4117 HUGHES:PROF. MEETINGS
X-4117 HUGNES:PROF. MEETINGS
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
001-100-999-5250
001-100-999-5228
001-101-999-5280
001-110-999-5260
320-199-999-5242
001-100-999-5260
001-120-999-5261
320-199-999-5211
001-164-601-5260
001-164-604-5260
001-150-999-5250
DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5220
DAY TIMER SUPPLIES -PLANNING 001-161-999-5220
ENGINEERING SVS. PW95'08 280-199-807-5801
REIMB:SUPPLIES HOLIDAY LIGHTS 190-183-999-5370
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-COPY CTR 330-199-999-5220
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES:CTY CLRK 001-120-999-5220
2,498.00
193.60
1,800.00
31.60
42.15
1,199.34
399.78
345.78
264.42
711.90
305.10
2,722.98
48.00
10.52
55.44
22.72
12.20
12.20
15.56
150.00
43.20
178.15
908.86
64.00
272.42
204.19
66.65
109.35
63.05
69.58
430.00
66.37
86.42
420.00
75.00
34.77
221.18
2,691.60
1,800.00
31.60
42.15
3,226.32
2,722.98
48.00
128.64
150.00
1,979.45
430.00
152.79
420.00
75.00
255.95
VOUCHGE2
12/21/00
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
66523
66524
66525
66526
66527
66528
66529
66530
66530
66531
66532
66532
66532
66532
66532
66532
66532
66533
66534
66535
66536
66536
66537
66537
66538
66539
66540
66541
66542
66542
~542
66542
15:41
CHECK
DATE
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUOHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
000520
GOALWIN, PAMELA
GUTIERREZ, BETH
H D L COREN & CONE INC
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFRESHMENTS FOR EMP. LUNCH
PROPERTY TM ANALYSIS
HALES, KIH
REFUND: DOG OBEDIENCE
002372 HARMON, JUDY
HART, FLOYD
HETTENBACH, FRANCI
001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS &
001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS &
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
REFUND: SPORTS BB MENS LEAGUE
REFUND: SPORTS BEG. BB FUND.
SALES TAX AUDIT SERVICES
SALES TAX RECOVERY FEE
NOME DEPOT
RES. IMPRV. PGRM: UNDERHILL, E
000194
000194
000194
000194
000194
000194
000194
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP
C M A RETIREMENT TAUS 000194 DEF COMP
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP
001407 INTER VALLEY pOOL SUPPL pOOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS
002575 JONES, SUSAN W. REIMB:NEW LAW/ELEC SEM 12/6-8
003223 K E A ENVIRONMENTAL, IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT. PW97-15
000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES
000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES
PLAN CHECK SVS FOR PUB. WORKS
PLAN CHECK SVS. FOR PUB. WORKS
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 12/10/00 KELLY K
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 12/10/00 HANCOCK
003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATE ENGINEER/SURVEYOR SVS PWO0-20
12/21/00 000205 KIDS PARTIES ETC
PARTY JUMP FOR HOLIDAY EVENT
12/21/00 LESLIE, ROBERT
12/21/00 LOWE~S
REFUND: SPORTS BB MENS LEAGUE
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
12/21/00 004141 MAINTEX INC
12/21/00 004141 MAINTEX INC
12/21/00 004141 MAINTEX INC
12/21/00 004141 MAINTEX INC
MAINT FAC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
CRC CUSTOOIAL SUPPLIES
TCC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
SR CTR CUSTOOIAL SUPPLIES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-2900
001-150-999-5265
001-140-999-5248
190-1~-4982
190-183-999-5330
190-187-4961
190-183-4982
001-140-999-5248
001-140-999-5248
165-199-813-5804
001-2080
165-2080
190-2080
193-2080
194-2080
280-2080
300-2080
190-186-999-5250
001-120-999-5261
210-165-631-5801
001-163-999-5248
001-163-999-5248
001-140-999-5118
001-120-999-5118
210-165-611-5802
190-183-999-5370
190-187-4961
190-2900
340-199-702-5212
190-182-999-5212
190-184-999-5212
190-181-999-5212
ITEM
AMOUNT
100.00
137.15
2,400.00
68.00
32.80
40.00
7.50
900.00
1,920.19
920.41
2,253.12
378.34
405.85
30.00
16.04
126.11
50.00
190.~2
2.00
1,220.00
8,075.00
1,820.00
178.20
85.80
1,200.00
175.00
40.00
100.00
34.92
35.13
35.13
35.13
PAGE 5
CHECK
AMOUNT
100.00
137.15
2,400.00
68.00
32.80
40.00
7.50
2,820.19
920.41
3,259.46
190.72
2.00
1,220.00
9,895.00
264.00
1,200.00
175.00
40.00
100.00
VOUCHRE2
12/21/00 15:41
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 6
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
66542
66542
66542
12/21/00 004141
12/21/00 004141
12/21/00 004141
I~AINTEX [NC
MAINTEX INC
MAINTEX INC
MAINT FAC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
CITY HALL CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
340-199-702-5212
340-199-?01-5212
190-182-999-5212
35.13
35.13
34.92
245.49
66543
66544
66545
66545
66545
66546
66546
66546
66547
66548
66549
66550
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
004107 MASSA-LAVITT, SANDRA
003448 MELODYS AD t~ORKS
00138/* MINUTEMAN PRESS
001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS
001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS
000083 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
MORAMARCO, TONY
MURILLO, M. C.
00]964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S
002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
CONSULTING SERVICES:12/05-14
SUPPLIES FOR HOLIDAY-OLD TOWN
BUS.CARDS:BROWNELL/MASSA-LAVIT
BUSINESS CARDS: N. WINDSOR
SALES TAX
CONST.3 DESILTING PNDS:SANTIAG
CONST.1DESILTING PND:J.WARNER
REMOVE SILT/SANDBAGS-VAR. LOC.
REFUND:SPORTS - BB MENS LEAGUE
REFUND: DANCE - BALLROOM
OFFICE SUPPLIES-TARGET CTR STN
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & f~AINT
001-161-999-5248
280-199-999-5250
001-161-999-5222
001-171-999-5222
001-171-999-5222
001-164-601-5401
001-164-601-5401
001-164-601-5402
190-187-4961
190-183-4982
001-170-999-5229
001-164-601-5214
2,094.25
192.91
82.43
38.25
2.96
4,950~00
4,500.00
4,500.00
40.00
15.00
146.53
631.97
2,094.25
192.91
123.64
13,950.00
40.00
15.00
146.53
631.97
66551
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
66552
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
OPTO 22
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC GELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC GELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
REFUND:SPORTS - BB MENS LEAGUE 190-187-4961
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09'12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PBONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09'12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PBONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09'12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
11/09-12/08 CELLULAR PRONE SVC
11/09'12/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PRONE SVC
10/09'11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09'11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PRONE SVC
10/09'11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
001-120-999-5208
001-140-999-5208
001-1990
001-162-999-5208
190-1§0-999-5208
280-199-999-5208
]20-199-999-5208
001-163-999-5208
001-164-601-5208
001-164-602-5208
001-164-604-5208
001-165-999-5208
001-100-999-5208
001-110-999-5208
001-150-999-5208
001-120-999-5208
001-140-999-5208
001-1990
001-162-999-5208
190-180-999-5208
280-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
001-163-999-5208
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC 001-164-601-5208
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC 001'164-602-5208
40.00
111.49
57.92
540.]5
699.54
591.93
61.57
199.89
235.33
241.37
107.48
5].74
517.23
307.65
310~02
64.51
111.49
54.13
491.92
396.07
703.02
91.68
204.55
278.34
175.33
108.25
40.00
VOUCHRE2
12/21/00 15:41
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CNECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 7
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
66552 12/21/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
66552 12/21/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
66552 12/21/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
66552 12/21/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
66552 12/21/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
66553 12/21/00 PAISNER, WILLIAM
66554 12/21/00 PARMA
66555 12/21/00 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA
66555 12/21/00 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA
66555 12/21/00 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA
66555 12/21/00 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA
66556 12/21/00 PENFOLD, LADD
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PHONE SVC
10/09-11/08 CELLULAR PNONE SVC
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
PARMA CF:PAPAGOLOS:2/13-16/01
SUPPLIES FOR SR CTR
SUPPLIES FOR BREAKFAST W/SANTA
SUPPLIES FOR EMP RECOGNITION
SUPPLIES FOR SR CTR
REISS.CK64801:REFUND:ELDG PRMT
66557 12/21/00 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASE
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASE
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASE
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASE
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASE
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASE
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASE
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASE
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASN
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
66558 12/21/00 000249 PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASE REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASE REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASE REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASE REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASE REIMBURSEMENT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-164-604-5208
001-165-999-5208
001-100-999-5208
001-110-999-5208
001-150-999-5208
190-2900
300-199-999-5258
190-181-999-5301
190-183-999-5370
001-150-999-5265
190-181-999-5301
001-162-4285
001-2122
001-161-999-5222
001-150-999-5265
001-150-999-5265
001-150-999-5260
001-171-999-5261
001-171-999-5261
001-140-999-5260
001-162-999-5220
001-164-604-5260
001-100-999-5260
190-180-999-5301
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5350
001-162-999-5261
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5570
190-183-999-5370
190-180-999-5260
190-182-999-5301
190-180-999-5301
001-150-999-5265
190-180-999-5260
001-150-999-5265
280-199-999-5220
165-199-999-5220
001-163-999-5260
001-140-999-5262
001-100-999-5260
ITEM
AMOUNT
54.13
441.06
661.34
237.48
107.53
100.00
250.00
22.84
101.13
85.37
90.04
48.00
154.60
34.34
27.63
43.10
15.07
43.73
1.92
20.00
23.67
7.48
10.40
24.92
25.82
50.00
18.84
12.71
11.41
41.65
13.06
29.71
21.57
24.23
52.95
26.12
20.11
20.11
20.00
57.20
10.00
CHECK
AMOUNT
8,216.34
100.00
250.00
299.38
48.00
154.60
707.75
66560 12/21/00 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-120-999-5230 18.50
66560 12/21/00 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-161-999-5230 74.00
66560 12/21/00 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-164-604-5230 21.25
VOUCHER2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8
12/21/00 15:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOE ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
66560 12/21/00 000253 POSTMASTER
CREDIT:SHIPPING ERROR
001-164-604-5230
21.25-
92.50
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
66561 12/21/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN
NOV VAR. DISPLAY ADS:CITY CLRK 001-120-999-5254
NOV DISPLAY AD:FINANCE 001-140-999-5222
NOV DISPLAY AD:O.T.HOLIDAY:RDA 280-199-999-5362
NOV HOLIDAY IDEA BOOK:RDA 280-199-999-5362
NOV DISPLAY AD:SAFETY EXPO:C.M 001-110-999-5278
NOV DISPLAY ADE:VAR.CIP UPDATE 001-165'999-5256
NOV DISPLAY AD$:VAR.CIP UPDATE 001-165-999-5256
NOV DISPLAY ADS:HONOR WALL:CED 190'180-999'5254
NOV DISPLAY ADS:WTR PARK:TCSD 190'180'999-5254
NOV DISPLAY ADS:TCSD HOLIDAYS 190-180-999'5254
NOV VAR. PUBLIC NTCS:PLANNING 001'161-999'5256
NOV PUBLIC NOTICE:AB 3229 001'120'999-5256
66562 12/21/00 PRESSLEY, BLAKE REFUND: DOG OBEDIENCE 190-183-4982
426.00
201.00
313.50
942.51
201.00
435.65
578.65
325.50
325.50
696.90
77.00
22.50
68.00
4,545.71
68.00
66563 12/21/00 002776 PRIME MATRIX INC NOV 50015~7 SR VAN 190-180-999-5208
66563 12/21/00 002776 PRIME MATRIX IRC NOV 5002330 CITY VAN 190-180-999-5208
49.41
27.68
77.09
66564 12/21/00 003687 QUEST ENVIRONMENTAL REMOVAL/DISPOSAL OF HAZ-MAT 001-164-601-5430
940.00
940.00
66565 12/21/00 000981 R H F INC
RADAR EQUIP REPAIR & MAINT 001-170-999-5215
295.63
295.63
66566 12/21/00
66566 12/21/00
002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK A JAN-MAR BUS.PK ASSOC DUES:DIAZ 001-164-604-5226
002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK A JAN-MAR BUS.PEK ASSOC DUES:C.H 340-199-701-5226
66567 12/21/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIET DEC VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240
66567 12/21/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIET DEC VARIOUS WATER METERS 195-180-999-5240
· 66568 12/21/00
66568 12/21/00
002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN MER REPAIR/MAINT MED.SQUAD VEHICLE 001-171-999-5214
002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN MER REPAIR/MAINT CITY VEHICLE-FIRE 001-171-999-5214
66569 12/21/00 000266 RIGHTWAY
DEC EQUIP RENTAL - RIVERTON PK 190-180-999-5238
1,511.43
1,099.22
2,114.92
1,223.04
46.33
24.22
62.89
2,610.65
3,337.96
70.55
62.89
66570 12/21/00 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & RE APERTURE CARD DUPLICATES 001-163-999-5250
66571 12/21/00 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD CONT ENCROACH.PERMIT FEE:MURR.CREEK 210-165-710-5802
66572 12/21/00 0008~3 ROBERTS, RONALD H. REIMB:CITY LEAGUE CF:12/05-10 001'100-999-5258
66573 12/21/00 ROMAIN, REGINALD REFUND:SPORTS ' BB MENS LEAGUE 190'187-4961
66574 12/21/00 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330
66575 12/21/00 003277 S T A ENGINEERING INC SEP-NOV DSGN SVCS:MARG/BTNWOOD 210-165-714-5802
66576 12/21/00 003576 S Y B TECHNOLOGY INC QTY 4 COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS 320-1970
66576 12/21/00 003576 S Y S TECHNOLOGY INC SALES TAX 320-1970
66577 12/21/00 003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVI DEC CUSTODIAL SVCS FOR PARKS 190-180-999-5250
6.00
500.00
790.40
40.00
546.00
3,140.00
4,152.00
321.78
3,440.00
6.00
500.00
790.40
40.00
546.00
3,140.00
4,4~5.78
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9
12/21/00 15:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CNECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
66577
66577
66578
66579
66579
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
003801 SELF~S JANITORIAL SERVI
003801 SELF~S JANITORIAL SERVI
002681 SILVER LEGACY RESORT &
000645 SMART & FINAL INC
000645 SMART & FINAL INC
DEC CUSTODIAL SVCS FOR 6TN ST
TES/AQUATIC CUSTODIAL SVCS
HTL:ACCELA CF:LB/CB:4/30-5/03
SUPPLIES FOR HOL. LIGHTS/SITES
RECREATION SUPPLIES FOR SR CTR
001-164-603-5250
190-186-999-5212
001-162-999-5261
190-183-999-5370
190-181-999-5301
210.00
210.00
492.80
75.31
116.09
3,860.00
492.80
191.40
66580
66580
66580
66580
66581
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000926 SO CALIF EDISON
DEC 2-00-397'5059 VARIOUS MTRS
DEC 2-07-626'6063 R.VISTA SPR
NOV 2-20-140'9299 VARIOUS MTRS
DEC 2-19-999'9442 VARIOUS MTRS
CHNG OUT SVC PEDESTAL:S.PRK LT
190-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5319
190-180-999-5319
210-165-828-5804
5,347.61
14.26
235.94
1,368.75
129.98
6,966.56
129.98
66582
66582
66582
66582
66582
66582
66582
66582
66583
66586
66585
66586
66587
66587
66587
66587
66588
66589
66590
66590
66590
66591
66591
66592
66592
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
12/21/00
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO EALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
DEC 095-167-7907-2 STN #84
DEC GAS METERS VARIOUS LOC.
DEC GAS METERS VARIOUS LOC.
DEC GAS METERS VARIOUS LOC.
DEC GAS METERS VARIOUS LOC.
DEC GAS METERS VARIOUS LOC.
DEC GAS METERS VARIOUS LOC.
DEC GAS METERS VARIOUS LOC.
ANNUL OPER.FEE:DIESEL GENERATR
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CONTROL SVCS-P.D. CABOOSE
004247 STERICYCLE INC
STRALOW, CECIL
PARAMEDIC SQUAD NED.WASTE DISP
000305 TARGET STORE
000305 TARGET STORE
000305 TARGET STORE
000305 TARGET STORE
001-171-999-5240
190-180-999-5240
190-181-999-5240
190-182-999-5240
190-184-999-5240
190-185-999-5240
190-186-999-5240
340-199-702-5240
001-171-999-5212
001-170-999-5250
001-171-999-5311
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD99-183GR 001-2670
SUPPLIES FOR PW DEPTS
SUPPLIES FOR PW DEPTS
SUPPLIES FOR PW DEPTS
REC SUPPLIES FOR HIGH HOPES
003665 TELEGLOBE BUSINESS SOLU NOV LONG DISTANCE PHONE SVCS
004397 TEMECULA AUTO BODy REPAIR OF CITY VEHICLE
003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LL
003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LL
003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LL
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:TEM PD
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:TEM PD
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:TEM PD
TEMECULA PLAY AND LEARN REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
TEMECULA PLAY AND LEARN REFUND: KITCHEN RENTAL
000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY TROPHIES FOR SPORTS ACTIVITIES
000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY RECOGNITION PLAQUE - MILLER
001-163-999-5220
001-165-999-5220
001-164-604-5220
190-183-999-5320
320-199-999-5208
001-1270
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
190-2900
190-182-4990
190-187-999-5313
190-180-999-5250
346.33
14.69
118.38
813.50
110.63
163.49
3,254.00
115.56
184.29
29.00
46.56
995.00
125.11
125.11
125.11
84.52
1,512.21
3,176.37
1~232.46
45.59
37.89
100.00
11.00
55.00
97.88
4,936.58
184.29
29.00
46.56
995.00
459.85
1,512.21
3,176.37
1,315.94
111.00
152.88
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 10
12/21/00 15:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
66593 12/21/00 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & VAR. PARKS PLUMBING SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5212 540.35 540.35
66594 12/21/00 THREE LAKES FOSTER PARE REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00
66595 12/21/00 TRURSTON, GWER
NOV MILEAGE REIMBURSEMERT 190-186-999-5262 65.26 65.26
66596 12/21/00 003858 TOM RONEY ROOFING
RES IMPRV PROM: KAHLOR, TIM 165-199-813-5804 85.00 85.00
66597 12/21/00 003366 TORAN DEVELOPMENT & CON REPAIR/MAINT OLD TOWN BOARDWLK 001-164-603-5250 24,9~.00 24,975.00
66598 12/21/00 TRUAX~ GARY REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00
66599 12/21/00 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS G TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 230.40
66599 12/21/00 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS G TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 345.60
66599 12/21/00 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS G TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 268.80
66599 12/21/00 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS G TCBD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 307.20
66599 12/21/00 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS G TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 192.00
66599 12/21/00 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS G TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 308.00
1,652.00
66600 12/21/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001-2080 9,448.65
66600 12/21/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 165-2080 101.16
66600 12/21/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMp) 001065 DEF COMP 190-2080 1,792.50
66600 12/21/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 192-2080 3.75
66600 12/21/00 001065 u s c M ~EST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 193-2080 91.67
66600 12/21/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 194-2080 18.75
66600 12/21/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 280-2080 101.16
66600 12/21/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 300-2080 83.33
66600 12/21/00 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 320-2080 1,333.32
66600 12/21/00 001065 U B C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 340-2080 190.79
66601 12/21/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2160 2,494.88
66601 12/21/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 165-2160 93.52
66601 12/21/00 000389 U S G M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 190-2160 877.36
66601 12/21/00 000389 U B C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 193-2160 23.38
66601 12/21/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 280-2160 26.54
66601 12/21/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 320-2160 79.68
66601 12/21/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 330-2160 23.24
66601 12/21/00 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 340-2160 9.64
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 001-2120 281.75
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 165-2120 11.00
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 190-2120 31.10
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 192-2120 .05
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 193-2120 1.90
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 194-2120 .35
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 U~ 280-2120 3.50
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 300-2120 1.25
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 320-2120 9.00
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 330-2120 1.50
66602 12/21/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 340-2120 .60
13,165.08
3,620.24
342.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 11
12/21/00 15:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VCUCHEH/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
66603 12/21/00
66604 12/21/00
66604 12/21/00
66604 12/21/00
66604 12/21/00
66605 12/21/00
66606 12/21/00
66607 12/21/00
66608 12/21/00
66609 12/21/0q
66610 12/21/00
66610 12/21/00
66610 12/21/00
66610 12/21/00
66610 12/21/00
66610 12/21/00
66611 12/21/00
VENDOR ITEM
NAME DESCRIPTION
000854 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE PUBLICATION?SUSTAINABLE DEV"
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
DEC XXX-O073 GENERAL USAGE
DEC XXX-O074 GENERAL USAGE
DEC XXX-3564 ALARM
DEC XXX'5072 GENERAL USAGE
WADE STEEL CONSTRUCTION REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
WASSAN~ KIM
REFUND:SPORTS - BB MENS LEAGUE
WENZEL, ROBERT
REFUND:SPORTS - BB MENS LEAGUE
003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN CITYWIDE TREE TRIMMING SVCS
WRIGHT, TIM
REFUND:SPORTS - BB MENS LEAGUE
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI OCT LEASE-DC240/5365 COPIERS
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI OCT LEASE OF 5021 COPIER
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI OCT INTEREST-DC240/5365 COPIER
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI OCT POOLED MAINT/SUPPLIES
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI OCT LEASE-5800 COPIER
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI MAINT/SUPPLIES FOR 5800 COPIER
003607 XPECT FIRST AID
CITY HALL FIRST AID SUPPLIES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001'161-999-5228
320-199'999'5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199'999'5208
320-199'999-5208
190-2900
190-187-4961
190'187-4961
001-164'601'5402
190-187-4961
330-2800
190-184-999-5239
330'199-99~-5391
330'199-999-5217
330-2800
330'199'999'5391
340-199'701'5250
ITEM
AMOUNT
60.19
1,683.16
515.87
110.40
6,089.69
100.00
40.00
40.00
3,481.80
40.00
1,700.02
120.54
480.48
1,550.24
1,729.91
651.56
221.83
CHECK
AMOUNT
60.19
8,399.12
100.00
40.00
40.00
3,481.80
40.00
6,232.75
221.83
TOTAL CHECKS 290,079.92
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4
12/28/00 13:12 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND
165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
310 VEHICLES FUND
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
AMOUNT
32,106.82
43,334.40
270.00
1,724.39
3,420.12
547.50
57,858.04
218.T5
TOTAL 139,480.00
VOUCHRE2
12128/00 13:12
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
66614 12/28/00
66615 12/28/00
~615 12/28/00
66616 12/28/00
66617 12/28/00
66618 12/28/00 000154
66619 12/28/00 002534
66619 12/28/00 002534
66620 12/28/00 001923
66621 12/28/00 001014
66622 12/28/00 002631
66623 12/28/00 003272
66623 12/28/00 003272
66624 12/28/00 003384
66625 12/28/00 001669
66626 12/28/00 001380
66626 12/28/00 001380
66626 12/28/00 001380
66626 12/28/00 001380
66627 12/28/00 000517
66627 12/28/00 000517
66627 12/28/00 000517
66627 12/28/00 000517
66628 12/28/00 002060
66629 12/28/00
66630 12/28/00
66631 12/28/00 000177
66632 12/28/00 001609
66633 12/28/00
66633 12/28/00
66633 12/28/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
000195 ABCOM HASLER MAILING SY POSTAGE METER RENTAL & RESETS
002648 AUTO CLUE OF SCUTBERN C MEMBERSHIP DUES:MIKE HUDSON
002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C MEMBERSHIP DUES:JIM SMITH
BUSINESS FURN.SOLUTIONS REFUND:SPORTS-BB NEWS LEAGUE
CALPELRA
CSMFO
CATERERS CAFE
CATERERS CAFE
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
ANN'L MEMBERSHIP: GRANT YATES
ANN'L CF:G.ROBERTB:2/25-27/01
CATERERS FOR BRKFST W/SANTA
EMPLOYEE LUNCHEON DEC 14,2000
GEOTECH SVC:PAVEMENT MGMT PRJT
COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS FACADE IMPR PRGM:HEALTH INSUR
COUNTS UNLIMITED INC CITYWIDE TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
DAISY WHEEL RIBBON COMP PLOTTER PAPER FOR PLANNING
DAISY WHEEL RIBBON COMP PLOTTER PAPER FOR PLANNING
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
330-199-999-5239
001-165-999-5214
001-164-601-5214
190-187-4961
001-150-999-5226
001-140-999-5258
190-183-999-5370
001-150-999-5265
210-165-655-5804
280-199-813-5804
001-164-602-5250
001-161-610-5220
001-161-610-5220
DRAIN PATROL WATER BOILER TEMP REPAIR:STN84 001-171-999-5212
DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO SUPPLIES FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL
E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 11/03 RUSH
E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 11/17 RUSH
E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 12/01RUSB
E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 12/15 RUSH
ENTENMANN ROVIN & COMPA POLICE BADGE FOR JEFF STONE
ENTENMANN ROVIN & COMPA WALLET FOR BADGE
ENTENMANN ROVIN & COMPA FREIGHT
ENTENMANN ROVIN & COMPA SALES TAX
EUROPEAN DEL1 & CATERIN REFSHMNTS:COUNCIL MTG 12/19/00
FOUR SHER DEVELOPMENT REFD: 26090 YNEZ RD LD96-161GR
GAETA, DORA LUZ REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 2 FILING CABINETS:FIRE DEPT
GREATER ALARM COMPANY [ ALARM MONITORING:POLICE CABBO0 001-170-999-5250
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTA MBSHP RENEWAL:JERRY GONZALEZ 001-164-602-5226
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTA TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUALS: PW 001-164-602-5228
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTA TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUALS: PW 001-164~604-5228
001-164-601-5218
001-161-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5260
001-2670
190-2900
001-171-999-5220
ITEM
AMOUNT
218.73
43.00
43.00
40.00
195.00
225.00
1,320.00
1,950.00
2,945.30
142.50
2,682.50
762.64
894.32
125.00
296.58
1,685.68
2,051.65
1,763.31
1,774.40
61.20
35.00
6.94
7.46
174.99
995.00
100.00
1,622.31
75.00
194.00
250.00
229.30
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
218.73
86.00
40.00
195.00
225.00
3,270.00
2,945.30
142.50
2,682.50
1,656.96
125.00
296.58
7,275.04
110.60
174.99
995.00
100.00
1,622.31
75.00
VOUCHRE2
12/28/00 13:12
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
66634 12/28/00
66635 12/28/00
66636 12/28/00
66636 12/28/00
66637 12/28/00
66638 12/28/00
66639 12/28/00
66639 12/28/00
66639 12/28/00
66639 12/28/00
66640 12/28/00
66641 12/28/00
6~42 12/28/00
66642 12/28/00
66642 12/28/00
66643 12/28/00
66644 12/28/00
66645 12/28/00
66645 12/28/00
66646 12/28/00
666/.6 12/28/00
66647 12/28/00
66647 12/28/00
66648 12/28/00
66649 12/28/00
66650 12/28/00
66650 12/28/00
66650 12/28/00
66651 12/28/00
66652 12/28/00
66653 12/28/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR
NUMBER
000388
000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC
000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC
000944 MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY I
MESSNER, GARY
000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES
000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES
000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES
000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES
002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS
004391 NATIONAL AIR HVAC COMPA
002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT
002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT
002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT
003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S
002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN HER
002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN HER
REGUS, MICHAEL
REGUS, MICHAEL
VENDOR ITEM
NAME DESCRIPTION
INTL CONFERENCE BLDG OF CD ROM:MEANS OF EGRESS(MOECD1)
LUDWIG, WALT F. REFD:DEPST LD95-146GR PASEO SE
CIP APPENDIX TABS
SALES TAX
TOULS/EQUIP:TRAFFIC DIVISION
REFD:PAR MAP 29055 LD99-O12GR
99-00 ANNUAL CITY AUDIT
99-00 ANNUAL SINGLE AUDIT
99-00 ANNUAL RDA AUDIT
99-00 ANNUAL RDA AUDIT
AUTO PARTS & SUPPLIES:PW TRUCK
WATER BOILER REPAIR:STN 84
DISPLAY ADS:EARLY VOTE NOTICE
DISPLAY ADS:EARLY VOTE NOTICE
DISPLAY AD:CONSTRUCTION NOTICE
OFFICE SUPPLIES: POLICE DEPT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS
COMMER TRUCK FOR PW MNTC DEPT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-162-999-5228
001-2670
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-164-602-5242
001-2670
001-140-999-5248
001-140-999-5248
280-199-999-5248
165-199-999-5248
001-164-601-5215
001-171-999-5212
001-120-999-5254
001-120-999-5254
001-165-999-5256
001-170-999-5229
001-110-999-5214
001-171-999-5214
310-1910
REFD:DEPST LD99-O21GR TR9833-2 001-2670
REFD:DEPST LD99-O21GR TR9833-2 001-2670
001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO TECHN OCT EMERG. RADIO RENTAL:P.D.
001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO TECHN NOV EMERG. RADIO RENTAL:P.D.
000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ADD~L SVCS:RACE FOR THE CURE
ROBINSON, JILL
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
EE COMPUTER PURCHASE PROGRAM
2-21-518-0340 32444 S HWY-79
2-21-981-4720 30153 S HWY-79
2-21-560-5874 40002 MARGARITA
000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY EMPLOYEE OF THE QTR AWARD
003074 TEMECULA VALLEY ROSE SO 00-01COMM SERV FUNDING AWARD
TEMEKU HILLS DEVELOPMEN REFD:DEPST T#28526 LD98-149GN
001-170-999-5238
001-170-999-5238
001-170-999-5370
001-1175
190-180-999-5319
210-165-631-5801
190-180-999-5319
001-150-999-5265
001-101-999-5267
001-2670
ITEM
AMOUNT
91.58
995.00
142.00
11.01
726.24
495.00
1,094.50
135.00
270.00
270.00
23.73
465.07
160.21
55.21
481.69
30.82
129.97
15.49
57,858.04
500.00
495.00
282.75
282.75
2,522.13
2,000.00
216.75
13.82
47.64
61.63
2,000.00
600.00
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
91.58
995.00
153.01
726.24
495.00
1,769.50
23.73
465.07
697.11
30.82
129.97
57,873.53
995.00
565.50
2,522,13
2,000.00
278.21
61.63
2,000.00
600.00
VOUCHRE2
12/28/00 13:12
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
HUMBER DATE
66654 12/28/00
66654 12/28/00
66655 12/28/00
66656 12/28/00
66657 12/28/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
001483 TOM DOOSON & ASSOCIATES CONSULTANT SVC:IST BRDG PW9508 280-199-807-5804
001483 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES CONSULTANT SVC:MURR CRK BRDG 210-165-707-5801
003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE REFLECTIVE PARKJ~ JACKET/HAT:PW 001-164-601-5218
WESTERN COMMERCIAL REFD:LD99-O61GR PROMENADE MALL 001-2670
003786 WESTSIDE CITY II, LLC DIF AGRMNT:BO0-1232/1057/1550 120-199-4242
ITEM
AMOUNT
135.00
461.00
121.76
45.00
43,334.40
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
596.00
121.76
45.00
43,334.40
TOTAL CHECKS 139,480.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2
12/28/00 13:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AMOUNT
59,378.18
1,275,218.40
149,141.37
513,909.30
113,170.00
35,395.77
TOTAL 2,146,213.02
VOUCBRE2
12/28/00
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
66660
66661
66662
66663
66663
66664
66664
66665
66665
66666
66667
66668
66668
66669
66670
66671
66672
66672
66673
66674
66675
13:30
CHECK
DATE
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
01/09/01
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
003394 AIRGAS FIRE PROTECTION
004021 AMERICAN VINEYARD FOUND
~000128 CAL SURANCE ASSOCIATES
004194 D L T SOLUTIONS INC
004194 D L T SOLUTIONS IRC
004053
004053
001719
001719
000210
003286
004144
004144
004390
002072
003591
002181
002181
004186
003599 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL
001035 TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL
HABITAT WEST INC
HABITAT WEST INC
L P A INC
L P A INC
LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES
LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, I
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, I
NATELSON COMPANY
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
FIRE SUPPRESS SYS UPGRA~)E:A/V
PIERCES DISEASE RESEARCH PRJT
LIABILITY/AUTO INS.PREMIUM PMT
COLOR SCANNER FOR INFO SYSTEMS
SALES TAX
PRGS PMT #2:PALA BDG:PW97-15
RET W/H PMT #2:PALA BDG:PW9715
SCNEMATIC DESIGN-LIBRARY PROJ
REIMB-DESIGN LIBRARY PROJ
CITY ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES
NOV SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMNT
ITS PRGS PMT:PW99-05
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
320-199-999-5250
001-101-999-5285
300-1655
320-1970
320-1970
210-165-631-5804
210-2035
210-199-129-5802
210-199-129-5002
001-100-999-5226
001-101-999-5285
210-165-607-5802
CRDT:EXCESS ROUND TRIP MILLEAG 210-165-607-5802
WATER PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 210-190-170-5802
RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 1-1/2 WATER METER CONNECTION 210-165-631-5804
RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE WEED SPRAYING/ABATEMNT:VAR.LOC 001-164-601-5402
RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION NOV PRGSS:I ST BRDGE PW95-08 280-199-807-5804
RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RETENTION:I ST BRDG PW95-08 280-2035
RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION- RET TO ESCROW ACCT:PW95-08 280-1035
NOV DESIGN SVCS:R.C.BRIDGE PJT 210-165-710-5802
JUL-DEC 2000 WASTE MGMT SVCS 194-180-999-5315
ITEM
AMOUNT
5,152.50
36,362.00
113,170.00
28,068.00
2,175.27
22,593.00
2,259.00-
52,444.60
65.36
8,504.00
7,562.18
46,358.00
249.35-
9,500.00
5,588.00
6,950.00
513,909.30
51,390.93-
51,390.93
15,100.76
1,275,218.40
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
5,152.50
36,362.00
113,170.00
30,243.27
20,334.00
52,509.96
8,504.00
7,562.18
46,108.65
9,500.00
5,588.00
6,950.00
462,518.37
51,390.93
15,100.76
TOTAL CBECKS 2,146,213.02
ITEM 4
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FIN~%NC~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManaGer/City Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
January 9, 2001
City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2000
PREPARED BY:
Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director~~'''
Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant ~
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report
as of November 30, 2000.
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 November 30, 2000.
The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and
53635 as of November 30, 2000.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments: 1. City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2000
2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of November 30, 2000
3. Fund Equity Detail by Fund as of November 30, 2000
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
As of November 30, 2000
Cash Actlvit~ for the Month of November
Cash and Invcstmentz az of Now-mb~r 1, 2000
$ 52,999,958
3,044,907
(4,115,956)
$ 51,928,909
Cash and Investments portfolio:
(Investment Agr~m~nt)
Matmlt~/
T~mination
Institution Yield Dat~
Cit~ Hall n/a $
Otighm~rk U.S. Tracery)
1,500 $ 1,500
(550,466) (550,466) (I)
556,239 556,239
4,699 4,699
46,327,450 46,327,450 (2)
185,440 185,440
276,222 276,222
6,360 6,360
192,827 192,827
1,531,469 1,531,469
500,000 500,000
575 575
944,425 944,425
540 540
502,690 502,690
1,448,920 1,448,920
$ 51,928,909
City of Temecula
Schedule of Assets. Liabilities, and Fund Balances
As of November 30. 2000
Prepaid assets
ciV(l)
Commu. i~y Community
Services Redevelopment Facilities
Distsict Agency Districts (2) Total
38,699,061 $ 980,710 $ 8,664,416 $ 3,584,722 $ 51,928,909
7,529,499 947 2,227,819 6,621 9,764,886
1,432,987 19,220 5,059 1,457,266
530,401 2,103,053 2,633,454
51,550 51,550
382,868 382,868
1,272,389 1,272,389
49,898,755 $ 1,000,877 $ 12,995,288 $ 3,596,402 $ 67,491,322
Liabilities andfundequity:
Liabilities:
Due to other funds
Other liabilities
Deferred revenue
Total liabilitie~
Fund equity:
Conttibut~d capital
Reset'ed (3)
1,452,207 $ 5,059 $ 1,457,266
6,541,833 $ 105.948 $ 248,098 3,559,323 10.455.202
489,301 1,007,464 1,496,765
8,483,341 105,948 1,255,562 3,564,382 13.409,233
1,281,780
1,026,595
9,267,358 1,342,232
28,569,408 215,235
1,270,273 (662,538)
41.415,414 894,929
1,281,780
1,026.595
11,979,280 22,588,870
32,020 28,816,663
(239,554) 368,181
11,739,726 32,020 54,082,089
$ 49,898,755 $ 1,000,877 $ 12,995,288 $ 3,596,402 $ 67,491,322
(1) Includes General Fund, CIP Fund, Gas Tax Fund, and other special m-venue funds.
{2) Includes CFD 88-12 (Ynez Cowidor) and CFD 98-1 (WJnehestar Hills).
(3) Reservations and desiguations of fund balance are detailed on the following pages.
ITEM 5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
APPROVAL
CITYATTORNEY
DIRECTOROF FINANCE_,~;~
CITY MANAGER
,'h[,~William G. Hughes, DirectorofPublicWorks/City Engineer
Janua~ 9,2001
State of California Energy Commission Grants and Loans Office - Peak
Loan Reduction Program - Light' Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal
Conversion Grant Award
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION AND THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AND DESIGNATING THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER AS THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE TO IMPLEMENT AND CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES OF THE GRANT AWARD OF $140,870.00 TO
REPLACE INCANDESCENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTS WITH
LIGHT EMITTING DIODES AT EACH TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
INTERSECTION WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
Approve a Grant Funding appropriation in the amount of $140,870.00 from State Energy
Commission.
Approve a budget transfer of $175,000.00 in Capital Reserves from the Santiago / Ynez
Road / intersection and Signal improvement Project to the Light Emitting Diode's Grant
Project.
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula was successful in obtaining a State of Califomia
Energy Commission Grant Award to retrofit all traffic signal incandescent lights to Light Emitting
Diode's (LED's) within the City. The California Energy Commission has implemented this retrofit
rebate program to all state, local and regional agencies to encourage the replacement of
incandescent lights with those using LED's in an effort to reduce peak electricity demands
throughout the State of California.
1
R:~Agdrpt~2001\0109\CEC Grant Reso.jcd
This program will provide funding for approximately 45% of our replacement costs associated With
each traffic signal and intersection within our City. The grant award amount is $140,870.00; our
costs are $174,130.00 for total project costs of $315,000.00. The energy costs savings are
substantial and our overall estimated savings as a result of replacement of the traffic signal
incandescent lights with the LED's is approximately $93,552.00 per year. This savings would
provide a project payback in less than two (2) years.
Our project has been accepted and approved by the California Energy Commission and an award
package will be forthcoming for signature.
Staff recommends that the Santiago/Ynez Road intersection signal improvement project funds be
transferred to the Light Emitting Diode (LED) project. The Ynez Road / Santiago intersection
project is a project to modify the signal phasing to improve traffic flow. Our Traffic Division has
been able to complete the project for substantially less than the original budgeted amount.
FISCAL IMPACT: Capital Reserve Funds in the amount of $175,000 are available in the
Santiago/Ynez Road Intersection Improvement Project Account Number 210-165-616-5804 to
cover the City's share of the LED conversion project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2001-
2. Application and Guidelines for Light Emitting Diode Traffic Signal Conversion Program -
State of California Energy Commission
3. Funding Agreement Terms & Conditions - California Energy Commission
2
R:~Agdrpt~2001\0109\CEC Grant Reso.jcd
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETVVEEN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION AND THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AND DESIGNATING THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER AS THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE TO IMPLEMENT AND CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES OF THE GRANT AWARD OF $140,870.00 TO
REPLACE INCANDESCENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTS WITH
LIGHT EMITTING DIODES AT EACH TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
INTERSECTION WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
WHEREAS, before the California Energy Commission will provide grant funds for the Peak
Loan Reduction Program - Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program the CITY
Oi~ TEMECULA and the CEC are required to enter into a funding agreement and the CITY OF
TEMECULA will designate an authorized representative to execute such agreement.
WHEREAS, the Funding Agreement will provide a grant award in the amount of $140,870
for Fiscal Year 2000/01, for construction of said project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula, as
follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby approves the Funding Award Agreement between
the State of California Energy Commission and the City of Temecula and hereby authorizes the
Mayor to execute the Agreement in substantially the form submitted to the Council.
Section 2. The Director of Public Works is authorized and directed to execute such further
documents and take such further actions as necessary to implement the terms of the Agreement
and Grant.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall codify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 9th day of January 2001.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
3
R:~Agdrpt~001\0109\CEC Grant Reso.jcd
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, 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 therefore held on the 9th day of January 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
4
R:~Agdrpt~2001\0109\CEC Grant Reso.jcd
~STATE'OF cALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
~1516 NINTH STREET
ISACRAMENTO, CA 95814-5512
(916) 654-4381
RECEIVE
DEC 0 1 ZOO0 -~
CITY OF TE~-,.iECULA
ENG, '~bcRhNG DEPARTMENT
Novcrnbcr 30, 2000
Mr. Ali Moghadam
Sr. Engineer-Traffic Division
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Moghadam:
GRANT AWARD NUNIBER LED-00A-002
Your Light Emitting Diode Traffic Signal Conversion Grant has been approved.
APPROVED AWARD
PURPOSE:
CONVERSION OF RED, GREEN AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNALS FROM
INCANDESCENT TO LEDS.
AWARD AMOUNT: $140,870.00
TERM: 1/1/01 - 6/1/01
CEC PROJECT MANAGER: IV[ERRYBRONSON
PROCEDURE FOR EXECUTING AGREEMENT
Enclosed are six copies of the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note. Please have each
agreement and note signed by the authorized person. Retain one copy of each and
return five signed copies with an original signed copy of a resolution from your
governing body to this office.
Additionally, payment request forms are enclosed which should be retained in your files
for future use.
This grant award agreement is not binding on either party until fully and properly
executed by the authorized state officials. A copy of this agreement will be sent to you
when it has been executed by the state.
GLI2-209
November 30, 2000
Page 2
The California Energy Commission (Commission) agrees to keep this offer open for a
period of 30 days from the date of this letter. Failure to execute this agreement within
this 30 day period may result in forfeiture of the award.
FLrND AVAILABILITY
· · These funds have a limited period in which they may be used. All recipient expenditures
must occur prior to the end of the term of this agreement.
PROJECT ASSISTANCE
Them are two offices at the Commission with staff to assist you with YOur contingent award.
Contact me at (916) 654-4381 for administrative questions and the Commission Project Manager
listed above for technical questions.
Sincerely,
ARLENE WINTER
Grants and Loans Office
Enclosures
cc: Merry Bronson, Energy Commission
Accounting Office, Energy Commission
GL12-209
,~ STATE OF CALtFORNIA CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
GRANT AGREEMENT
· ~ This agreement is official notification of a grant award from the California Energy Commission. The attachments listed below are
incorporated as part of this grant agreement.
City of Temecula LED-00A-002
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 1/1/01 - 6/1/01
California Energy Commission, Merry Bronson (916) 654-4104
1516 9th St.-MS-26, Sacramento, CA 95814
This project involves the conversion of 2132 red, green and pedestrian traffic signals from
incandescent to those using light emitting diodes at 74 intersections.
CEC: $140,670.00
AB970 Efficiency Grant Pro(
$140,870.00
ram
ITEM
General
°~'~29 ,,A,v,,
0001-3360-506 2000
$ Light Emitting Diode Traffic Signal Conversion
$ 140,870.00 4600-632.99-46250
I hereby certity upon my own personal knowledge ;hat budgeted tunds are availadle for the period and purpose stated above·
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Mark Hutchison
I, Terms and Conditions
OATE
654-6718
2. Current & Proposed Traffic Signals
3. Project Budget
4. Work Statement
5. Resoludon/Comminee Approval
6. Special Conditions
RECIPIENT
GLl2-207
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
SECTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
'18.
19.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
GRANT AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 1
· ATTACHMENTS AND REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 1
FUNDING LLMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 3
DUE DILIGENCE .......................................................................................................................... 4
PRODUCTS ..................................................................................................................................4
REPORTS ................................................. ~ .................................................................................. 4
LEGAL STATEMENT ON REPORTS AND'PRODUCTS ...................................................................... 6
AMENDMENIS ............................................................................................................................ 7
CO~CTING AND PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES .......................... ~ .......... '. ............................... 7
BONDING AND INSURANCE ......................................................................................................... 8
PERMITS AND CLEARANCES ....................................................................................................... 8
EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... i ............................................ 8
TERMINATION .... . ....................... 9
TRAVEL AND PER DIEM .................................. :..: ........................................................................ 9
LICENSE ................................... ~ ............................................................................................... 12
STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE .................................................................................................. 12
PAYMENT OF FtYNDS .......................................................... , ..................................................... 13
~3SCAL ^CCOUNT~G REQUmEMENTS ...................................................................................... 15
INDEMNIFICATION .................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)
PAGE NO.
DISPUTES .................................................................................................................................. 16
WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE .............. : .................................................................... 18
GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................................................. 18
CER 1 ~ICATIONS & COMPLIANCE .............................................................................................20
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PEAK LOAD REDUCTION PROGRAM GRANTS ....................... 23
EX~rr A .................................. 27
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
GRANT AGREEMENT
This project is being funded with a grant from the California Energy Commission
(Commission). Funding for this project was authorized by Assembly Bill No. 970, Chapter
329, Statutes of 2000, and consists of funds from the General Fund.
This agreement is comprised of the grant funding award, the Terms and Conditions, and all
attachments. These Terms and Conditions am standard requirements for grant awards. The
Commission may impose additional special conditions in this grant agreement which
address the unique circumstances of this project. Special conditions that conflict with these
standard provisions take precedence.
The recipient shall sign all six copies of this agreement and return five signed packages to
the Commission's Grants and Loans Office within 30 days. Failure to meet this requirement
may result in the forfeiture of this award. When all required signatures are obtained, an
executed copy will be returned to the recipient. The recipient also must provide written
documentation that a separate ledger account or fund has been established by the recipient
for receipt and disbursement of Commission funds.
Commission-funded work cannot begin prior to the agreement term date. This agreement is
not effective until it is signed by all parties.
ATTACHMENTS AND REFERENCES
The following are attached and hereby expressly incorporated into this agreement.
· Work Statement.
· Budget.
· Resolution of the Recipient or Local Jurisdiction Governing Body (if applicable).
· Resolution of the Calilbrnia Energy Commission (if applicable).
The following checked items are attached and hereby expressly incorporated.
Assurances--Non-Construction Programs.
Assurances of Compliance, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs.
Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other
Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.
Intellectual Property Provisions.
X Special Conditions.
Other:
None
T & C - AB970 I NOVEblBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars and/or federal regulations checked
below are incorporated by reference as part of this agreement. These Terms and Conditions
and any Special Conditions take precedence over the circulars and/or regulations checked
below. OMB Circulars may be accessed on the OMB web site at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html or by calling the Office of Administration,
Publications Office, at (202) 395-7332.
Common Rule for Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments
OMB Cimular A-110:
Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals,
and Other Non-Profit Organizations
(also applicable to private entities)
10 c~m Part 600: DOE Financial Assistance Regulations
(www.pr.doe.gov/f600toc.html)
OMB Circular A-87: Cost Principles for State, Local and Tribal Governments
OMB Circular A-21:
Cost Principles Applicable to Grants, Contracts, and Other
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education (public
and private colleges and universities)
OMB Circular A-122:
Cost Principles Applicable to Grants, Contracts, and Other
Agreements with Non-Profit Organizations (non-profit
organizations and individuals, except for those specifically
exempted)
OMB CirCular A-133: Audits of States, Local Governments, and
Non-Profit Organizations
Title 48 CFR, Ch. 1, Subpart 31.2: Contracts with Commercial Organizations
(Supplemented by 48 CFR, Ch. 9, Subpart 931.2 for
Department of Energy grants) (commercial firms and certain
non-profit organizations)
(www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html)
· Other:
X None
T & C- AB970 2 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
FUNDING LIMITATIONS
Any federal, state, and local laws and regulations applicable to your project not expressly
listed in this agreement are incorporated herein as part of this agreement.
The funding source(s) and applicable restriction(s) checked below apply to this grant:
Funding for this agreement is dependent upon a federal grant agreement which is
scheduled to terminate on Funding for this agreement is
subject to the approval of the applicable federal government agency, federal law,
federal court judgments, and/or federal agency orders which may affect the
provisions or terms of this agreement.
EXXON SETTLEMENT
Grant funds may not be used to reimburse indirect charges~.
STRIPPER WELL SETTLEMENT
Indirect charges~ up to 5 percent are allowed if included in the grant budget.
WARNER AMENDMENT
Grant funds may not be used to reimburse indirect charges~.
STATE ENERGY PLAN (SEP)
Funding for this agreement is approved as part of the SEP annual grant. This
grant terminates on June 30 of each year and must be extended annually. Grant
funds may be used only as approved in the California SEP. Projects included in
SEP may be required to submit annual energy savings reports.
X SUPPLANTING
Grant funds may not be used to. supplant (i.e., take the place of) previously budgeted
funds for this project, whether recipient funds or funding from other grants. This
includes budgeting for staff, contractors, or supplies. Funds may be used to
supplement an existing budget. '
Other:
None
~ Indirect charges are those incurred for a colnmon or joint purpose benefiting more than
one activity. Examples would be pffice space rental, establishment and maintenance of the grant
program, and preparation and maintenance of payroll and related wage records.
T& C - AB970 3 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
DUE DILIGENCE .
The recipient is required to take timely actions which, taken collectively, move this project
to completion. The Commission Project Manager will periodically evaluate the schedule
for completion of Work Statement tasks. If the Commission Project Manager determines
(1) the recipient is not being diligent in completing the tasks in the Work Statement or (2)
the time remaining in the funding award is insufficient to complete all project work tasks
not later than the agreement term date, the Project Manager may recommend to the
Committee of the Commission (Committee) or Commission, whoever approved the award,
that this agreement be terminated, and the Committee or Commission may, without
prejudice to any of its remedies, terminate this agreement.
PRODUCTS
Products are defined as any tangible item specified in the Work Statement. Unless
otherwise directed, draft copies of all products identified in the Work Statement shall be
submitted to the Commission Project Manager for review and comment. The recipient
will submit an original and two copies of the final version of all products to the
Commission Project Manager. If the Commission Project Manager determines a product
is substandard, given the description and intended use of the product as described in the
Work Statement and the grant application, the Commission Project Manager may refuse
to authorize payment for the product and any subsequent products that rely upon or are
based upon that product under this agreement.
REPORTS
a. Quarterly Progress Reports
The recipient shall submit quarterly progress reports to the Commission Project
Manager unless another schedule is indicated in the Special Conditions or Work
Statement. They are due according to the following schedule.
Quarter Report Due
January - March April 5
April - June July 5
July - September October 5
October - December January 5
T & C- AB970 4 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
bo
Unless otherwise indicated in the Work Statement or Special Conditions, each
progress report should include a discussion of the status of each of the following:
Work Statement: This section should include a brief restatement of the ~ipproved
tasks in the Work Statement and a report on the status of each. Included should be a
discussion of any products due and whether or not the project is progressing
according to schedule. This section also should include a discussion of any
problems encountered, proposed changes to the tasks in the Work Statement, and
anticipated accomplishments in the upcoming quarter.
Financial Status: This section should include a 'task-by-task narrative report
comparing costs to date with the approved Budget. The report should state whether
or not the project is progressing within the approved Budget and discuss any
proposed changes.
Final Reports
A draft final report shall be submitted to the Commission Project Manager no later
than 60 days prior to the end of the agreement term unless another timeframe is
indicated in the Special Conditions or Work Statement. Unless indicated otherwise
in the Work Statement or Special Conditions, the report shall include:
· Table of Contents.
· Abstract.
A brief summary of the objectives of the project and how these objectives
were accomplished.
Any findings, conclusions, or recommendations for follow-up or ongoing
activities that might result from the successful completion of the project.
A statement of future intent of the grant recipient to maintain or further
develop the project.
A Payment Request form for the final payment (including any retention).
A consolidated list of subcontractors funded in whole or in part by the grant
recipient. Include the name, address, concise statement of work done,
period, and value or each.
The Commission Project Manager will review the draft report. The recipient will
incorporate applicable comments and submit the final report (the original and two
copies) to the Commission Project Manager.
Upon receipt of the final report, the Commission Project Manager shall ensure that
all work has been satisfactorily completed.
T & C- AB970 5 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
c. Rights in Reports
The Commission reserves the right to use and reproduce all reports and data
produced and delivered pursuant to this agreement,' and reserves the right to
authorize others to use or reproduce such materials. Each report becomes the
property of the Commission.
d. Failure to Comply with Reporting Requirements
Failure to comply with the reporting requirements contained in this award will be
considered a material noncompliance with the terms of the award. Noncompliance
may result in withholding of future payments, suspension or termination of the
current award, and withholding of future awards. A willful failure to perform, a
history of failure to perform, or of unsatisfactory performance of this and/or other
financial assistance awards, may also result in a debarment action to preclude future
awards.
LEGAL STATEMENT ON REPORTS AND PRODUCTS
No product or report produced as a result of work funded by this program shall be
represented to'be endorsed by the Commission, and all Such products or reports shall
include the applicable checked statement as follows:
Nonfederal Grant
LEGAL NOTICE
This document was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the
California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the
views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of
California. The Commission, the State of California, its employees,
contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, express or implied, and
assume no legal liability for the information in this document; nor does
any party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon
· privately owned rights.
Federal Grant
LEGALNOTICE
This document ~vas prepared tis a result of work sponsored by the
Calitbrnia Energy Commission through a federal grant agreement number
with . It
does not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Government, the.
Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The
Federal Government, the Commission, the State of Calitbrnia, its
employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, express 6r
implied, and assume no legal liability for the intbrmation in this
document; nor does any party represent that the use of this information
will not infringe upon privately owned rights.
T & C - AB970 6 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
AMENDN~NTS
Changes to the Work Statement, changes to specific line items in the budget, or both, may
be made under certain conditions. Such changes must not alter the original scope or
purpose of the project or program as proposed in the grant application. Such changes must
not appreciably affect the value of the project or program. Work Statement changes and/or
cumulative transfers .among budget line items that exceed 10 percent of the grant award
require advance written approval of the Commission Project Manager and Grants and Loans
Office. All requests must be submitted directly to the Commission Project Manager in
writing and include a description of the proposed change, revised attachment(s), and the
reasons for the change. If the change is approved, the affected sections of the agreement
will be amended and signed by the Commission Project Manager, Grants and Loans Office;
and the recipient's authorized representative.
For federally funded grants, amendments may also require prior written approval from the
federal grantor agency.
CON'q~A~G AND PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES
This section provides general requirements for an agreement between the recipient and a
third party ("subcontractor").
The recipient is required, where feasible, to employ contracting and procurement practices
that promote open competition for all goods and services needed to complete this project.
Recipient shall obtain price quotes from an adequate number of sources for all subcontracts.
If OMB Circulars and/or federal regulations are checked in Section 2 of these Terms and
Conditions, subcontracting criteria are specified in the OMB Circulars incorporated by
reference in this agreement and checked in Section 2.
The Commission will defer to the recipient's own regulations aiad procedures as long as they
reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations and are not in conflict with the
minimum.standards specified in this agreement and any OMB Circulars incorporated by
reference in this agreement and checked in Section 2.
Upon request, the recipient must submit to the Commission Project Manager a copy of all
solicitations for services or products required to CatTy Out the terms of this agreement,
copies of the proposals or bids received, and copies of subcontracts executed. If a specific
subcontractor was identified in the original grant application and the grant was evaluated
based in part on this subcontractor's qualifications, then prior written approval from the
Commission Project Manager is required before substituting a new subcontractor.
The recipient is responsible for handling all contractual and administra, tive issues arising out
of or related to any subcontracts it enters into under this agreement.
T & C - AB970 7 NOVEMBER 2000
10.
11.
T&C-AB970
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
All subcontracts must incorporate all of the following:
· A clear and accurate description of the material, products, or services to be procured
as well as a detailed budget and timeline.
· Provisions which allow for administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in
instances where subcontractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for
such sanctions and penalties as may be appropriate.
· Provisions for termination by the recipient including termination procedures and the
basis for settlement.
· Language conforming to the "Nondiscrimination" provision in this agreement.
· Any additional requirements specified in the OIVIB Circulars incorporated by
reference in this agreement and checked in Section 2.
· The Standard of Performance provisions specified in this agreement.
· Audit provisions regarding record retention specified in this agreement.
· Language conforming to the Indemnff cat on prov s~on n th s aoreement.
· Language conforming to the "License" provision in this agreement.
Failure to comply with the above requirements may result in the termination of this
agreement.
BONDING AND INSURANCE
The recipient will follow its own bonding and insurance requirements relating to bid
guar'.,ntees, performance bonds, and payment bonds without regard to the dollar value of the
subcontract(s) as long as they reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations and are
not in conflict with the minimum standards specified in the O1VI~ Circulars incorporated by
reference in this agreement and checked in Section 2 of these Terms and Conditions.
PERMITS AND CLEARANCES
The recipient is responsible for ensuring all necessary permits and environmental
documents are prepared and clearances are obtained from the appropriate agencies.
EQUIPMENT
Title to equipment acquired by the recipient with grant funds shall vest in the recipient. The
recipient shall use the equipment in the project or program for which it was acquired as long
as needed, whether or not the project or program continues to be supported by grant funds
8 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
and shall not encumber the property without Commission Project Manager approval. When
no longer needed for the original project or program, the recipient shall contact the
Commission Project Manager for d. isposition instructions.
If OMB Circulars and/or federal regulations are checked in Section 2 of these Terms and
Conditions, recipient should refer to the circulars and/or federal regulations tbr additional
equipment requirements/
13. TERMINATION
This project may be terminated for any reason set forth below.
a. With Cause
In the event of any breach by the recipient of the conditions set forth in this
agreement, the comrmssion or Committee, whoever approved the award, may,
without prejudice to any of its legal remedies, terminate this agreement for cause
upon five (5) days written notice to the recipient.
b. Without Cause
The Commission or Committee, whoever approved the award, may, at its option,
terminate this agreement without cause in whole or in part, upon giving thirty (30)
days advance notice in writing to the recipient by certified mail, return receipt
requested. In such event, the recipient agrees to use all reasonable efforts to mitigate
the recipient's expenses and obligations hereunder. Also in such event, the
Commission shall pay the recipient for all satisfactory services rendered and
expenses incurred prior to such notice of termination which could not by reasonable
efforts of the recipient have been avoided, but not in excess of the maximum
payable under this agreement.
14. TRAVEL AND PER DIEM
For purposes of payment, recipient's headquarters shall be considered the location of the
recipient's office where the employees assigned responsibilities for this award are
permanently assigned. Travel expenditures not listed in this section cannot be reimbursed.
Travel not listed in the Budget section of this agreement shall require prior writter~
authorization from the Commission Project Manager. Recipient shall be reimbursed for
authorized travel and per diem on the same basis as nonrepresented state employees. Where
conflicts exist between this section and nonrepresented employee rates, this section shall
take precedence.
Travel expense claims must detail expenses using the rates listed below, and recipient must
sign and date the travel expense claim before submitting the travel expense claim to the
Commission for payment. Expenses must be listed by trip including dates and times of
departure and return. Travel expense claims and supporting receipts and expense
T & C- AB970 9 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
documentation shall be attached to the mcipient's Payment Request. A vehicle license
number is required when claiming mileage, parking, or toll charges. Questions regarding
allowable travel expenses or per diem should be addressed to the Commission .Project
Manager.
The rates listed below will be in effect for the term of this a~eement and apply to all travel,
both in-state and out-of-state, unless and until the rates are revised.
For travel necessary to the performance of this agreement, recipient shall be
reimbursed as follows:
(1)
Travel by common carder, airline coach class or equivalent, in accordance
with receipts or vouchers verifying expenditure. Receipts must be attached
to recipient's travel expense claim.
(2)
Travel by private or recipient-owned automobile will be reimbursed up to 31
cents per mile. If, however, travel by common carrier is more economical
than by automobile, the rote for the common carrier will be reimbursed.
(3) Travel by private car to and from the common carder will be reimbursed at
31 cents per mile, as stated above.
(4)
Travel by rental car, if less expensive than taxi service. Receipts must be
attached to recipient's travel expense claim for car rental and gas for rental
car. Note: insurance coverage is not reimbursable.
(5)
Parking fees, taxi fees, and public transit fees may be reimbursed, without
receipt, for any amount of $10.00 or less. Amounts over $10.00 must be
validated with receipts for actual expenses. Business calls will be
reimbursed up to $5.00 without receipt. Amounts over $5.00 must be
validated with receipts for actual expenses.
Per diem rates apply to travel more than 50 miles away from recipient's
headquarters. The date and time of departure and return must be indicated on
recipient's travel 'expense claim in order to establish appropriate per diem rates.
Travel expense claims submitted for reimbursements of per diem without date and
time of d6parture and return will be reduced by the amount of per diem invoiced.
No receipts are required for travel meals or incidentals within the rates listed below.
However, all meal receipts must be retained for audit by the State or IRS. Per diem
is reimbursable as follows:
For a trip of less than 24 hours, recipient shall be reimbursed for actual costs
up to the maximum allowance for breakfast, dinner, and lodging according
T & C - AB970 J. 0 NOVEMBER 2000
(2)
to tl~e following table
below.
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
if the recipient's travel time meets the criteria outlined
Breakfast:
Lunch:
Dinner:
Incidentals:
Lodging:
Up to $ 6.00, if began at or prior to 6 a.m. and
terminated at or after 9 a.m.
Not reimbursed on a trip of less than 24 hours
Up to $18.00, if began at or prior to 4 p.m. and
terminated at or after 7 p.m.
Not reimbursed on a trip of less than 24 hours
· Up to $84.00 plus taxes with receipt, except when
lodging is in San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo and
Santa Clara counties, and Central/Western Los
Angeles*, up to $110.00 plus tax.
* Los Angeles area within borders of Sunset
Boulevard (North), Pacific Ocean (West), lmperial
Boulevard/Freeway 105 (South), and Freeways 110,
10 and 101 (East).
Lodging expenses must be substantiated with a receipt.
For trips lasting 24 hours or more, recipient will be reimbursed actual costs
up to the maximum allowance for meals, lodging, and incidentals according
to the following table for each complete 24-hour period, beginning with the
time of departure.
For each 24-horn- period:
Breakfast:
Lunch:
Dinner:
Incidentals:
Lodging:
Up to $ 6.00
Up to $10.00
Up to $18.00
Up to $ 6.00
Up to $84.00 plus taxes with receipt, except when
lodging is in San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo and
Santa Clara counties, and CentralAVestem Los
Angeles*, up to $110.00 plus tax.
* Los Angeles area within borders of Sunset
Boulevard (North), Pacific Ocean (West), Imperial
Boulevard/Freeway 105 (South), and Freeways 110,
10 and 101 (East).
Lodging expenses must be substantiated with a receipt.
T& C- AB970 ! I ' NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD tt LED - 00A - 002
15.
For the last fractional part of a travel period of mom than 24 hours, recipient
will be reimbursed the autho/'ized allowance for meals provided that the
expense was incurred and the travel time meets the following requirements:
Breakfast:
Lunch:
Dinner:
If travel began at or prior to 6 a.m. and terminated at or after
8 a.m.
If travel began at or prior to 11 a.m. and terminated at or after
Il' travel began at or prior to 5 p.m. and terminated at or after
7p.m.
LICENSE
The Commission shall be granted a no-cost, nonexclusive, nontransferable,
irrevocable worldwide license to use or have practiced for or on behalf of the State
of California inventions developed hereunder and patents 'or patent applications
derived from such inventions. Recipient must obtain agreements to effectuate this
clause with all persons or entities obtaining ownership interest in the patented
subject inventions.
The Commission makes no claim to intellectual property that existed prior to this
grant and was developed without Commission funding. If applicable, the recipient
gives notice that the items listed in the Intellectual Property attachment or exhibit
have been developed without Commission funding and prior to the start of this
grant. This list represents a brief description of the prior developed intellectual
property. A detailed description of the intellectual property, as it exists on the
effective date of this grant, may be necessary if Commission funds are used to
further develop the listed intellectual property. This information will assist the
parties to make an informed decision regarding intellectual property rights.
The Commission shall be granted the no-cost use of the technical data first produced
or specifically used in the performance of this grant.
The Commission shall be gl'anted a royalty-free nonexclusive, irrevocable,
nontransferable license to produce, translate, publish, use and dispose of, and to
authorize others to produce, translate, publish, use and dispose of all copyrightable
material first produced or composed in the performance of this grant.
16.- STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
Recipient, its subcontractors and their employees, in the performance of recipient's work
under this award shall be responsible for exercising the degree .of skill and care required by
customarily accepted good professional practices and procedures used in the recipient's
field.
T & C - AB970 12 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
17.
Any costs for failure to meet the foregoing standard or to correct otherwise defective work
that requires m-performance of the work, as directed by Commission Project Manager, shall
be borne in total by recipient and not the Commission. The failure of a project to achieve
the performance goals and objectives stated in the Work Statement is not a bas.is for
requesting re-performance unless the work conducted by recipient and/or its subcontractors
is deemed by the Commission to have failed the foregoing standard of performance.
In the event recipient/subcontractor fails to perform in accordance with the above standard:
(I)
Recipient/subcontractor will re-perform, at its own expense, any task which was not
performed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission Project Manager. Any
work re-performed pursuant to this paragraph shall be completed within the time
limitations originally ~et forth for the specific task involved. Recipient/subcontractor
shall work any overtime required to meet the deadline for the task at no additional
cost to the Commission;
(2)
The Commission shall provide a new schedule for the re-performance of any task
pursuant to this paragraph in the event that m-performance of a task within the
original time' limitations is not feasible; and
(3)
The Commission shall have the option to direct recipient/subcontractor not to re-
perform any task which was not performed to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Commission Project Manager pursuant to application of (1) and (2) above. In the
event the Commission directs recipient/subcontractor not to re-perform a task, the
Commission and recipient shall negotiate a reasonable settlement for satisfactory
work performed. No previous payment shall be considered a waiver'of the
Commission's right to reimbursement.
Nothing contained in this section is intended to limit any of the rights or remedies
which the Commission may have under law.
PAYIVlIENT OF FUNDS
T & C - AB970
Payment Requests
The recipient may request payment from the Commission at any time during the
term of this agreement although it is preferred that payment requests be submitted
with the quarterly progress reports.
Payments will generally be made on a reimbursement basis for recipient
expenditures, i.e., after the recipient has paid for a service, product, supplies, or
other approved budget item. No reimbursement for food or beverages shall be made
other than allowable per diem charges.
As a general rule, advance payments am not allowed. The Commission, at its sole
discretion, may honor advance payment requests if warranted by compelling need.
Advance payments shall only be made upon the satisfaction of conditions intended
! 3 NOVEMBER 2000
- ~ AWARD # LED- 00A - 002
to protect grant funds from loss or misuse, including (1) depositing all advance
payments into a separate interest-earning account; (2) reporting interest earned on
advance payments to the Commission Project Manager; (3) the accounting of all
advance payments within a timeframe specified by the Grants and Loans Office; (4)
returning all unused advance payments and interest or portion thereof, within 60
days of the termination of this agreement; and (5) other conditions as specified by
the Grants and Loans Office.
Funds in this award have a limited period in which they must be expended. All
recipient expenditures must occur prior to the ~nd of the term of this agreement.
Documentation
All payment requests must be submitted using a completed Payment Request form
(Exhibit A). This form must be accompanied by an itemized list of all charges and
copies of all receipts or invoices necessary to document these charges for both
Commission and match sham. Any payment request that is submitted without the
itemization will not be authorized, if the itemization or documentation is
incomplete, inadequate, or inaccurate, the Commission Project Manager will inform
the recipient and hold the invoice until all required information is received or
corrected. Any penalties imposed on the recipient by a subcontractor because of
delays in payment will be paid by the recipient.
Release of Funds
The Commission Project Manager will not process any payment request during the
agreement term if the following conditions have not been met:
All required reports have been submitted and am satisfactory to the
Commission Project Manager.
· All applicable special conditions have been met.
All appropriate permits or permit waivers from governmental agencies have
been issued to the recipient and copies have been received by the
Commission Project Manager.
All products due have been submitted and am satisfactory to the
Commission Project Manager.
Other prepayment conditions as may be required by the Commission Project
Manager have been met. Such conditions will be specified in writing ahead
of time, if possible.
T & C - AB970 14 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
Retention
It is the Commission's policy to retain 10 percent of any payment request or 10
percent of the total Commission award at the end of the project. After the project is
complete the recipient must submit a completed payment request form requesting
release of the retention. The Commission Project Manager will review the project
file and. when satisfied thai the terms of the funding agreement have been fulfilled,
will authorize release of the retention.
18.
e. State Controller's Office
Payments are made by the State Controller's Office.
FISCAL ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS
If OMB Circulars and/or federal regulations are checked in Section 2 of these Terms and
Conditions, the recipient shall review and comply with the administrative requirements
outlined in the applicable sections of the OMB cimulars incorporated as part of the funding
agreement. The circulars are supplemented with requirements a - d.
If no OMB Circulars and/or federal regulations are checked in Section 2 of these Terms and
Conditions, the following requirements apply:
a. Accounting and Financial Methods
The recipient shall establish a separate ledger account or fund for receipt and
disbursement of Commission funds for each project funded by the Commission.
Expenditure details must be maintained in accordance with the approved budget
details using appropriate accounting practices.
b. Retention of Records
'C.
T & C- AB970
The recipient shall retain all project records (including financial records, progress
reports~ and payment requests) for a minimum of three (3) years after the project has
been formally concluded, or final payment received, whichever is later, unless
otherwise specified in the funding agreement.
Records for nonexpendable personal property acquired with grant funds shall be
retained for three years after its final disposition.
Audits
Upon written request from the Commission, the recipient shall provide detailed
documentation of all expenses at any time throughout the project. In addition, the
recipient agrees to allow the Commission or any other agency of the state, upon
written request, to have reasonable access to and the right of inspection of all
records that pertain to the project during the term of this agreement and for a period
1 5 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
of three (3) years thereafter. Further, the recipient agrees to incorporate an audit of
this project within any scheduled audits,' when specifically requested by the state.
Recipient agrees to include a similzir fight to audit in any subcontract.
Recipients am strongly encouraged to conduct annual audits in accordance with the
single audit concept. The recipient should provide two copies of the independent
audit report and any resulting comments and correspondence to the Commission
Project Manager within 30 days of the completion of such audits.
d. Match Sham
If the grant Budget includes match share, the recipient's commitment of financial
and personnel resources, as described in this agreement, is a required match for
receipt of Commission funds. The recipient must maintain accounting records
detailing the expenditure of the match sham (actual cash and in-kind services), and
provide complete documentation of expenditures as described under "Payment of
Funds."
19. INDEMNIFICATION
The recipient agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the state, its officers, agents,
and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing Or resulting to recipient and to
any and all contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, and any other person, firm, or
corporation furnishing or supplying work,' services, materials, or supplies in connection with
the performance of this agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or
resulting to any person, firm, or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the
recipient in the performance of this agreement.
20. DISPUTES
In the event of a dispute or grievance between recipient and the Cornrmssion regarding this
agreement, the following two-step procedure shall be followed by both parties. Recipient
shall continue with responsibilities under this agreement during any dispute.
a. Commission Dispute Resolution
T & C - AB970
The recipient shall first discuss the problem informally with the Commission Project
Manager. If the problem cannot be resolved at this stage, the recipient must direct
the grievance together with any evidence, in writing, to the Commission Grants and
Loans Officer. The grievance must state the issues in the dispute, the legal authority
or other basis for the mcipient's position and the remedy sought. The Commission
Grants and Loans Officer and the Program Office Manager must make a
determination on the problem within ten (10) working days after receipt of the
written communication from the recipient. The Grants and Loans Officer shall
respond in writing to the recipient, indicating a decision supported by reasons.
Should the recipient disagree with the Grants and Loans Officer decision, the
recipient may appeal to the second level.
16 SOVe~aBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
The recipient must prepare a letter indicating why the Grants and Loans Officer's
decision is unacceptable, attaching to it the recipient's original statement of the
dispute with supporting documents, along with a copy of the Grants and Loans
Officer's response. This letter shall be sent to the Executive Director at the
Commission within ten (10) working days from receipt of the Grants and Loans
Officer's decision. The Execrative Director or designee shall meet with the recipient
to review the issues miser. A written decision signed by the Executive Director or
designee shall be returned to the recipient within twenty (20) working days of
receipt of the recipient's letter. The Executive Director may exercise the option of
presenting the decision to the Commission at a business meeting. Should the
recipient disagree with the Executive Director's decision, the recipient may appeal to
the Commission at a regularly scheduled business meeting. Recipient will be
provided with the current procedures for placing the appeal on a Commission
Business Meeting Agenda.
Binding Arbitration
Should the Commission's Dispute Resolution procedure described above fail to
resolve a dispute or grievance to the satisfaction of the recipient, the recipient may
elect to have the dispute or grievance resolved through binding arbitration. The
Commission may also elect to have any dispute or grievance resolved through
binding arbitration. Both parties must consent before submitting the dispute to
arbitration. The arbitration proceeding 'shall take place in Sacramento County,
California, and shall be governed by the commercial arbitration rules of the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) in effect on the date the arbitration is
initiated. The dispute or grievance shall be resolved by one (1) arbitrator who is an
expert in the particular field of the dispute or grievance. The arbitrator shall be
selected in accordance with the aforementioned commercial arbitration rules. The
decision rendered by the arbitrator shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon
it in accordance with the applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
The demand for arbitration shall be made no later than six (6) months after the date
of the termination of this agreement, irrespective of when the dispute or grievance
arose, and irrespective of the applicable statute of limitations for a suit based on the '
dispute or grievance.
The cost of arbitration shall be borne by the parties as follows:
i) The AAA's administrative fees shall be.borne equally by the parties;
ii) The expense of a stenographer shall be bome by the party requesting a
stenographic record:
iii) Witness expenses fo'r either side shall be paid by the party producing the
witness;
iv) Each party shall bear the cost of its own travel expenses;
v) All other expenses shall be borne equally by the parties, unless the arbitrator
apportions or assesses the expenses otherwise as part or' his or her award.
T & C- AB970 17 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
21.
22.
At the option of the parties, any or all of these arbitration costs may be deducted
from any balance of agreement funds. Both parties must agree, in writing, to utilize
agreement funds to pay for arbitration costs.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE
Recipient hereby warrants that it carries Worker's ComPensation Insurance for all of
its employees who will be engaged in the performance of this agreement, and agrees
to furnish to the Commission Project Manager satisfactory evidence of this
insurance at any time the Commission Project Manager may request.
If recipient is self-insured for worker's compensation, it hereby warrants such self-
insurance is permissible under the laws of the State of California and agrees to
furnish to the Commission Project Manager satisfactory evidence of this insurance
at any time the Comrmssion Project Manager may request.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
a. Governing Law
It is hereby understood and agreed that this agreement shall be governed by the laws
of the State of California as to interpretation and performance.
b. Independent Capacity
The recipient, and the agents and employees of the recipient, in the performance of
this agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees
or agents of the State of California.
c. Assignment
Without the written consent of the Commission in the form of a formal written
amendment, this agreement is not assignable or transferable by recipient either in
whole or in part.
d. Timeliness
Time is of the essence in this agreement.
e. Unenforceable Provision
In the event that any provision of this agreement is unenforceable or held to be
unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of this agreement have
force and effect and shall not be affected thereby.
T & C - AB9?O 1 8 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
Waiver
No waiver of any breach of this agreement shall be held to'be a waiver of any other
or subsequent breach. All remedies afforded in this agreement shall be taken and
construed as cumulative, that is, in addition to every other remedy provided therein
or by law.
Assurances
The Commission reserves the right to seek further written assurances from the
recipient and its team that the work of the project under this agreement will be
p~rformed consistent with the terms of the agreement.
Change in Business
Recipient shall promptly notify the Commission of the occurrence of each
of the following:
(a) A change of address.
(b) A change in the business name or ownership.
(c) ' The existence of any litigation or other legal proceeding affecting the
project.
(d) The occurrence of any casualty or other loss to project personnel,
equipment or third parties of a type commonly covered by insurance.
(e) Receipt of notice of any claim or potential claim against recipient for
patent, copyright, trademark, service mark and/or trade secret
infringement that could affect the Commission's rights.
(2)
Recipient shall not change or reorganize the type of business entity under
which it does business except upon prior written notification to the
Commission. A change of business entity or name change requires an
amendment assigning or novating the agreement to the changed eptity. In
the event the Commission is not satisfied that the new entity can perform as
the original recipient, the Commission may terminate this agreement as
provided in the termination paragraph.
Survival of Terms
it is understood and agreed that certain provisions shall survive the completion or
termination date of this agreement for any reason. The provisions include, but are
not limited to:
· "Payments of Funds"
· "Equipment"
· "Change in Business"
· "Disputes"
T & C - AB970 19 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
"Termination"
"Audit"
"Indemnification"
"License"
"Fiscal Accounting Requirements"
j. Year2000 Language
23.
The recipient wan'ants and represents th.'~t any goods or services used in connection
with the project pursuant to this a~reement are Year 2000 compl ant.
CERI~ICA~ONS & COMPLIANCE
Federal, State & Local Laws
Recipient shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, roles and
regulations.
Nondiscrimination Statement of Compliance
During the performance of this agreement, recipient and its subcontractors shall
not unlawfully discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap,
medical condition, marital status, age (over 40) or sex. Recipient and its
subcontractors shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees
and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination. Recipient and its
subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and
Housing Act (Government Code Sections 12900, et seq.) and the applicable
regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2,
Section 7285.0, et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and
Housing Commission implementing Government Code Section 12990, set forth in
chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are
incorporated into this agreement by reference and made a part of it as if set forth
in full. Rec'ipient and its subcontractors shall give written notice of their
obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a
collective bargaining or other agreement..
The recipient shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of
this article in all subcontracts to perform work under this agreement.
Drug Free Workplace Certification
By signing this agreement, the recipient hereby certifies under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the recipient will comply with the
T & C - AB970 20 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
,'equirements or' the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code Section
8350 et seq.) and will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following
actions:
~)
Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture,
distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is
prohibi[ed and specifying actions to be taken against employees for
violations as required by Government Code Section 8355(a).
ii)
Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program as required by Government Code
Section 8355(b) to inform employees about all of the following:
· The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
· The person's or organization's policy of maintaining a drug-fi'ee
workplace;
· Any available counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance
programs; and
· Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse
Violations.
iii)
Provide, as required by Government Code Section 8355(c), that every
employee who works on the proposed project:
Will receive a copy of the company's drag-free policy statement;
Will agree to abide by the terms of the comPany's statement as a
condition of employment on the project.
Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments
under the a~eement or termination of the agreement or both, and the recipient may
be ineligible for any future state awards if the Commission determines that any of
the following has occurred: (1) the recipient has made false certification; or (2)
violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.
National Labor Relations Board Certification (Not applicable to public entities)'
Recipient, by signing this agreement, does swear under penalty of perjury that no
more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a Federal Court
has been issued against the recipient within the immediately preceding two year
period because of the recipient's failure to comply with an order of a Federal Court
which orders the recipient to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations
Board.
T & C - AB970
Recycling Certification
The recipient shall certify in writing under penalty of perjury, the minimum, if not
exact, percentage of recycled content, both post consumer waste and secondary
waste as defined in the Public Contract Code, Sections 12161 and 12200, in
2 l NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
materials, goods, or supplies offered or products, used in the performance of this
agreement, regardless of whether the product meets the required recycled product
percentage as defined in the Public Contract Code, Sections 12161 and 12200.
Recipient may certify that the product contains zero recycled content.
Child Support Compliance Act (Applicable to California Employers)
For any agreement in excess of $100,000, the recipient acknowledges that:
~)
It recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and
shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to
child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to,
disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment
orders, as pr6vided in Chapter 8 (commencing with section 5200) of Part 5
of Division 9 of the Family Code; and
ii)
To the best of its knowledge is fully complying with the earnings
assignment orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new
employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California
Employment Development Department.
Priority Hiring (Applicable to California Employers)
For any agreement in excess of $200,000, recipient shall give priority consideration
in filling vacancies in positions funded by this agreement to those qualified to
receive aid under Chapter 2, commencing with section 11200 of the Welfare and
Institutions code, in accordance with Article 3.9, commencing with Section 11349
of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Air or Water Pollution Violation
Under the state laws, the recipient shall not be:
(1)
in violation of any order or resolution not subject to review promulgated
by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution control district;
(2)
subject to cease and desist order not subject to review issued pursuant to
Section 13301 of the Water Code for violation of waste discharge
requirements or discharge prohibitions; or
(3)
finally determined to be in violation of provisions of federal law relating to
air or water pollution.
T & C - AB970 22 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
i. Americans With Disabilities Act
By signing this agreement, recipient assures the State that it complies ~:vith the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as applicable regulations
and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA.
24. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PEAK LOAD REDUCTION PROGRAM GRANTS
a. Peak Electricity Demand Savings Calculation
Peak electricity demand savings are calculated as the average hourly reduction in
demand during a summer afternoon when California system electrical demand is
very high. The peak demand period is defined as the hours of 2 p.m. to 6' p.m. on
non-holiday weekdays during the months of June though September. This four hour
average value will be used as a proxy for demand savings during individual hours of
Independent System Operators Alerts and/or high system demand.
Savings will be determined using engineering calculations, measurements, or a
combination of both. It is expected that most, if not all, of the projects will be
paid incentives based on:
· Pre-installation estimates of savings using engineering calculations and'
Verification inspections of proper installation (i.e., potential to generate
savings) for a sample of projects.
For a small number of projects, metering and engineering calculations will be used
to assess actual savings during Independent System Operators Alerts or periods of
high electrical demand. This post-installation assessment will be used to update the
pre-installation estimates for all projects.
The peak load savings formula is:
(System kWh Usage) ~,r~-rctronl -- (System kWh Usage) oost-retrofit
4
Where:
System kWh Usage equals kWh consumption of affected building(s) or system(s)
during the hours of 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on a non-holiday, summer (June through
September) weekday.
To estimate performance when California system electrical demand is very high,
four categories of projects are defined:.
T & C - A B970
For weather dependent projects (e.g., cool roofs), the peak afternoon will
be defined as an afternoon when ambient temperatures are equal to the
23 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
applicable Califomia Energy Commission Climate design temperature
during the four hour period between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m..
For demand responsive systems (e.g., lighting controls, thermostats), the
peak afternoon will be defined as an afternoon when the demand for
electricity is such that a dispatch signal is sent to the building control
system and, as a result of that signal, the control system reduces demand to
the maximum extent programmed into the control system at time of
installation.
For end use or appliance cycling or shedding systems, the peak afternoon
will be defined as an aftemoon when the temperatures equal the California
Energy CommiSsion Climate Zone design temperature during the four
hour period between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. and a signal is sent to the system to
reduce demand to the maximum extent.
For non-weather dependent and non demand responsive systems (e.g.,
waste water plant motor retrofits and LED traffic lights), the peak
electricity demand will be defined as demand on a summer afternoon with
typical or average operating conditions.
Project Delay Notification
The recipient is required to notify the Commission Project Manager if
circumstances occur which will delay the project so that project work tasks cannot
be completed within the'timeframes specified in the Work Statement. The
recipient is required to notify the Commission Project Manager in writing within 5
working days of the occurrence of the delay.
Project Extensions
(1) All Projects Except Schools
Projects funded by this program must be operational by June 1,2001.
Equipment must be purchased, installed and able to reduce 'peak electricity
demand by this time. If a project does not meet this deadline, the award
will be terminated and the funds reallocated.
If a project or portion of a project is not operational by June 1, 2001, due
to extenuating circumstances outside the control of recipient, the recipient
may make a written request to extend the date of installation and/or
operation.
T & C - AB970 24 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
The Committee may extend the date of installation and/or operation at its
discretion. An extension will be considered only if it meets all of the
following criteria and procedures:
In no event may the date that the project becomes operational be
extended past July 15, 2001.
The recipient must document circumstances beyond its control
which prevent the project from being operational by June 1, 2001.
The recipient must show it neither knew nor had mason to know of
the cimumstances that led to the project delay.
The recipient must show it has taken all possible actions to
mitigate the project delay.
The recipient must show satisfactory proof that there are no other
known obstacles in the way of completing the project.
The recipient must show it has incurred a legal obligation such as a
contract or purchase order in an effort to complete the project as
originally planned.
The requested extension would otherwise comport with all of the
eligibility requirements of the Overall Program Guidelines,
applicable Program Element Guidelines, and solicitation
document, if any.
If such extension is granted, the amount of the award and/or
incentive, as applicable, will be reduced by 10% for the project or
portion of the project extended.
(2)
Schools
In the case of schools, if a project cannot be operational by June 1, 2001,
the Committee may grant an extension.
The recipient must show that due to school class schedules, the .
project could not be completed by June 1, 2001.
In no event may the date the project becomes operational be
· extended past August 31, 2001.
· In this case, the incentive amount will not be reduced.
T & C - AB970 25 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
Program Evaluation, Project Monitoring, and Verification
The Commission will audi[ a sample of funding recipients to verify compliance with
the Guidelines and solicitation document (if any), and to measure and verify peak
electricity demand reductions. In addition, the Commission will monitor the
progress of awards and'evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
Random Audits, Record Retention and Access to Facilities
Upon written request fi'om the Commission, the recipient shall provide detailed
documentation of all expenses, allow the Commission or its agent access to facilities
and records, and allow the Commission or its agent to collect data needed to
measure and verify peak electricity demand reductions (this may include but is not
limited to utility bills, metering data, facility equipment surveys, information on
operational practices and site occupancy levels). The recipient agrees to give the
Commission access to install, read and remove electricity meters. Further, if
requested, the recipient must agree to provide to the Commission or its agent
associated data from a period prior to the start of the project as necessary to establish
baselines. In addition, the recipient must agree to allow the Commission or any
other agency of the state, upon written request, to have reasonable access to and the
right of inspection of all records that pertain to the project and to the recipients'
energy use during the term of the agreement and for a period of three years
thereafter. Further, the recipient must agree to incorporate an audit of this project
within any scheduled audits, when specifically requested by the state. Recipient
must agree to include a similar right to audit in any subcontract or subgrant. The
recipient shall retain all project records (including financial records, progress
reports, payment requests, and peak electricity demand reduction documentation)
for a minimum of three years after the project has been fonnally concluded, or final
payment received, whichever is later, unless otherwise specified in the funding
award agreement.
Notification of Nonoperation
Recipient shall notify Commission Project Manager in writing immediately if
recipient has reason to believe that the project may become nonoperational in the
future.
Enforcement Action
(1) Recovery of Overpayment
The Committee, with the concurrence of the Commission, may direct the
Commission's Office of Chief Counsel to commence formal legal action
against any recipient or former recipient to recover any portion of a
funding award the Committee determines the recipient or former recipient
was not otherwise entitled to receive.
T & C - AB970 26 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
(2) Fraud and Misrepresentation
The Committee may initiate an investigation of any recipient which the
Committee has reason to believe may haye misstated, falsified, or
misrepresented information in applying for a funding award, invoicing for
a funding award payment, or in reporting any information as required by
the Guidelines. Based on the results of the investigation, the Committee
may take any action it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to,
cancellation of the funding award, recovery of any overpayment, and with
the concurrence of the Commission, recommending the initiation of an
Attomey General investigation and prosecution pursuant to Government
Code sections 12650, et seq., or other provisions of law.
Agreement and Operation Terms
This agreement has two terms: agreement term and operation term. Agreement
term is the period in which all Commission grant-funded tasks must be completed
and funds requested. Operation term is the 4 year period that the project must
reduce peak electricity demand from June 1 - September 30 during 2001 through
2004.
T & C - AB970 27 NOVEMBER 2000
AWARD # LED - 00A - 002
EXHIBIT A
PAYMENT REQUEST FORM
T & C - A B970
28
NOVEMBER 2000 '
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT OR PAYMENT REQUEST
CEC 21i-(a) (Rev. 5/00)
Recipient
tName and Address)
Grant No.
ENERGY COMMISSION SHARE
Line Item
Recipient [D No.
Budget
Personnel
Fringe Benefits
iTravel
Equipment
Supplies
Contractual
: Construction
· Other
Indirect
TOTAL
MATCH SHARE
Line Item Budget
Personnel
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Equipment
_Supplies
Construction
Othe:r
Indirect
GRAND TOTALTOTAL
I RECIPIENT CERTIFICATION
I certify Io the best of in)' knowledge and belief that this report is correct and complete aud all
.utlavs and obligations are for the purposes set forth in the funding agreement.
.~gnaturc ot'Autho~ized Certifying Olficer Date
Type or Print Name and Title Phone
ENERGY COMMISSION APPROVALS
Commission Project Manager Date
gram Manager Date
Grants Office Date
Type of Request
Reimbursement
Status Report Only
Release Retention
Period Covered by this Request
to
Approved Project Term
to
Expenses Expenses
this Period to Date
Expenses Expenses
this Period to Date
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Payment Request No.:
Amount of this Request
$.
Funding History
Funds Requested to Date:
Funds Received to Date:
Expenses to Date:
Funds on Hand:
Obligations Remaining
Not Yet Paid Balance
Obligations Remaining
Not Yet Paid Balance
ENERGY COMMISSI~)N USE ONLY (-NS-)
Amount Authorized
Retention Yes No
Fiscal Year
Appropriation Code
ACCOUNTING OFFICE USE ONLY
Retention
Amount Scheduled
T & C - AB970 29 NOVEMBER 2000
INSTRUCTIONS
Paytnent Request No.: Begin with the number I on your
first payment request and consecutively number each
subsequent payment request. The last payment request
should include the notation. "Final."
Recipient (Name and Complete Address): Same as
"Recipient" on-the Grant Agreement. Address should
include the city, state, and zip code.
Type of Request: Indicate if this is a "Reimbursement" or
"Status Report Only." Be sure to provide backup
documentation, it' no funds are being requested, check
"Status Report Only."
Amount of this Request:
currently being requested.
requested.
This line shows the amount
Indicate the amount being
Period Covered by this Report: The time period covered
by this request. The first day of the period should be the
day after the last day covered by your previous report.
Example: 1/14/94 to 3/31/94.
Grant No.: Same as "Grant Number" on the Grant
Agreement. This is the eight digit code assigned by the
Energy Commission (example 961-93-000).
Recipient ID No.: This space is for an account number or
other identifier that may be assigned by the recipient
(optional).
Approved Project Term: This is the entire project period
beginning with the date the project starts through the end
date. This date should match the "Term" on the Grant
Agreement unless you have received a term extension.
Total Funds Requested to Date: Show the total of all
funds requested from the Energy' Commission prior to this
request.
Funds Received to Date: Show the total amount of funds
received from the Energy Commission prior to this request.
"Funds Requested to Date" minus any retention withheld
equals "Funds Received to date".
Tc, tnl Expenses to Date: Show the total expenses fram the
beginning of the project through and including the period
covered by this report. This amount should be the same as
the "Grand Total" expenses to date.
Funds on Hand: This should be filled in only if you have
received any advance funds from the Commission. If you
have, show the balance .of funds received. ("Funds
Received to Date" minus "Expenses to Date" equals "Funds
on Hand.")
Interest Earned to Date: Show all interest earned on
previously advanced funds.
Line Items: The following budget categories appl3 to all
expenditures invoiced..
· Budget: Show by line item the budget as shown in the
Grant Agreement.
· Expenses this Period: Show by line item the actual
payments made by the recipient during the period
covered by this report.
,,Expenses to Date: Show by line item the cumulative
total of all expenses from the beginning of the project
through and including the period covered by this
report.
,,Obligations Not Yet Paid: Show by line item all funds
obligated on pumhase orders, contracts, etc. for which
you have received an invoice but have not yet paid.
· Remaining Balance: Sho~ b3 line item the funds
available for expenses or obligations. "Budget" minus
"Expenses to Date" minus "Obligations Not Yet Paid"
equals "Remaining Balance."
Certification: Name, title and signature of authorized
certifying official (usually the grant recipient's project
manager).
Submit original and one copy to:
California Energy Conunission
Accounting Office
1516 Ninth Street. MS # 2
Sacramento, CA 95814
T & C - AB970 30 NOVEMBER 2000
0
0
e-
32
Work Statement
City of Temecula
Public Agency Name
Indicate the completion dates for Tasks 1, 2, and 3. If any tasks are not applicable then
state the reason(s) in the comment section, if you need to add tasks, indicate them in
the comment section and identify the completion date.
Tasks Completion Date
1. Release bid documents for materials and
labor
· Product: Provide Commission staff with a January 2001
copy of the bid specifications for the LED
modules within 10 days of bid release.
2. Select LED vendor and/or contractor
· Product: Provide Commission staff with a February 2001
copy of the winning proposal within 10
days after vendor selection.
3. LED traffic signals installed and operating
· Product: Notify Commission staff when Prior to June 1,2001
complete.
4. Prepare progress reports · Progress reports due
monthly
· Product: Submit progress report.
5. Prepare final report and invoice * Due within 60 days after
LED traffic signals
· Product: Submit final report and invoice, installed and operating
Note: If you will be submitting a governing body resolution (Exhibit D) at a later date,
one of the first tasks will be to provide the Commission with an executed cOpy of the
resolution.
Comments:
33
LED Traffic Signal Grant Application
EFFICIENCY COMMITTEE
APPROVAL SHEET
November 17 2000
PEAK LOAD REDUCTION PROGRAM -
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONVERSION
Originator: Merry Bronson
4-4104
Supervisor: Daryl Mills
Office Marl~/ger: Mike Sloss
Date:
4-507O
Date:
4-4654
4~ty Director: Scott W. Matthews 4-5013
In accordance with the Peak Load Reductio(~ Prdgram, Water/VVastewater Peak Reduction
Guidelines and the Peak Load Reduction Program, Light Emitting Diode Traffic Signal
Conversion Guidelines, adopted by the Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission on October 25, 2000, the Energy Efficiency Committee approves the following
awards:
Applicant Grant Amount Requested
City of Redding $197,420
City of Westminister $ 69,310
City of Santa Barbara $185,000
City of Temecula $140,870
Commissioner Pernell
Commissioner Rosenfeld
Date:
Date:
34
Special Conditions for LED Traffic Signal Projects
1. Resolution
The recipient must provide to the Energy Commission an original signed
resolution (or original certified copy of same) authorizing acceptance of this
agreement and also designating the person, by title, authorized and empowered
to execute in the name of the agency all contracts, agreements, and
amendments necessary to implement and carry out the project as defined by this
agreement. This resolution must be provided to the Energy Commission before
any work is started and payments of the Energy Commission funds are made to
the agency for work undertaken under this agreement. The resolution must be
provided no later than January 1,2001 or the Commission
may cancel the award.
2. Products
The required PrOducts are identified in Exhibit C, Work Statement. If hard copies
are sent, then the recipient must submit 2 copies of each product to the
Commission project manager by the date indicated in Exhibit C. Electronic
copies are acceptable for all documents that do not require an original signature.
If electronic copies are submitted, then the recipient need only send one
electronic copy to the Commission project manager. The Commission project
manager may contact the recipient, as needed, to get clarification or request
additional information on any product.
3. Reports
Progress Reports: The recipient must submit monthly progress reports.
Each progress report must contain the following information at a minimum:
· Discussion of the status of the work, including work statement tasks
completed and/or delayed. If delayed, an explanation of how it will
impact project completion by June 1,2001.
· · A comparison of project expenses to date to the expected budget.
· Identification of any issues that would prevent completing the
installation by June 1.
Progress reports are due monthly. The rep(~rts are due by the 15t~ of each
month after grant execution for the duration of the grant term. The grant
execution date is the date the Grant Agreement is approved by the recipient.
The following is the schedule:
Special Conditions, 11/21/00 Page I
GRANT EXECUTION FIRST REPORT DUE SUBSEQUENT REPORTS
MONTH DUE
November December 15 The 15m of each month
December January 15 The 15m of each month
January February 15 The 15m of each month
February March 15 The 15m of each month
March April 15 The 15t" of each month
April May 15 The 15t" of each month
Final Reports: The recipient must submit a final report within 60 days after
project installation. The final report must accompany the request .for grant
payment (Exhibit A). The final report can be submitted electronically.
However the request for grant payment (Exhibit A) and the back up invoices
must be submitted as hard copies. The final report must contain the
following at a minimum:
· A summary of the pre- and cost- energy use for all traff~c signal
intersections funded through this program. The Commission project
manager will provide the spreadsheet to be completed.
· A summary'of the traffic signal intersections retrofitted, including the
number and type of LED modules installed and the dates of installation.
The Energy Commission project manager will provide the sample
spreadsheet to be completed.
· Two sample one-month utility bills showing the pre- and post-retrofit
energy use for example intersection(s).
· A summary of the problems encountered during project installation and
post project installation.
Payment
a,
of Funds
Conditions for Grant Payment: The Commission will provide grants to
supplement the cost of purchasing and installing eligible LED traffic signal
modules as described in Section 6 of the Grant Application. The grant
reimbursement will be provided at the time all the LEDs have been
installed and the signals are operational. Prior to payment, the
Commission reserves the right to:
1) Inspect each project
2) Verify that all the projects have been installed and are operational by
June 1, 2001
3) Verify that the total LED modules installed matches the amount and
type for which payment is requested
Special Conditions, 11/21/00 Page 2
4) Verify that the Commission grant is not used to supplement the cost of
a project already funded by an IOU
5)
6)
Verify that the Commission grant and any publicly owned utility
incentive does not exceed 100% of the total project cost as described
in Section 7
Grant payments shall be made for eligible projects as defined in Section
6 of the Grant Application. To receive a grant payment, the recipient
must submit the required documentation as described in the grant
agreement. This documentation must include, at a minimum, (a) Exhibit
A-Payment Request Form, (b) dated copies of vendor/contractor invoices
showing the type and number of LED traffic signal modules pu(chased
and their costs, (c) dated copies of invoices for installation labor, (d) an
updated spreadsheet showing the number and type of LED modules
installed, energy savings, energy cost savings, and project costs and (e)
the final report. The Commission project manager will provide the
needed spreadsheets to complete.
Progress Payments: There will be no progress payments made during the
grant term.
Situations for Denial of Grant Payment Request: Grant payments, either
in whole or in part, will not be made in the event of any of the following:
1) The equipment purchased does not meet the requirements specified in
Section 6 of the Grant Application.
2)
The recipient fails to provide the required documentation. This
documentation includes, but is not limited to, the requirements listed in
Section 4. A. 6 of the Special Conditions for LED Traffic Signal Projects.
4)
The recipient is requesting 'reimbursement for existing salaried labor
used to complete project installation. The Commission's grant cannot
pay for existing salaried labor but can be used to pay for unbudgeted
labor, such as contractors or over-time staff, that will expedite the project
installation by June 1, 2001. If using in-house labor, a copy of each
employee timesheet and the hourly rate must be submitted. The
timesheets must show and certify that the hours worked were above and
beyond that employees normal work schedule.
The equipment, for which reimbursement is being requested, is funded in
whole or in part by an IOU.
Special Conditions, 11/21/00 Page 3
5) The total incentives from the Commission and the publicly owned utility
exceed 100 percent of the total project cost.
6) A random audit or technical analysis conducted by the Commission, or
its designated representatives, determines that the installed project does
not meet the terms and conditions of the grant agreement.
Special Conditions, 11/21/00 Page 4
ITEM 6
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC'E~__
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
~/~William G. Director of Public
Hughes,
Works/City
Engineer
January 9, 2001
Quitclaim Public Utility Easements as dedicated on Tract Map No. 3334 within a
portion of Lot 27, that portion being Tract Map No. 28810, a re-subdivision of Tract
Map No. 3334, located on Margarita Road east of Moraga Road.
PREPARED BY:
Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Clement M. Jimenez, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING QUITCLAIM OF PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN A PORTION OF LOT 27 OF
TRACT MAP NO. 3334, THAT PORTION BEING TRACT MAP NO.
28810, A RE-SUBDIVISION OF TRACT MAP NO. 3334, TO THE
UNDERLYING FEE OWNER
BACKGROUND: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Tract Map No. 3334 on
July 6, 1965, including acceptance of offers of easements for the construction and maintenance of
public utilities.
Some of these easements fall within the property lines of Tract Map No. 28810 which is a portion of
Lot 27 of Tract Map No. 3334. Exhibit "A" describes the easements to be quitclaimed.
The underlying fee owner, Ryland Homes of California, Inc., a Delawa[e Corporation, desires to
have quitclaimed all existing public utility easements that are located within their property. New
easements for public utilities were dedicated on recorded Tract Map No. 28810.
The owner's agent, Sake Engineering, has contacted the several utility companies normally using
such easements. Each has stated its approval for the quitclaim of these easements, which were
intended for the overhead pole systems in use at that time. With the shift to underground telephone
and electrical service systems, these easements became obsolete.
The subject locations and documents are included with this Staff Report. The legal description is
attached as Exhibit "A" to City Council Resolution No. 2001-
1
r:\agd rpt\.2001\0109\t m33341ot27.quitclaimpue
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ATTACHMENT:
Resolution No. 2001-
Quitclaim Deed with Exhibit "A"
Agency Clearance Letters
2
r:~agd rpt\.2001\0109\tm3334iot27.quitclaim pue
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING QUITCLAIM OF PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN A PORTION OF LOT 27 OF
TRACT MAP NO. 3334, THAT PORTION BEING TRACT MAP NO.
28810, A RE-SUBDIVISION OF TRACT MAP NO. 3334, TO THE
UNDERLYING FEE OWNER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Tract Map No. 3334 on
July 6, 1965, including acceptance of offers of easements for the construction and maintenance of
public utilities; and,
WHEREAS, the subsequent purchasers of a portion of Lot 27 of Tract Map No. 3334,
Ryland Homes of California, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, re-subdivided said land and recorded
Tract Map No. 28810 with dedications of public utility easements at locations suitable for their new
development; and,
WHEREAS, the owner's agent, Sake Engineering, has contacted the several utility
companies normally occupying such easements and has received approval for the quitclaim of
these easements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby quitclaims the public utility easements dedicated on Tract Map No. 3334 lying within a
portion of Lot 27 of Tract Map No. 3334, also being within the new tract boundaries of Tract Map
No. 28810 as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 9th day of January 2001.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
3
r:~agd rpt\.2001\0109\tm33341ot27,qu[tclaim pue
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. 2001- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
4
r:~agdrpt\,2001\O 109\tm33341ot27.q uitclaimpue
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN BECORDED MAiL TH~S DEED AND, UNLESS
OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX STATEMENT TO:
City of Temecula
~ 43200 Business Park Drive
z,,¢o~E Temecula~ CA ~2859-9~33
SPACE ABOVE THiS LINE EOR RECOROER'S USE
- DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $
[~ computed on full value of prc, oe~y conveyeo, or
QUITCLAIM DEED D computed on full value less liens and
encumbrances remaining at fl.'me of sale.
Signature of Declarant or Agent Determir~ing Tax Firm Name
The City of Temecula
the undersigned grantor{s), for a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do__ hereby remise, release and
forever quitclaim to Ryland Home.~ of California~ Inc. ~ a Delaware Corporation
the following described real property in the Cit¥ of T~=m~=c~u]a ,CountyofR-[v~=r.~ide , StateofCA :
Described as follows: Two strip~ of land designated and described as
Public Utility Easement (P.U.E.) ~ in TR 3334, Lot 27 and more particulary
described as the Easterly 6.00 feet of Lot 27 and 6.00 feet of portion of the
Southerly 336.17 feet from the most Southeast corner of Lot 27 and 12 x 40
feet PUE along the Southerly property line of Lot 27, being 225.25 feet
from the most Southeast corner of Lot 27; all lying within Tract 334 as
shown by Map on file in Book 54, pages 25 through 30 inclusive, of Maps,
in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County.
Assessor'sparcelNo. 921-37~-~4
Executed on ,at
STATEOF
COUNTY OF
On before me,
personally appeared personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s} whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(sk or the entity upon behalf of which the person{s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
RIGHT THUMBPRINT (Optional)
MAIL TAX
STATEMENTS TO:
Before you use this fora1, fillin all blanks and make wha eve changes are app Dp iate and necessar to your particular
[ransaction. Consult a lawyer if you doubt he o m's fitness for your purpose and use. ~olcotts makes nc
representation or warranty express or implied, w h aspect to the merchantability or fitness of this form for an
intended use or purpose.
QUITCLAIM DEED Rev. 3-94b (price class 3A)
7 I
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER{S)
[] INDIVIDUAL(S)
[] CORPORATE
OFFICER(B)
[] PARTNER(S) E] LIMtTED
{~GENERAL
~] ATTORNEY IN FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDIAN;CONSERVATOR
ID OTHER:
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
~ ~ ~ND HOMES
'~ ~ ~7~0 ~ ~ SUI~ 200
1BK 2~1, P
~ ~ R~D~ ~U~
/ ~ GRAPHIC SC~E
1 ~ch = 150 ~
~ ~ ~'~~ SX~ISI ~ "A "
SAKE ~ ~ ,~ ~UIT C~IM
~, ~ ~ PUBLIC UTILITIES ~SEMENTS
David J Slawson
Iqce President
Claylon A. Record. Jr.
Marion \:. Ashl¢>
Richard R Hall
Rodger D. Stems
Board Secretary
Mary C \Vhite
JohnB Brudin
Director of the
.lletropolitan 11 bter
District of So. Califl
Clayton A. Record. Jr
Joseph J. Kueblcr, CPA.
October 6, 2000
City of Temecula
cio Sam Akbarpour
Stake Engineers
400 S. Ramona Ave., Suite 200
Corona, CA 92879
Reference: P.U.E.
Tract 28810
Gentlemen:
The Eastern Municipal Water District has no facilities or plans to install facilities
within the P.U.E. on the above referenced tract (see attached map).
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to give me a call at (909) 928-3777,
extension 4418.
Sincerely,
Don Simpson
Senior Right-of-Way Agent
Engineering Services
DS:dhd
Enclosure
Mailing ..Idd~esx: Post Office Box 8300 Pen-is. CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909~ 928-3777 Fax: (90'01 928-6177
Locanon. 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 925 ~0
October 11, 2000
Bom'd of Dhrectors
Douglas V. Kulberg
President
John F. Hennigar
Phillip L. Forbes
E.P. ~dob" Lemons
Director of Operations
Stun Akbarpour, Principal Engineer
Sake Engineers, Inc.
400 South Ramona Avenue
Suite 202
Corona, CA 92879
SUBJECT: EASEMENT NON-INTERFERENCE
TRACT MAP 28810
Dear Mr. Akbarpour:
Please be advised that the development of the above-referenced property will
not unreasonably interfere with easements presently held by Rancho
California Water District.
Rancho Califomia Water District requires easements to be shown on final
maps.
District Secr et ar~'/Administ r ative
s~,~c~.~ .':~r If yOU should have any questions, please contact us.
o~n~,~ co~ Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Project Manager
Sr. Engineering Technician
00\BJ:at07g~F022~FCF
Date: Friday, July 14, 2000
SAKE ENGINEERS, INC.
Tom Tavenner
Phone: 909-279-4041
Fax: 909-279-2830
PiN)m:
Pacific Bell
Leslie Wooislair
Phone: 714-666-5409
Fax: 714-666-8038
Pages: lof 3
Subject: TRACT 28810 -Ryland Homes Quitclaim
Tom-
Engineering has determined that we have no facilities
within this property and have no objection to the
quitclaim of the P.U.E.'s. If you have any questions,
please call me.
rThe
Gas
Company.
July 14,2000
Gas Co. Reference No. 00-200 OM
Sake Engineers, Inc.
400 S. Ramona Ave., Suite 202
Corona, CA 92879
Attention: Tom Tavenner
Re:
Quitclaim of Public Utility Easement within Tract 28810
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
Box 3003, SC8031
Redlan&, CA
92373-0~06
Thank you for the opportunity to review your plans for the referenced project.
We have no comments or recommendations to submit on this particular
development project.
Sincerely,
John DeWitt
Technical Supervisor
~Doc-I 1-00 $3:24 Fro~$CE
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
?t40540637 T-245 P.O~/O2 F-??I
December 11, 2000
AtTenTion:
Ph,-i,,~ Department
Clement
Subject: Tract Map No 3334
Sot~em California F. dison does not object to the quitclaim of the public utility easement
as shown dedicated on Tract Map No, 3334, recorded in Book 54, pages 25.30 only in so
far as it affects Tract Map No. 28810, recorded in Book 291, pa§~s 55-58
If additional information is required in connection with the above m~tioaed subject,
please comac~ me at 714-g34-023S.
cc: Sake Engineering
Lisa SalL~as
TiTle and Real £statc Services
Corporate Real E!state Depanmen!
14803 Ci~esinat Si
Wesuuinitcr. CA 92683
llo0-u 17-3677
Fax 714-934-0837
ITEM 7
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE'~
CITY MANAGER ~--1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
/y~/~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Januaw 9,2001
Evaluation of Multi-Way Stop Controls on Via Cordoba
PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council extend the evaluation period and
maintain the "temporary" multi-way stop signs until other viable alternatives are evaluated.
BACKGROUND: In May 2000, the City Council approved the recommendation of
the City Council Subcommittee to install "temporary" multi-way stop signs on Via Cordoba at Via
Salito/Corte Bravo, Loma Linda Road and Code Zorita, and directed staff to perform an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the multi-way stop signs after a period of three (3) months.
At the meeting of December 14, 2000, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a
presentation of the results of the data collected before and after the installation of multi-way stop
signs and considered the effectiveness of the stop signs at reducing vehicular speeds and
volumes. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff recommended the removal of the multi-
way stop signs on Via Cordoba at Via Salito/Corte Bravo and Code Zorita and retaining the stop
signs at Loma Linda Road.
Following receipt of the public testimony and discussion of the results, the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission denied the staff recommendation and recommended that the City Council extend
the evaluation period and maintain the "temporary" multi-way stop signs until a viable
alternative, such as providing additional police officers for the enforcement of the speed limit in
residential neighborhoods, is found that can replace the stop signs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. December 14, 2000, Public/Traffic Safety Commission Agenda Report
R:~agdrpt\200 l\0109\viacordoba\ajp
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
December 14, 2000
Item 4
Evaluation of Multi-Way Stop Controls on Via Cordoba
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the City Council establish a multi-way stop
control on Via Cordoba at Loma Linda Road, and remove the multi-way stop controls on Via Cordoba at
Via Salito/Corte Bravo and Corte Zorita.
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of May 9, 2000, the City Council approved the recommendation of the City Council
Subcommittee to install "temporary" multi-way stop signs on Via Cordoba at Via Salito/Corte Bravo,
Loma Linda Road and Corte Zorita and directed staff to perform an evaluation of the multi-way stop signs
after a period of three (3) months. The multi-way stop signs have been in place for approximately six (6)
months and an evaluation of before and after conditions has been performed. The public has been notified
of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification
process and by mail.
A before and after study was performed to determine the effectiveness of the "temporary" multi-way stop
signs. The study includes an evaluation of vehicular volume and speed data before and after the installation
of the stop signs. Vehicular volume and speed data was collected at four locations on Via Cordoba the
week of May 3-9, 2000, before the installation, and at the same four locations the week of July 14-20, 2000
and October 5-12, 2000, following the installation of the stop signs. Counts Unlimited, an independent
contractor, performed all of the data collection.
The table below summarizes the results of the before and after evaluation conducted on Via Cordoba.
BEFORE AFTER AFTER
INSTALLATION INSTALLATION INSTALLATION
SUrvey Date Survey Date Survey Date
LOCATION (May 3,9, 2000) (July14-20, 2000) (Oct. 5-12, 2000)
Btw. Via Quivera Volume
and Via (ADT) 1,924 ADT 1,548 ADT 1,683 ADT
Salito/Corte Bravo Speed
(85'h %) 33 MPH 33.5 MPH 33 MPH
1
r:\tra ffic~conmlissn[agendaX,2~O\ 1214\viacordoba.agrdajp
~ BEFORE AFTER AFTER
INSTALLATION INSTALLATION INSTALLATION
Survey Date Survey Date Survey Date
LOCATION (May 3.9, 2000) (July14-20, 2000) (Oct. 5~12, 2000)
Btw. Via Lucia and Volume
Loma Linda Road (ADT) 1,336 ADT 1,000 ADT 1,121 ADT
Speed
(85~ %) 31 MPH 30 MPH 29 MPH
Btw. Corte Valle Volume
and Corte Rosa (ADT) 2;007 ADT 1,740 ADT 1,865 ADT
Speed
(85'h %) 32 MPH 31 MPH 32 MPH
Btw. Corte Zorita Volume
and Corte Bella (ADT) 1,656 ADT 1,339 ADT 1,469 ADT
Donna Speed
(85"~ %) 32 MPH 33 MPH 33 MPH
AS shown, the installation of multi-way stop signs did not significantly reduce the overall vehicular speed
along Via Cordoba. The results indicate that 85~h percentile speeds remained consistent before and after the
installation of stop signs with the exception of one location, where vehicular speeds were reduced by
approximately 2 miles per hour. This indicates that the majority of motorists on Via Cordoba believe that a
travel speed of 30-33 MPH is safe and appropriate for conditions.
Conversely, the results of the evaluation indicate that overall vehicular volumes on Via Cordoba were
reduced by approximately 12 % after the installation of multi-way stop signs. It is likely that the reduction
in vehicular volumes can be attributed to the following factors:
· The inconvenience of having to stop unnecessarily at the three "stop" locations on Via Cordoba
· The presence of enforcement
· The availability of more convenient routes due to the completion of roadway construction projects
During the evaluation period staff received only a few calls from residents of Via Cordoba and adjacent
streets regarding the stop signs. The complaints received included "the stop signs are a dumb idea",
"motorists do not obey the stop controls", "stop signs do not work - vehicles continue to speed on Via
Cordoba", "stop signs do not work - close Via Cordoba at Redhawk Parkway". The positive "feedback"
included "stop signs are working great" and "stop signs work on Via Cordoba we need some on Loma
Linda Road".
The results of the before and after study indicate that the "temporary" multi-way stop signs have been
ineffective at reducing overall vehicular speeds on Via Cordoba except at one location, Loma Linda Road.
The reason that the multi-way stop signs have been somewhat effective at this location is because there is a
higher frequency of traffic on Loma Linda Road and the stop signs are providing the necessary right-of-
way assignment for the intersection. The other two intersections are not experiencing the same type of side
street volumes that would necessitate some form of right-of-way assignment.
Overall, the results of the past studies performed on Via Cordoba, which included implementation of
temporary traffic circles, have not shown a significant reduction in vehicular speeds. The data collected
has shown that 85m percentile speeds along Via Cordoba have remained consistently between 30 MPH to
33.5 MPH regardless of the type of traffic control device used.
2
Based on the data collected, it is staff's opinion that the multi-way stop signs have been proven ineffective
at two (2) locations. Therefore, staff recommends maintaining the multi-way stop signs on Via Cordoba at
Loma Linda Road, and removing the multi-way stop signs on Via Cordoba at Via Salito/Corte Bravo and
Corte Zorita.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Routine Street
Maintenance Account No. 001 - 164-601-5402.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Vehicular Volume Data Evaluation
3. Exhibit "C" - Vehicular Speed Data Evaluation
3
r:\traffic\commissn\agenda~2000\1214Xviacordoba.agvJajp
EXHIBIT "A"
LOCATION MAP
4
r:\tra ffic\commissn\agenda~2000\ 1214Xviacordoba.agrdajp
EXHIBIT "B"
VEHICULAR VOLUME DATA EVALUATION
ell
EXHIBIT "C"
VEHICULAR SPEED DATA EVALUATION
ITEM 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY II~'~'''7 II
DI RECTOR OF FINAN CE~I'~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECU~
AGENDA REPORT
City ManageflCity Council
~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Janua~ 9, 2001
Acceptance of ceAain Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System within
Tract No. 23583. (Nodheasterly of intersection of Calle Madero at NoAh General
Kearny Road)
PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE
CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO.
23583)
BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Vesting Tract Map No. 23583 on December 18,
1990, and entered into Subdivision Agreements for construction of street, drainage, and water and
sewer system improvements, and subdivision monumentation with Bedford Development Company,
a California Corporation.
In November 1993, the City Council approved the termination of the major access street, North
General Kearny Road, at Calle Mader° (Southerly of the Northerly Tract Boundary). The City
Council approved the change of street name of this same portion of North General Kearny Road to
Nada Lane by Resolution No. 99-65 on July 13, 1999.
Subsequent to the recordation of Tract No. 23583, this project was sold to Dick-Con, a California
Corporation, and then Woodside Inland Estates, Inc., both California Corporations. The new owner
proposed realignment of several streets and lots which were approved under Lot Line Adjustment
No. PA98-0090 resulting in the vacation of portions of several streets and the dedication of portions
of interior streets. On May 11, 1999, the City Council summarily vacated the requested portions by
Resolution No. 99-35, and accepted the Offers of Dedication by Resolution No. 99-36.
On April 18, 2000, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, in accordance with the authority
delegated on November 16, 1999, by Resolution No. 99-111, authorized the acceptance of the
public improvements including those revised under the November, 1993, City Council action and
the several resolutions vacating and approving street dedications.
I
r:\agdrpt\.2001\0109\tr23583.sts
The public streets now being accepted by this action are portions of Corte Coelho and an unnamed
street (known as "Calle Olvera"). Nada Lane (that podion of North General Kearny Road renamed by
Resolution No. 99-65 on July 13, 1999) will not be accepted at this time as there may be
modifications to the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Periodic surface and/or structural maintenance will be required every 5 to 8
years.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution No. 2001-
2. Location Map
with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive.
2
r:~agdrpt\.2001 \0109~tr23583.sts
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE
CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 23583)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula accepted an offer of dedication of
certain lots for street and public utility purposes made by Bedford Development Company, a
California Corporation, with the recordation of Tract Map No. 23583: and,
WHEREAS, the subsequent purchasers of Tract No. 23583 desired to change certain lot and
interior street configurations, and the Planning Director concurred in and approved these changes
under Lot Line Adjustment No. PA98-0080: and,
WHEREAS, the approved interior street re-configurations necessitated the vacation of
portions of the interior street system and dedication of new interior streets, which vacations and
dedications were approved and accepted by the City Council on May 11, 1999, by Resolutions No.
99-35 and 99-36.
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula accepted the improvements within Tract No 23583 on May
25, 2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
accepts into the City-Maintained-Street System that street and portion of street offered to and
accepted by the City of Temecula described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 9th day of January, 2001.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
3
r:~agdrpt\.2001 \0109~tr23583.sts
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. 2001- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
4
r:~agdrpt\.2001 ~0109~tr23583.sts
oo
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
Accepting several of the public streets offered to and accepted
by the City of Temecula as indicated on Tract Map No. 23583, and
as revised by Resolutions No. 99-35 and 99-36 summarily
vacating and accepting offers of dedication, respectively, into
the City-Maintained Street System as described below:
Those portions of Tract Map No. 23583 in the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside, as filed in Book 228, Pages 27-32 Inclusive,
of Maps, in the Recorder's Office of said county, particularly
described as follows:
1. Lot "C" (Corte Coelho) of said Tract Map No. 23583:
Excepting the following portion of said Lot C (Corte
Coelho):
BEGINNING at the most Westerly corner of said Lot "C"; said
point being also on the Southeasterly right-of-way line of Nada
Lane (formerly North General Kearny Road) as shown on said
Tract No. 23583; Thence along said Southeasterly right-of-way
line North 48°00'06'' East, 106.14 feet to the Northwesterly comer
of said Lot "C" (Corte Coelho); Thence leaving said
Southeasterly right-of-way line of said Lot "C" (Corte Coelho)
South 01° 14'35" West, 33.51 feet to the beginning of a 270.00
foot radius non-tangent curve concave Northerly, a radial line to
said point bears South 44° 29'03" West; Thence Easterly along
said curve and said Northerly right-of-way line through a central
angle of 58° 40'39", a distance of 276.51 feet to a point on a
50.00 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly, a radial line to
said point bears North 82° 11'16" West; Thence Southeasterly
and Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 106°
36'06", a distance of 93.03 feet to the Southerly right-of-way line
of said Lot "C" (Corte Coelho), said point also being a point of
cusp with a 330.00 foot radius curve concave Northerly, a radial
line to sa!d point bears South 24° 24'50" East; Thence Westerly
along said curve and said Southerly right-of-way line through a
central angle 69° 57'18", a distance of 402.91 feet; Thence
continuing along said Southerly right-of-way line North 88°
13'43" West, 31.82 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Also including the following parcel:
Being a portion of Lots 19, 20, and 21 of said Tract No. 23583,
(also being a portion of Parcels "D" and "E" of said Lot Line
Adjustment No. PA98-0080), mots particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the centerline intersection of Corte Gerule (Vacated
May 11, 1999 by Resolution No. 99-35) and Corte Coelho as
5
r:~agdrpt\.2001 ~)109~tr23583.sts
shown on said Tract Map No. 23583, said point being also on a
300.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly, a radial line to
said point bears South 36° 57'39" East; Thence Northeasterly
along said curve and said centerline of Corte Coelho through a
central angle of 17° 37'39', a distance of 92,30 feet.; Thence
leaving said curve and said centerline of Corte Coelho North
54° 35'18" West, 30.00 feet to the Northwesterly right-of-way line
of said Corte Coelho, said point being also on a 270.00 foot
radius non-tangent curve concave Northwesterly, a radial line to
said point bears South 54° 35'18" East, said point being also the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Southwesterly along said
curve and said Northwesterly right-of-way line through a central
angle of 40°23'48'', a distance of 190.37 feet to a 50.00 foot radius
non-tangent curve concave Southeasterly, a radial to said point
bears South 82° 11'16" West; Thence leaving said Northwesterly
right-of-way line Northerly along said curve through a central
angle of 87° 40'36", a distance of 76.51 feet; Thence North 79° 51'
52" East, 50.00 feet to the beginning of a 100.00 radius curve
concave Northwesterly; Thence Northeasterly along said curve
through a central angle of 44° 27'10", a distance of 77.58 feet to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
2. That certain parcel called "Valle Olvera" within said Tract
Map No. 23583, further described as follows:
Being a portion of Lots 18 and 19 of said Tract No. 23583,( also
being portions of Parcels "E" and "F" of said Lot Line
Adjustment No. PA98-0090); Commencing atthe most Westerly
corner of said Lot 19, said point being also on the Southeasterly
right-of-way line of Nada Lane (formerly North General Kearny
Road ) as shown on said Tract No. 23583; Thence along said
Southeasterly right-of-way line of said Lot 19 North 48° 00'06"
East, 49.91 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence
continuing along said Southeasterly right-of-way I!ne North 48°
00'06" East, 7.42 feet to the beginning of a 2,204.78 foot radius
curve concave Northwesterly; Thence Northeasterly along said
curve and continuing along said Southeasterly right-of-way line
through a central angle of 01° 54'06", a distance of 73.18 feet;
Thence leaving said curve and said Southeasterly right-of-way
line South 43°07'13" East, 122.45 feet to the beginning ora 120.00
foot radius curve concave Northeasterly; Thence Southeasterly
along said curve through a central angle of 35° 02'32", a distance
of 73.39 feet; Thence North 58° 36'11" East, 15.07 feet to the
Westerly right-of-way line of Corte Coelho (Lot "C") as shown on
said Tract Map No. 23583, said point being also on a 330.00 foot
radius non-tangent curve concave Easterly, a radial line to said
point bears North 74° 37'53" West; Thence Southerly along said
curve and said Westerly right-of-way line through a central angle
of 06° 56'19", a distance of 39.96 feet to the beginning of a
270.00 foot radius reverse curve, a radial line to said point bears
South 81° 34'12" South; Thence Southerly along said curve and
said Westerly right-of-way line through a central angle of 09°
01'16", a distance of 42.51 feet; Thence leaving said curve and
6
r:~agdrpt~2001 \0109~tr23583.sts
said Westerly right-of-way line North 30° 13'53" West, 16.27 feet
to the beginning of a 180.00 foot radius non-tangent curve
concave Northeasterly, a radial line to said point bears South
12 °05'10" West; Thence Northwesterly along said through a
central angle of 34° 47'37", a distance of 109.31 feet; Thence
North 43°07'13" West, 101.81 feet; Thence 87033'33" West,
29.41 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
NOTE:
No portion of North General Kearny Road nor Nada Lane
shown within the Tract Boundary is accepted at this time as
changes in the width or length of the mapped street are under
consideration and would effect access rights or the configuration
of the ultimate street right-of-way.
7
r:~agdrpt~.2001 \0109~tr23583.sts
EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE-PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-
MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW
vice, fY ~P
Location Map
LEGEND
OR PORTIONS OF STREETS ['/777"/~
STREETS
TO BE ACCEPTED INTO CITY- ,f, , , .... i
MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM
STREETs OR PORTIONS OF STREET
VACATED BY RESOLUTION
NO. 99-35 ON MAY 11, 1999
NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE
ITEM 9
APPROVal
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
t~J~William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Janua~ 9,2001
Completion and Acceptance for the FY99-00 Pavement Management System -
Various Streets (Ynez Road from Santiago Road to East Vallejo Avenue)
Project No. PW00-14
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer
Steve Charette, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Accept the project "FY99-00 Pavement Management System - Various Streets (Ynez Road
from Santiago Road to East Vallejo Avenue), Project No. PW00-14", as complete; and
File a Notice of Completion, release the performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; and
Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of
Completion, if no liens have been filed.
BACKGROUND: On June 13, 2000, the City Council awarded the contract to
McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc. for an amount of $482,754.00. The project included a
contingency amount of $48,275.40. On September 12, 2000, the City Council authorized the City
Manager to approve contract change orders for an additional amount of $168,000.00. The
additional funds were used to extend the project 1900 lineal feet on Ynez Road south of La Paz
Street. Three change orders for an amount of $203,889.19 were approved by the City Manager
bringing the total cost of the project to $686,643.19. The project included the removal of unsuitable
asphalt pavement and subsurface material and replacing with aggregate base and a resurfacing
with asphalt concrete.
The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction
retention for this project will be released on or about 35 days after the Notice of Completion has
been recorded.
FISCAL IMPACT: This Pavement Management project is funded through FY99-2000
Measure A Funds. These funds have been appropriated in Account No. 210-165-655-5804. The
original contract amount for this project was $482,754.00. Contract Change Orders No. 1 through
No. 3 were approved in the amount of $203,889.19 for a total contract amount of $686,643.19.
R:~AG DRPT~2001\0109\PW00-14.ACC.DOC/smc ·
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
2. Maintenance Bond
3. Contractor's Affidavit
R:~AG DRPT~2001\0109\PW00-14.ACC.DOC/smc
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Sox 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
'l'emecula, CA 92589-9033
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described.
2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590.
3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to McLaughlin Engineering & Mining,
Inc. to perform the following work of improvement:
FY99-2000 Pavement Management System- Various Streets
Project No. PW00-14
4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was
accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on January 9,
2001. That upon said contract the Reliance Insurance Company was surety for the bond given by the
said company as required by law.
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PROJECT NO. PW 00-
14.
6. The project location is: Ynez Road between Santiago Road and East Vallejo Avenue
Dated at Temecula, California, this 9t~ day of January, 2001.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk
I, Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under
penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said
NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County
Recorder of Riverside by said City Council.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 9t~ day of January, 2001.
Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BOND #B291 58 60-A
PREMIUM INCLUDED IN
EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE MAINTENANCE BOND PERFORMANCE BOND
PROJECT NO. PWOO. f4
FY99-O0 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - VARIOUS STREETS
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT:
McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING & MINING INC.
41934 MAIN STREET #107
TEMECULA CA 92590-2701
a
NAME AND ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S
CALIFORNIA
RELIANCE INS~CE
4275 ~CUTIVE SQU~ SUITE 700
LA JOLLA CA 92027
hereinafter called Principal, and
NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY
hereinafter called SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA,
hereinal~er called OWNER, in the penal sum Of'FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-
SIX ............................ DOLLARS and ......................... CENiS
($ 48,276.00 ) in lawful money of the United States. said sum being not less than ten
(10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the
Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and
. Severally, firmly_by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a
certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the 13 th day o[ June . ,~1200,0 a copy
of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PW00-
14, FY99-O0 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM -VARIOUS STREETS.
WHEREAS. said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee
for the period of on,Q (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER,
against all defects in wolkmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period:
and
WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was approved on .~anuary 9 .,/'1'~- 2_..0.01
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF Tills OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year
from the date of approval of the said Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract
shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work. and the carrying out of the terms
of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were fumished thereunder, then this
obligation shall remain in full force and virtue, othe~vise this instrument shall be void.
22ND JUNE . {~ 2000
Signed and sealed this day of
(Seal)
sURET'I'RELiANCE [ N SUR4NCE,,~COMPA~,,,
[NG~[D ERIKA CROSBY
(Name)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
[Tme)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, CIb/Attorney
By: -
(Name)
(Title)
MAff4TENANCE BOND
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California ~ ss.
County of Riverside
On 6/23/00 , before me,
Date
personally appeared Jerry Dalrymple
Carol M. Schlitz, Notary Public
Name a~ Tille ol Officer (eg, ~Jame Oce Nolary Pubh¢-~
Name(s) of $igner~s~
_~ personally known to me
~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(les), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my ~hand and official ,~eal.
OPTIONAL
Though the info~ation below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to pe~ons relying on the document
and could p~vent fraudulent ~moval and rea~achment of this fo~ to another d~ument.
Description of Affached Document
Titie or Type of Document: Ha~e~s~ce ~oad - ~aveme~ He~a~eme~ System
Document Date: 6/22/00
Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer
Signerls Name: Jerry Dalrymple
~ individual
~i: Corporate Officer -- Title(s):
[] Partner-- [] Limited [] General
~ Attomey in Fact
~ Trustee
[] Guardian or Conservator
~ Other:
Signer Is Representing: McLaughlin En:~ineering & Mining, Inc.
Top of thumb here
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
On 22 JUNE 2000 , before me,
SS.
WENDY H. DOWNS, NOTARY PUBLIC
PERSONALLY APPEARED INGRID ERIKA CROSBY
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person(~) whose name(~)
is/ar-~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowl-
edged to me that t.m.~she/Lkcy executed the same in hi~/
her?d'm~ authorized capacity(ic;~, and that by .l=~/her/
their signature(g) on the instrument the person(~), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person00 acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
WENDYH DOWNS
This area for Official Notarial Seal
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons reyng on the document and could prevent
fraudulent reatlachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
[] INDIVIDUAL
[] CORPORATE OFFICER
[] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED
[] GENERAL
[] A'I-I'ORNEY-iN-FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDiAN/CONSERVATOR
[] OTHER:
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
,~o~E o~ ~so.(s~o~ Emrrvi~ES)
SURETY
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
~O-~,.~ m.,' ~,o~ ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
'UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA
POWER OF AI'rORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Delaware,
and that RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY. am corporations duly organize~ under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of
Wisconsin (herein collectivaty celled *~he Companies") and that the Companies by virtue of signature and seals do hereby make, constitute and appoint
I.arty D. CogdilL Ingrld Erlka Crosby, Brooke Laftenz, Michael W. Thomas, Weedy H. Dow~s, of San Diego, California their true and lawful
Attomey(s)-in-Fact. to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on their behalf, and as their ack end deed any and all bonds and undertakings of
suretyship and to bind the Companies thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and undertakings and other wdtings obligatory in the
nature thereof were signed by an Executive Officer of the Companies and sealed and attested by one other of such officers, and hereby ratifies and
confirms all that their said Attomey(a)-th-Fack may do in pursuance hereof.
This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of Article VII of the By*Laws of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, RELIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY which provisions are now in
full force and effect, reading as follows:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Companies have caused these presents to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed, this August 24, 1999.
®®®®
RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY
RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY
STATE OF Washington }
COUNTY OF King } ss.
On this, August 24, 1999, before me, Laura I_ Santa,s, personally appeared Mark W. Aleup, who acknowledged himself to be the Vice president of
the Reliance Surety Company, Reliance Insurance Company, United Pacific Insurance Company, and Reliance National Indemnity Company and that ss
such, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purpose therein containecl by signing the name of the corporation by himself as
Residing at Puyallup
its duly autho~zed officer.
In witness whereof: I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
i. Robyn Layng. Assistant Secretary of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMP- .
ANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power of
Attorney executed by said Companies. which is still in full force and effect.
iN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Corepanies this 22[q-D day of J~ j..~a~f 2 000
ClTYOFTEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE
PROJECT NO. PWOO-f4
FY99-O0 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - VARIOUS STREETS
McLaughlin Engineering
--- This is to certify that & Mining, Inc. , (hereinafter the ~CONTRACTOR") declares
to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor,
services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of
the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the
execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection,
construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW00-14,
FY99-00 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - VARIOUS STREETS, situated in the City of
Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
FY99-00 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - VARIOUS STREETS
The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said
Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any
unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR.
Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby
disputes the following amounts:
Description Dollar Amount to Dispute
None
None
Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and
acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any
and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the
CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the
CONTRACTOR has not disputed above.
Dated: 12/28/00
CONTR '
By: ~ -~
Signature
Fred Perkins, Director
Print Name and Title
R*I
R:~p~ojectsyw00~00*l 4~id.doc,dot
ITEM 10
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL ~"~z ~,~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINA~CE_~/~
CiTY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
James B. O'Grady, Assistant City Manage~.,'[/~..~
January 9, 2001
Resolution of Support
PREPARED BY:
Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider adopting the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA URGING IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION BY
FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT TO REFORM THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC ENERGY MARKETPLACE
BACKGROUND: Today's California electric market is seriously flawed and needs
immediate and long-term fixes. Legislation that intend to produce lower prices have not
materialized and out-of-state generators and marketers have been charging rates that are ten
times that of the state's regulated utilities prior to deregulation.
Immediate action is needed from State officials to bring about such change. The following
principles must be addressed:
· There must be a reliable supply of electricity
· Electricity must be affordable
· Both the price and supply of electricity must be determined under a stable
framework
The energy subcommittee consisting of Mayor Comerchero, Councilmember Naggar and City staff,
has discussed this energy crisis and possible solutions on several occasions. The subcommittee
recommends the attached resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time
Attachments:
Resolution 01-
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA URGING IMMEIDATE INTERVENTION BY FEDERAL
AND STATE GOVERNMENT TO REFORM THE CALIFORNIA
ELECTRIC ENERGY MARKETPLACE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, in the 1990's the California Public Utilities Commission and the State
Legislature acted to deregulate the electric utility industry in the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the transition and restructuring of this decades-old structure of area-specific
monopolies has been managed by the California Public Utilities Commission under legislative
mandate, mainly from Assembly Bill 1890 and Senate Bill 90; and
WHEREAS, the objective of electric market deregulation was to bring competition in
electricity supply to the State and benefits of reduced costs and improved services to businesses
and consumers; and
WHEREAS, the results of electric industry deregulation was supposed to produce lower
rates and improved customer services, unfortunately, no such results have been achieved in
California; and
WHEREAS, before California deregulated its electricity industry in 1998, three investor
owned utilities delivered 80% of the electricity consumed in the State; and
WHEREAS, as a part of the restructuring process, these utilities have been forced to sell
their power plants to private companies, with the new owners now selling their electricity back to
these same utilities through the marketplace at what have become dramatically inflated prices that
are causing economic hardship and dislocation to businesses and consumers alike; and
WHEREAS, since deregulation, California has attracted only a handful of new suppliers,
and that lack of competition has compounded shortages of electricity; and
WHEREAS, without intervention by the Federal government, Governor and State
Legislature, millions of Californians will face dramatic increases in power costs in the near future, in
addition to, adverse impacts from the disruption in commerce caused by power outages and energy
cost spikes.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Temecula urges
the Federal government, Governor and State Legislature to prevent the complete meltdown of the
California electric marketplace through immediate intervention and reform actions. Further, the City
Council believes the following principles should guide the electricity marketplace reform and
restructuring:
1. There must be a reliable supply of electricity.
Resos\99-40 1
Both the price and supply of electricity must be determined under a stable
framework. -Consumers have to be protected from price volatility.
Electricity must be affordable.-California's economic future cannot continue to
be held hostage to market manipulation,
Further, be it resolved that the immediate short term resolution of the electric utility crisis requires
the California Public Utilities Commission to enact an emergency rate stabilization program that will
ensure consumer protection from price volatility and enable the state's electric utilities to maintain
system and service reliability.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 9th day of January 2001.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 00- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Resos\99-40 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
0
0
0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Resos\99-40 3
ITEM 11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR.OFFINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
January 9, 2001
Community Development Block Grant Application Proposals for FY 2001/02
PREPARED BY: Gus Papagolos, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendation from the
Finance Committee and staff.
2. Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub-Recipient Agreements and to
reprogram CDBG funds from completed projects in accordance with the current budget resolution for
general administration of the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Community Development Block Grant Funds.
DISCUSSION: The CDBG program is a federal grant program administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in which funding is allocated to the City
annually through the Economic Development Agency (EDA) of Riverside County.
At tonight's City Council meeting the Council must hear and consider comments from the public
regarding the CDBG funding recommendations. The application requests were also reviewed for
eligibility for CDBG funding by our program representative at the EDA and all of the applications are
eligible for funding. In order for a project to be considered for funding, it must meet one of the following
national goals:
The activity benefits 51 percent Iow/moderate income persons; or,
The activity aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or,
The activity meets an emergent community development need.
A total of (13) thirteen applications were submitted to the City for consideration and all were
determined to be eligible for CDBG funding. The City's allocation for FY 01/02 is anticipated to be
$386,227. CDBG regulations impose a 15 percent cap from the total allocation or a maximum
expenditure of $57,934 for Public Services. A balance of $328,293 is available for public facilities and
capital improvement projects (refer to table on the following page).
FY 01102 CDBG ALLOCATION
FUNDING CATEGORY FUNDING
ALLOCATION
200t-02 CDBG Allocation - estimate $386,227
Less Public Services (15% CAP) -57,934
Project Funding available for Public
Facilities/Infrastructure $328,293
Due to the possibility that the City's allocation may be reduced, it is recommended that all projects
be reduced equally, according to the percentage in allocation reduction. All projects are subject to
final approval at a future Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting. The EDA will submit a
supplemental agreement to the City identifying the projects approved for funding in June 200'1.
Also, for general information this FY 2001/2002 CDBG funding cycle begins the second year of a
three-year cooperation agreement with the County EDA. At the term of this agreement it is
anticipated that the City will submit for entitlement status with HUD.
After thorough review, the Finance Committee, composed of Mayor, Jeff Stone, and
Councilmember, Mike Naggar, are proposing CDBG funding to nine (9) public service organizations
and three (3) City capital projects as described in the attachment.
FISCAL IMPACT: The CDBG funds allocated to outside agencies have no impact on the City,
other than staff time needed to administer program requirements.
Attachment: Finance Committee Recommendations
Finance Committee Funding Recommendations
Funding Finance Committee
Public Services Requested Funding Recommendation
V.I.P. Tots 6,500 2,000
Emergency Food Aid 10,000 10,000
Alternatives to Domestic Violence 33,457 10,000
(ADV)
Operation School Bell 12,000 10,000
American Red Cross Riverside County 16,867 10,000
Boys & Girls Club of Temecula 60,000 10,000
Community Access Center (CAC) 12,500 2,000
Friends of the Temecula Library 12,900 1,934
YMCA 5,000 2,000
Total Public Services Projects (15% $169,224 $57,934
Cap = $57,934)
Non-Public Service Projects Funding Finance Committee
Facility Expansion Requested Funding Recommendation
TCSD - Senior Center Expansion 40,000 0
TCSD - Rancho California Sports Park 50,000 $ 55,000
ADA Improvements
TCSD - Temecula Middle School ADA 30,000 $ 33,000
Improvements
RDA - Pujol Street Sidewalk Phase II 350,000 $240,293
Total Non-Public Service $470,000 $328,293
I Grand TotalI $639,224I $386,227
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
DECEMBER 19, 2000
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:30
P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President
Comerchero presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
5 DIRECTORS: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, 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
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of December 12, 2000.
MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was
seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
DISTRICT BUSINESS
2 Appointment of Community Services District Officers of the Year 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Appoint the President who will preside until December 31, 2001;
2.2
Appoint the Vice President who will assume the duties of the President in the
President's absence and hold this office until December 31, 2001.
MOTION: President Comerchero moved to appoint Director Stone to serve as President for the
Year 2001. The motion was seconded by Director Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
MOTION: President Comerchero moved to appoint Director Pratt to serve as Vice President for
the Year 2001. The motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
Minutes.csd~121900 1
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
No comments.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
No comments.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:32 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday,
January 9, 2001, at 7:00 P.M., CityCouncil Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, President
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
Minutes.csd\121900 2
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DECEMBER '19, 2000
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:32
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone,
Robeds
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of December 12, 2000.
MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The
motion was seconded by Agency Member Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
AGENCY BUSINESS
2 Appointment of Redevelopment Officers for the Year 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Appoint the Chairperson who will preside until December 31, 2001;
2.2 Appoint the Vice Chairperson who will assume the duties of the Chairperson in
the Chairperson's absence and hold this office until December 31, 2001.
MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to reappoint Chairman Roberts as the Agency's
Chairperson for the Year 2001. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Naggar and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
MOTION: Agency Member Roberts moved to appoint Agency Member Naggar to serve as the
Agency's Vice Chairperson for the Year 2001. The motion was seconded by Agency Member
Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
R:\Minutes.rda\121900 1
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No comment.
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:33 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, January 9, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberts, Chairman
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:~¥1inutes.rda\121900 2
ITEM 12
l APPROVAL
CITYATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
,CITYMANAGER_
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City~ouncil
,I J~
Debbie Ubnosk~;V, Director of Planning
January 9, 2001
Adoption of a resolution to initiate the annexation proceedings for a
640..acre portion of the Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan Area
(Planning Application PA99-O451)
PREPARED BY:
Saied Naaseh, Project Planner IV
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Continue the public headng to the January 23, 2001 City Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Staff is requesting a continuance of this item to allow staff more time to resolve some issues
with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Adoption of this resolution is the first
step in initiating the annexation proceedings for this project which is a cdtical step in
commencing the formation of the Community Facilities District (CFD) to improve Butterfield
Stage Road from Rancho California Road to Murdeta Hot Spdngs Road. Along with this
resolution, the City must pre-zone the site to Specific Plan. However, since the City has not yet
adopted the Specific Plan, LAFCO staff is requesting the City to apply for a deferral of the pre-
zoning. LAFCO staff would then forward the City's request to the LAFCO Commission which
would make the final determination on the deferral of the pre-zoning.
If the LAFCO Commission defers the pre-zoning, the City can file the annexation application
with LAFCO with the draft Specific Plan instead of the adopted Specific Plan. If the LAFCO
Commission does not defer the pre-zoning, the City must wait until it adopts the Specific Plan
pdor to filing with LAFCO for the annexation of the Rodpaugh Ranch. LAFCO's decision on the
deferral of the pre-zoning is expected this month.
FISCALIMPACT:
None
R:~ANNEXATN~Rodpaugh~CC report t-901 reso for annex confinae.doc
ITEM 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR.OFFINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity,~,~3~,uncil
Debbie Ubnoske~Director of Planning
January 9, 2001
Wolf Creek Specific Plan
PREPARED BY:
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the CityCouncil:
1. ADOPT a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 0'1-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. '12 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0482) AND RELATED
ACTIONS, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH.
2. ADOPT a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 0~1-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484
- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN
LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW ROAD (FORMERLY
FAIRVlEW AVENUE), AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL
NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND
-0'10, BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED
IN THE STAFF REPORT
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94)l.doc
1
3. ADOPT a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481
- WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12, ON PARCELS
TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA
ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW
ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-
002, -005, -033 AN D 950-180-001, -005, -006 AN D -010, BASED
UPON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
READ by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 01-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481
- THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MATRIX FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN
LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW ROAD, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-
180-001, -005, -006 AND -010
ADOPT a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052
- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF
557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE
PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK
SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12,
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN
LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW ROAD, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-
180-001, -005, -006 AND -010
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report I-9~)l.doc
2
BACKGROUND:
The proposed mixed use specific plan provides a full range of residential uses and product types,
school sites, park sites, open space and drainage greenbelt, roadways, private recreation center,
fire station site and commercial sites, specifically as follows:
· A variety of residential products totaling 1881 units with the single family dwelling court yard
option or 2022 units with the multi-family senior housing option.
· Two school sites.
· A neighborhood park, a linear park with three activity nodes that traverses the entire length of
the project, 1.5 acre parking area for the Kent Hintergardt Park, and the 40 acre Sports Park.
· A 15-acre drainage greenbelt along the full length of Pala Road.
· Roadways and circulation system that provide pedestrian linkages, bicycle paths and
interconnected uses throughout the project.
· Private recreation center, fire station on 5 acres at the Village Center.
· Neighborhood and Community Commercial areas totaling 20 acres at the Village Center.
Planning Commission Action - Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map
On December 6, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Wolf Creek
Specific Plan and its related cases, subject to twelve (12) modifications. The Conditions of Approval
for the Specific Plan have been revised to include these modifications, and are attached to the
Council Resolution, as Exhibit No. 3b.
Staff has compared the modifications with staff's original recommendations as follows:
Differs Staff can
Modification from Staff's Support
Recommendation the Change
Add TCSD conditions per the supplemental agenda X
Delete if feasible to energy and water conservation
conditions X
Add that reclaimed water condition be in accordance with
SB 2095 X
Augment the Mitigation Monitoring Program with the
General Plan EIR mitigations X
Specify only one option for narrower streets X
Require that the City hire an architect consultant to review X
the PDO
Revise the residential alternative to the City Sports Park at X
7,200 s.f. lots
Specify a church site in Planning Area 12 for a specified X
period of time
Permit a tavern or bar use by conditional use permit in X
Planning Area 12
Delete the split garage option X
Require garages in lieu of carports in the multi-family X
senior housing projects
Require Product Review approval from the Planning X
Commission
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report b9*01.doc
3
Consistency with the Growth Management Proqram Action Plan
With respect to the project's consistency with the Growth Management Program Action Plan, the
Commission felt they could support the proposed densities in conjunction with the numerous
amenities proposed, i.e., the 40-acre City Sports Park, land dedication for the fire station, the linear
park. They believed that the amenities would not solely benefit the project itself, but the community
as a whole.
General Plan Amendment
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 proposes no new general plan designations or densities for
the property. The General Plan Amendment is necessary to relocate and reallocate existing land
use designations, in order to align these designations to the design of the Specific Plan planning
areas and amenities. The reallocation of acreages can be considered minimal and consistent with
the original intent of the General Plan.
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan Design
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan offers a strong pedestrian orientation. Integral to the design is the
Interior Loop Road which is the project's north-south spine road: It provides a meandering Class I
bike lane/pedestrian pathway on both sides of the street. The linear parkway includes activity nodes
and passive areas with benches, drinking fountains, and tot lots, as amenities for active residents
who live anywhere in the project, maximizing their exercise experience. Joggers or cyclists can stop
at the par courses, parks, or the commercial centers at the hub. This Loop Road connects both
ends of the project to the Village Center at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and the Loop Road
(See Figures 111-4B, 111-34) and is accessible to non-residents as well.
The Village Center not only offers neighborhood and community commercial services, but is
designed in proximity to the elementary school and neighborhood park at one corner, and the
private recreation facility, fire station and other civic uses at the other corner, to create a main focal
point for the project. The intersection of Wolf Valley Road and the Loop Road has enhancements
such as decorative pavement, landscaped medians, corner monumentation and landscaping, to
form the "hub" of Wolf Creek. The commercial centers provide pedestrian plazas or gathering
places, as well as linkages to the residential development directly adjacent to them. (See Figures
111-16, IV-l, IV-2, IV-27, IV-41A)
Linkages between the various residential planning areas are also provided to ensure that children
have a safe route to school and parks. Grid road systems are incorporated where feasible to offer
alternative vehicular routes. Single-loaded streets are incorporated where feasible to provide eyes
on the street for school playgrounds and parks. (See Figures 111-4B, 111-12, 111-16, IV-32, IV-33)
Drainage for the project and upstream users will be handled by a grass-lined drainage channel
along the length of Pala Road that varies in width from 100-feet to 128-feet. The developer has
taken the opportunity to design this channel as a greenbelt, passive open space that is a pleasing
visual buffer from existing residential uses and the existing Pechanga gaming casino and related
uses across Pala Road. (See Figures 111-6 and IV-37, IV-41C) The developer proposes a semi-
meandering sidewalk for this stretch of Pala Road, where parkway "pop-outs" will bring trees and
foliage to the street at appropriate intervals. Coupled with the raised landscaped median proposed
for Pala Road, the streetscape softens this major roadway.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report l-9-01.doc
4
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The applicant has mapped the entire 557 acres into 47 lots for financial purposes. The lots
conform to the specific plan land use map, with planning areas further subdivided into
neighborhood areas. The map delineates major street widths, cross-sections and access
restrictions, as well as the lots designated for the drainage channel, schools and parks.
Planninq Commission Action - Development Agreement
Due to time constraints, the final Development Agreement document has not been included as part
of this Staff Report. The City Attorney is still fine-tuning the details of this legal document. Instead,
the Deal Points presented with this Staff Report represent the most important component of the
Development Agreement and basically lay out the City's and the applicant's obligations under the
Development Agreement.
The City Council Subcommittee made some recommendations to the Planning Commission in
regards to the Deal Points. The Planning Commission considered the Deal Points and the
Subcommittee's recommendations. The Deal Points as recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission have been included as Attachment No. 5. The following provides a summary of the
Subcommittee's recommendations to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's
recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council Subcommittee, consisting of Council members Pratt and Naggar, met a number of
times on the Deal Points. The following were their additional recommendations to the Planning
Commission that were presented at the hearing:
The timing of the completion for the fire station should not be changed since it will
cbmpromise the City's 5-minute response time.
The developer shall advance 100% of the cost of the sound wall if the City is unable to
secure funds to construct the sound wall. The City may reimburse the applicant, as funds
are made available by other sources to the City for this sound wall.
The applicant shall be responsible to pay the future Multi Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) Fee when it is adopted.
Prior to approval of tentative tract maps or any time extensions for the tentative maps within
Planning Areas 20, 21, 22, and 23, the developer shall submit traffic studies that
demonstrate a Level of Service D or better for the intersection of 1-15 and SR-79. The
Development Agreement shall provide assurances that the future owners of the tracts are
aware of this restriction.
The Planning Commission considered and discussed the Subcommittee's recommendations on the
Deal Points. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Deal Points with a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Webster in opposition (Commissioner Chiniaeff
was absent). Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended the following change to the
Deal Points:
"Prior to approval of tentative tract maps or any time extensions for the tentative
maps, the developer shall submit traffic studies that demonstrate a LOS D or better
for the intersection of 1-15 and SR-79. The Development Agreement shall provide
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report l-gq)l,doc
assurances that the future owners of the tracts are aware of this restriction."
By the recommending the above, the Planning Commission extended the LOS D requirement to the
entire project instead of the initial proposal for Planning Areas 20, 21,22, and 23. In addition, the
Planning Commission took a "straw vote" on the imposition of the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fee. However, this vote failed to pass with a 2-2 draw. Attachment 6
is a letter submitted by the applicant in response to the Deal Points.
Environmental Determination
On October 13, 1999, a Notice of Completion and a Notice of Availability were prepared and the
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan was circulated by the California
State Clearinghouse under SCH#99101094. A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was
submitted August I, 2000, incorporating public written comments and responses, and two
Addendums were subsequently added. The environmental analysis identified thirteen (13) areas
where impacts were not considered to be significant, and five (5) areas where potentially significant
impacts were identified which could be avoided or mitigated. These five areas are: soils and
geology, hazards, drainage, traffic, and noise.
One area was identified where the project causes an unavoidable, significant impact, namely air
quality. In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council must
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are
acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of this project will be presented when the Development Agreement is before the
City Council on January 23rd, 2001.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report l-9-01.doc
6
ATrACHMENTS:
City Council Resolution No. 01- certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 98-0482) - Page 8
Exhibit A - Text and Addendum Nos. 1 and No. 2 - Provided under separate cover- Page 9
City Council Resolution No. 01-
Plan Amendment - Page 10
approving Planning Application No. 98-0484- General
Exhibit A - General Plan Comparison - Page 11
City Council Resolution No. 01- approving Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf
Creek Specific Plan No. 12 - Page 12
Exhibit A - Text - Provided under separate cover - Page 13
Exhibit B - Revised Land Use Plan - Page 14
Exhibit C- Revised Conditions of Approval for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
- Page 15
City Council Ordinance No. 01- approving Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf
Creek Specific Plan No. 12 - Page 16
Exhibit A - Text - Provided under separate cover - Page 17
Exhibit B - Residential Development Standards Matrix - Page 18
5. Development Agreement Deal Points - Page 19
6. Response letter from the applicant regarding the Deal Points - Page 20
City Council Resolution No. 01- approving Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative
Tract Map No. 29305 - Page 21
Exhibit A - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Page 22
Exhibit B - Revised Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Page 23
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 00- - Page 24
Draft Excerpts from the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
- Page 25
10. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 6, 2000 - Page 26
11. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 4, 2000 - Page 27
12. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 20, 2000 - Page 28
13. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 6, 2000 - Page 29
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC S~aff Report l-9~)I.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 01- CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0482)
R:\PI~Mq'NiNG\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94) l.doc
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 12 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND
RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TQ THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM 1N CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Statement of Findings and Fact
Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Project Description
WHEREAS, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and related actions' ("Specific Plan" or the "Project"),
initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan
proposes the development of a 557-acre planned community in the City of Temecula. The
Project site is located at the southem end of the City of Temecula, approximately two miles east
of Interstate 15, along the east side of Pala Road, south of State Highway 79 South, between
Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue. The Specific Plan includes two options for
development. The Project with School Sites option includes 1,881 residential dwelling units at a
range of densities, commercial development within a "Village Center," two public school sites,
one City Sports Park, one neighborhood park, improvements to Kent Hintergardt Park, one linear
parkway with three linear park activity areas, and a five-acre site reserved for public institutional
uses such as churches a fire station, library or multi-use facilities] The Project with Residential
Use of School Sites option allows school sites to be developed with residential uses, resulting in
a maximum total of 2,158 dwelling units.2 The Specific Plan also includes plans for roadways,
drainage, water, and sewer to support the level of development proposed; and
: Under the Project with School Sites option, the number of residential units built may range between 1,881 and
2,022 depending upon whether Planning Area 18 is developed as 169 single-family courtyard style units or as 310
multi-family senior housing units.
2 Under the Project with Residential Use of School Sites option, the number of residential units built may range
between 2,017 and 2,158, depending upon whether Planning Area 18 is developed as 169 single-family courtyard
style units or as 310 multi-family senior housing units.
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Councd Findings
City of Temecula 1 January 2001
Environmental Review Process
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the
lead agency for the Specific Plan as the public agency with both general governmental powers
and the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was
issued in 1989 inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies,
organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; and
WHEREAS, written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of
Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and altematives for analysis in the
Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Specific Plan implementation
pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated October, 1999, the City initiated a 45-day
public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and
Research in October, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a newspaper of
general circulation. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and
individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside
County and made copies available for review at City offices; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received written
comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are
included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"); and
WHEREAS, in September 1999, a Planning Commission workshop was conducted to provide
information about the Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2000, the Planning Commission, following a series of public
hearings, voted to recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and
approval of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, as revised per the Planning Commission's directives
and as presented to the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses
to all commentors on August 14, 2000; and
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Auguat December 2000 2 City of Temecula
Statutory Requirements for Findings
WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or
carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant
environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for
each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the final EIR; or
(2)
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency; or
(3)
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the final EIR; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Specific Plan will
cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states
that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City Council finds are
less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but
which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the
imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final E1R and Specific Plan
and set forth herein are described in Section 3 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but
which the City Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the
imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 4 hereof, and
WHEREAS, altematives to the Specific Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 5 hereof, and
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 3 January 2001
WHEREAS, a discussion of Specific Plan benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less
than significant level are set forth in Section 6 hereof; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have
been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed
and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final
EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes
of making decisions on the merits of the Specific Plan and related actions. No comments or any
additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information
requiring cimulation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do
the minor modifications to the Final EIR made by the City Council require additional public
review because no new significant enviromnental impacts were identified, no substantial increase
in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur and no feasible Project mitigation
measures as defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 were rejected.
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
August December 2000 4 City of Temecula
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
DOES FIND AND DECLARE THAT:
Section 1- Findings
The City Council of the City of Temecula, in meeting assembled on January 9, 2001, determined
that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony
given at meetings and heatings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and
regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Wolf Creek
Specific Plan are potentially significant unless otherwise indicated and each of these impacts will
be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified mitigation measures:
Section 2 - Environmental Impacts Considered Less Than Significant
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of
mitigation measures:
2.1 Population and Housing
2.1.1 Population
The proposed Project will provide a maximum of between 1,881 and 2,158 new housing unit in
Temecula (Final EIR, p. 27). Based on the City's current average household size of 3.338
persons, this new housing has the potential to generate a maximum of between 6,279 to 7,203
new residents (Final EIR, p. 27). Even though not anticipated, the proposed Project is consistent
with the regional population projections of the Southern California Association of Government
("SCAG"), as set forth in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Subregional
Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG").
According to the General Plan, at buildout, the area within the City limits will have 39,658
dwelling units and a population of 112,254 persons (Final EIR, p. 27). By providing between
1,881 and 2,158, the Project will enable to the City to provide housing to meet the needs of this
expected population growth. Therefore, the level of population generation are consistent with
the General Plan and are not considered significant (Final EIR, p. 27).
2.1.2 Housing
The Project will add between 1,881 (Project with School Sites option) and 2,158 (Project with
Residential Use of School Sites option) new housing units to the City's existing housing stock
(Final EIR, p. 27). The Project is consistent with the City's land use policies contained in the
City of Temecula General Plan ("General Plan"). Though primarily a single-family housing
development, the Project also proposes the development of multi-family housing.
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 5 January 2001
The Project will provide housing opportunities for a range of people. The provision of housing
of this type is consistent with the City's objective to encourage the provision of adequate sites for
housing (City of Temecula, 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42). In addition, the development
of the housing units proposed in the Project would help the City to achieve its 1998-2005
Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") number as determined by SCAG and WRCOG.
The RHNA is a key tool for SCAG and WRCOG to plan for projected growth in the region. As
specified by the RHNA, the City of Temecula has a projected housing need for 7,798 housing
units during the 1998-2005 period (WRCOG, July23, 1999). Since the Project is consistent with
the Temecula General Plan and City land use policies, impact will be less than significant.
2.1.3 Jobs/Employment
In a regional context, the Wolf Creek site lies within the WRCOG subregion, which is defined by
SCAG to be housing-rich and jobs-poor (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, SCAG,
1994). SCAG projects a jobs/housing ratio of 0.99 for the year 2015 (Final EIR, p. 28).
Assuming an employment generation factor of 2 employees per 1,000 square feet of commercial
space, the Project can be expected to create approximately 600 jobs in the neighborhood retail
businesses of the Village Center (Final EIR, p. 28). Although the Project will result in the
development of residential units in an already housing-rich subregion, SCAG projects a housing-
rich ratio for the subregion in 2015. Therefore, the proposed Project is not in conflict with the
SCAG projections. Furthermore, SCAG's regional growth management policies are based on
adopted General Plan development projections. As discussed above, the Wolf Creek Project is
consistent with the City of Temecula's General Plan. Lastly, according to the General Plan EIR,
the jobs/housing balance is measured on a citywide basis rather than a project-specific basis, and
as a whole, Temecula's land use policy works toward achieving regional jobs/housing goals (City
of Temecula General Plan EIR, p. 199).
With regard to the Project with School Sites, in addition to the approximately 600 jobs that are
anticipated to be created due to the commercial development in the Specific Plan area,
development of the schools will result in approximately 200 new jobs. As mentioned previously,
the City of Temecula's land use policy is designed to achieve regional jobs/housing goals, and
this Project is consistent with the City's land use policy. Therefore, no impact is anticipated for
either scenario for the Specific Plan (Final EIR, p. 28).
2.2 Water Resources
The Rancho California Water District ("RCWD") provides water service to the site currently for
agricultural use and will be responsible for providing domestic water service. In 1997, RCWD
adopted an update to its Water System Master Plan. The current plan provides for water service
facilities and resource development to meet projected demands over the next 20-year period
based on the City's General Plan. The population density proposed under the Wolf Creek
Specific Plan is less than anticipated with development of the site under the General Plan.
Therefore, the Wolf Creek development has been factored into the Water System Master Plan
(Ibid., p. 42).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Auguat December 2000 6 City of Temecula
Furthermore, since the Wolf Creek Specific Plan proposes population density and building
intensity less than that provided under the City of Temecula General Plan, it is exempt under
Water Code Section 10910(b) (Final EIR, p. 42).
Project implementation will permanently eliminate agricultural use of the Project site and
thereby serve to reduce agricultural runoff, including any associated fertilizer and/or pesticide
residue. This impact is considered positive with respect to groundwater quality (Ibid., p. 43).
All construction activity associated with the Project will comply with NPDES requirements, as
implemented and enfomed by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Also, all
commercial development will comply with NPDES requirements for stormwater runoff control,
as implemented and enfomed by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to
the issuance of occupancy permits, the City will ensure that any required permanent facilities are
in place. Compliance with these standard requirements will be mandated for the Project. Thus,
no mitigation is required (Ibid., p. 44).
2.3 Biological Resources
Implementation of the Project will replace current invasive weeds and any associated wildlife
with structures, roadways, and other types of urban development. The structures and introduced
landscape vegetation will limit potential re-establishment of native plant and animal species on
the site. However, this is not considered a significant impact, given that native species have
previously been displaced by agriculture (Ibid., p. 72).
Existing eucalyptus trees may be removed to facilitate site development. Per the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918, these trees cannot be removed during nesting season if raptors or other
sensitive bird species maintain nest sites. Compliance with existing regulations will avoid
potential impact (Final EIR, p. 72).
Prior studies revealed no evidence of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat ("SKR"; a federally listed
endangered species) occupation on the site or in the immediate vicinity. The City has not
required the 1988 survey to be updated because historically, SKR has not been located in the
area, the Temecula General Plan EIR did not identify suitable habitat in the area, and no change
in conditions has occurred that would suggest the presence of SKR. Therefore, no significant
impacts to this species will result from Project implementation (Ibid., p. 73).
According to a letter provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services ("USFWS"), the
Project will not result in any adverse impact to the endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.
Therefore, no significant impact will result from Project implementation (Final EIR, p. 73).
2.4 Energy Resources
Southem California Edison ("SCE") provides electric power service to the Project site and
region. Overhead power lines along Pala Road and roads accessing surrounding subdivisions
provide electric power to development in the area. The SCE line on the south side of Pala Road
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 7 January 2001
is a 12 kilovolt line, as is the line extending across the property from Pala Road to Kent
Hintergardt Park (Ibid., p. 75).
According to average electric power usage factors published by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District ("SCAQMD"), the Project with School Sites will use an average of 18,688
megawatt of electricity per year and the Project with Residential Use of School Sites will
consume an average of 19,207 megawatt hours of electricity per year. SCE indicates that at both
local and regional scales, both levels of usage are less than significant (Ibid., p. 76).
Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company ("Gas Company").
The Gas Company maintains a four-inch gas main in Pala Road (Ibid., p. 75). According to
natural gas factors also published by the SCAQMD, the Project with School Sites will use an
average of 184 million cubic feet and the Project with Residential Use of School Sites will use
213 million cubic feet of average natural gas per year. Gas Company officials indicate that at
both local and regional scales, both levels of usage are less than significant (Ibid., p. 77).
As required by state regulations, the Project will incorporate state building standards for energy
conservation outlined in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code as well as energy-saving
devices as required by law. These standards are therefore considered part of the Project. The
mandatory incorporation of these standards into the Project will further reduce the energy impact
of the Project below a level of significance. As a result, no mitigation is required (Ibid., pp. 78-
9).
2.5 Public Services
2.5.1 Fire Protection
The Riverside County Fire Department ("RCFD"), which operates in conjunction with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("CDF"), provides fire protection services
on a contract basis to the City of Temecula. Projected population increases are monitored and
personnel levels are adjusted periodically during the contract renewal process (Ibid., p. 101).
Currently, there are three permanent fire station sites (Station 73, Station 12, and Station 84) in
Temecula. The fire station closest to the Wolf Creek site is Station 84 on Pauba Road,
approximately three miles from the Project site (Final EIR, p. 101).
Station 73, located on Enterprise Circle, houses a track company and an engine company and is
staffed by seven full-time fire personnel. Station 12 has an engine company with three full-time
firefighters, as well as volunteer engine and a wildland fire engine. Station 84 maintains an
engine company with three full-time firefighters. Response time fi.om all stations is estimated at
two minutes per mile (Final EIR, p. 101).
According to the RCFD, current contract personnel provide adequate levels of service to the
City. Three new fire stations, including one located within the Wolf Creek site are proposed by
the Riverside County Fire Master Plan. RCFD's 2001/2 capital improvement plan provides for
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Ar:F~u;t December 2000 8 City of Temecula
such a station to be established irrespective of whether the Wolf Creek development proceeds
(Final EIR, pp. 101-2).
Current RCFD Fii'e/Emergency Medical Service response time objectives for urban category II
land uses (defined as general commercial uses and residential densities of 2 to 8 dwelling units
per acre) is a 10-minute response time for 90 percent of all rims, and a 5-minute response time
for emergency medical services. The response time objectives for heavy urban land uses
(residential densities of 8-20 dwelling units per acre) is an 8-minute response time for fire and a
5-minute response time for emergency medical service. Policy 3.2 of the City General Plan
provides that the City will "strive to provide a minimum response time of between 7 and 10
minutes of an alarm for 90 percent of all fires, in accordance with the Riverside County Fire
Protection and Emergency Master Plan" (Final E1R, p. 102).
The southern portion of the Project area lies within a high-fire-hazard area, as designated by
California Department of Forestry. This designation reflects the prior undeveloped nature of the
area, and hazard area boundaries am currently being redrafted to respond to and reflect
development in the adjacent Rainbow Canyon and Redhawk communities. Until such
redistricting, however, properties within the designated high-tim-hazard area are required to
provide brush clearance zones around structures (Final E1R, p. 102).
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Under this development scenario, most of the
Project site will be developed at 3.5 to 4.7 du/ac. Thus, the objective will be a 10-minute
response time. Only 43.1 acres of the 557-acre site will be developed at higher density, and that
portion of the site should have an 8-minute fire response time and a 5-minnte emergency medical
response time. In general, satisfaction of these objectives requires location within a three-mile
radius of a fire station (Final EIR, p. 102).
The Project site is located within the three-mile maximum travel distance from the existing fire
station on Pauba Road. RCFD plans call for construction of an additional station within the
Wolf Creek property. This station is planned to be constructed during fiscal year 2001/2 (Final
EIR, p. 103).
The City and RCFD review projects on a case-by-case to identify service needs and have
adopted a development fee program to fired required facilities. Developers within the Wolf
Creek Project will be required to pay the fees to fund station improyements citywide and
construction of the new station within the Wolf Creek Project. The Specific Plan includes within.
Planning Area 14 an option for a fire station (Final EIR, p. 103).
The Project applicant has committed to providing a portion of the available 5 acres for
construction of the fire station, and the Specific Plan and Project conditions of approval will
reflect this commitment (Final EIR, p. 103).
The developer(s) will be required to pay Development Impact Fees established by the City to
fund long-term capital improvements related to fire protection services, and a fire station site will
be provided consistent with RCFD's plans. No impact on fire services will result (Final EIR, p.
103).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 9 January 2001
Project with School Sites: The development of residential use of school sites is considered the
worst-case scenario. No additional analysis is required since this has been addressed in the
preceding discussion (Final E1R, p. 103).
With regard to exposure to high-fire hazards, the Project incorporates several features which
provide a buffer between undeveloped brushland on the adjacent Pechanga Indian lands and
proposed urban development at Wolf Creek. First, Pala Road will be widened to four lanes,
creating an approximate 134-foot paved roadway. Second, the planned grass-lined drainage
channel along Pala Road will be up to 120 feet in width. According to City Building staff, this
200+ foot buffer zone provides a level of protection consistent with California Department of
Forestry standards. Exposure to fire hazards will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 103).
2.5.2 Police Protection
The City of Temecula contracts with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department for law
enforcement services. The contract provides for assignment of 31 sworn officers and 7 non-
sworn officers to the City. These officers are supported by 2 lieutenants, 7 sergeants, and 6
investigators. The Sheriffs Department/County Justice Center serves the Temecula area. This
facility is located north of Auld Road and east of Leon Road, outside the City limits but within
its sphere of influence (Final EIR, p. 104).
Under Policy 3.1 of the General Plan, the City strives to provide a minimum of one full-time
officer for 1,000 residents for police protection services. Police protection services are funded
through general fund revenues of the City (Final EIR, p. 104).
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Under this development scenario, the proposed
Project will result in a population of 7,203 persons, based on an average household size of 3.338
persons. At a ratio of 1 officer per 1,000 population, the Project will generate demand for 7
additional full-time officers Project buildout. All staff will be based at existing sheriff facilities.
No physical environmental impact will result from Project implementation (Final EIR, p. 104).
Project with School Sites: In this scenario, the proposed Project will result in a population of
6,279 persons. At a ratio of 1 officer per 1,000 population, the Project will generate demand for
6 additional full-time officers at the end of Project build out. All staff will be based at existing
sheriff facilities. No physical environmental impact will result from Project implementation
(Final EIR, p. 104).
2.5.3 Schools
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan site lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District
(TVUSD). The District currently operates 10 elementary schools (grades K-5), 3 middle schools
(grades 6-8), 2 comprehensive high schools (grades 9-12), and a continuation high school. The
District's enrollment has been rapidly growing. Total enrollment was 16,065 as of April, 1999.
According to District staff, the District has been using portable classrooms as temporary
buildings to accommodate the rapidly growing student population. A total of 49% of the
District's classrooms are portable and interim facilities (Final EIR, p. 105).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Augu3t December 2000 10 City of Temecula
Policy 4.1 of the City's General Plan commits the City to supporting the District in providing
adequate school facilities for students from new development to the extent permitted by law.
The primary mechanisms to sustain quality educational services, in cooperation with the School
District, are the provision of school sites, imposition of statutory development fees, negotiated
development fees as permitted by law, and the provision of information to the School District.
To implement this policy, the City has adopted a school mitigation resolution and has adopted
the school mitigation plan of the TVUSD. Developers are required to pay a per dwelling unit fee
for new residential construction to offset impact. Any dedication of land for school purposes can
be credited against the total required school fee (Final EIR, p. 105).
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Based on the student generation cited in the Final
EIR and assuming the worst-case scenario for student generation whereby the school sites are
developed with residential uses, the project's proposed 1,848 detached single family units and
310 attached multi-family units will generate up tol,666 new students. Approximately 896 will
be elementary students, 384 will be middle school students, and 386 will he high school students.
This number of students is equivalent to 10 pement of the entire 1999 enrollment within the
District (Final EIR, p. 106).
SB50 and Proposition lA, which addressed class size reduction and construction/maintenance of
facilities, were passed in November of 1998. Proposition lA includes a variety measures, such
as the sale of public bonds and allowing local governments to assess fees on development, to
ensure that enough schools and related infrastructure are built/maintained. Therefore, schools
will be built to meet future demand. Under this scenario, future school sites have not been
identified. Environmental review will be required by the District for any new school
construction. Physical environmental impact cannot be assessed at this time. Per Section 15165
of the CEQA Guidelines, further analysis is not appropriate (Final EIR, p. 106).
Project with School Sites: Under this scenario, the proposed Specific Plan designates 2 school
sites within the Project site: a 12-acre elementary school site and a 20-acre middle school site:.
No final determination has been made by the District as to whether any or all of these sites will
be acquired and developed as District schools, although the District has identified a clear need
for these facilities (Final EIR, p. 106, with numbers revised to reflect reduced project size).
Based on the generation factors cited above, the project's proposed 1,881 detached single family
units will generate up to 1,496 new students. Approximately 801 will be elementary students,
339 will be middle school students, and 356 will be high school students. This number of
students is equivalent to 9 percent of the entire 1999 enrollment within the District (Final EIR, p.
106, with numbers revised to reflect reduced project size).
As described above, SB50 and Proposition lA include a variety measures, such as the sale of
public bonds and allowing local governments to assess fees on development, to ensure that
enough Schools and related infi'astructure are built/maintained. The proposed school sites will
provide school facilities for Wolf Creek residents and other students in the area. The new
schools will help address overcrowding and long-term growth needs (Final EIR, p. 106).
Construction of new schools on the Project site will result in physical changes to the local
environment. These changes and associated impact are examined throughout this EIR. Impacts
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Councd Findings
City of Temecula 11 January 2001
on air quality and cumulative impact on agricultural msoumes are identified as significant and
unavoidable. All other impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels. Once precise design plans
for the schools have been prepared, TVUSD may be required to conduct further environmental
review to determine whether any additional future mitigation may be necessary (Final EIR, p.
107).
The Temecula Valley Unified School District, upon completion of preliminary plans for each
proposed school within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area, will undertake any required
subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the District's CEQA Guidelines (Final
EIR, p. 107).
The impacts associated with the location of schools within the Specific Plan area are considered
less than significant; however, the impact on air quality and the cumulative loss of agricultural
lands will continue to be significant and unavoidable (as discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3). All
other physical environmental impacts related to school construction, as identified in Section 3.3,
can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels (Final EIR, p. 107).
2.5.4 Libraries
The City of Temecula is a member of the Riverside County Library District. One facility, the
15,000 square-foot Temecula Library located in the Walt Abraham Administrative Center, serves
the residents of Temecula and Murrieta. Plans for a new library branch on Pauba Road is being
considered (Final EIR, p. 107).
Revenue for the District is obtained from a Special District tax collected by the County. In
addition, a portion of the City's Development Impact Fees go towards the provision of library
facilities (Final EIR, p. 107).
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Under this development scenario, the proposed
Project will generate a residential population of approximately 7,203 persons. Based on the
adopted service standards of the Library District, this population could result in the need for an
additional 10,418 volumes and 4,341 square feet of library space. The developer will be required
to pay Library Mitigation Fees to offset the cost of providing any additional library facilities
(Final EIR, p. 108).
This Project, in itself, will not require construction of any new library facilities. The Library
District has already initiated plans to construct a new facility on Pauba Road absent the Wolf
Creek Project. No physical environmental impact will result due to the Project (Final EIR, p.
108).
Project with School Sites: Development of residential use of school sites is the worst-case
scenario. No additional analysis is required. Thus, the analysis listed above applies to this
development scenario (Final EIR, p. 108).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Au~,'a;t December 2000 12 City of Temecula
2.6 Utilities and Service Systems
2.6.1 Water
The Rancho California Water District ("RCWD") currently provides water service to the site for
agricultural use and will be responsible for providing domestic water service. In late 1997,
RCWD adopted a comprehensive update of its Water System Master Plan. The Master Plan
addresses water resource management. The plan provides for water storage and distribution
facilities, water resource development, and acquisition of imported water supplies to meet
anticipated needs for the next 20 years based on the City's General Plan. The Plan recognizes
urban development densities on the Wolf Creek site similar to or more intensive than that
proposed the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Furthermore, since the Wolf Creek Specific Plan
proposes population density and building intensity less than provided under the General Plan, it
is exempt under Water Code Section 10910(b) (Final EIR, p. 119).
Water facilities on the Project site include a 24-inch steel water main along Pala Road from
Loma Linda to Wolf Valley Road, 12-inch and 16-inch water mains on the northeast boundary,
and a 16-inch main located on the northwest boundary along Loma Linda Road. The major
source of potable water distributed by the RCWD is groundwater from the Murdeta-Temecula
basin. The groundwater is supplemented with imported water from the Metropolitan Water
District ("MWD"). The RCWD has a current annual supply capability of 59,000 acre-feet per
year, which is adequate to meet current demand for potable water (Final EIR, pp. 119-20).
The proposed new development will require construction of a new on-site water distribution
system to serve the proposed uses. Since the proposed Project includes the provision of the
necessary water infrastructure subject to appropriate approvals, impact on water facilities is
considered less than significant (Final E1R, p. 120).
Development under the proposed Specific Plan will create demand for additional potable water
from residences, commercial uses, and for irrigation of greenbelts, parks, and other landscaped
areas. The proposed Project is estimated to require approximately 1,343 acre-feet per year
("AFY"). With the school s!tes, the proposed Project will consume approximately 1,162 AFY of
water (Final EIR, p. 120).
The actual use of water on the site will be lower than the above estimates because the Project is
required to comply with existing mandatory state requirements for water-conserving toilets,
shower heads, faucets, and other appliances in all development, which will reduce the average
daily consumption below 400 gallons per day per dwelling unit. The RCWD indicates that water
service is available to the Project, and water availability would be contingent upon the property
owner signing an agreement to assign water management rights, if any, to RCWD. In addition,
the RCWD's 20-year water service master plan assumes development of the Wolf Creek area
with residential and commercial uses (Final EIR, p. 121).
Since the RCWD indicates that it has adequate supplies of water to service the proposed Project
and the water service master plan assumes development of the site, impact on water facilities and
resources will be less than significant (Final E1R, p. 121).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 13 January 2001
2.6.2 Sewer
Sewer service to the Project site will be provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District
("EMWD"). EMWD is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Water Quality Control Board.
EMWD is currently meeting treatment demand in Temecula and is treating approximately 5.5
million gallons of wastewater per day at the Rancho California Treatment Plan. The facility was
expanded in 1996 to provide tertiary treatment capacity of 8 million gallons of wastewater per
day ("mgd"), with secondary treatment capacity of 10 mgd. This capacity is considered adequate
to accommodate new development within the District's service area (Final EIR, p. 121).
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Development pursuant to the proposed Wolf
Creek Specific Plan will generate, up to 868,200 gallons of wastewater per day fi:om residential
uses and commercial uses will generate, on average, an additional 60,000 gallons per day. The
Rancho California Treatment Plan has adequate capacity to treat this amount of additional
sewage. Project impact on treatment facilities will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 122).
The proposed Specific Plan includes a sewer plan for the site. The sewer plan proposes a system
layout that is based on EMWD's overall system master planning for the Rancho Villages
Assessment District No. 159, which sized and financed the sewer infrastructure based upon up to
2,700 units within Wolf Creek, or more units than currently proposed under the worst-case
scenario. Since the proposed Project will provide sewer system improvements in accordance
with existing requirements, Project impact on sewer infrastructure will be less than significant
(Final EIR, p. 122).
Project with School Sites: With schools, the proposed Plan will generate up to 792,064 gallons
of wastewater per day. This represents a lesser amount of wastewater than would be generated
under the development of residential uses on the school sites. Therefore, the residential use of
school sites is considered the worst-case scenario. This scenario also will not result in a
significant impact on sewer infi:astmcture (Final EIR, p. 122).
2.6.3 Solid Waste
Solid waste fi:om the Wolf Creek area is hauled by CR&R, Inc. under contract to the City of
Temecula. The waste is disposed of at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or other facility in the
vicinity accepting domestic waste. The landfill encompasses approximately 1,081 acres, with a
current disposal area of 141 acres and an annual capacity of 432,000 tons. The estimated closure
date is 2010 (Final EIR, p. 123).
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Based on the factors identified in the Final EIR,
the proposed Specific Plan, without school sites, will generate up to 5,586 tons of waste per year
(Final EIR, p. 123).
This waste will be picked up and once recyclable materials have been extracted, disposed of at
the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or other regional facility. The Project, similar to all other
development in the City of Temecula, is subject to mandatory City requirements, policies, and
programs for solid waste reduction developed in conformance with the Integrated Waste
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
August December 2000 14 City of Temecula
Management Act of 1989, and amendments. Since the Project is required to include these
mandatory programs and procedures, Project impact will be less than significant (Final EIR, pp.
123-4).
Project with School 'Sites: If schools are provided, the proposed Plan will generate
approximately 2,060 tons of waste per year (based on 0.136 tons of waste per person, 1,062
students, and 200 staff). This represents a lesser amount of waste than that associated with
residential use of the school sites. As a result the Project impact would be less than significant
(Final EIR, p. 124).
2.7 Recreation
Five public parks exist within a five-mile radius of the Wolf Creek site: Three in the City of
Temecula and two within unincorporated Riverside County. The City parks are Loma Linda
Park, Kent Hintergardt Park, and Pala Community Park. County parks in the area include Pasco
Park in the Redhawk community near Redhawk Elementary School (Final EIR, p. 133).
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Implementation of the Wolf Creek Plan will
increase the demand for park and recreation facilities in the City of Temecula. Pursuant to the
City's General Plan policy and Quimby Act Ordinance, the mandatory park dedication
requirement for 2,158 dwelling units is 27.06 acres, based on 5 acres per 1,000 population. (The
Quimby Act Ordinance establishes population factors of 2.59 persons per single-family unit and
2.34 persons per multi-family unit (Final EIR, p. 134).
Per the revised Specific Plan, land credits totaling 54.2 acres have been applied to the overall
park land dedication of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The scenario involving 2,158 residential
units would require a total of 27.06 acres of park land and open space, or 2.7 acres more than the
Project with School Sites scenario. In addition, the Specific Plan includes the development of a
City Sports Park that is 40 acres. Given the land credits and the City Sports Park, both scenarios
exceed the requirements of the Quimby Act Ordinance. Thus, impact will be less than significant
(Final EIR, pp. 134-5).
Project with School Sites: Under this development scenario, park dedication requirements for
1,881 dwelling units is 24.36 acres. Land credits and credits anticipated from private recreation
facilities total 54.2 acres. As a result, this scenario complies with City requirements and with the
development of the City Sports Park will exceed the requirements. Thus, impact is less than
significant.
2.8 Local Agricultural Resources
The 557-acre Project site historically has supported agricultural operations. The Murdy family
operated a livestock ranch on the property for over 30 years dating back to the 1940s and up until
1972, conducted farming operations. Since 1972, a majority of the property has been leased for
the commemial production of turf and groundcover, as well as minor field crops. The
Agricultural Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal
Process (initiated in 1979) (Final EIR, p. 137).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 15 January 2001
Today, agricultural activity has virtually disappeared from this area of the Temecula Valley, with
the remnant farming operations on the Wolf Creek site representing the only such use. As
described in Section 2.1 (Land Use and Planning) of the Final EIR, surrounding properties have
been developed with and/or have pending development plans for residential subdivisions, golf
courses, and the Pechanga Casino and its related uses. The City of Temecula General Plan Land
Use map designates the subject property and all surrounding lands within the City's sphere of
influence for urban uses (Final E1R, p. 137).
The Williamson Act contract applicable to the property expired in 1989. Thus, the Project will
not result in the cancellation ofa Williamson Act contract (Final EIR, p. 138).
At the local level, the existing agricultural use of the property is anomalous, given that
surrounding properties support urban-type uses. City land use policy provides for the eventual
development of the Wolf Creek site with residential, commemial, school, and open space uses.
The conversion from agricultural to urban use is not inconsistent with land use policy. Current
on-site agricultural activities are considered a temporary use of the property, particularly in light
of the fact that the property owner receives no Williamson Act property tax benefits. Thus, in a
local context, the site does not appear to represent a prime agricultural property (Final EIR, p.
138).
To identify the significance of this land in a more regional context, a Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment (LESA) was conducted using a model developed by the California Department of
Conservation, Office of Land Conservation. The analysis indicated that, based on the scoring
thresholds contained in the LESA manual, the loss of this agricultural resoume represents a
significant impact.
Since the Agricultural Preserve status of the site expired in 1989 and since the General Plan Land
Use map designates the property and all surrounding lands for urban uses, the impact on local
agricultural resoumes. However, the cumulative impacts due to the loss of agricultural lands are
significant and are discussed in Section 4.3 (Final EIR, p. 137-9).
2.9 Cumulative Impacts (except for Air Quality and Agricultural Land)
The Temecula General Plan EIR examined impacts associated with build out within the
corporate city limits, its sphere of influence, and a larger "area of interest." The entire study area
encompasses approximately 60 square miles and at build out (40-year time period), will provide
for up to 79,299 housing units. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan is accounted for within the total
unit count. Regional growth plans were also examined in evaluating cumulative impacts on a
regional basis (Final EIR, p. 157).
The General Plan policies and standards which serve as mitigation measures for the potential
cumulative effects of all development under the General Plan have been applied to the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan whenever applicable. Among the many General Plan policies applied to the
Wolf Creek Specific Plan are the following (Final EIR, p. 158):
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
AuF~ugt December 2000 16 City of Temecula
· Establishing setbacks along Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zones;
· Incorporating the village concept into large master-planned developments;
· Incorporating pedestrian and bicycle trails into project design;
· Providing adequate circulation improvements to support the level of development
proposed; and
· Providing development standards that ensure high quality design.
The incorporation of the General Plan policies and standards in the Specific Plan fi.om the start
have ensured that cumulative impacts associated with the development are less than significant
with the exception of air quality and the loss of agricultural land (Final EIR, p. 157-8).
Section 3 - Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR have been
incorporated into the Wolf Creek Specific Plan that avoid or substantially lessen the following
potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Specific Plan Final EIR to a less
than significant level. The potentially significant Project impacts and the mitigation measures
which have been adopted to mitigate them to a less than significant level are as follows:
3.1 Land Use Planning
3.1.1 Potential Significant Impact- Land Use Compatibility
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Residential land uses at suburban densities
currently exist immediately north, northeast, and west of the Wolf Valley Ranch site. Additional
subdivision activity and development are anticipated consistent with the specific plans that have
been approved for these areas. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan proposes residential densities
similar to the densities currently existing and planned in the immediate vicinity, with a
cimulation system plaimed to tie into existing roads and trails. The level of commercial
development proposed is similar to other commercial businesses currently operating in other
areas of the City, such as the retail complex on Rancho California Road near 1-15. As such, the
Project continues the existing physical arrangement of the established and planned community
(Final EIR, p. 24).
On the adjacent Pechanga Indian Reservation, the closest development consists of the gambling
casino located on Pala Road at Wolf Valley Road, directly across fi.om the Wolf Creek property.
The casino, which began operations in 1995, is open 24 hours a day and offers card games, slot
machine play, and video poker. No alcohol is served. The associated gas station/mini-market is
east of the casino on Pala Road. A golf course and resort hotel are planned west of the casino
(Final EIR, p. 24).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 17 January 2001
The 24-hour operation of the casino has the potential to create compatibility concerns with
regard to the residential uses proposed along Pala Road. Potentially adverse impacts include
traffic and parking lot noise, and light and glare from the parking lot. The width of Pala Road,
the proposed 100- to 128-foot wide flood control greenbelt, and buffers which will be
incorporated into residential site design (for noise control) will provide a 200- to 300-foot buffer
and thereby minimize impact (Final EIR, pp. 24-5).
The mini-market located across the street from the City Sports Park also has the potential to
create compatibility concerns with regard to safety issues if park users, especially children, cross
Pala Road to patronize the mini-market. The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
has committed to design the City Sports Park to incorporate measures to ensure safety and
minimize potential impacts. Land use compatibility impacts with respect to the mini-market and
casino will not be significant.
Project with School Sites: This scenario presents the same issues identified under the
development of residential use of school sites scenario. No additional analysis is required. Thus,
the analysis listed above applies to this development scenario.
3.1.2 Findings
The Project will not result in any significant land use impacts. However, to minimize potential
secondary impacts on residential, the following mitigation measures are recommended to further
reduce impact:
For any residential development abutting Pala Road across from the casino, subdivision
and site design shall incorporate noise attenuation walls if project-specific noise studies
indicate that such features are necessary to achieve noise standards. If such walls are
provided, landscaping shall be provided along the walls to achieve aesthetic
improvements and to reduce potential for vandalism. Any such required walls and
landscaping shall be provided prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for affected
development (Final EIR, p. 26).
The Temecula Community Services District will ensure that the design of the City Sports
Park incorporates safety features such as fences, walls, and landscape buffers to
discourage dangerous pedestrian traffic and instead route it to safer locations for those
who wish to traverse Pala Road to get to the mini-market.
3.1.3 Supporting Explanation
A General Plan Amendment application has been filed to amend the Land Use Plan to reflect the
pattern of land uses proposed by the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The principal change involves
rearranging the pattern of residential uses, locating commercial uses on both sides of Wolf
Valley Road, establishing new park locations, and accommodating potential school sites (Final
EIR, p. 25).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
August December 2000 18 City of Temecula
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: The Wolf Creek Specific Plan proposes land use
types and development intensities consistent with the designations shown on the existing General
Plan Land Use Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment will rearrange the land use pattern
designated for the site but retain the same overall maximum densities and dwelling units allowed
on the site. The Project incorporates the "Village Center" concept described in the Land Use
Element by providing central commercial, institutional, and recreational facilities and higher-
density residential uses linked by pedestrian/bicycle paths. The Project is consistent with
General Plan land use policy (Final EIR, p. 25).
Project with School Sites: As discussed above, the proposed land use types and intensities are
consistent with General Plan land use policy. The General Plan also anticipates the development
of public/institutional uses in the Wolf Creek Plan area. Therefore, development under this
scenario is consistent with General Plan land use policy (Final EIR, p. 25).
3.2 Geotechnical Issues
3.2.1 Potentially Significant Impact
Detailed geotechnical investigations revealed the following:
· Presence of Wildomar fault trace across Planning Areas 21 and 22;
· No evidence of Wolf Valley fault on the site; and
· No evidence of subsidence.
The development standards for Planning Areas 21 and 22 include a requirement for a 75-foot
setback from the Wildomar fault for all structures. This requirement assures avoidance of
potential impact (Final EIR, pp. 31-39).
Grading and soil recompaction will require further review at the subdivision stage. Mitigation is
required to avoid potential impact (Final EIR, p. 39).
3.2.2 Findings
The following mitigation measure is required to avoid site-specific impact at the subdivision
level:
As specific development proposals are advanced for individual planning areas,
construction-level geological and soils analyses will be performed as required by the City
(Final EIR, p. 39).
Incorporation into the Specific Plan of these mitigation measures will result in changes or
alterations to the Specific Plan that will reduce geotechnical impacts to a less than significant
level.
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 19 January 2001
3.2.3 Supporting Explanation
Groundshaking and Surface Fault Rupture
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: The Project site is subject to earthquake
groundshaking hazards typical of the California seismic environment. During the life of the
Project, on-site development likely will be subject to ground accelerations generated from
earthquakes produced along area faults (Final EIR, p. 37).
Structures in the proposed development will be located on alluvial materials underlying the site,
which generally tend to amplify ground motion. Secondary ground displacements in response to
a nearby seismic event or a large regional earthquake are possible. Future seismic events could
result in structural damage to buildings within the Project area. However, these effects would be
expected under similar conditions throughout the region. State and local building codes require
seismic hazard mitigation features to be incorporated into building design and construction. All
Project construction will comply with these codes. Impacts relative to groundshaking will
thereby be reduced to a less-than-significant level (Final EIR, p. 37).
Within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, habitable structures must maintain a minimum
50-foot setback distance from the fault trace per State law. Project specific geotechnical studies
recommend a 75-foot setback zone or either side of the fault trace on the property (Figure 9,
Final EIR, p. 38). The Specific Plan includes language for Planning Areas 21 and 22 to address
this potential hazard and the required setback. Planning Areas 21 and 22 are the only two areas
containing the fault trace (Final EIR, p. 37).
Due to the lack of evidence of suggesting the presence of the Wolf Valley segment on the site,
and because a 75-foot no-build buffer zone will be provided for the Wildomar segment, surface
fault rupture hazards are less than significant (Final EIR, p. 37).
Project with School Sites: The above analysis and conclusion for Project with Residential Use
of School Sites applies to this alternative. None of the school sites lies within the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone (Final EIR, p. 37).
Liquefaction
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: The Project geotechnical reports concluded that
liquefaction potential on the site is low. Under "worst case" conditions, the soils engineer
indicates that liquefaction would be limited in occurrence and manifested as minor potential
settlements of a uniform nature. No special mitigation for liquefaction is necessary. Therefore,
potential impact will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 39).
Project with School Sites: The above analysis and conclusion for Project with Residential Use
of School Sites applies to this alternative (Final EIR, p. 39).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
,¥c, gu3t December 2000 20 City of Temecula
Topography
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Because the site is relatively level, minimal
landform alteration will be required to prepare the site for development. Project implementation
will require some grading to create building pads, parking facilities, parks, and utilities, as well
as to complete circulation and drainage system improvements. Overall landform alteration will
be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 39).
Project with School Sites: The above analysis and conclusion for Project with Residential Use
of School Sites applies to this alternative (Final EIR, p. 39).
Ground Subsidence
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Subsidence and settlement monitoring on the site
has revealed no evidence of vertical movement indicative of subsidence. Thus, no impact on
development is expected (Final EIR, p. 39).
Project with School Sites: The above conclusion for Project with Residential Use of School
Sites applies to this alternative (Final EIR, p. 39).
3.3 Air Quality (Short-Term Construction-Related)
3.3.1 Potential Significant Impact
The estimated average amount of quarterly construction is below the SCAQMD thresholds of
significance. However, during certain quarters, market demand has the potential to result in a
greater level of construction, which may result in a significant impact (Final EIR, p. 48).
3.3.2 Findings
Incorporation into the Specific Plan of the following mitigation measures will result in changes
or alterations to the Specific Plan that will reduce short-term construction-related air quality
impacts to a less than significant level:
1. Construction contractors will maintain and service construction equipment to minimize
exhaust emissions (Final E1R, p. 52).
2. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 shall be adhered to, reducing airborne particulate matter and
ensuring the cleanup of construction-related dirt on approach routes to construction sites
(Final EIR, p. 53).
3. During grading activities, topsoil mounds shall be stabilized to prevent wind erosion and
release of dust and particulates. This may be accomplished through regular watering,
Wolf Creek Specific Plan CiO2 Council Findings
City of Temecula 21 January 2001
hydroseeding, netting, chemical applications, and other methods determined acceptable by
the City (Final EIR, p. 53).
4. All unpaved roads and parking areas will be watered down or chemically treated to control
dust. Such mitigation shall occur on a daily basis or as otherwise appropriate, given weather
conditions as determined by the City of Temecula. The City will monitor the construction
site on a regular basis to ensure compliance (Final EIR, p. 53).
Trucks leaving construction sites will be washed off. A Monitoring Program of the
construction site to ensure compliance shall be the responsibility of the developer (Final EIR,
p. 53).
3.3.3 Supporting Explanation
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: The amount of construction-generated air
pollutant emissions is generally proportional to the size of the Project under construction. The
proposed Wolf Creek Specific Plan anticipates development to occur in two phases over a period
often or mom years, depending upon market conditions (Final EIR, p. 48).
Over the next 10 years, development within the Wolf Valley Ranch site will consist of between
1,881 and 2,158 dwelling units, 300,000 square feet of commercial use, two schools (if so
determined by the Temecula Valley Unified School District), and supporting infrastructure,
including major roadways. If schools are not built on the two sites provided in the Specific Plan
and the multi-family senior housing option is chosen, 2,158 residential units will be built (Final
EIR, p. 48, with numbers adjusted to reflect revised Specific Plan).
The 557-acre site is level land, and extensive grading will not be required for this development.
Mass grading in excess of the quarterly emissions threshold is not planned. The developer plans
to construct the proposed 1,881 to 2,158 units over a 5- to 10-year period. Based on past
development trends in the region during aggressive building cycles, the average level of
development in any given quarter can be estimated at 56 to 65 units (Final EIR, p. 48).
According to the Project applicant, commercial development probably will occur following the
residential development. The estimated average amount of quarterly residential development,
which is considered aggressive, is below the SCAQMD thresholds. During certain quarters,
market demand has the potential to result in a greater number of units being constructed.
However, compliance with standard SCAQMD requirements can reduce potentially significant
impacts to acceptable levels (Final EIR, p. 48).
Project with School Sites: The above analysis for Project with Residential Use of School Sites
is valid for this scenario because the residential component represents the worst-case analysis for
short-term impacts (Final EIR, p. 48).
Implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures will reduce impacts to air quality
impacts (with the exception of long-term air quality) to a less than significant level (Final E1R, p.
48). For a discussion of long-term air quality and the cumulative impacts to air quality please
refer to Section 4.1 and 4.2.
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Augu;t December 2000 22 City of Temecula
3.4 Transportation and Circulation
3.4.1 Potential Significant Impact
At buildout, the proposed Project with schools is forecast to generate up to 42,036 new vehicle
trips, while the scenario involving no schools would generate up to 38,527 (Final EIR, p. 56).
The traffic impact analysis for the Specific Plan indicates that the Project will significantly
impact levels of service at several intersections in the Project area, one during the morning peak
hour, two during the evening peak hour, and one during both the morning and evening peak
hour. In the absence of any roadway improvements, Project traffic impacts will be significant
(Final EIR, p. 63).
3.4.2 Findings
The traffic study indicates that the following on-site roadway improvements must be
incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts to acceptable levels:
On-site Improvements
The traffic study indicates that the following on-site roadway improvements must be
incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts to acceptable levels:
In conjunction with Project development, Pala Road from 300 feet south of Loma Linda
Road to Fairview Avenue will be constructed at its ultimate half-section width as an
Arterial Highway (ll0-foot right-of-way). Pala Road should be improved at a half-
section width as an Urban Arterial Highway (134-foot right-of-way) from Loma Linda
Road to a point 300 feet south of the Loma Linda intersection, and then transition to the
Arterial Highway section. A 14-foot-wide landscaped median shall be constructed in
accordance with City standards (Final EIR, p. 67).
In conjunction with Project development, Wolf Valley Road from Pala Road to the
eastern Project boundary will be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a
Secondary Highway (88-foot right-of-way) in conjunction with adjacent development
(Final EIR, p. 67).
In conjunction with Project development, construct Loma Linda Road from Pala Road to
Via Del Coronado to its ultimate half-section width as a Collector (66-foot right-of-way)
in conjunction with adjacent development, or a 78-foot roadway if the Circulation
Element Update of the General Plan is approved (Final EIR, p. 67).
In conjunction with Project development, Fairview Avenue from Pala Road to the eastem
Project boundary will be constructed at its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary
Highway (88-foot right-of-way) (Final EIR, p. 67).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 23 January 2001
Site distance at each entrance to the Project shall be reviewed with respect to standard
Caltrans/City of Temecula sight-distance standards at the time of preparation of tentative
maps (Final EIR, p. 67).
Off-site Improvements
The traffic study and Circulation Element Update of the General Plan indicate that the following
off-site roadway improvements must be accomplished to reduce impacts to acceptable levels:
Property owner(s) within the Project area, or the developer(s), shall contribute to the
construction of the Pala Road bridge crossing of Temecula Creek on a fair-share basis
through Assessment District No. 159 (Final EIR, p. 68).
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, the
Pala Road bridge crossing of Temecula Creek shall be constructed to accommodate four
travel lanes, consistent with plans approved by the City of Temecula. At the time of
tentative subdivision map approval or commercial development plan approval, traffic
volumes at the Pala Road bridge shall be monitored and approval may be subject to
confirmation of available bridge-carrying capacity (Final EIR, p. 68).
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the following improvements shall have been
completed to the satisfaction of the City (Final EIR, p. 68):
· Interim interchange improvements at I-15/SR 79S,
· Widening of SR 79S between Pala Road and I-15, and
· Widening of Pala Road to 4 lanes from Clubhouse Drive to Loma Linda Road.
The developer(s) shall design and install traffic signals for project-impacted intersections
when warranted, as determined by the Department of Public Works (Final EIR, p. 68).
Transportation System Management Actions
10.
To accommodate transit services within the specific plan, bus turnouts shall be provided
at locations designated by Riverside Transit Agency or the City of Temecula Department
of Public Works. Safe pedestrian access to and fi.om the bus turnout shall be provided
(Final EIR, p. 68).
Additional Measures
11.
Subsequent focused traffic studies may be required as the Project develops to identify
actual future conditions and to determine whether additional improvements are required
of the Project to meet City Level of Significance ("LOS") objectives (Final EIR, p. 68).
12.
Phased on-site street improvements will be identified and prioritized at the subdivision
map stage (Final EIR, p. 68).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
,Sugu3t December 2000 24 City of Temecula
The incorporation of the roadway and intersection improvements into the Specific Plan and their
implementation as planned over the short and long terms, Project impacts in the short-term (year
2002) and in the long-term (year 2015) will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 69).
3.4.3 Suppoding Explanation
In order to lessen the need for vehicle trips and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement
throughout the Project, the Specific Plan provides system of bikeways and pedestrian pathways.
These amenities will be provided along Wolf Valley Road, "A" Street, Pala Road, Fairview
Road, Loma Linda Road, Via Del Coronado, and within the linear park to link neighborhoods
within Wolf Creek as well as to other nearby development (Final E1R, p. 11).
Furthermore, with respect to automobile cimulation, no inter/or road system has been designed
for the Plan, with the exception of roadways providing access to the entire site (Figure 2, Final
EIR, p.5). The Interior Loop Road, which will be the pr/mary circulation route through Wolf
Creek, is envisioned as a landscaped parkway, with a right-of-way width of 85 feet. This
accommodates a 44-foot road width, with wide parkway strips on either side. "A" Street will be
constructed as a collector street with a 66-foot right-of way or, if the City's currently proposed
General Plan Amendment is adopted, a 78-foot principal collector. Roadways adjacent to the
site will be improved to provide efficient access. All other residential road, cul-de-sac, and alley
designs will be developed in conjunction with tentative tract maps for individual planning areas
(Final EIR, p. 11).
3.5 Hazards
3.5.1 Potential Significant Impact
Asbestos and possibly contaminated soils exist on the site (Final EIR, pp. 81-83).
3.5.2 Findings
The following mitigation measure will be implemented to reduce potential impacts to hazards at
the proposed site to a less than significant level.
Soil underneath and adjacent to the concrete slab where it is suspected that contaminated
soil from the waste-oil UST lies within Planning Areas 2 and 3 shall be tested to
determine if it is contaminated. If identified as contaminated, the soil shall he removed
off site for disposal in accordance with state and federal regulatory requirements (Final
Em, pp. 84-5).
All known asbestos-containing materials on the site, including the transite pipe and
materials in the four structures, shall be removed or stabilized pursuant to EPA
requirements by a certified asbestos-removing contractor. Such remediation shall occur
prior to the issuance of any grading permits, other than those that may be necessary to
facilitate underground pipe removal (Final E1R, p. 85).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 25 January 2001
3.5.3 Suppoding Explanation
The Wolf Creek site currently is in agricultural use and has been since at least as early as the
1960s. Over the course of this agricultural use, a variety of potentially hazardous materials and
substances may have been deposited on the site (Final EIR, p. 81).
Project With Residential Use of School Sites
Underground Storage Tanks ("USTs "): All on-site USTs in the vicinity of Planning Areas 2 and
3 have been removed. However, soil remediation for the six USTs removed in 1988 may not
have been sufficient to reduce levels of hydrocarbon contamination to less-than-significant
levels. It is suspected that contaminated soil may exist underneath a concrete slab at this
location. This is a potentially significant impact (Final EIR, pp. 83-4).
Additional soil contaminated with hydrocarbons from gasoline and diesel fuel that was aerated in
1988 may exist elsewhere on the property at an unknown location or locations. There is no way
to determine where this soil may be because there is no record of where this soil was moved.
However, aeration, oxidization, and photo-reduction since 1988 will have reduced contamination
levels in this soil to less-than-significant levels (Final EIR, p. 84).
Pesticides: The concentrations of p,p-dichloro-diphenyl-dicloroethelyene ("4,4'-DDE) detected
at the site are well below state and federal regulatory limits. Only 8 out of the 40 soil samples
obtained across the site have been found to be impacted by one pesticide at very low
concentrations. According to state and federal standards, these levels do not pose a risk due to
either dust inhalation or direct skin contact. Potential impact and risk to human health are less
than significant (Final EIR, p. 84).
Asbestos: Four structures on the site and the existing irrigation pipes contain asbestos. Federal
regulatory standards require that asbestos-containing materials, where they will be disturbed,
must be removed in accordance with strict procedures. Developer compliance with existing
regulations will reduce impact to a less-than-significant level (Final EIR, p. 84).
Project With School Sites
The conclusion for the no school site alternative is the same for the Project with school sites
scenario. State requirements for school construction include provisions for safeguarding school
children against any known or suspected health hazards. Prior to acquisition of any site for
school construction, the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("TVUSD") will conduct
further, independent studies to ensure that each school site is environmentally sotmd and fi:ee of
contaminants that pose potential health hazards. TVUSD compliance with existing regulatory
requirements will reduce potential impact to a less-than-significant level (Final EIR, p. 84).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
A-ugust-De?mber 2000 26 City of Temecula
Future land uses on the site include residential, commercial, and institutional development.
None of these land use types involve the use, storage, or production of hazardous materials other
than materials generally used for cleaning. Any cleaning or similar substance used will
consistent of approved household, commercial, or institutional products approved by state and
federal agencies. No impact will result due to establishment of these uses (Final EIR, p. 84).
3.6 Noise
3.6.1 Potential Significant Impact
Construction noise and traffic noise will result in potentially significant adverse impacts.
Noise associated with events at the Neighborhood Park and City Sports Park can be controlled
via existing City and Temecula Community Services District regulations.
3.6.2 Findings
The following mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce potential noise impacts to a
less than significant level:
Short-term Construction Noise
The fei]owing measure is required to reduce short-tcrm construction noise impacts:
All construction activities will comply with applicable City noise regulations designed to
protect quiet residential areas from stationary noise sources. The City will be responsible
for ensuring compliance (Final EIR, p. 99).
Long-term Traffic Noise
The following measures are required to achieve compliance with City standards for land use
compatibility with respect to interior and exterior noise:
All new construction will incorporate insulation features designed to achieve interior
noise standards established by State and local ordinances (Final EIR, p. 99).
Any residential planning area within the Project adjacent to Pala Road or Wolf Valley
Road, and where such areas will lie within a noise environment projected to exceed 65
CNEL, the property owner and/or developer shall provide a detailed noise assessment.
The noise assessment shall evaluate Project and cumulative noise impacts and as
necessary, describe noise reduction measures to be incorporated into the Project to
comply with state and local exterior noise standards. The noise assessment shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision
map or development plan, whichever is appropriate for the type of development proposed
(Final EIR, p. 99).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 27 January 2001
Noise reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, noise attenuation walls or other
barriers, increased setbacks, or other measures which will effectively achieve the City's desired
level of mitigation (Final EIR, p. 99).
As directed by the City, a property owner and/or developer may be required to provide
the noise assessment described in mitigation measure #3 for any residential development
located along the proposed Interior Loop Road within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. If
such assessment shows that projected traffic noise will create noise levels in residential
neighborhoods inconsistent with City policies and standards, the City will require noise
reduction features in the form of sound walls, increased setbacks, or any combination of
measures that will achieve City standards (Final EIR, p. 99).
The City plans to undertake noise mitigation in conjunction with plans to widen Pala
Road south of the Pala Road bridge crossing of Temecula Creek. The developer shall be
required to participate in any noise mitigation program established by the City and shall
pay toward a fair share of mitigation commensurate with noise impacts attributable to
Wolf Creek traffic (Final EIR, p. 99).
The Temecula Valley Unified School District will ensure that school design achieves the
interior and exterior noise standards established by the State for new school construction
(Final EIR, p. 99).
Site design techniques will be used as the primary means to minimize noise impacts.
Developers will be required to consider alternative architectural layouts as a means of
meeting noise reduction requirements (Final EIR, p. 100).
Neighborhood Park/City Sports Park Facilities Noise
If deemed necessary, the City shall limit the hours of operation of the facility or place
other restrictions on the use of amplified sound at the two park facilities in order to
protect adjacent uses from noise impacts (Final EIR, p. 100).
3.6.3 Supporting Explanation
Short-term Construction Noise
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Construction activities on the Project site could
cause noise/land use compatibility standards to be exceeded in surrounding residential
subdivisions. During the construction period, noise levels typically range from 75 to 105,
according to the A-weighted decibel scale ("dBA") at a distance of 50 feet from the source (Final
EIR, p. 93).
Project with School Sites: The timing of school construction is not known. The potential exists,
however, for construction of residential units within Planning Areas adjacent to school sites to
occur once a school has been completed and is operational. Schools will be built per Department
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Augu3t December 2000 28 City of Temecula
of Education requirements for sound proofing. Also, potential noise from construction activity
will be short-term, though as in the no school scenario, construction activities could cause
noise/land use compatibility standards to be exceeded in surrounding residential subdivisions
(Final EIR, p. 93).
Long-term Noise Impact
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Development with school uses is considered the
worst-case scenario since a school represents a noise-sensitive land use (Final EIR, p. 93).
Project with School Sites: Project and cumulative traffic levels on collector and arterial
roadways have the potential to generate significant noise impacts on adjacent residential
neighborhoods and schools (Final EIR, p. 93).
As part of the traffic impact analysis, noise level projections were estimated for 2002, the start
date of the Project, and 2015, the estimated date of Project buildont (Final EIR, p. 93).
Year 2002. For residences and school structures located close to Pala Road, noise impacts will
be potentially significant in the absence of any mitigation. Existing homes west of Pala Road
will experience an increase in noise levels. This level of increase due to Project traffic is
significant (Final EIR, pp. 93-5).
Year 2015. Impacts similar to those reported for year 2002 will result. Sensitive land uses
within the Project along Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road may be located in noise environments
where exterior ambient noise levels exceed the California Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL") of
65. Existing residences along Pala Road will experience an increase in traffic noise levels. In
the absence of any mitigation, impacts will be significant (Final EIR, p. 95).
The Wolf Creek Project will also continue to contribute to high traffic volumes along SR 79S
and Redhawk Parkway, although in the longer term, the percentage contribution will decline.
However, because Project traffic will contribute a 0.5 CNEL increase or greater, Project impacts
on surrounding uses will be significant (Final EIR, p. 95).
Neighborhood Park Facility
The Neighborhood Park, located in the Village Center, will have a concessions building, four
lighted tennis courts, a tot lot, two lighted ball fields, and surface parking and supporting
facilities. The Neighborhood Park will be dedicated to the City of Temecula. The City will have
the ability to design the park to incorporate buffers, landscaping, and setbacks, and to limit the
hours of operation to mitigate potential noise impacts on surrounding uses. If amplified sound is
used in the park facility, adjacent residences could experience noise impacts (Final EIR, p. 98).
In addition to the mitigation measures identified above, additional discussion outlines additional
restrictions and guidelines that in combination with the measures above will reduce noise
impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Tetnecula 29 January 2001
City Sports Park
The City Sports Park will be located in the southeastem comer of the Specific Plan area, adjacent
to Pala and Fairview Roads. Facilities for the park may include a community center, restroom
buildings, baseball/softball, soccer and football fields, tennis courts, playground equipment,
surface parking and supporting facilities. Some or all of the fields may be lighted for use with
night games. As with the Neighborhood Park, the City Sports Park will be dedicated to the City
of Temecula. The City will have the ability to design the park to incorporate buffers,
landscaping, and setbacks, and to limit the hours of operation to mitigate potential noise impacts
on surrounding uses. If amplified sound is used in the park facility, adjacent residences could
experience noise impacts.
Short-term Construction Noise
Construction activities will be short-term and will occur generally between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. All construction activity will be required to comply with the City of Temecula
noise ordinance. Thus, impacts will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 93).
£ong-~rm No~e
As part of the proposed Project development, the proposed Pala Creek greenbelt channel will
create a minimum 100- to 128-foot buffer between Pala Road and the nearest residences, so
residences will be set back at least 115 feet (100-foot wide channel plus 15-foot rear yard
setback). At a distance 200 feet from the Pala Road centerline, noise levels will drop off
substantially (Final EIR, p. 95).
Neighborhood Park and City Sports Park Facilities
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Under this scenario, single-family residential uses
would surround two sides of the Neighborhood Park facility. Other uses, including commercial
and public facility, would be separated from the site by the proposed Interior Loop Road and
Wolf Valley Road, respectively. The City Sports Park is bordered by residential uses on one
side. One additional residential area would be separated from the park by the Interior Loop
Road. The City has the ability to control design and use of both parks to guard against potential
noise impacts (Final EIR, p. 98).
If amplified sound is used at either park facility, adjacent residences could experience noise
impacts. However, per City ordinance, the use of amplified sound is not permitted in public
parks unless approved in advance by the Temecula Community Services District. As a result,
potential impact will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 98).
Project with School Sites: Under this development scenario, the Neighborhood Park will be
surrounded by single-family, elementary school, commercial, and public facility uses. The City
Sports Park, as described above, is bordered by one residential area and Pala, Fairview, and the
Interior Loop Road. As indicated above, City design and use control over the parks will avoid
impact (Final EIR, p. 98).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Augugt December 2000 30 City of Temecula
If amplified sound is used in the Neighborhood Park Facility, single-family and school uses may
experience noise impacts. The State building code requires schools to be designed to meet
interior and exterior noise standards. Therefore, school design will incorporate necessary noise
reduction measures to reduce potential noise impacts on the elementary school to a less-than-
significant level. Also, as discussed above, existing City ordinances will work to avoid impact
associated with amplified sound (Final EIR, p. 98).
The City Sports Park is not located near any proposed school site.
Other Noise Sources
Other sources of noise within the new community will include ambient noise in residential
neighborhoods (e.g. lawnmowers, outdoor activity, stereos), mechanical equipment and loading
activities associated with commercial uses, and ongoing construction activity. All such use and
activity will be required to comply with City noise regulations. Enforcement of existing
standards and regulations will work to avoid impact (Final EIR, p. 98).
3.7 Drainage
3.7.1 Potential Significant Impact
The development of the site will increase runoff into existing inadequate flood control facilities.
The Specific Plan includes provisions for on-site drainage facilities to correct existing problems
and to accommodate project-related runoff. However, improvements beyond those incorporated
into the project are necessary to avoid impact.
3.7.2 Findings
In addition to the drainage improvements included in the Specific Plan, implementation of the
following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to drainage and flood control to a less than
significant level:
All storm drainage and flood control facilities will be designed and constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Riverside County Water Conservation and Flood
Control District, and in accordance with any required permits and conditions that may be
required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act (Final
E1R, p. 117).
Final drainage system designs for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan shall be consistent with
the provisions of the Wolf Valley Drainage Basin Regional Drainage Analysis Report
approved by the City, with supporting Project hydrology and drainage studies. Design
flow rates will be based on City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District standards for 10- to 100-year storm runoff (Final EIR, p.
117).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 31 January 2001
The proposed Pala Creek Road channel will be sized for on-site and off-site storm flows
to include the Pechanga Creek overflow at Fairview Road. This facility must be designed
to accommodate 100-year flows, as well as to coordinate or mitigate the connection with
existing regional facilities previously approved by the County of Riverside and City of
Temecula (Final EIR, p. 117).
The collector storm drain in Wolf Valley Road will be sized to include off-site flows
from the adjacent Redhawk Project (Final EIR, p. 117).
The 100-year level of protection shall meet National Flood Insurance program standards
as administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and
development of the site shall comply with the provisions of the City of Temecula's
Floodplain Management Ordinance. The developer will coordinate with the City Public
Works Department and FEMA to amend the Flood Insurance Rate Maps on the basis of
proposed drainage plans in order to withdraw the property fi'om any floodplain
designations (Final EIR, p. 117).
As development of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area proceeds, interim flood control
facilities and/or measures will be implemented, pending phasing and the need for and
completion of proposed backbone improvements (Final EIR, p. 117).
All storm drains and flood control devices will be extended to suitable points of disposal
for proper control of storm runoffon and off the site (Final EIR, p. 117).
The channel downstream of Loma Linda Road to Temecula Creek will require
reconstruction to provide capacity for 100-year flows. The timing of such improvements
shall be as directed by the Director of Public Works. The Project applicant may be
required to prepare designs and proceed with such reconstruction, with a possibility of
reimbursement from Assessment District No. 159 or other approved funding mechanisms
(Final EIR, p. 117).
Erosion control and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans ("SWPPP") incorporating
Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be prepared and implemented for the Project
grading and construction phases in accordance with City and San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES")
requirements (Final EIR, p. 118).
3.7.3 Supporting Explanation
The Wolf Creek site lies within the lower Wolf Valley watershed, adjacent to Pala Road Creek.
Pala Road Creek is a largely unimproved stream channel extending south and west of the site,
and ultimately joining Temecula Creek via an earthen channel parallel to Jedediah Smith Road.
Most of the upstream area is undeveloped (Final EIR, p. 111).
Project with Residential Use of School Sites: Development of the proposed Wolf Creek
Specific Plan will result in increased runoff due to covering of currently vacant land with
impervious surfaces such as roadways, buildings, parking lots, and driveways. New local and
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Aug':at December 2000 32 City of Temecula
regional drainage facilities will be required to accommodate both Project runoff and cumulative
runoff of development within the Wolf Valley watershed, to protect properties downstream fi.om
the Project site from increased runoff, and to provide improved regional flood control (Final EIR,
p. 113). In general, existing facilities are inadequate to accommodate existing flows (Final EIR,
p. 112). In the absence of the facilities, Project impacts will be significant (Final EIR, p. 113).
Furthermore, the Loma Linda Road/Temecula Creek channel is inadequate to handle 100-year
storm flows and will require removal and replacement with an adequately sized facility. In the
absence of improvements to the Loma Linda Road/Temecula Creek channel, the Wolf Creek
Project will contribute to existing drainage problems. Cumulative impact is considered
significant (Final EIR, p. 114).
Project with School Sites: Similarly, in the absence of the facilities and improvements, Project
impacts will be significant. Therefore, the same drainage/flood control approach will be used for
the Project with School Sites scenario.
Given the high debris production potential and the existing drainage and flooding problems at the
site, the Project applicant prepared a drainage analysis and plan for the Wolf Valley watershed,
to assess Project drainage requirements at both the local and regional levels [Wolf Valley
Drainage Basin Regional Drainage Analysis Report, April 1999 (Revised)] (Final EIR, p. 111-
13). The plan addresses both on-site improvements and improvements required to address
existing off-site problems (Final EIR, p. 113).
The drainage report proposes a plan for collecting stormwater nmoff and conveying it across the
property to off-site, regional drainage facilities. The proposal involves channelizing Pala Road
Creek within a grass-lined swale with a slope of about 4:1, within a varying easement width of
100 to 128 feet. Existing drainage will be captured at the south end of the property at Pala Road
and Fairview Avenue, through a storm drain system constructed as part of the Redhawk
development or other system approved by the City Engineer, and then discharged into the
proposed grass-lined swale along Pala Road. The grass-lined swale will connect to the existing
Pala Road channel at the north end of the Project site. The swale, parallel to Pala Road, will
have grass-lines side slopes and bottom section, with a 4-foot-wide, concrete-lined, low-flow
"V" channel in the center. A series of drop structures are proposed to limit flow velocities to 8
feet per second or less. No fencing or other barriers will be erected along the channel. Box
culverts will be constructed under Fairview Road, Wolf Valley Road, and Loma Linda Road
(Final EIR, p. 113).
The existing 293 cfs of flow that enters the property fi.om the Redhawk development at Wolf
Valley Road at present will be conveyed to the Pala Road channel via underground facilities.
Additional facilities planned include all on-street and underground facilities required to capture
runoff within residential subdivisions and other planned development, and to convey those flows
to the Pala Road Channel. These facilities will be sized according to calculated demand, and all
plans will require City approval. Standard engineering practices will mitigate localized drainage
impact to a less-than-significant level (Final EIR, p. 113-4).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 33 January 2001
A small area in the northeast comer of the property is tributary to an existing storm drain
constructed by the Redhawk Development, which discharges directly into Temecula Cree~.
Project drainage to the northeast will tie into this existing facility (Final EIR, p. 114).
The greenbelt Pala Road Channel represent the primary regional drainage facility requiring
improvements to accommodate increased flows fi.om the Wolf Creek development and to
mitigate existing flooding problems related to prior urbanization in the area. As such, the
following will be required:
The main channel drain will be sized for on-site and off-site storm flows to include the
Pechanga Creek overflow at Fairview Road. The channel will be financed by Assessment
District No. 159. This facility must be designed to accommodate the 100-year flows, as well
as to coordinate or mitigate the connection with existing regional facilities previously
approved by the County and City of Temecula (Final EIR, p. 114).
Of major concem is the future connection of the Pala Road swale to the existing undersized
trapezoidal channel between Loma Linda Road and Temecula Creek, parallel to Jedediah Smith
Road. The channel's capacity is inadequate to handle 100-year storm flows and will require
removal and replacement with an adequately sized facility. The Project drainage report
recommends two alternatives to widen the existing earthen channel, as well as a proposal for a
box culvert improvement at Loma Linda Road and other locations (undefined). In the absence of
such improvements, the Wolf Creek Project will contribute to existing drainage problems.
Cumulative impact is considered significant (Final EIR, p. 114). However, the incorporation of
the mitigation measures identified above and improvements identified in the Specific Plan will
reduce these drainage and flood control problems to a less than significant level (Final EIR, p.
118).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
August December 2000 34 City of Temecula
3.8 Cultural Resources
3.8.1 Potential Significant Impact
The surrounding area has been occupied historically by native peoples. Though no historic or
prehistoric resources have been identified on the site, the potential exists for subsurface artifacts
to be uncovered during grading operations (Final EIR, p. 131).
3.8.2 Findings
The following measure is required to avoid potential impact on any subsurface deposits:
If, during construction, cultural resoumes are encountered, work shall be halted or
diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and
makes recommendations. In addition, the developer will coordinate with the Pechanga
Band of Luisefio Mission Indians to allow a representative of the Pechanga to monitor
and participate in amhaeological investigations if and when resources are encountered,
including participation in discussions regarding the disposition of cultural items and
artifacts (Final E1R, p. 132).
The incorporation of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impact to cultural
resources to a less than significant level.
3.9 Aesthetics
3.9.1 Potential Significant Impact
Aesthetic compatibility and light pollution are potentially significant impacts. While the
Specific Plan includes provisions to ensure quality design and compatibility, ongoing review and
monitoring will be required to avoid impact. In addition, roughly one-third of the southeastern
portion of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan site lies within a City-restricted nighttime lighting area
that is within a 15-mile radius of Palomar Observatory. A potential exists for a significant
aesthetic impact if the Project results in substantial light and glare (Final EIR, p. 126).
3.9.2 Findings
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce aesthetic impacts control to a
less than significant level:
All development within the Project area will conform to the development standards and
design and architectural guidelines contained in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (Final EIR,
p. 129).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 35 January 2001
All outdoor lights in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area shall consist of low-pressure
sodium lamps oriented and shielded to minimize sky glow interference in accordance
with applicable City ordinances and regulations (Final EIR, p. 129).
All development in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area shall comply with the City's Light
Pollution Control Ordinance to minimize nighttime light interference and light impacts
on light-sensitive uses (Final EIR, p. 129).
The following measure is required to reduce lighting impacts:
All athletic field and security lighting at all parks and schools shall be designed and
constructed to avoid adverse light and glare effects on any adjacent residential use (Final
EIR, p. 129).
3.9.3 Suppoding Explanation
The following details from the Final EIR and Specific Plan illustrate that the Project will n~)t
have any significant impact upon aesthetics and that any potential aesthetic impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level through requirements and standards in the Specific Plan
and the mitigation measure identified above.
The Specific Plan contains detailed development standards and design guidelines aimed toward
ensuring land use compatibility and providing "the City of Temeeula, developers, and ultimately
residents of Wolf Creek with the necessary assurance that proposed individual developments will
conform to the same high standards of design proposed (in the Specific Plan)" (Final EIR, p.
126).
The Plan includes requirements for entryway, intersection, and median and parkway landscape
treatments to enhance the visual environment and to create edges and linkages throughout the
development. Site planning guidelines emphasize pedestrian-scale development within the
village center, as well as coordinated architectural treatment of buildings and other features (e.g.
lighting fixtures, street furniture, kiosks, signage). The design guidelines for residential
development provide for community theme walls and accent landscaping, streetscape variety
through varying setbacks and a mix of one- and two-story residences, and pedestrian
throughways connecting the neighborhoods (Final EIR, p. 126-7).
Architectural guidelines are also provided in the Plan. The architectural guidelines call for
articulated building facades, porches and balconies on single-family residences, and paving
accents (Final EIR, p. 127).
The standards and guidelines contained in the Specific Plan will provide the City of Temecula
with the tools necessary to ensure that development within Wolf Creek will complement
surrounding development and will not result in any unappealing aesthetic conditions, as viewed
from Pala Road or surrounding properties. The Project will not result in any significant adverse
aesthetic impact (Final EIR, p. 127).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Augugt December 2000 36 City of Temecula
In addition, this scale of development, and the fact that the site topographically lies lower than
development to the north, will ensure that views toward the Palomar and San Jacinto Mountains
are maintained from surrounding properties (Final EIR, p. 126).
Furthermore, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area currently does not create a light and glare impact
on surrounding areas because the site does not have any significant light sources. The Project
site is located within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area, which requires
unique nighttime lighting restrictions (Final EIR, p. 126).
Section 4 - Significant Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Less-
Than-Significant
Level
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in
the Final EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and
a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
4.1 Air Quality (Long Term)
4.1.1 Potential Significant Impact
Under both Project options, long-term operational emissions (due to vehicular travel and on-site
energy consumption) of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and reactive organic gases will
exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance (Final EIR, pp. 49-51).
4.1.2 Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce long term air quality impacts to the
extent feasible:
Transportation-related Emissions
The following measures 1 through 4 are required to reduce mobile and stationary source
emissions.
1. Upon identifying a demand for bus service to the Project area, the Riverside Transit
Agency, or other responsible public transit provider, will establish bus routes and stops to
service the residents in the specific plan area (Final E1R, p. 53).
2. The developer shall provide bus turnouts at strategic locations throughout the Project as
determined by the Riverside Transit Agency and approved by the City of Temecula
(Final EIR, p. 53).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 37 January 2001
Energy Conservation Measures
o
The developer shall comply with applicable energy conservation guidelines for
construction in accordance with the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code
and any other City requirements (Final EIR, p. 53).
The developer shall install energy-efficient lighting for all lighting systems (Final EIR, p. 53).
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, air quality impacts will be
slightly lessened, and the Project will be consistent with the AQMP. However, the
project's level of average daily pollutant emissions will continue to represent a significant
and unavoidable impact (Final EIR, p. 53).
4.1.3 Supporting Explanation
The Project includes a mix of complementary residential and local-serving commercial uses in
close proximity to one another. This land use pattern works to reduce vehicle trips, a primary
goal of the Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP"). Development of the schools in the Wolf
Creek area would generate approximately 344 more new jobs in the area than residential use of
the school sites. Also, placing schools within easy walking or biking distance to residential uses
further meets AQMP objectives to reduce vehicle trips (Final EIR, p. 52).
The Specific Plan provides system of bikeways and pedestrian pathways that are designed to
lessen the need for vehicle trips and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the
Project. These amenities will be provided along Wolf Valley Road, "A" Street, Pala Road,
Fairview Road, Loma Linda Road, Via Del Coronado, and within the linear park to link
neighborhoods within Wolf Creek as well as to other nearby development (Final EIR, p. 11).
4.2 Cumulative Impact on Air Quality
4.2.1 Potential Significant Impact
The Temecula General Plan E1R concludes that cumulative air quality impacts will be regionally
significant and constitute an unavoidable significant impact. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan will
contribute incrementally to this cumulative effect (Final EIR, p. 157).
4.2.2 Findings
The same mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1 above will help to slightly lessen the
cumulative air quality impacts. Yet, no feasible mitigation measures exist which would reduce
the cumulative impact of average daily pollutant emissions to a less than significant level (Final
Em, p. 53).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Auguat December 2000 38 City of Temecula
4.2.3 Supporting Explanation
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, air quality impacts will be slightly
lessened, and the project will be consistent with the AQMP. However, the project's level of
average daily pollutant emissions will continue to represent a significant and unavoidable impact
(Final EIR, p. 53).
4.3 Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Uses
4.3.1 Potential Significant Impact
The Temecula General Plan EIR states that development will result in a significant cumulative
impact on agricultural uses within the San Jacinto/Temecula Valley District. The removal of the
Wolf Creek property from agricultural use will contribute incrementally to this unavoidable
cumulative impact (Final EIR, p. 158).
4.3.2 Findings
NO feasible mitigation exists (Final EIR, p. 158).
4.3.3 Supporting Explanation
Though the Project results in a significant cumulative impact on agricultural uses within the San
Jacinto/Temecula Valley District, both the Project scenarios are consistent with the City's
General Plan land use policy. The City of Temecula General Plan Land Use map designates the
subject property and all surrounding lands within the City's sphere of influence for urban uses.
Agricultural activity has essentially disappeared from this area of the Temecula Valley. The
properties adjacent to the Wolf Creek site have been developed or are planned to be developed
with urban uses (e.g. residential, commemial, and recreational uses) (Final EIR, p. 137).
Section 5 - Alternatives
The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the altematives
identified in the Final EIR and described below. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a
reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer
substantial environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the
economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate
reasonable alternatives to a Project which could feasibly attain most of the Project objectives,
and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration of
alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not required to choose
the "environmentally superior" altemative identified in an EIR if the alternative does not provide
substantial advantages over the proposed Project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation
measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2)
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 39 January 2001
there are social, economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative
infeasible.
The City's General Plan identifies goals and policies that are relevant to the Specific Plan and the
City as a whole, which are to provide for the orderly development of Temecula, in general, and
also specifically for the Wolf Creek site. These include:
A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and
open space land uses (Goal 1, City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-9). Including such
policies as:
Review all proposed development plans for consistency with the community goals,
policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan (Policy 1.1, Final EIR, p. 2-
9).
Promote the use of innovative site planning techniques that contribute towards the
development of a variety of residential product styles and designs, including housing
suitable to the community's labor rome (Policy 1.2, City of Temecula Land Use Element,
p. 2-9).
Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-
level commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses (Policy
1.3, Final E1R, p. 2-9).
Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing land
uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development (Policy 1.4, Final
Em, p. 2-9).
Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Overlay to
achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infi:astructure
(Policy 1.7, Final EIR, p. 2-9).
Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to preserve natural
features, achieve innovative site design, achieve a range of transition of densities, provide
open space and recreational facilities, and provide necessary amenities and facilities
(Policy 1.9, Final EIR, p. 2-9).
· A land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods (Goal 3, Final
EIR, p. 2-10). Including such policies as:
Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of the size
and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing
vegetation and land form, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts,
and other environmental conditions (Policy 3.1, Final EIR, p. 2-10).
· A development pattem that preserves and enhances the environmental resources of the Study
Area (Goal 4, Final EIR, p. 2-11).
Consider alternative flood control methods to reduce capital and maintenance costs and
provide recreational and open space opportunities (Policy 4.6, Final EIR, p. 2-12).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
August-December 2000 40 City of Temecula
A land use pattern and intensity of development that encourages alternative modes of
transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking (Goal 5, Final EIR, p. 2-12).
Including such policies as:
Require the provision of pedestrian and bicycle linkages from residential areas to open
space/recreation facilities, commercial, and employment centers (Policy 5.2, Final EIR, p.
2-12).
Encourage variety in the design of sidewalks and trails with respect to alignment and
surface materials to provide a convenient and enjoyable experience for the users (Policy
5.3, Final EIR, p. 2-13).
Designate Village Centers on the Land Use Plan to provide areas within the community
that are urban in character, contain a mixture of compatible uses, and are designed to
reduce or eliminate the need for automobile in traveling to or within Village Centers
(Policy 5.5, Final E1R, p. 2-13).
Encourage higher density residential, mixed-use development, and support public and
community facilities within Village Centers (Policy 5.6, City of Temecula Land Use
Element, p. 2-13).
Insure that adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated within Village
Centers to allow for social interaction and community activities (Policy 5.10, City of
Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-13).
Discourage the development of strip commercial centers that increase auto-dependency
(Policy 5.11, City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-13).
· A City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns (Goal 8, City of
Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-15).
Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within the City during
peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours (Goal 1, City of
Temecula Circulation Element, p. 3-8).
· Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City (Goal 6, City of
Temecula Circulation Element, p. 3-12). Including such policies as:
Adequate linkages shall be provided for non-motorized modes, between residential areas
and commercial/employment activity centers, public institutions, and recreation areas
(Policy 6.5, City of Temecula Circulation Element, p. 3-13).
A diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of
existing and future residents of Temecula (Goal 1, City of Temecula Housing Element, p. 4-
42). Including such policies as:
Provide an inventory of land at varying densities sufficient to accommodate the existing
and projected housing needs in the City (Policy 1.1, City of Temecula 1994-1999
Housing Element, p. 4-42).
Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the
village centers to enhance their people-orientation and diversity (Policy 1.3, City of
Temecula 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 41 January 2001
A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the varying recreational needs of
residents (Goal 1, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-25). Including
such policies as:
Require developers of residential projects greater than fifty dwelling units to dedicate
land based on the park acre standard of five (5) acres of usable parkland to one thousand
(1,000) population, or the payment of in-lieu fees in accordance with the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (Policy 1.3, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation
Element, p. 5-25).
Maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and new parks as an alternative to
automobile access (Policy 1.10, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p.
5 -26).
Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources
(Goal 2, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-26). Including such
policies as:
Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new
development (Policy 2.3, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-26).
· Conservation of energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation
practices (Goal 4, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-28).
· A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs (Goal 8, City of
Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-32).
· Protection of dark skies from intrusive light sources which may impact the Palomar
Observatory (Goal 9, City of Temeeula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-32).
Orderly and efficient patterns of growth within Temecula that enhance the quality of life for
residents (Goal 2, City of Temecula Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, p. 6-25).
Including such policies as:
Encourage development of Village Centers, as defined in the Land Use and Community
Design Elements, to reduce public service costs and environmental impacts through
compatible land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space systems
(Policy 2.4, City of Temecula Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, p. 6-25).
Effective and cost efficient sheriff, fire and emergency medical services within the City
(Goal 3, City of Temecula Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, p. 6-26).
Including such policies as:
Require new development to address fire and police protection in a proactive and
preventative way through street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures,
landscaping, lighting and other security features (Policy 3.3, City of Temecula Growth
Management/Public Facilities Element, p. 6-26).
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
August December 2000 42 City of Temecula
A quality school system that contains adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of
Temecula (Goal 4, City of Temecula Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, p. 6-
27). Including such policies as:
Provide information to the Temecula Valley Unified School District, when considering
General Plan amendments, specific plans, zone changes, or other legislative land use
policy decisions, to support the School District in providing adequate school facilities for
students for new development to the extent permitted by law (Policy 4.1, City of
Temecula Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, p. 6-28).
· An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system (Goal 7, City of
Temecula Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, p. 6-30).
· Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events, and
flooding (Goal 1, City of Temecula Public Safety Element, p. 7-16).
· Consider noise issues in the planning process (Goal 3, City of Temecula Noise Element, p. 8-
17). Including such policies as:
Encourage the use of site design and building design techniques, including the use of
landscaped setbacks or berms, building orientation, and buffering of noise sensitive areas,
as a means to minimize noise impacts (Policy 3.3, City of Temecula Noise Element, p. 8-
17).
· 'Enhanced mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions (Goal 2, City of Temecula Air
Quality Element, p. 9-7).
· A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image (Goal 4,
City of Temecula Community Design Element, p. 10-6).
5.1 "No Development" Alternative
5.1.1 Description
The "no development" alternative assumes continued use of the site for agricultural purposes
since this represents the most recent use of the subject property. Implementation of this
altemative would not result in any of the environmental impacts associated with construction and
development of the proposed Project. The land use, hydrologic, and circulation characteristics of
the site would remain in their present state, and any circulation and traffic impacts associated
with the Project development would not occur. In addition, noise and air quality impacts due to
increased traffic development would not be generated (Final EIR, p. 142).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 43 January 2001
5.1.2 Findings
The City Council finds that the "No Development" Alternative is fails to address many of the
Goals identified in the City's General Plan.
5.1.3 Supporting Explanation
Under the No Development Alternative, the Specific Plan would not be adopted or implemented.
Therefore, the No Development Alternative is contrary to several of the City's goals as identified
in the Land Use Element. In particular, the failure to adopt a Specific Plan for the area would be
in contradiction to Land Use Policy 1.7 which requires the preparation of specific plans to
achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure (City of
Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-9).
Continued use of the site for agricultural production would not be consistent with General Plan
land use policy (City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-9). In the long term, as urban
development continues to surround the site, land use conflicts between agricultural activity and
urban uses could be significant. Dust generation (fi.om plowing), pesticide use, and farm
equipment noise would represent potential irritants to the adjacent residential neighborhoods
(Final EIR, p. 142).
The No Development Alternative would also not be consistent with Goal 2 and Goal 4 of the
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element since this alternative would not provide growth
that "enhances the quality of life for residents" nor would it provides sites for schools to serve
the neighboring communities (City of Temecula Growth Management/Public Facilities Element,
pp. 6-25-6).
Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements associated with the Project would not occur.
Some of these improvements include the construction of Fairview Avenue as a Secondary
Highway (88-foot fight-of-way), the construction of Pala Road to its ultimate half-section width
as an Arterial Highway (ll0-foot right-of-way), the construction of Loma Linda Road as a
Collector (66-foot right-of-way), and the construction of Wolf Valley Road as a Secondary
Highway (88-foot right-of-way) (Final EIR, p. 67). Without these improvements, the No
Development Alternative would fails to address Goal 4 of the Community Design Element,
which emphasizes a need for a cohesive stmetscape system (City of Temecula Community
Design Element, p. 10-6).
In addition, the existing flood and drainage infrastructure is insufficient or has inadequate
capacity to properly handle runoff from the upstream watershed (Final EIR, p. 111). The Project
applicant prepared a drainage analysis and plan for the Wolf Creek watershed, which identified
existing problems. Without development of the Project and the flood control and drainage
improvements associated with it, the existing problems would continue (Final EIR, pp. 111-3).
No development of residential housing units on the Wolf Creek Site may also make more
difficult for the City to achieve its present Regional Housing Needs Assessment number of 7,798
housing units or future number as identified by SCAG and WRCOG (WRCOG, July 23, 2000, p.
5). The No Development Alternative would fail to meet the Goal 1 of the 1994-1999 Housing
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Auguat December 2000 44 City of Temecula
Element, which calls for a diversity of housing opportunities that meet the existing needs of
existing and future residents (City of Temecula 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42).
Thus, the No Development Alternative would be infeasible because it is in contradiction to the
City's Goals as identified above.
5.2 All Single-Family Development Alternative
5.2.1 Description
The Specific Plan provides for the option of developing planning area 18, which is designated for
multi-family use, with single-family courtyard residential subdivisions at an average density of
12 units per acre. In addition, the City Sports Park (planning area 24) could be developed with
200 detached single-family traits at a density of approximately 8 units per acre. Under this
scenario, up to 2,358 units could be constructed on the site, assuming that the two schools are not
constructed (Final E1R, p. 145).
5.2.2 Findings
The City Council finds that the All Single-Family Development Alternative is not
environmentally superior to the Specific Plan and is infeasible because the altemative is contrary
to one of the key goals of the City's Housing Element and is also not consistent with the City's
General Plan.
5.2.3 Supporting Explanation
The All Single Family Development Alternative would not be consistent with the General Plan
land use designations for the site. The General Plan envisions a "village" concept, whereby a
range of residential densities and rental versus owner/occupied uses, together with
complementary commercial and institutional uses are developed in an integrated manner. Unlike
the proposed Project, this alternative may not achieve General Plan land use goals and for this
reason would be considered inferior to the Project (Final EIR, p. 145).
Since this alternative would eliminate multi-family housing as part of the Specific Plan, this
alternative would also not be consistent with Goal 1 of the 1994-1999 Housing Element
(identified above). In addition, this alternative contradicts Policies 1.1 and 1.3 which identify the
need for a diversity of housing types and densities (including rental units) and the development
Qf diverse housing types arotmd village centers (City of Temecula 1994-1999 Housing Element,
p. 4-42).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 45 January 2001
5.3 Low-Density Alternative
5.3.1 Description
The low-density residential alternative assumes less than one unit per acre across the entire site,
yielding 500 units, or 1,658 fewer units than the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (assuming no school
sites). This altemative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative due to its
ability to minimize air quality impacts (Final EIR, p. 147).
5.3.2 Findings
Though the Low-Density Alternative is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan, the City
Council finds that it is infeasible because it fails to meet the City's goals, identified in the
General Plan.
5.3.3 Supporting Explanation
Since this altemative would not "provide a balance of uses with commercial and public uses
serving the surrounding area" (Temecula General Plan, p. 2-37), this alternative would not be
consistent with objectives defined in the City of Temecula General Plan. Furthermore, this
alternative would not be consistent with surrounding development patterns.
In addition, a reduction in the number of housing units constructed would make it more difficult
for the City to meet its current or future Regional Housing Needs Assessment number of housing
units as required by the Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Southern California
Association of Governments (WRCOG, July 23, 1999, p. 5). The Low-Density Alternative
would fail to provide a diversity of housing opportunities for current and future Temecula
residents, as stated in Goal 1 of the 1994-1999 Housing Element. This alternative would also be
contrary to Policy 1.1 which requires a variety of densities in new developments around village
centers (City of Temecula 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42).
With regard to air quality effects, this alternative would have the potential to result in less-than-
significant Project impacts on air quality, however, the cumulative air quality impacts would
remain significant (Final EIR, p. 149). In addition, the alternative might not provide the same
level of flood control improvements associated with the Project nor generate property assessment
fees adequate to fund regional improvements. In this regard, the alternative is inferior to the
Project (Final EIR, p. 150).
Though, the Low-Density Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it fails
to meet important goals identified in the Temecula General Plan.
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Auguat December 2000 46 City of Tcmecula
5.4 "No Project" Alternative
5.4.1 Description
The "no Project" alternative considers the case whereby the site is developed in accordance with
existing General Plan policy. The General Plan land use map designates the site for a range of
urban uses, with a "village center" as a community focal point (Figure 5, Final E1R, p. 20). The
Plan designates similar types of uses, intensities of use, and site design as the proposed Wolf
Valley Ranch Specific Plan, analyzed in this EIR. Existing policy provides for development
under two scenarios: one with schools and one without schools. For the purpose of this analysis,
under the option with schools and no senior multi-family housing development, up to 1,881
housing units is assumed. Under the option without schools and the development of senior
multi-family housing units, this alternative is assumed to result in 2,158 housing units. Under
both options, 20 acres of land would be developed with commercial uses (Final EIR, p. 150).
5.4.2 Findings
The City Council finds that though this alternative is environmentally comparable to the Project
and similar in many respects to the proposed Project, the alternative is infeasible because it fails
to meet the goals identified in the City's General Plan.
5.4.3 Suppoding Explanation
One of the most important differences between the No Project Altemative and the proposed
Project is that it lacks several key features -features that are identified repeatedly as part of the
City's General Plan goals and policies. The No Project Alternative does not have a linear
parkway that ties together a variety of land uses. Thus, development of the No Project
Altemative is contrary to Goal 5 of the Temecula Land Use Element, which encourages a land
use pattern that "encourages alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and
walking" (City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-12). The use of the linear parkway for
walking and bicycling that connect the parks, schools, and the commercial uses in the Village
Center are designed to reduce the need for automobiles in traveling to or within these areas,
which is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element (City of Temecula Land Use
Element, p. 2-13). The No Project Alternative lacks this means of reducing vehicle trips.
Similarly, Goal 6 and, in particular, Policy 6.5 of the Circulation Element call for adequate
linkages for non-motor/zed modes of transportation between residential and commercial areas in
the City (City of Temecula Circulation Element, p. 3-13). Again, Policy 1.10 of the City's Open
Space Element emphasizes the need to "maximize pedestr/an and bicycle access to existing and
new parks" and Goal 8 identifies the need for a trail syste~m that serves both recreational and
transportation (City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-26). As shown in
Figure 4 and Figure 2 of the Final EIR, the proposed Project develops a streetscape system that is
provides cohesiveness and enhances community image," consistent with the Goal 4 of the
Community Design Element (City of Temecula Community Design Element, p. 10-6). In
addition, the linear park system proposed in the Specific Plan creates enhanced resident mobility
without the need for additional vehicular trips and the air pollutants associated with those trips.
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 47 January 2001
This is consistent with Goal 2 of the Air Quality Element. (City of Temecula Air Quality
Element, p. 9-7). Again, this is a key feature that the No Project Alternative lacks.
Finally, according to goals and policies in the Temecula Noise Element, a Project should
encourage the use of site design and building techniques including "building orientation and
buffering of noise sensitive areas, as a means to minimize noise impacts" (City of Temecula
Noise Element, p. 8-17). As shown in Figure Ili-2 of the Specific Plan, three residential areas (2
high density uses and one median density use) are located on Pala Road which may expose these
future residents to unnecessary noise impacts from the traffic on Pala Road. In the proposed
Project, commercial uses are located adjacent to Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road, increasing
their access and removing more of the residential uses to the interior of the site (Figure Ili-2,
Wolf Creek Specific Plan).
Though similar in nature to the Specific Plan, the No Project Alternative fails to address many of
the identified goals of the City's General Plan and overall is not a superior alternative.
5.5 Other Alternatives Not Analyzed
With regard to alternative locations for a Project, the CEQA Guidelines state that such analysis
should be performed if "significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially
lessened by putting the Project in another location" (Section 15126[d][5][B]). This EIRdoes not
consider an alternative site for the following reasons: (a) Since the Project covers such a large
area (557 acres), a similar site with existing infi-astrncture improvements, and one that is not
already master planned for urban development, does not exist within the City of Temecula; (b)
the significant, unavoidable impacts associated with the Project result largely fi-om the intensity
of development; and (c) the Project proponent could not reasonably acquire an altemative site.
Locating the same Project at another site would not avoid or lessen the identified unavoidable
significant effects of the Project (Final EIR, p. 141).
Section 6 - Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council must balance the benefits of
the Specific Plan against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to
recommend approval of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. If the benefits of the Specific Plan
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered
"acceptable."
The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects
that will occur as a result of the Specific Plan. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures discussed in the Final EIR and Specific Plan, these effects can be mitigated to a less
than significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section 4 of
these Findings.
The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or
substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Specific Plan.
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Augu3t December 2000 48 City of Temecula
The City Council finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the Final
and/or Specific Plan could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because
they would impose restrictions on the Specific Plan that would prohibit the realization of specific
economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated.
The City Council further finds that except for the Specific Plan, all other alternatives set forth in
the Final EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Specific Plan
objectives and/or of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this Council finds
outweigh any enviromnental benefits of the alternatives, or have greater environmental impacts.
The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of
the Specific Plan to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation
measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Specific Plan, and having
weighed the benefits of the Specific Plan against its unavoidable adverse impacts after
mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the Specific Plan outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts
and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following
overriding considerations:
The Specific Plan will allow the orderly, well planned development of the Wolf Creek
site, providing a range of housing types complementary to existing development in the
City.
The Specific Plan will provide for the development of a Village Center concept that
centralizes activities, consistent with General Plan policy (Final EIR, p. 4).
The Specific Plan will provide active and passive recreational park space as a basic
community theme (Final EIR, p. 11).
The Specific Plan will integrate into the community an open space network comprised of
parks, greenbelts, and connecting pedestrian/bicycle routes (Final EIR, p. 11,134-5).
The Specific Plan will provide for the development of neighborhood and community
commercial centers to provide needed services and reduce the number of cars traveling
across the City for these services (Final EIR, p. 4).
The Specific Plan will provide housing to meet anticipated population growth throughout
the Temecula Valley (Final EIR, p. 4, 11, 27-8).
7. The Specific Plan will provide for new school sites (Final EIR, p. 4, 105).
The Specific Plan will provide a site for the construction of a new fire station to provide
fire protection to residents at the Wolf Creek site and surrounding areas (Final EIR, p. 11,
101-2).
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 49 January 2001
10.
The Specific Plan will provide for the improvement of currently inadequate regional
flood control facilities to provide 100-year storm protection ~ Final EIR, p. 13, 117-8).
The Specific Plan will provide road improvements consistent with the General Plan
Circulation Element (Final E1R, p. 12, 67-8).
11.
The Specific Plan accomplishes and implements the Temecula General Plan goals and
policies.
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and
implementation of the Specific Plan outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental
impacts of the Specific Plan which cannot be mitigated. The City Council further finds that each
of the Specific Plan benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse Environmental effects identified
in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed
above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these
unavoidable environmental impacts.
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the
Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with
the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR
reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following
findings and conclusions:
6.1 Findings
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR and will
require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance: air quality (long-term), the cumulative impact on air quality, and the cumulative
impact on agricultural uses.
6.2 Conclusions
All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan have
been identified in the Final EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures
identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in
Section 6.1 above.
, 2.
Other reasonable alternatives to the Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic
objectives of the Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Specific
Plan.
Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the
development of the Specific Plan override and make infeasible any altematives to the
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
,¥,:guat December 2000 50 City of Temecula
Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Specific
Plan.
Section 7 - Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to
this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures
as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
Section 8 - Location of Records
The doc_uments and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings
have been based are located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director.
This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
Section 9 - Effective Date
The Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTION this ninth day of January, 2001.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Wolf Creek Specific Plan City Council Findings
City of Temecula 51 January 2001
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Califomia, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 01- was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the ninth day of January, 2001, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan Wi Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
Findings Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Auguat December 2000 52 City of Temecula
EXHIBIT A
TEXT AND ADDENDUM NOS. 1 AND NO. 2 - PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\PI~tNNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Stuff Report 1-9~01.doc
9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 01- APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-9484 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94)1.doc
10
A']-I'ACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 200'1-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-
0484 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN
LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW., AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-t t0-002,-005, -033 AND 950-
180-001, -005, -006 AND -0t 0.
WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application Nos. PA98-0484 (the "Application"), in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines
and California State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local la~,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on September6, 2000,
September 20, 2000, October 4, 2000, October 18, 2000, and December6, 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 headngs and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on January 9, 2001, at a duly
noticed public hearing 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 Council hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report
and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the
Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL 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. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the
following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and
welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to
be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth
Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency
vehicles.
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\RESO CC GPA.doc
1
B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers
and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed within a Village
Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
C. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the communitybecause it
remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment
is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the
specific plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula has
certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council approves the Application,
changing the general plan designations on 557 acres of land in order to complywith the design of a
mixed use specific plan known as the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, on property located on the
east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda and Deer Hollow, and known as Assessor's Parcel
Nos. 950-110-002, -005, -033 and 950-180-001, -005, -006 and -010.
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ninth day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No.
2001- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the ninth day of January 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
R:\PL~dqN1NG\S P\Wolf Creek SP~P. ESO CC GPA.duc
2
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL PLAN COMPARISON
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94)l.doc
11
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 01- APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 98-9481 -WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. t2
R:\PLANN1NG\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-9-01.doc
12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-
048t - WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12, ON PARCELS
TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA
ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005,
-033 AND 950-t 80-001, -005, -006 AND -0t0.
WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application Nos. PA98-0481 (the "Application"), in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines
and California State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local la~,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on September6, 2000,
September 20, 2000, October 4, 2000, October 18, 2000, and December6, 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, the City Council considered the Application on January 9, 2001, at a duly
noticed public hearing 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 Council hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report
and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the
Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL 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. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the
following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and
welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to
be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth
Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency
vehicles.
B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers
and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed within a Village
Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
R:\PLANNLNG\S P\Wolf Creek SP\RESO CC SP.doc
C. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it
remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment
is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the
specific plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula has
certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council approves the Application for
a mixed use development known as the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, and as detailed in Exhibit
A and as amended by the Planning Commission and City Council, subject to the conditions of
approval as noted in Exhibit B, on 557 acres of land on property located on the east side of Pala
Road, between Loma Linda and Deer Hollow, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-110-002, -
005, -033 and 950-180-001, -005, -006 and -010.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ninth day of January, 2001.
A']-]'EST:
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No.
2001- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the ninth day of January 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
R:\PLANNING\$ P\Wolf Creek SPW. ESO CC SP.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
TEXT - PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC StaffReport 1-9~01.doc
13
EXHIBIT B
REVISED LAND USE PLAN
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report I-9-01.doc
14
EXHIBIT C
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12
R:~PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC StaffReport 1-9~)l.doc
15
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Revised January 9, 2001
Planning Application No. PA98-0481 -(Specific Plan) -Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Project Description: A mixed use specific plan which provides a full range of residential
uses and product types, school sites, park sites, open space and drainage greenbelt, roadways,
private recreation center, fire station site and commercial sites, specifically as follows:
From 1,881 to 2,022 (2,158) dwelling units for an overall density of 3.4 to 3.6 (3.9)
dwelling units per acre. Residential product includes ¼ acre estate lots, 7,200
square foot to 5,000 square foot lots, courtyard homes, and an option for multi-
family senior housing.
School sites totaling 33 acres for an elementary and middle school.
A 6-acre neighborhood park that is a component of the Village Center, a 6.7 acre
linear park with three activity nodes that traverses the entire length of the project,
and an additional 1.5 acre parking area for the Kent Hintergardt Park. Park sites
were selected and coordinated for joint use with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District facilities.
A 40-acre City Sports Park with lighted ballfields, soccer fields, large-group picnic
areas, tot lot, parking facilities, restrooms, and snack bar.
A 25-acre drainage greenbelt along the full length of Pala Road, designed as
passive open space.
Roadways and circulation system that provide pedestrian linkages, bicycle paths
and interconnected uses throughout the project.
Private recreation center, fire station and other public facility uses on 5 acres at the
Village Center.
Neighborhood and Community Commercial areas totaling 20 acres at the Village
Center.
Development Impact Fee Category: All categories
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
950-110-002,-005,-033
950-180-001,-005,006 and -010
Approval Date:
January9,2001
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 Nine
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar
($850.00) 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 Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. 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 failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, 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 said
amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City
shall refund, without interest, any unused portions 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.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein or by development agreement, and State
laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not
covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City
ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required.
Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it
vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council, and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council.
The applicant shall pay his fair share of the costs for sound attenuation measures adjacent
to Pala Road.
The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in the adopted
City of Temecula General Plan.
A. ~^,,,,,.,,.'~'~ -~ ¢" " *, .. . .. , .. ,.. ,: ~" ~ ,, ,..,,...,..,, ~" *"'~ =~" .., "¢ Appliances shall be energy efficient as defined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's "Energy Star" or Edison's" Comfort Wise"
Programs. Renewable energy such as solar roof panels, or other devices that offer
maximum energy/utility efficiencies shall be required.
B, '^"-~-^.., ,..... '-~="'-,~.~.~,.., ,, ,...,~......;-^" '~;~- ~,~ Landscaping des/gn and irrigation devices that conform to
the California Model Water Conservation Ordinance shall be required, such as Iow flow
toilets, faucets and showerheads, shade tree selection and placement.
(Amended by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000)
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP,doc
2
A detailed noise assessment, evaluating project and cumulative noise impacts, shall be
provided for any residential planning area within the project adjacent to Pala Road or
Wolf Valley Road, and where such areas lie within a noise environmental projected to
exceed 65 CNEL. As necessary, the assessment shall describe noise reduction
measures to be incorporated into the project to comply with state and local exterior
noise standards. The assessment shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City prior
to the approval of a tentative subdivision map or development plan, whichever is
appropriate for the type of development proposed.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
Prior to issuance of permits for any development or activities within the site, the developer
shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report, that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report have been satisfied.
10.
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services
of a qualified consultant to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring Program
approved for this project as part of the Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report, in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. The selection of the consultant shall be approved by
the Planning Director.
11.
Prior to final City Council approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project, the
applicant shall update the Program to reflect all conditions of approval as approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be augmented to include the applicable
portions of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
(Amended by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
12.
Planning Area 12 shall be designated to accommodate a church site, for a period of one
year from the issuance of the first building permit on the north side of Wolf Valley Road.
At the end of the one year period, the developer may either continue to designate a
portion of Planning Area 12 for church use, or revert back to neighborhood commercial
uses in accordance with the specific plan zoning ordinance.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
13.
Planning Area 12 shall be amended to allow a 'tavern or baF' use as conditionally
permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
14.
Planning Area 24 shall be revised to show the alternative to the 40 acre City Sports Park
as "SFD - 7,200 s.f. lot option."
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
15.
Where the Option 2 street sections are used in the Specific Plan, the developer shall
provide evidence that the parkways will be maintained by an appropriate homeowner
association.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
3
a. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of five feet in width on both sides of the street.
Applicant shall demonstrate that average daily trips utilizing the street is less
than 250 vehicular trips.
The road right-ofiway shall be thirty-six feet (36') with a parkway separating the
sidewalk from the curb.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
16.
When courtyard homes are implemented, a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission, subject to the
requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code. An independent architect
consultant shall review the PDO program and provide findings to the Commission.
The Development Plan shall include an architectural design package including
floorplans and elevations for all product types.
The Development Plan must demonstrate a minimum of 200 square feet of
usable private yard space for each lot.
(Amended by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
17. Any new residential product shall require Planning Commission review and approval
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
18.
The "Split Garage" option shall be deleted from Figure IV-34B of the Wolf Creek Specific
Plan Design Guidelines.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
19.
The multi-family senior housing option, if implemented in Planning Area 18, shall be
required to provide fully enclosed garages in lieu of carports, and shall be so noted within
the specific plan zoning ordinance.
20.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
The developer shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Planning Construction
Landscape Drawings for perimeter landscaping and irrigation systems along the perimeter
of every school site which fronts General Plan and Specific Plan designated roadways.
Upon approval of these Drawings, the applicant shall install landscaping and irrigation
systems prior to the occupancy of the site by the school district.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000)
21.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by the City Council, the Specific
Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions
of approval and all modifications made by the Planning Commission and City Council. A
master print copy (8.5" X 11") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted.
a. The final form shall matchup acreages as accurately as possible with approved
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
4
b. The final form shall correct any discrepancies as a result of final approvals by the
City.
The project description for the Environmental Impact Report shall be amended to
include the Development Agreement.
22.
Prior to approval of any development projects, appropriate clearances, conditions and
approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review shall be obtained by the
developer. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City
Engineer.
23.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining
the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal.
24.
Prior to approval of any development projects, the developer shall investigate the feasibility
of a reclaimed water system, to irrigate landscaping within the roadway medians, parkways,
drainage channel, schools, community park, linear park, neighborhood parks, and other
common open space areas. The developer shall provide evidence that compliance with this
condition is in accordance with Senate Bill 2095.
(Amended by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
25.
Subsequent residential subdivision maps shall require that the applicant provide a
Disclosure Statement, signed by a new property owner whose residence is adjacent to the
Pechanga Indian Reservation, including those across Pala Road and the drainage channel.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
26.
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.
27.
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.
28.
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.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
29.
For any residential development abutting Pala Road the applicant shall provide project-
specific noise studies which shall determine whether noise attenuation walls are necessary
to comply with noise standards. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations that
result from these studies.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
5
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan
all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Conditions
30. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project
site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical
lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed
underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in
accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
31.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of
Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish
and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine
if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by
this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence,
including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the
terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as
Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
32.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements.
Perimeter walls, where required, shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be
installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
33.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be
approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of
any subsequent application.
34.
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.
35.
The Developer shall ensure coordination with Metropolitan Water District on projects over
which the City has jurisdiction (i.e., construction of Fairview Road, Pala Road
Improvements, and improvements,to the Pala Road channel).
Circulation
36.
Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development
as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to office and commercial areas
shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual
development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites
may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works.
37.
The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by
the Department of Public Works upon future tentative map and/or development plan
approvals.
38.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements
of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards or as
approved with the Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
6
39. All intersection intervals shall comply with City standards and requirements.
40.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and
number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation
Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be
provided by the Developer.
41.
Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies
and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section Ill. 8. of the Specific Plan. Any
substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning and Public
Works Director through a rephasing application. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits
within any phase, alt on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and
subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions
on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of
Public Works.
42.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development
stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the
necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
43.
If the City has a Capital Improvement Project to design and construct Pala Road from
Rainbow Canyon Road to Fairview Road to its ultimate configuration including
environmental mitigation, the Developer shall pay their fair share and reimburse the City for
their street improvement obligation.
Drainage
44. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements
of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(RCFC&WCD).
45.
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit
the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the
proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
46.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion
of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that
phase.
47.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
48.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements
and the interim detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and
Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and
RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
49.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports
shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts
and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development
of this project.
50.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
7
51.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of
the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided
by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by
securing drainage easements.
Water and Sewer
52.
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal
Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan
stages of the development.
53.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit
the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The
Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD.
54.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit
the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities.
The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD.
Grading
55. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan
approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development.
56.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible
to bond for and construct the traffic signals at the project's accesses,.as required, including
the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to
subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications.
57.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any
subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and
accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified
in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document.
58.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of
Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing
the grading and erosion control improvements.
59.
The Developer shalt comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
60.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the
Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula
Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". Residential subdivisions shall
obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
8
61.
62.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to
the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plan.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading
plan to indicate at a minimum:
Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation
during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and
NPDES requirements.
Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which
will be graded during the rainy months.
Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations.
63.
Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as
otherwise approved by the Depadment of Public Works.
64.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30
days of completion of grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
65. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
66.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
67.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations.
68. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department
of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and
soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each
phase of proposed development.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
9
69.
70.
71.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of
bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit)
shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans.
Phasing
72.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of
final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular
access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further
provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the
Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
73.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the
specifications of the Specific Plan.
74.
Infrastructure Phase A
a. Circulation
The following improvements shall be complete prior to the first building permit
i. Improve Pala Road from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto (Urban Arterial
Highway Standards - 134' RNV) 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) and a 14 foot wide raised
landscaped median.
ii. Improve Pala Road from Via Gilberto to Wolf Valley Road (Arterial Highway
Standards - 110' PJVV) 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), and a 14 foot wide raised
landscaped median
iii. Improve Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road to
accommodate a 60 foot wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including
a center turn lane), signing and striping.
iv. Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road (Collector Road
Standards - 66' FUW) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way
plus twelve feet, installation of the remainder of street improvements,
paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing
and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
10
vi.
vii.
In the event that the interim improvements on Pala Road from Rainbow
Canyon Road to Loma Linda Road are not complete prior to the first building
permit, the Developer shall improve Pala Road to accommodate a 60 foot
wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane),
signing and striping. The City may reimburse the Developer for their fair
share of the street improvement obligation as determined by the Director of
Public Works.
Interior Loop Road from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road (Modified
Residential Collector Street - 85' R/W) to include dedication of full-width
right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
Wolf Valley Road from the nodherly Specific Plan boundary to Pala Road
(Modified Secondary Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width
right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road (Principal Collector
Highway - 78' R/W) to include to include dedication of half-width street right-
of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six
feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
Prior to the 473'd Building Permit:
ix. An approved funding and implementation mechanism/fair share contribution
program as approved by the Director of Public Works shall be in place to
guarantee the improvement of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Loma
Linda Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include
acquisition of street right-of-way, installation of street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and
striping and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median.
x. Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) t~) Loma Linda Road (Principal
Collector Highway - 78' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-
of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Drainage
i. Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated
improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following:
(1) Pala Road north of Wolf Valley
(2) Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pala
Road
(3) Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road
(4) Interior Loop Road (North) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road
(5) Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
11
Water
i.
(5)
(6)
Traffic Signals
(6) Interior storm drain facilities
and Sewer
Install water mains per Rancho California Water District requirements and
sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements for the
following roadways:
(1) Pala Road north of Wolf Valley Road
(2) Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pala
Road
(3) Interior Loop Road (North) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road
(4) Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road
Interior Loop Road (North)
Interior facilities
Prior to the first building permit, the developer shall install a traffic signal
with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersections:
(2)
(3)
Pala Road and Loma Linda Road
Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road including provisions for a dual
southbound left turn pocket from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road
Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (North)
68.
ii. Prior to the 100TM Building Permit, the following signal shall be installed and
operational:
(1) Pala Road and Clubhouse Drive
(2) Pala Road and Muirfield Drive
infrastructure Phase B
The following improvements shall be complete prior to the 823r~ building permit
a. Circulation
i. Improve Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road (Arterial
Highway Standards - 110' R/VV) to include dedication of half-width street
right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised
landscaped median
ii. Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road (Modified
Residential Collector Street - 85' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width
right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
iii. Prior to the opening of the City Sports Park or the 1557th building permit, the
Developer shall improve Fairview Road from Pala Road to the Specific Plan
boundary ((Secondary Road Standards - $8' R/W) to include dedication of
half-width right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving,
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
12
75.
curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and
striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Drainage
i. Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated
improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following:
(1) Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive
(2) Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road
(3) Fairview Drive from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary
(4) Interior storm drain facilities
c. Water and Sewer
i. Install water mains per Rancho California Water District requirements and
sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements for the
following roadways:
(1) Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive
(2) Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road
(3) Fairview Drive from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary
(4) Interior facilities
d. Traffic Signal
The following traffic signal shall be installed and operational with conduits for future
interconnect at the following intersection:
i. Prior to the 825'd Certificate of Occupancy
(1) Wolf Valley Road and Interior Loop Road (South)
ii. Prior to the 1 ,SS?th Certificate of Occupancy or opening of the High School,
whichever occurs first
(1) Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (South)
(2) Pala Road and Fairview Road
An approved funding and implementation mechanism / fair share contribution program such
as a City administered community facility district may be considered in lieu of completed
improvements for Public Works conditions as follows:
· COA # 61 - INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE A, a. CIRCULATION, i., ii., ix.
COA # 61 - INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE A, b. DRAINAGE, i.
· COA # 61 - INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE A, d. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, i. and ii.
· COA # 62 - INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE B, a. CIRCULATION, i.
Regardless if a financing mechanism is established, no occupancies will be allowed that will
result in a service level of less than "D" on Pala Road, or at any of the Pala Road
intersections from Rainbow Canyon Road to Wolf Valley Road.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
13
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.
76.
Prior to the first building permit issued in Planning Areas 7-24, the developer shall dedicate
a 1.5 acre Fire Station site southeasterly of the intersection of Wolf Valley Parkway and
Wolf Creek Loop Road, and prior to the first final inspection in Planning Areas 7-24, the
developer shall construct a fire station as approved by the Fire Department on the site
described within Planning Area 14.
77.
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.
78.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land
division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating
pressure 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 Ill-A)
79.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC 903.2,
903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
80.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20oPSl residual operating
pressure with a 4 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 Ill-A)
81.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Iii-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC
903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
82.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 600 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
83.
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)
R:\S P~Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
14
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
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 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
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 ail
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (
CFC sec 902)
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)
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)
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)
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 are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of
a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
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.
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)
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
15
93.
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)
94.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
Special Conditions
95.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the
wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
95.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures
shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or
block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A).
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides the following conditions of approval
for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan:
General Requirements:
If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the
conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent.
96.
The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) of 28.23 acres (based on 2,022 dwelling
units) shall be satisfied with the credits identified in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12.
Additional park acreage or equivalent in-lieu fees shall be required, if proposed school sites
are not acquired by the school district and additional residential units are constructed. In
the event that the parkland credits fall short, the developer will increase the size of the
private recreation facility in Planning Area 14, receive 50% credit for the private recreational
facilities in the multifamily areas, or increase the size of the 6.0-acre park in Planning Area
11. The developer may pay in-lieu fees to satisfy park requirements, if approved by the
Director of Community Services.
97.
Upon final approval of the specific plan, certification of the EIR and the end of any appeal
process the developer shall convey the 1.5 acres in Planning Area 4 to the City by grant
deed free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the
City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils
assessment report shall also be provided at the time of conveyance.
98.
The actual design of the neighborhood park in Planning Area 11. and the linear park along
the Interior Loop Road shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual design
identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer
shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and
specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site.
99.
All park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with
the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
16
100.
The design of the parks in Planning Area 11 and the linear park along the Interior Loop
Road shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the
park.
101.
Construction of the public park sites and proposed TCSD landscape maintenance areas
shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance
Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may
preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs.
102.
The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all
maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas until such time as those
responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
103.
The parks shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens,
assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for
public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be
provided with the dedication of the property.
104.
All exterior slope/landscape areas contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single
family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance
purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application
process. All other landscape areas, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus
shelters, walls and the drainage channel along Pala Road shall be maintained by the
Homeowners Association (HOA), private maintenance association or property owner.
105. A ten (10) foot wide pedestrian pathway/Class I bike lane will be constructed within the
linear park (east side) and the paseo (west side) of the Interior Loop Road.
106.
Class II bicycle lanes will be included on both sides of"A" Street, Wolf Valley Road, and the
adjacent portion of Pala Road, Loma Linda Road and Fairview Road. Class II bike lanes,
shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
107.
The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park component of the City's
Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the neighborhood
park (Planning Area 11 ). No DIF credits shall be provided for the development of the linear
park other than the specific amenities proposed by the developer and approved by the
Director of Community Services. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the
execution of a Developer Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the
applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map:
108.
The developer, or his assignee, shall offer for dedication, enter into an agreement and post
security with the TCSD to improve the proposed parkland located in Planning Areas 11 and
the linear park along the Interior Loop Road in accordance with the City standards.
109. All TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final
map.
110.
All areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on the
final map by numbered lots and indexed to identify said lots numbers as a proposed TCSD
maintenance area.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
17
111. The subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve all proposed
TCSD maintenance areas.
112. Construction drawings for all proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas and the
public park sites shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD.
113.
A notice of intention to annex into the Temecula Community Services District Service
Levels B, C, and D shall be submitted to the TCSD prior to approval of the final map. The
property owner election costs involved in the district formation or annexation shall be borne
by the developer.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits:
114.
Prior to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the developer shall file an application and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the
dedication of arterial and residential street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance
program.
115.
The linear park including one activity node, north of Wolf Valley Road, shall be improved
and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit for
the overall project.
116.
The 6-acre neighborhood park in Planning Area 11 shall be improved and dedicated to the
City prior to the issuance of the 800th residential building permit for the overall project. Upon
execution of the Development Agreement for this project, this condition shall be modified
for a 6-acre neighborhood park prior to the issuance of the 60~h residential building permit.
(Amended by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
117.
The 40 acres in Planning Area 24 will be offered for dedication on the effective date of the
Development Agreement and shall be free of liens within six (6) months after the effective
date of the Development Agreement.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
118.
The linear park including two activity nodes, south of Wolf Valley Road, shall be improved
and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 1400th residential building permit for
the overall project.
119.
The 4.5-acre neighborhood park in Planning Area 19 will be improved and dedicated to the
City prior to the issuance of the 1,600th residential building permit for the overall project.
Upon execution of the Development Agreement for this project, this condition shall be
deleted.
(Amended by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
18
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
120.
Prior to the issuance of the first cedificate of occupancy within each phase map, the
developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the
final project.
121. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of
TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
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:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc
19
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 91- APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 98-0481 -WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94)l.doc
16
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ORDINANCE NO. 01-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0481 - THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS MATRIX FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. t2, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557
ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA
ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA AND DEER HOLLOW,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-
002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006, AND -010.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. S-P Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA00-0029 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Public
hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of
Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning laws of the State of
California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula.
Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the
City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and
cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Environmental Impact Report was
prepared for Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
Section 4. Findings. The City Council, in approving Planning Application No.
PA98-0481 hereby makes the following findings:
A. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health,
safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and
staff and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development
Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These
documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles.
B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project
proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding
neighborhoods, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Project
commercial development is proposed within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the
Pechanga Casino.
C. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community
because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
The project does not represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site.
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Ord SP Zoning Amdmt.doc
1
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 posted as required by law.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty
(30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after
its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the
City Councilmembers voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and
circulated in said City.
R:~PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP~CC Ord SP Zoning Amdmt,doc
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this ninth day of January 2001.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 01- was duly introduced and placed upon
its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ninth day of January,
2001, 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 ,2001
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNClLMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
R:~PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP~CC Ord SP Zoning Amdmt.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
TEXT - PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94)l.doc
17
EXHIBIT B
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MATRIX
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-9-01.doc
18
ATTACHMENT NO. $
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff R~port I-9-01.doc
19
City's Proposed Deal Points
For the
Wolf Creek Development Agreement
Including the Planning Commission's and the
Subcommittee's
Recommendations
40-Acre Sports Park
· Land dedication of 12.37 acres in exchange for a $1,117 per unit credit towards
the Development Agreement fee.
· Land dedication of 15.34 acres in exchange for $2,800,000 Parks DIF credits and
includes $175 per unit credit.
· Land dedication of 12.29 acres towards satisfying the Quimby requirements
Street improvements along the frontage on Pala and the Loop Road concurrent
with the phasing of the Specific Plan
· Half street improvement of Deer Hollow fronting the park plus 10' if the street
improvements are not completed as a part of the High School construction by the
time the park is completed
6.5-Acre Community Park
· Improvement of the park in exchange for $600,000 Park DIF credits
· Completion of the park is due prior to the 600th building permit
Linear Park Activity Node Improvements
Improvement of the three (3) Linear Park Activity Nodes along Wolf Valley Road in
exchange for $150,000 credit.
1.5-Acre Park
Land dedication of 1.5 acres toward satisfying the Quimby requirements
Administrative Facility
The City has a 12-month option fi.om the effective date of the agreement to accept a 1.63-
acre land for an administrative facility in exchange for $297,552 Corporate Facilities DIF
credits (based on $228.71' and 2022 units, the corporate facilities fee shall be adjusted
from $228.71 to $81.57 if the City chooses to accept the site)
1.5-Acre Fire Station Site
Land dedication of 1.5 acres
· $114,557 in Fire DIF credits towards the construction of the fire station (based on
$56.66 and 2022 units)
A maximum $700,000 no interest advance from the developer to the City for the
construction of the $1,600,000 fire station to be paid back over time with fire
mitigation component of the DIF.
· City to commence the construction of the station no later than the issuance of the
250th building permit.
If the developer chooses to build outside of Planning Areas 1-6, the developer
shall provide a temporary fire station at a location acceptable to the Fire Chief at
their cost. The City shall provide the Operation and Maintenance costs.
CFD
· CFD to include the funding for:
o Pala Road Permanent improvements including pavement, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, lights, and median landscaping
· 134' ROW improvement (six lanes) between the SR 79 and Loma
Linda
· 134' ROW improvement (six lanes) between Loma Linda and
Wolf Valley
· 110' ROW improvement (four lanes) between Wolf Valley and
Deer Hollow
Note: (The developer is responsible for all ROW dedication abutting
their project, not the CFD)
o The Entire Drainage System including the grass lined channel on Pala
Road between the bridge and Deer Hollow
o Sound Wall on west side of Pala Road from Wolf Valley to Loma Linda
o Maintenance of the grass lined channel fronting the project
· Developer to participate in the CFD improvements on a fair share basis as
determined by the City Engineer
· CFD to be formed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project.
City to only manage the construction of the Permanent Improvements to Pala
Road which include Pala Road, the Drainage System (including the grass lined
channel), and the Sound Wall
Sound Wall
The developer shall advance 100% of the cost of the sound wall if the City is unable to
secure funds to construct the sound wall. The City may reimburse the applicant, as funds
are made available by other soumes to the City for this sound wall.
Development Agreement Fees
· Residential DIF
o Street Improvement (Credits may apply, as determined by the City
Engineer)
o Traffic Signal (Credits may apply, as determined by the City Engineer)
o Fire (100% credit, no fees are due)
o Corporate facilities ($228.71 per unit or adjusted to $81.57 per trait if City
accepts the 1.63 acre Administrative Facility site)
o Park and Recreation (100% credit, no fees are due)
o Libraries (No credits, $214 per unit fee shall be paid in full)
· Future Public Art and Future Open Space ($200 per unit)
· Future TUMF
o The fee shall only be paid after its adoption
o The developer shall receive TUMF credits towards applicable road
improvements constructed by the project consistent with TUMF credit
provisions
· Commemial DIF
o Street Improvement (Credits may apply, as determined by the City
Engineer)
o Traffic Signal (Credits may apply, as determined by the City Engineer)
o Fire (No credits, shall be paid in full)
o Corporate facilities (No credits, shall be pad in full)
Level of Service D
Prior to approval of tentative tract maps or any time extensions for the tentative maps, the
developer shall submit traffic studies that demonstrate a Level of Service D or better for
the intersection of 1-15 and SR-79. The Development Agreement shall provide
assurances that the future owners of the tracts are aware of this restriction.
Permitted Uses within Planning Area 12
The developer shall agree that the major tenants within Planning Area 13 shall not dictate
the tenant mix in Planning Area 12. Appropriate documents, as deemed necessary by the
City, shall be presented to the City prior to approval &any Development Plans for
Planning Areas 12 and 13.
Development Agreement Term
Ten years for the entitlements
Timing for the Sites to be Dedicated
Land dedications for the 40-acre Sports Park, 1.5 acre park, the 1.5 acre fire station site,
the administrative facility are offered by the developer on the effective date of the
Development Agreement and shall be free of liens within 6 months after the effective
date of the Development Agreement
Street Improvements for the Sites to be Dedicated
The developer is responsible for all street improvements fronting the 6.5-acre park, 1.5-
acre park, the administrative facility, and the fire station
Assumptions:
Detached units 1712
Attached Units 310
Total 2022
Appraised fire market value of land at $182,529.00
The amounts of fees/credits/dedications will be adjusted
if the number of units or the fair market value of the land
changes
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
RESPONSE LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE DEAL POINTS
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-9411.doc
20
ALHADEFF & SOLAR~ LLP
41530 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH, SUrgE 120
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590
MAIN TELEPHONE; (909) 296-5000
FACSIMILE: (909) 296-5006
Offices in San Diego, and Temecula, Cafifomia
January 5, 2001
SAMUEL C. ALHADEFF
SAIJ~DEFF~SLAW1 .C0M
(9o9) 29~-5ooo
2000.0~1
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
Planning Director
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: Wolf Creek Project
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
This letter is a follow-up to our correspondence of December 27, 2000. City staff had
been kind enough to share with us, in early December, draft excerpts of the December 6, 2000
Planning Commission Minutes ("Minutes"). We also received, on December 19, 2000, a copy of
a proposed Development Agreement, ("Agreement").
On December 27, 2000, I commented on both the Minutes and the Agreement. Since
then we have had a number of meetings and telephone discussions with regard to certain issues.
On Tuesday, January 2, 2001, we had the opportunity to meet with Couneilmember Naggar, who
is a member of the Wolf Creek Subcommittee, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Hughes, to discuss our
concerns related to those certain issues. This letter is our attempt to summarize the four issues
which have been discussed between the parties. As you know, from the meeting that took place
yesterday, we have made other comments with regard to the Agreement. A new Agreement will
be dvailable, as I understand it, sometime either Monday or early Tuesday for review. ..
Let me address the four issues in this particular letter. Could you please also provide the
attached copies of this letter to the Mayor and Councilmembers, since it does contain specific
thoughts with regard to certain conditions in the Agreement, as well as an additional proposed
condition for the Project.
The four issues are as follows:
1. The Tumf Fee
2. The Multi-Habitat Species Fee
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
January 5, 2001
Page 2
ALHADEFF & SOLAR~ LLP
A requirement of Level of Service D at the I 15 interchange, and Highway
79 South; and
4. The term of the Development Agreement
Dealing with these then, in order, we have suggested a change with regard to the Tumf
Fee provision in the Agreement. Our change is outlined in Exhibit "1". As you know, it is our
opinion the Project has more than met any anticipated TUMF, if such a fee in fact is ever
imposed. We believe this paragraph meets co.ncems addressed to us.
Attached as Exhibit "2" is our suggested change with regard to the Agreement concerning
the Multi-Species Habitat Fee. Again, we believe this paragraph meets the City's concerns.
The next issue deals with a Level of Service D at the interchange of Highway 79 South
and Interstate 15. The City always has a reservation of rights under health, safety and general
welfare to consider conditions that may require withholding permits if issuance of those permits
would have an adverse effect on the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City
or constitute a dangerous condition. In that regard, we have tried to work with certain express
c~oncems about this issue. Accordingly we would'propose the following condition he added to
the project.
Finally, it would appear to us that if the city makes a fining under health, safety and
general welfare that such a finding would apply to all projects within the City and that in fact, the
exercise of this particular remedy would require a moratoria on all projects in the City. It would
obviously be unfair to apply it to one particular project and not others within the City. Also, we
have grave concerns with regard to even suggesting such a condition because of this project's
involvement in Assessment District 159 and the tremendous amount of investment that will have
been made for infrastructure ahead of "pulling" any building permits. This concem coupled with
the adverse impact that such a condition could have on financing issues really is troublesome to
us. With these reservations, our proposed Condition is found on Exhibit "3" attached to this
letter.
The fourth issue is the term of the Development Agreement. We have attached language
as Exhibit "4" that deals with this issue.
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
January 5, 2001
Page 3
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Again, we appreciate the time that everyone has taken with regard to meeting with us.
We sincerely appreciate all the efforts of the staff concerning working through complex issues.
We look forward to the hearing on Tuesday evening. If there are any other questions we can
answer, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel C. Alhadeff of
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
SCA:sld
Enclosures as noted
ec: Mr. Shawn Nelson, City Manager
Mr. Gary Thomhill, Deputy City Manager
Ms. Carol Donahoe, Planner
Mr. Saied Naaseh, Planner
Mr. Bill Griffith
Mr. Camille Bahri
C:~DATA\CLIENTS~SPRI~G PACIFIC PROPERTIES\UBNOSKE LETTER 01.04,DOC
4.2.4 TUMF Fees. The CITY and OWNER acknowledge that a Traffic
Uniform Mitigation Fee (the "TUMF") program is currently being considered and that no
such TUMF has been adopted by the County of Riverside or by the CITY. TO the extent
a TUMF is adopted by the CITY, the CITY and OWNER agree that ONWER's
obligations under TUMF shall be deemed satisfied through: (i) OWNER's or the
Property's participation in and payment of prior assessments assessed under
Assessment District 159; (ii) any future assessment or assessment lien paid by OWNER
or the Property assessed under Assessment District 159; (iii) all Off-site Improvements
to be constructed or financed by OWNER under this Agreement; (iv) OWNER's
participation in the CFD provided for in Section __ of this Agreement or in any other
financing mechanism mutually agreed upon by the CITY and OWNER; (v) OWNER's
a§reement to dedicate to the CITY and/or a district such right of way as may be
required for Off-site Improvements including, but not limited to, drainage and roadway
facilities, including, Pala Road, Deer Hollow Road, Wolf Valley Road, and Loma Linda
Road; and (vi) OWNER's agreement to waive any right of or claim for reimbursement
from the TUMF program with respect to the payment of such assessments, the
construction of such improvements, and/or the dedication of such rights of way.
EXHIBIT
MULTI SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
With regard to Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees, this
should be a Development Agreement term and condition for Multi Habitat Species. Our
suggestion is that you delete 4.2.5 of the Development Agreement as well as delete the
following language from Paragraph 4.1.6 "... but the Property is to be subject to the
Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan." Then add to 4.2.3 the following "Fees for
Public Art, Open Space and Habitat Conservation. Regardless of whether the City
enacts, adopts, or imposes on or after the Effective Date any fees of any kind or
description with respect to art in public places, to preserve open space, or for habitat
conservation. Owner agrees to pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) per
individual residential dwelling unit, which funds the City shall use in its discretion, in
connection with art in public places, open space preservation and habitat conservation."
C:\DATA\CLIENTS\SPRING PACIFIC PROPERTIES~LOS D CONDITION EXHIBIT 2.DOC
CONDITION FOR LEVEL OF SERVICE D AT INTERSTATE '15
AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
Prior to the approval of issuance of building permits for Planning Areas 20, 21,
22, and 23, inclusive, the City may consider the health, safety and general welfare of
the residents of the City. The City may then authorize the Director of Public works of
the City to make a reasonable determination based upon traff~c studies then conducted
or authorized by the City that the Level of Service for traffic at the intersection of:
(a) Interstate 15 Freeway Southbound ramps (North/South) and
Highway 79 South (East/West) has fallen below Level of Service D
(b) Interstate 15 Freeway Northbound ramps (North/South) and
Highway 79 South (East/West) has fallen below Level of Service D.
Such traffic studies shall be based on traffic generated only by land uses of
projects that are currently existing and approved by the City or the County of Riverside
as of the date of the approval of the Project. The traffic studies shall use (1)
documentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project using the traffic
analysis study area applicable to the project; and (2) evaluate traffic conditions as
applicable to the Project using the current (now existing) Temecula General Plan Traffic
Model.
This action shall be taken after the City makes a finding that such condition exists
that is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City of Temecula or its
residents.
2.3. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date, and
shall have a term (the "Term") often (10) calendar years. The Term shall commence
on the date the CITY issues the first (1st) building permit for a residential dwelling unit
but no later than the second (2d) anniversary of the Effective Date, and shall terminate
at the end of the day preceding the tenth (10th) anniversary of the commencement of
the Term, subject to specific extensions, revisions, and termination provisions of this
Agreement.
EXHIBIT
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 0t- APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0052 -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC SmffReport 1-94)1.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, TO SUBDIVIDE 557
ACRES INTO 47 PARCELS WHICH CONFORM TO THE
PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK
SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA
ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -
006 AND -010.
WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA00-0052 (the "Application") in a
manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision
Ordinance;
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 a regular meeting, considered the Application on
September 6, 2000, September 20, 2000, October 4, 2000, and December 6, 2000, at a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staffand 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 recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on January 9, 2001, at a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staffand interested persons had
an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report
and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the
Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby
recommends the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal
Code.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\RESO CC 3q'M29305.DOC
1
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code for the following reasons:
1. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the subject specific plan and
related General Plan Amendment.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too
small to sustain their agricultural use;
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or
habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site
is surrounded by development and is an inflll site;
An environmental impact report has been prepared and certified prior to action on
the Application;
F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
H. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those
previously acquired by the public will be provided.
(Quimby).
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
Section3. EnvironmentalCompliance. TheCityCounciloftheCityofTemeculaapproves
and adopts the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application.
Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula approves the Application
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) for the subdivision of a 557 acre parcel for all of the foregoing
reasons and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may
be deemed necessary.
R:\PLANNING~S P\Wolf Creek SP~RESOCC TTM29305.DOC
2
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ninth day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No.
2001- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the ninth day of January 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNClLMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
R:~PLANNING~S P\Wolf Creek SP~RESO CC 'I-rM29305.DCC
3
EXHIBIT A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305
R:\PLANN1NG\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC StaffReport 1-9~)l.doc
22
uii,,JJJJJllJJJJ~
,
EXHIBIT B
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC S~aff Report 1-94)1.doc
23
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Revised January 9, 2001
Planning Application No. PA00- 0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
Project Description: Tentative Tract Map No. 29035 subdivides 557 acres into 47
lots, delineating the planning areas within the specific plan and lots for parks and schools.
The Map is divided into two phases. Phase I is that portion of the project north of Wolf
Valley Road, and Phase II is that portion of the project south of Wolf Valley Road.
Assessor's Parcel Nos.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
950-110-002,-005,-033 and
950-180-001,-005,-006 and-010
January9,2001
January 9,2003
PLANNING DIVISION
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
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
said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs.
City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions 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 the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific
Plan No. 12.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
1
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report for Wolf Creek, and the
approved Mitigation Monitoring Program thereof.
The Developer shall ensure coordination with Metropolitan Water District on projects over
which the City has jurisdiction (i.e., construction of Fairview Road, Pala Road
Improvements, and improvements to the Pala Road channel).
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
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.
A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer 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.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
A reciprocal ingress/egress agreement will be entered into with the Temecula Community
Services District for parcels which are land locked as a result of the linear park lots.
10. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
2)
The Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this
project and is on file at the City of Temecula Community Development
Department- Planning Division.
3)
An Alquist-Priolo Zone has been identified which affects the construction of
habitable buildings.
c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
2
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
2)
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all propedies individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to
meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty
to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions
required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of
compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to
making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
3)
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association owning the common areas and facilities.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
11. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location,
number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans
shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping 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:
1)
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
3)
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code
(Water Efficient Ordinance).
4)
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the
approved plan).
5)
The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the
tentative map.
6)
Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all
ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and
adjacent property for:
a)
Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of
building permits for any lot(s).
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
3
b) Private common areas prior to issuance of building permits.
c)
All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall
include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas.
d)
Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a
public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger.
Ail street frontage of school sites along General Plan and Specific
Plan designated roadways.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
7) Hardscaping for the following:
a) Pedestrian trails within private common areas
Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the
height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences:
1)
Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a Public Right-
of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner
lots,
2)
Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take
advantage of views for side and rear yards.
3)
Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not
restricted by a and b above.
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
12.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however
solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning
Manager approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13.
If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
14.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be 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.
15. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual tots shall be completed for inspection.
16.
Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of
occupancy permits.
17. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
4
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of
one year, 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.
18.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Depadment of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
General Requirements
19.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
20.
There is no phasing proposed by the Applicant as part of this Tentative Tract Map.
However the Wolf Creek Specific Plan includes four phases. Any future phasing
applications shall be consistent with the approved Wolf Creek Specific Plan phasing.
21.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
22.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Depadment of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
23.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
24.
If the City has a Capital Improvement Project to design and construct Pala Road from
Rainbow Canyon Road to Fairview Road to its ultimate configuration including
environmental mitigation, the Developer shall pay their fair share and reimburse the City for
its street improvement obligation.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
25.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Rancho California Water District
c. Eastern Municipal Water District
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
5
26.
d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
f. Planning Department
g. Department of Public Works
h. Riverside County Health Department
i. Cable TV Franchise
j. Community Services District
k. General Telephone
I. Southern California Edison Company
m. Southern California Gas Company
n. Fish & Game
o. Army Corps of Engineers
p. Metropolitan Water District
The following public improvements shall be designed to City of Temecula Public Works
standards unless otherwise noted. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works:
Improve Pala Road from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto (Urban Arterial Highway
Standards - 134' 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), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median
Improve Pala Road from Via Gilberto to Fairview Road (Arterial Highway Standards
- 110' R/VV) 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),
and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median
Wolf Valley Road from Pala Road to the northerly Specific Plan boundary (Modified
Secondary Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way,
installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median
Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road (Principal Collector Highway
- 78' R/VV) to include to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus six
feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
6
Fairview Road from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary (Secondary Road
Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half-width right-of-way, installation of
full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water
and sewer)
Interior Loop Road (Modified Residential Collector Street - 85' R/W) to include
dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements,
paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and
striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road (Collector Road
Standards - 66' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus
twelve feet, installation of the remainder of street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road (Principal Collector
Highway - 78' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation
of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water
and sewer)
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
Traffic signals with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersections:
1) Pala Road and Loma Linda Road
2) Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road
3) Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (North)
4) Pala Road and Clubhouse Drive
5) Pala Road and Muirfleld Drive
6) Wolf Valley Road and Interior Loop Road
7) Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (South)
8) Pala Road and Fairview Road
Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated
improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
and the City of Temecula requirements for the following:
1) Pala Road
2) Wolf Valley Road
3) Loma Linda Road
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
7
4) Interior Loop Road
5) Fairview Drive
6) Street "A"
7) Interior storm drain facilities
27.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design
of the street improvement plans:
Street centerline 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 Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City 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.
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk.
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.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
28.
I. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
29.
Relinquish and waive right of access on all roadways with the exception of the openings as
delineated on Tentative Tract Map.
30. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
8
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
31.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons
such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
32.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision ,Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to
City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
33. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
34.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
35.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject
property.
36.
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 submittal of the
Final Map for recordation, 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 ora 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 Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
37.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Final Map or the issuance of
any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
is required for work within their right-of-way.
38.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV,
and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
39. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
9
40.
41.
42.
43.
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Depadment of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on
the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, "drainage easements shall be
kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
44.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Metropolitan Water District
45.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
46.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of
engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
47.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
48. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305,doc
10
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of
the site. It shall identity all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or
private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of ail
facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm
water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis
and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
49.
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.
50.
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.
51.
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.
52.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
53.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the
Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula
Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". Residential subdivisions shall
obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
54.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to
the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities, which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm, drain facilities.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plan.
55. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
11
of any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
56. Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
57.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be c~rtified by a registered Civil Engineer for location
and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
58.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
59.
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.
60. Prior to the first building permit, the following improvements shall be complete:
Improve Pala Road from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto (Urban Arterial Highway
Standards - 134' RNV) 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) and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median.
Improve Pala Road from Via Gilberto to Wolf Valley 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), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median
Improve Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road to accommodate a 60
foot wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane), signing
and striping.
Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road (Collector Road
Standards - 66' RAN) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus
twelve feet, installation of the remainder of street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
In the event that the interim improvements on Pala Road from Rainbow Canyon
Road to Loma Linda Road are not complete prior to the first building permit, the
Developer shall improve Pala Road to accommodate a 60 foot wide pavement (four
vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane), signing and striping. The City
may reimburse the Developer for their fair share of the street improvement
obligation as determined by the Director of Public Works.
f. Interior Loop Road from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road (Modified Residential
Collector Street - $5' PAN) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way,
installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
12
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer)
Wolf Valley Road from the nodherly Specific Plan boundary to Pala Road (Modified
Secondary Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way,
installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer).
Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road (Principal Collector Highway
- 78' R/W) to include to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus six
feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six 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 install a traffic signal with conduits for future interconnect at the
following intersections:
1) Pala Road and Loma Linda Road
2) Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road including provisions for a dual southbound left
turn pocket from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road
3) Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (North)
Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated
improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct
and the City of Temecula requirements for the following:
1) Pala Road north of Wolf Valley
2) Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pala Road
3) Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road
4) Interior Loop Road (North) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road
5) Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road
6) Interior storm drain facilities
61. Prior to the 100TH Building Permit, the following signal shall be installed and operational:
a. Pala Road and Clubhouse Drive
b. Pala Road and Muirfield Drive
62. Prior to the 473rd Building Permit:
a. An approved funding and implementation mechanism/fair share contribution
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
13
program as approved by the Director of Public Works shall be in place to guarantee
the improvement of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Loma Linda Road (Urban
Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/VV) to include acquisition of street right-of-way,
installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped
median.
Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road (Principal Collector
Highway - 78' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation
of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water
and sewer)
63. The following improvements shall be complete prior to the 823rd building permit
Improve Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road (Arterial Highway
Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way,
installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median
Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road (Modified
Residential Collector Street - 85' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width right-of-
way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer)
Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated
improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
and the City of Temecula requirements for the following:
1) Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive
2) Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road
3) Fairview Drive from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary
4) Interior storm drain facilities
Install water mains per Rancho California Water District requirements and sewer
mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements for the following roadways:
1) Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive
2) Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road
3) Fairview Drive from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary
4) Interior facilities
64. Prior to the opening of the City Sports Park or the 1557th building permit
a. The Developer shall improve Fairview Road from Pala Road to the Specific Plan
boundary ((Secondary Road Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half-
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
14
width 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)
65. An approved funding and implementation mechanism / fair share contribution program such
as a City administered community facility district may be considered in lieu of completed
improvements for Public Works conditions as follows:
· COA# 59- a., b., i.,j.
· COA#60-a., b.
· COA#61 -a.
· COA#62-a.
Regardless if a financing mechanism is established, no occupancies will be allowed that will
result in a service level of less than "D" on Pala Road, or at any of the Pala Road
intersections from Rainbow Canyon Road to Wolf Valley Road.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
66. Prior to the 823rd Certificate of Occupancy
a. The traffic signal at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and Interior Loop Road
(South) shall be installed and operational with conduits for future interconnect at the
following intersection
67. Prior to the 1,557th Certificate of Occupancy or opening of the Hi~ City Sports
Park, whichever occurs first, the following traffic signals shall be installed and operational
with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersection:
a. Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (South)
b. Pala Road and Fairview Road
68. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
15
69.
70.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
71.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to
the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides the following conditions of approval
for Wolf Creek - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305:
General. Requirements:
72.
If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the
conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent.
73.
The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) of 28.23 acres (based on 2,022 dwelling
units) shall be satisfied with the credits identified in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12.
Additional park acreage or equivalent in-lieu fees shall be required, if proposed school sites
are not acquired by the school district and additional residential units are constructed. In
the event that the parkland credits fall short, the developer will either increase the size of
the private recreation facility in Lot No. 18, receive 50% credit for the private recreational
facilities in the multifamily areas, or increase the size of the 6.0-acre park (Lot No. 15). The
developer may pay in-lieu fees to satisfy park requirements, if approved by the Director of
Community Services.
74.
Upon final approval of the specific plan, certification of the EIR and the end of any appeal
process the developer shall convey the 1.5 acres of Lot No. 4 to the City by grant deed free
and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from
utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment
report shall also be provided at the time of conveyance.
75.
The actual design of the neighborhood park (Lot No. 15), and the linear park (Lot Nos. 30,
45, 46 and 47) shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual design identified
within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet
with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the
park amenities to be provided on site.
76.
All park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with
the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
77.
The design of the parks (Lot Nos. 15, 30, 45, 46 and 47) shall provide for pedestrian
circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park.
78.
Construction of the public park sites and proposed TCSD landscape maintenance areas
shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance
Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may
preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs.
79. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all
maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas until such time as those
responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
R:\S P\Woif Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
16
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
The parks shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens,
assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for
public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be
provided with the dedication of the property.
All exterior slope/landscape areas contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single
family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance
purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application
process. All other landscape areas, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus
shelters, walls and the drainage channel along Pala Road shall be maintained by the
Homeowners Association (HOA), private maintenance association or property owner.
A ten (10) foot wide pedestrian pathway/Class I bike lane will be constructed within the
linear park (east side) and the paseo (west side) of the Interior Loop Road.
Class II bicycle lanes will be included on both sides of"A" Street, Wolf Valley Road, and the
adjacent portion of Pala Road, Loma Linda Road and Fairview Road. Class II bike lanes,
shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park component of the City's
Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the neighborhood
park (Lot No. 15). No DIF credits shall be provided for the development of the linear park
other than the specific amenities proposed by the developer and approved by the Director
of Community Services. The fee/credit issue shaII be addressed pursuant to the execution
of a Developer Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the applicant and
the City prior to approval of the final map.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map:
85.
The developer, or his assignee, shall offer for dedication, enter into an agreement and post
security with the TCSD to improve the proposed parkland (Lot No. 15) and the linear park
(Lot Nos. 30, 45, 46 and 47) in accordance with the City standards.
86.
All TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final
map.
87.
All areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on the
final map by numbered lots and indexed to identify said lots numbers as a proposed TCSD
maintenance area.
88.
The subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve all proposed
TCSD maintenance areas.
89.
Construction drawings for all proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas and the
public park sites shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD.
90.
A notice of intention to annex into the Temecula Community Services District Service
Levels B, C, and D shall be submitted to the TCSD prior to approval of the final map. The
property owner election costs involved in the district formation or annexation shall be borne
by the developer.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits:
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
17
91.
Prior to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the developer shall file an application and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the
dedication of arterial and residential street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance
program.
92.
The linear park including one activity node (Lot Nos. 45 and 46) shall be improved and
dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit for the
overall project.
93.
The 6-acre neighborhood park (Lot No. 15) shall be improved and dedicated to the City
prior to the issuance of the 800th residential building permit for the overal~ project. Upon
execution of the Development Agreement for this project, this condition shall be modified
fora 6-acre neighborhood park prior to the issuance of the 600th residential building permit.
(Amended by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
94.
The linear park including two activity nodes (Lot Nos. 30 and 47) shall be improved and
dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 1400th residential building permit for the
overall project.
95.
The 4.5-acre neighborhood park (Lot No. 30) will be improved and dedicated to the City
prior to the issuance of the 1,600th residential building permit for the overall project. Upon
execution of the Development Agreement for this project, this condition shall be deleted.
(Amended by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
96.
The 40 acres in Planning Area 24 will be offered for dedication on the effective date of the
Development Agreement and shall be free of liens within six (6) months after the effective
date of the Development Agreement.
(Added by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2000).
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
97.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the
developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the
final project.
98.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to pr~)vide written disclosure of the existence or
TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
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.
99.
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.
100. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land
division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
18
project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating
pressure 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 Ill-A)
101.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Depadment access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Depadment access road(s) frontage to a 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 III-
B)
102.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a m~nimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating
pressure with a 4 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 Ill-A)
103.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Iii-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a 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 III-
B)
104. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 600 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
105. 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)
106.
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 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
107.
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 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (
CFC sec 902)
108.
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)
109. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
19
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
110. 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)
111.
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 are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
112. 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)
113.
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)
Special Conditions
114.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the
wildland-vegetafion interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
115.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures
shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or
block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
116.
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.
117.
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.
118.
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.
119. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
20
120.
121.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of any public 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)
122. All public building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
123. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
124. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
125. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
126. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
127. Show all building setbacks
128. Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project the hours of construction as
Allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of the
Riverside County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied
residence. Construction hours are as follows:
Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays
OTHER AGENCIES
129.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal dated April 5, 2000, 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.
130.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Depadment of Environmental Heaith's transmittal dated February 22, 2000, a copy of which
is attached.
131. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated February 15, 2000, 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
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
21
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 Signature
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc
22
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: C.~. t~ ~) L ~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
51180.1
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities· The Distdct also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for sucn cases. Distnct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific ~nterest to the Distdct including Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componentor extension of a master p~an system
and D stdct Area L~ra nage P an fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is
provided.
The Distdct has ri, or_reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do. not in any way
constitute or imply uistdct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flooo hazard, public
health and eatery or any other such issue:
This project 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 accept ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards and Distdct plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrabve fees will be
requ red.
i,~ This project proposes channels~storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regio..nal in nature. ~ ne District would consider acceptin~ ownership of such facilities on wdtten
request of the uity. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and
inspection will be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrative fees will be
requ red.
This project is located within the limits of the District's Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adoptea; applicaDle tees si~oul(] be pail] by cashier's
check or money order only to the Flood Control Distdct pdor t6 issuance of building or gradi.n9, permits,
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance orme actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Con~rol Board. Clearance ror grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)mapped flood plain then the City should
require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA
requirements and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
pdor to grad ng, recordaton or other fina approva of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to
occupancy.
If a natural watemourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the app?cant to
obtain a Sect on 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies
ndicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quatity Cert~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404
permit·
~Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: Z~. _~. 2.~e~c:)
1~~ CG,_,NTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEAU~.. SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTF
February 22, 2000
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
ATTN: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305 (PA00-0052) BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THAT
PORTION OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, S.B.M., A PORTION
OF RANCHO TEMECULA IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AS SHOWN IN BOOK 1 OF
PATENTS AT PAGE 37 RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND A PORTION OF THE
LITTLE TEMEDULA RANCHO AS SHOWN BY MAP OF PARTITION OF SAID RANCHO
ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK OF SAID COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
IN ACTION NO. 5756 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAIDCOUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
(31 lots)
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department of Enviromnental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 and
recommends:
2. A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one-inch equal's 200 feet, along with
the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter.
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the
junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects xvith Div.
5, Part 1, and Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code,
Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California. when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certil~ that the design of the water system in Tentative Tract
Map No. 29305, is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California
Water District and that the w-ater services, storage, and distribntion system will be adequate to
provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it
will snpply water to such Tract Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection
or any other purpose. This certification shall be sibmed by a responsible official of the
water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecuta to review at least TWO
WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
FEB 5 2000
8y
Local Entorcement Agency * ~O. Box 1280. Riverside. CA 92502 1280 :: (909) 955-8982 * FAX (909) 781-9653 * 4080 .emon Street, ~ttt Hoot. ~lverstae. ICA 925]
Land Use and Water Engineering * PO Box 1206. Riverside. CA 92502-1206 * {909) 955-8980 :~' FAX (909) 955 8903 * 4080 Lemon Sheet. 2nd Floor. Riverside. CA 925~
Page Two
Attn: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
February 24, 2000
3. This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic
water to each and ever), lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfhctory financial
arrangements m'e completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary- for financial arrangements to
be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map.
4. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the
sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the Eastern Municipal Water District, the City of Temecula and the Health
Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate,
along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe
diameter, location of manholes~ complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the
sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of
sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans trod profiles. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certi~'
that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 29305, is in accordance with the sewer system
expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District und that the waste disposal system is
adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tract Map". The plans must
be submitted to the City of Temecula to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the
recordation of the final map.
5. It will be necessary fbr financial arrangements to be completely finalized PRIOR to recordation of
the final map.
6. It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely :finalized PRIOR to the
recordation of the final map.
7. Additional approval from Riverside County Environmental Health Department will be required for
all tenants operating a tbod facility or generating any hazardous w'aste.
Sincerely,
~a~relce Harrison, Environmen~ ealth Specialist III
CH:dr
(909) 955-8980
cdyswr, doc
Board of Directors
Doul[las V. Kulberg
Lisa D. Herman
February 15, 2000
Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY, TRACT NO. 29305
APNS 950-110-002, 950-110-005, AND 950-110-033;
APNS 950-180-001,950-180-006, AND 950-180-010;
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0052
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
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 that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00~SB:rnc057~012-T3~C F
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00-
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94)1.doc
24
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
PLANNING APPLICATIONS RELATED TO THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS.
A. Recitals.
The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has duly considered, after
public hearing, the development proposed by the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (PA-
98-0481, PA-98-0484), together with (a) the Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the project (PA-98-0482); (b) the development agreement that
serves to specifically define the implementation of the public improvements and
amenities related to and arising under the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and the
conditions of approval imposed on related entitlements (PA-00-0029) and (c) the
first tier subdivision map (PA-00-0052) for the project.
After deliberation, and pursuant to the authority established in California
Government Code Section 65 , the Planning Commission recommended
that the City Council approve the various planning applications relating to the
Wolf Creek development proposal upon the terms and conditions set forth in the
Planning Commission Resolutions numbered 2000-37, 2000-38, 2000-39 and
2000-40, subject to certain modifications.
All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred as
required by law.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula as follows:
Section 1. In all respects as are set forth in Part A, Recitals, of this Resolution, which
are hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
adopt resolutions and/or ordinances approving the submitted planning applications subject to
the following revisions to the Planning Commission Resolutions attached hereto in consecutive
order, as Attachments 1,2, 3, and 4.
1. The Community Services Department conditions attached hereto as Attachment
5 shall be imposed on the subdivision map and included in the Specific Plan.
2. The proposed revisions to the text of the Specific Plan and the subdivision map
condition set forth as conditions 6a and 6b be revised by deleting the words "if feasible."
3. Specific Plan resolution condition 17 should be reviewed to ensure that
compliance with SB 2095 be maintained.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\Resolution-PC Wolf Creek Specific Plan 12-6-00.DOC
!
4. That the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the EIR incorporate
applicable provisions and obligations previously established in the City of Temecula General
Plan EIR mitigation monitoring program.
5. The Specific Plan conditions 12, 12a, 31, and 75 should be revised to allow only
one option for street sections that are narrower than current City standards. The recommended
option is a street section having a thirty-six foot right-of-way with a landscaped parkway
separating the sidewalk from the curb.
6. The Planned Development Overlay completed by the Specific Plan should be
reviewed by an architect engaged by the City to assist the City in assessing the design
proposal.
7. Specific Plan Planning Area 24, the regional park site, be restricted to residential
development having a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet in the event the regional sports
park is not developed upon the planning area.
8. Specific Plan Planning Area 12 provide a site offered exclusively for development
by a religious organization for a church site for a reasonable period of time.
9. The Specific Plan Design Guidelines split-garage option be deleted.
10. The Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Standards applicable to the senior
housing in Planning Area 18 require garages only and delete the carport option.
11. That the Specific Plan add a requirement that the Product Review providing
architectural design of residential units in any planning area be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
12. That the permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial area in Planning
Area 12 permit taverns and pubs with a conditional use permit.
13. That the development agreement add provisions ensuring that (i) uses within
planning area 12 not be regulated by uses located in Planning Area 13; (ii) the City impose any
future Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan fee on the portion of the project for which
building permits have not been obtained at the time the fee is adopted and (iii) at no time the
traffic level of service D be exceeded by the proposed development.
Section 3, The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP~Resolution-PC Wolf Creek Specific Plan 12-~-00.DOC
2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula on December 6, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
A'i-I'EST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting hereof, held on
December 6, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONMEMBERS:
COMMISSIONMEMBERS:
COMMISSIONMEMBERS:
COMMISSIONMEMBERS:
GUERRIERO, TELESIO, MATHEWSON
WEBSTER
CHINIAEFF
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\Resolution-PC Wolf Creek Specific Plan 12-6-00.DOC
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
DRAFT EXCERPTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 2000
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC StaffReport 1-94)1.doc
25
EXCERPT OF THE DECEMBER 6. 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REGARDING THE WOLF CREEK PROJECT
(AGENDA ITEM NO. 4)
At this time Chairman Guerriero closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
The applicant's representatives provided the following rebuttal comments in response to
the Commission and community comments:
Mr. Camille Bahri, representing the applicant, clarified the intent to have differentiated
permitted uses in the two commercial areas (Planning Area Nos. 12, and 13.)
Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed the following:
In response to previously made comments, specified the differences between the
Wolf Creek Development and the Morgan Hill Development (which is in the
County), noting that the Morgan Hill Project was currently zoned for one unit per ten
acres, under the Regional County Plan, which would enable the Morgan Hill
Developer to develop 45 units, with a total of 1300 units, relaying that by
comparison, the target density under the General Plan for the Wolf Creek Project
would be for 2601 units, clarifying that the presented proposal was for
approximately 1900 units, or with the senior housing option, just over 2000 units;
relayed that the Wolf Creek property was currently zoned for a combination of Low,
Low Medium, Medium, and High densities, noting the applicant's determination to
comply with the Growth Management Plan, proposing the lower end of the density
range while still providing a broad spectrum of amenities (i.e., school site, fire
station, civic centers); advised that the Morgan Hills Project would not be inclusive
of an commensurate measure of amenities;
With respect to traffic, note. d staff's review and support of the traffic analysis;
relayed that the road system in this portion of the City was designed based on the
General Plan's target density of over 2600 units, advising that due to this padicular
project's proposal to develop substantially below that density that there was the
creation of a potential excess capacity;
· Relayed that this property was not environmentally sensitive;
Advised that in his opinion this particular project plan meets the guidelines of the
City (per the General Plan documents, the GMP, and meeting all of the criteria with
respect to issues that staff has raised regarding the project over the past three
years);
Noted the applicant's previous involvement in the development of numerous award-
winning Master Planned communities;
Provided additional information regarding the circulation plan;
In response to Mr. Broderick's, comments, reiterated that the project was being
developed within the policies of the General Plan, and the GMP; in response to Mr.
R; Draff/Excerpt/PCminutes/120600
Lucier's concerns, relayed that the applicant has held numerous meetings with Mr.
Lucier, noting that it was the applicant's desire to work in cooperation with both the
City and the neighborhood with respect to defining solutions to the noise on Pala
Road, the widening of Pala Road, and the associated congestion relief;
Advised that the assiduous efforts of the applicant, the staff, and the revisions
incorporated in response to Commission comments have culminated into this
proposed project plan;
Thanked the Commission for its consideration of this matter, relaying hopes of
support for this particular proposal.
At 8:45 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:54 P.M.
The Commission relayed the following closing remarks:
Commissioner Mathewson noted the following:
Relayed appreciation to the applicant for addressing the Commission's concerns
since this project was last visited;
For the record, noted that he had participated in ex-parte communications, meeting
with the applicant and staff on December 4th in order to discuss the proposed
modifications to the project plan;
Advised that his primary concerns had been addressed with the proposed revisions
to the project.
With respect to the density issues, relayed that he was a strong advocate of
following the GMP and the General Plan, noting that in comparison to what the
minimum density designation allowed (per the General Plan), that this particular
project proposed a seven percent (7%) increase from the minimum density, noting
that if the senior multi-family element was implemented, the project would propose
a thirteen percent (13%) increase in density above the absolute minimum density
allowed; advised that he could support the proposed densities in conjunction with
the numerous amenities proposed (i.e., a 40-acre park, land dedication for the fire
station, the linear parkway), relaying that the proposed amenities would not solely
benefit the project itself, but the community, as a whole; relayed that the sole multi-
family area would be limited to senior housing, noting that the senior housing and
the courtyard homes would have a significantly less negative impact with respect to
school enrollment in this area;
With respect to lot sizes, clarified that the discussions pertaining to the smaller lots
were regarding the minimum lot size and not the average lot sizes, noting that in
the first two areas to be developed the average lot size would be dramatically
higher than the minimum;
With respect to the Village Center proposal, relayed that with the siting of the
courtyard housing around this center, this planning element aided in achieving the
ultimate purpose of a Village Center, as identified in the General Plan; advised that
the permitted uses that have been identified for the commercial areas were
R: Draff/Excerpt/PCrninutes/120600
adequate, noting that he could support Commissioner Webster's recommendation
for adding a tavern, or bar use in the Neighborhood Commercial area, noting that
with respect to the community concern expressed regarding excessive alcohol
consumption, that in his opinion this issue was an enforcement matter, advising
that to attract residents to the pedestrian center in the evening hours a tavern, or
bar use would be appropriate;
With respect to the architectural guidelines for the residences, and the issue of a
mix of one-story, and two-story dwellings, relayed that after additional investigation
of the voluminous Design Guidelines which were inclusive of language encouraging
one-story homes, that it was his opinion that the Specific Plan was not the
document best-suited for regulating these specific elements; recommended that if
this project goes forward and is approved, that all product reviews come back to the
Planning Commission for review and approval; with respect to Deputy City
Manager Thornhilrs previous comments regarding the option to hire an architect
consultant for aid in the project review, recommended that this option be utilized;
noted that these provisions would address garage setback issues and alternate
architectural treatments that have been previously sited as concerns by the
Commission;
VVith respect to the proposed traffic improvements, advised that the data presented
earlier in the meeting by staff addressed this issue, ensuring that this matter would
be addressed adequately; noted that the Development Agreement (if it goes
forward, as proposed) provided him with a great level of confidence that the traffic
issues would be properly addressed (inclusive of the sound wall); in response to a
community residenrs comments regarding concern with respect to funding issues
and the potential for the interim traffic improvements to not be completed, for
Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided
additional information. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the funding would
ultimately be available due to the applicant's willingness to loan funds upfront for
these improvements; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's request for
confirmation of this agreement, the applicant's representative nodded affirmatively;
and
With respect to the previously expressed desire of the Commission to implement
smaller streets and sidewalk setbacks, advised that he strongly recommended that
these elements be incorporated into the project plan.
Commissioner Telesio noted the following:
Commended the applicant for continuing to work with staff and the Commission in
order to meet the goals of the Commission, the General Plan, and the GMP;
Noted that in his opinion, the applicant has met the standards relayed by the
Commission with the recent revisions to the project plan;
Relayed that he was comfortable forwarding this project to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval;
3 R: Draft/ExcerptJPCminutes/120600
· With respect to the community resident's expressed comments, noted that the
majority of these concerns were based on misinformation, relaying hopes of the
Commission or staff providing clarification to the community;
Regarding the proposed courtyard homes, and the multi-family senior housing,
noted the need for diversity with respect to the provision of housing products;
Concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation with respect to the
product reviews being brought forward to the Planning Commission;
With respect to traffic issues, relayed that this matter had been adequately
addressed;
Regarding the concern with respect to allowing a bar or tavern use in the
commercial area, relayed that he concurred with Commissioner Mathewson that
the excessive use of alcohol was an enforcement issue, noting that in his opinion
these uses should be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); and
Relayed that in his opinion, the applicant has done an excellent job planning a
project appropriate for this area, noting that the proposal was well under the
densities allowed for this area (per the General Plan).
Commissioner Webster noted the following:
For the record, relayed that he had not met with staff or the applicant to discuss the
project plan since the Planning Commission's workshop, which was held on
October 18, 2000, noting that the sole staff member he had discussed this issue
with was the City Attorney.
Noted his extreme disappointment with staff due to the exclusion of the Planning
Commissioners in the Subcommittee that worked on this project.
Advised that in order for this project to receive his support for conformance with the
City's General plan, General Plan EIR, the Development Code, the Design
Guidelines, and the GMP, that the project would need to incorporate the following
elements:
With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b (regarding the mitigation measures
within the Specific Plan conditions), recommended that the language if
feasible be deleted from the conditions due to violating the intent of the CEQA
Act, noting that either this language could be deleted, or there would need to
be provisions for a performance standard, recommending the deletion of this
language;
With respect to Condition No. 17 (regarding the feasibility of a reclaimed water
system within the Specific Plan conditions), recommended that there be
assurance that this condition was in accordance with Senate Bill 2095;
With respect to traffic impacts and accumulative impacts, relayed that in order
to agree with the analysis, that there should be assurance that the Deal Point
Item (per the Development Agreement) stating that no additional occupancy is
allowed when traffic reaches levels less than a Level of Service (LOS) D, for 1-
15 Interchanges, as well as Highway 79 South (between the freeway and Pala
4 R: Draft/Excerpt/PC minutes/120600
Road), recommending that this requirement should be placed on all phases of
the project; advised that if the project's EIR analysis, and the City's traffic
analysis is correct, this is a mute point, while noting that in order to alleviate
the concerns and issues expressed with respect to traffic impacts and'
cumulative impacts, it was his opinion this Deal Point should be included.
Noted that this project should have a complete Mitigation Monitoring Program
inclusive of the applicable portions of the General Plan EIR;
With respect to the Specific Plan, regarding the street options referenced in
Condition Nos. 12, 12a, 31 and 75, recommended that there should be one
option for this element (rather than the two street options indicated),
recommending that the one option be for narrower streets, specifically with a
thirty-six foot (36') road right-of way which would provide for two eighteen foot
(18') lanes, a four foot (4') sidewalk, and a six foot (6') parkway (with the
sidewalk separated from the curb);
With respect to the GFD Deal Point (within the Development Agreement),
regarding the Pala Road improvements, concurred with the inclusion of the
requirement to widen Pala Road to six lanes to Wolf Valley Road, noting the
applicant's requirement to provide the dedication of the right-of-way, and not
to pay for all the improvements.
Concurred that an architect consultant should be hired by the City to review
the PDO, noting that an independent review would be beneficial.
With respect to the Land Use Plan map, regarding Planning Area No. 24 (the
proposed regional park area), recommended that if the park plan did not go
forward, the option to construct 5500 square foot lots should be revised to
require 7200 square foot lots; with respect to Planning Area No. 23,
recommended that this be revised to require a 6,000 square foot lot minimum
to provide a better transition between the Village Center core to less dense
residential; with respect to Planning Area No. 21, recommended revising this
to require 7200 square foot lot minimums, noting the lack of 7200 square foot
lots which should be implemented to create consistency with the Development
Code.
Noted that he was pleased with the applicant's previous expressed response
regarding the agreement to include a church site designation for a specified
period of time, recommending that staff and the applicant work together to
establish an appropriate period of time for this designation.
Recommended that there be no allowance for zero lot line houses for the
single-family residential area.
With respect to the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the 5,000 square foot lots
which stated the request to use the Zoning Ordinance of Medium Density
Residential, noting that the City's Development Code for Low Medium Density
is basically 5, 000 square foot lots and above, recommended that this be kept
at the Low Medium Density zoning in order to be consistent with the
Development Code.
With respect to the minimum sideyard requirements, within the Residential
Development Standards, relayed that for the 5,000 square foot lots, it was his
recommendation that this standard be revised to be consistent with the City's
Low Medium requirement which is a five foot (5') minimum sideyard, with a
fifteen foot (15') minimum for the sum of the two sideyards;
With respect to lot coverage, regarding the 6,000 and 7200 square foot lots,
recommended that there be a maximum thirty-five percent (35%) lot coverage
for the Pots with two-story dwellings, and forty-five percent (45%) maximum for
5 R: Draft/Excerpt/PC minutes1120600
the lots with one-story dwellings; regarding the 5,000 square foot lots,
recommended that there be a maximum lot coverage of forty percent (40%)
for the lots with two story dwellings, and forty-five percent (45%) for the lots
with one-story dwellings;
With respect to architectural forward requirements that the Commission
addressed in the past, recommended that on the exhibits denoting the garage
options, that the split garage option be deleted which does not comply with an
architectural forward element, noting that with this configuration the front door
was tucked inside the house; and
With respect to the Design Standards, regarding the option for multi-family
senior housing in Planning Area No. 18, recommended that if this option is
implemented that garages be a requirement for this development, in lieu of
carports.
Chairman Guerriero noted the following:
Thanked all the citizens who came forward during the past months to address the
Wolf Valley Project, noting that their comments were appreciated by the
Commission, and specifically by him;
Thanked the applicant for taking the time to meet with the community residents;
and
Advised that all of his concerns have been addressed by staff, the applicant, and
the citizens that have relayed their comments, noting that in his opinion this was a
good project, and his recommendation would be to pass it on to the City Council,
recommending approval.
Commissioner Telesio requested the applicant to address the recommendations
setforth by Commissioner Webster.
Addressing Commissioner Webster's previously mentioned recommendations (See
pages 4-6 of the minutes.), Mr. Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed the following:
With respect to the street option recommendation, and the church designation
issues, relayed that the applicant had agreed to incorporation of these elements.
Relayed that at this stage of the process, he would be reluctant to revise the Land
Uses, noting that these elements have been carefully planned, advising that the
4,000-4500 square foot lots had been eliminated due to Commission concern;
reiterated that the lot sizes denoted were minimums, noting that in the 6,000 square
foot lot area, that the average lot size would be approximately 8,000 square feet.
In response, Commissioner Mathewson noted that his concern was regarding
Planning Area No. 24 (the potential sports park site).
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith relayed that he was convinced that the
City would go forward with the proposed sports park, noting that to accommodate
the Commission's concern he would agree that for an alternative (if the sports park
plan did not go forward) that Planning Area No. 24 could be revised to maintain a
minimum lot size of 7200 square feet, reiterating that it was not his desire to revise
6 R: Drafl/Excerpt/PCmin utes/120600
Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23, providing additional information regarding the
rationale for his reluctance.
With respect to the church site designation, reiterated that the applicant would work
with staff for an appropriate period of time for this designation.
With respect to the Design Standards, specifically, regarding the recommendation
for sideyard requirements, noted that he would be reluctant to agree to this
element, relaying that the Design Standards are consistent from product category
to product category.
VVith respect to maximum lot coverage requirements, noted that it was the
applicant's opinion that the critical variables are the setbacks which are internally
consistent, relaying that he would not desire to agree to a lot coverage reduction
without a clear understanding of the impact this element would have on other
variables.
With respect to the recommendation for narrower streets, relayed that the courtyard
area would be a great opportunity for this element since the streets could be
reduced further, noting that with respect to the neighborhood streets, the applicant
would support the thirty-six foot (36') section that Commissioner Webster
recommended.
Advised that it was his opinion that this project package was well-defined, noting
the new and modified criteria, recommending that the project go forward with the
recommendations he has relayed.
MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion died for lack of a second.) Commissioner
Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation,
adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040 with the following
modifications:
Add-
That the three added Community Services conditions be added to the
Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental agenda material via a
memorandum from the Community Services Department).
That all of his previously mentioned recommendations (see pages 4-6 of the
minutes) be incorporated into the project plan.
That Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation for the product review to
be conducted at the Planning Commission level be implemented.
It was noted that this motion was not seconded and therefore died.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Commissioner Webster relayed
his desire to include the Land Use revisions for Planning Area Nos. 21, 23, and 24 in the
motion for approval, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his
recommendation.
Commissioner Telesio reiterated that the minimum lot sizes would not be the average
lot sizes, noting that Commissioner Webster's Land Use recommendation may restrict
7 R: Draff/Excerpt/PCrnin utes/120600
~"~'~l~the variability in the housing products, and may additionally discourage the development
of one-story homes.
Commissioner Webster was not in agreement that his recommended Land Use
revisions would have an impact on the development of one-story homes.
With respect to the one-story verses two-story dwelling units issues, Commissioner
Mathewson noted that he, too, was of the opinion that the recommended lot coverage
requirements would negatively impact the potential for one-story homes, although he
shared Commissioner Webster's concerns, it was his desire to provide the flexibility in
order to encourage the development of one-story dwellings, relaying that in his opinion
the additional lot coverage issue could be addressed in the Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Webster reiterated that the Development Code standard was basically
a thirty-five percent (35%) maximum lot coverage, noting that he was opposed to some
of the existing development in the City where there were houses filling the entire lot,
located proximate to the neighboring houses (i.e., the Temeku Hills Development),
relaying that in these developments the residents were unable to park their vehicles in
their own driveway due to the housing unit filling the lot; and advised that his
recommendation was to ensure that the general policy goal for design excellence on all
developments be implemented, while still providing flexibility.
Commissioner Telesio advised that by limiting the lot coverage, this standard would be
encouraging the development of two-story homes.
MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion was amended.) Commissioner Telesio
moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, adopting PC
Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040 with the following modifications:
Add-
That the three added Community Services conditions are added to the
Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental agenda material via a
memorandum from the Community Services Department).
That all of Commissioner Webster's previously mentioned
recommendations (see pages 4-6 of the minutes) be incorporated into the
project plan with the exception of the revisions to Planning Area Nos. 21,
and 23.
That Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation for the product review to
be conducted at the Planning Commission level be implemented.
Commissioner Webster seconded the motion.
In response to Mr. Grifflth's queries, Commissioner Telesio confirmed that the motion
on the table was inclusive of the recommended revision in lot sizes in Planning Area No.
24 (to a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet) if the proposed sports park did not go
forward, noting that Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23 would not be revised, additionally,
noting that the lot coverage and the setbacks would not be revised.
8 R: Draft/Excerpt/PC minutes/120600
Commissioner Mathewson queried what the Commission's action should be with
respect to the Development Agreement, which had not been finalized at this point in
time.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Development Agreement was still in the draft
mode.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that there were certain issues addressed in the Deal
Points of the Development Agreement that he had strong opinions about, querying what
action was expected by the Planning Commission with respect to this document.
Commissioner Webster relayed that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission
recommendation to the City Council should not be inclusive of the Development
Agreement since the Planning Commission was not involved in the process, and due to
the Development Agreement going before the City Council at a future point in time.
Attorney Curley relayed that it was recommended that the Planning Commission provide
comments in response to the Deal Points of the Development Agreement (as per the
supplemental agenda material) in order to provide Planning Commission input to the City
Council.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley relayed that the Development
Agreement would be a consensual document, noting that if the document was agreed to,
it would become a legal document; and advised that proposing the Deal Points as
Conditions of Approval would be problematic.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that he would support the Development Agreement
as proposed to the Planning Commission, strongly encouraging that the habitat fee be
included in the Deal Points, providing additional information regarding previous
comments the Commission presented regarding the Deal Points.
With respect to the Development Agreement, Chairman Guerriero noted that the
applicant had expressed several concerns, as follows: 1) the applicant was not in favor
of accelerating on Deer Hollow, and 2) with respect to the CFD, the applicant had
expressed concerns.
Commissioner Webster relayed that during the ensuing process, these points of
disagreement would be worked out.
Commissioner Telesio requested confirmation that the Planning Commission was not
supporting all of the Deal Points in the Development Agreement.
Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, relayed that this document
should be excluded in the Planning Commission recommendation due to the existing
contention on certain points, and since it was still a work in process.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that a recommendation regarding the
Development Agreement should be relayed by the Planning Commission to the City
Council.
9 R: Draft/ExcerplJPCminutes/1 ~0600
Attorney Curley relayed that the numerous motions have become convoluted, advising
that when there is a consensus to move forward with a motion, that the Planning
Commission should provide clarification so that all parties had a clear idea of the
Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, noting that it would be
recommended that Commissioner Webster's recommendations be articulated in the final
motion.
Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney for the applicant, specified his understanding of the
motion.
Attorney Curley relayed that as the Planning Commission discussed the motion it was
clear that the specificities included in the motion needed to be clarified prior to the vote
being taken.
Commissioner Webster relayed that the motion was inclusive of all of his previous
recommendations with the exception of revising the lot sizes for Planning Area Nos. 21,
and 23.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that the setback standards and lot coverage
requirements were also excluded.
Commissioner Webster noted that the setback standards and lot coverage
requirements were not excluded from the motion, clarifying the motion that he had
seconded.
For clarification, Attorney Curley provided the following elements included in the motion
that he had noted, requesting that the Commission add additional input if there were
alternate conditions desired to have included in the recommendation to the City Council,
listing the elements, as follows:
That staffs recommendation be approved with the attached modifications.
With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b, to delete the phrase if feasible.
With respect to Condition No. 17, to review conformance to S.B. 2095.
With respect to the traffic and cumulative impacts, to ensure that the Deal
Point in the Development Agreement was followed through regarding the
maintaining of the Level of Service "D."
The Mitigation Monitoring Program would be augmented.
With respect to the street option concerns, requested specificity regarding
these particular associated recommendations.
In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the
recommendation was to not have options, but to implement a thirty-six foot
(36')standard.
To incorporate the Land Use Map revisions to Planning Area No. 24; and
That the three added conditions from TCSD be added (per supplemental
agenda material).
Commissioner Webster relayed that the following recommendations were also
included in the motion:
The recommendation that the split garage option would be removed from
the Design Guidelines,
10 R: Dra~Excerpt/PCminutes/120600
The recommendation to incorporate garages, in lieu of carports, for the
multi-family senior housing.
The recommendation for the City to hire an architect for the review of the
PDO, and
The recommendation for the Product Review to be presented to the
Planning Commission for review and approval.
In response to Attorney Curley, Commissioner Webster confirmed that all of the above
elements were included in the motion.
Commissioner Webster relayed that the lot coverage requirements were also included
in the motion.
In response, Commissioner Telesio noted that this recommendation had been
excluded.
Commissioner Webster advised that the sole exclusions were regarding Planning Area
Nos. 21, and 23; advised that if Commissioner Telesio desired to modify the motion in
order to exclude the residential Design Standards, the motion could be amended.
For Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Webster noted that there was a differential
between the recommendation of minimum lot sizes for planning areas, and the
recommendations for revisions to residential development standards for planning areas,
clarifying that these were two separate recommendations, noting that if it was the desire
to exclude these two recommendations, this exclusion would need to be denoted.
The following discussion ensued regarding the Planning Commission recommendation
to the City Council regarding the Deal Points of the Development Aqreements:
Commissioner Mathewson noted that the Planning Commission recommendation had
become convoluted, relaying that there appeared to be a consensus to approving the
project plan with certain modifications; advised that he was concerned with respect to
the recommendation regarding the Development Agreement; and queried the
Commission for its desire with respect to recommending the Development Agreement in
its conceptual form.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission was provided the Deal
Points of the Development Agreement, and subsequently the Subcommittee's
comments, noting that these comments had not been incorporated into the document.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his opinion that it was expected that the
Planning Commission would provide a recommendation regarding the Development
Agreement in its conceptual form, noting that the Subcommittee comments were fairly
straight forward, and that he was comfortable recommending approval with the attached
comments.
For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Commission
had received the Deal Points of the Development Agreement in the agenda material,
noting that the supplemental agenda material was inclusive of the same Deal Points with
the Subcommittee's recommendations.
11 R: Draff/Excerpt/PCmin utes/120600
Chairman Guerriero relayed that if the Planning Commission was to approve the
conceptual form of the document, he could support that action, as long as the points
could be rebutted with the City Council, noting that the developer was in disagreement
with various Deal Points, advising that he was in agreement with the developer.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the developer would have an opportunity to
relay his points of disagreement with the City Council.
Commissioner Mathewson noted various Deal Points that the Planning Commission had
commented on.
For clarification, Attorney Curley relayed that the Deal Points of the Development
Agreement were the core elements that would be placed in the final Development
Agreement which would be a voluminous document, noting that the presented points
were the planning elements that the Planning Commission needed to provide input on
for the City Council's consideration; clarified that these points were more than mere
concepts, noting that these points were the core elements that would be incorporated
into the legal document; noted that the Planning Commission did not need to redraft the
document, but to relay to the Council comments, clarifying that specific points could be
recommended for removal.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was not in agreement with the Subcommittee's
comment regarding the multi-species issue, noting that he could support approval
without this element, relaying that it was his desire for the applicant to have the
opportunity to address this issue without the approval of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Guerriero noted the applicant's disagreement with respect to permitted uses in
Planning Area No. 12, relaying that he agreed with the developer.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that with respect to the habitat issues, he was of the
opinion that the plan should go forward.
In response, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the applicant should have an
opportunity to address the habitat issue without the weight of the approval of the
Planning Commission.
For clarification, Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission could specify the
points that were not supported, listing the elements of disagreement while approving the
document in its entirety, in concept.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there were differences of opinion within the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Alhadeff relayed that it was his opinion that the Development Agreement could be
approved by the Planning Commission in concept and principle, relaying that the points
of disagreement could be specified.
Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission has mentioned the following Deal
Points as items of concern: the level of service, the habitat issue, and Planning Area No.
12; advised that if the previous three points were the sole elements to be addressed that
12 R: Draft/Excerpt/PC minutesl120600
the Planning Commission could provide input regarding these specific elements,
subsequently approving the remainder of the document,
The Planning Commission relayed the following specified recommendations
regarding the following listed elements of the Development Agreement,
recommending approval regarding the remainder of the document:
With respect to including habitat issue in the Development Agreement, it was noted
that Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Mathewson were proponents of having
this element included, while Commissioner Webster and Chairman Guerriero were
opposed to the inclusion of this element.
With respect to the area in Planning Area No. 12, the developer provided additional
information, noting that this issue could be worked out and that the Planning
Commission need not address this matter.
With respect to the recommendation regarding the requirement that the LOS not go
below LOS "D" during any phase of the project it was the consensus of the Planning
Commission that this element should be included. (It was noted that Commissioner
Chiniaeff was absent.)
At this time the Planninq Commission resumed to the previous discussions, addressing
the motion for approval for the project, as follows:
With respect to the motion, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could not support
modifying the lot size coverage.
AMENDED MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion died for lack of an amended
second.) Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staffs recommendation subject to the modifications clarified by Attorney Curley and
subsequently by Commissioner Webster (see pages 10-11 of the minutes in the bulleted
comments of Attorney Curley and Commissioner Webster), noting that Commissioner
Webster's recommendation regarding lot coverage standards would not be included.
For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could not
support Commissioner Webster's proposed modification to the maximum lot coverage,
or the sideyard setback requirements.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional
information regarding the setback standards implemented in the Temeku Hills
Development, which had been referenced at an earlier point in the meeting.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that with Commissioner Webster's recommended
sideyard setbacks the houses would be smaller and stacked.
Commissioner Webster noted that he would not amend his second on the motion to
include these exclusions.
13 R: Draff/ExcerplJPCminutes/120600
FINAL MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; to
recommend approval of the presented Development Agreement with the exception of
the specified comments relayed with regard to three of the Deal Points (denoted on page
13 of the minutes in bold print); and to approve staffs' recommendation, adopting PC
Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040, subject to the following modifications:
Add-
That the three Community Service conditions (as per supplemental agenda
material) be added into the Conditions of Approval.
With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b (regarding the mitigation
measures within the Specific Plan conditions) that the language if feasible
be deleted.
With respect to Condition No. 17 ( regarding the feasibility of a reclaimed
water system within the Specific Plan conditions) that there be assurance
that this condition was in accordance with S.B. 2095.
That the Mitigation Monitoring Program be augmented to include the
applicable portions of the General Plan EIR.
With respect to the references in Condition Nos. 12, 12a, 31, and 75, that
there be one option for narrower streets, specifically with a thirty-six foot
(36') road right-of-way, with a parkway separating the sidewalk from the
curb.
That the City hire an architect consultant to review the PDO.
That Planning Area No. 24 (the proposed regional park area) be revised to
maintain a minimum lot size of 7200 square foot lots (if the proposed park
plan does not go forward).
That there be a church site designation in Planning Area 12 for a specified
period of time (to be determined by staff and the applicant).
That a tavern orbar use be added to the list of permitted uses in the
commercial area (via a Conditional Use Permit).
With respect to the garage options denoted in the exhibits, that the split
garage option be deleted from the Design Guidelines.
With respect to the Design Standards, regarding the option of multi-family
senior housing in Planning Area No. 18, that garages be a requirement, in
lieu of carports.
That the product review be forwarded to the Planning Commission for
review and approval.
Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Webster who voted no, and Commissioner Chiniaeff who
was absent.
14 R: Drafl/Excerpt/PCminutesl120600
ATTACHMENT NO. t0
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 6, 2000
R:\PLa. NNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report l-9~01.doc
26
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 6, 2000
Reconsideration of the recommendation for denial of:
Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek
Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
And Consideration of:
Planning Application No. 00-0029 - Wolf Creek Development Agreement
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner and
Saied Nasseh-Shahry, Project Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
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
THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON
PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033
AN D 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE
SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE
PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES
OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW
AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-'1~10-002, -
005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010.
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
1
3. 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
THE WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0029) AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT A, ON
PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033
AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA
ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND
950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
SP Murdy, LLC
REPRESENTATIVES:
STATUS
Bill Griffith and Camille Bahri, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC
Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
Donald Lohr and Tony Terich, Lohr + Associates, Inc.
Sam Alhadeff, Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
At the conclusion of Planning Commission hearings held on September 6, 20, and October 4, 2000,
the Planning Commission voted to deny the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. On October 18, 2000, the
Planning Commission considered the resolutions recommending denial which were prepared by the
City Attorney's office. At the end of their deliberations, the Commission moved to reconsider the
project at a later date. They asked the developer to address all items as specified in the three
resolutions for the various portions of the project, and to return to the Commission.
The applicant desired to bring the Development Agreement deal points before the Commission, for
their recommendation to the City Council concurrently with the reconsideration.
R:\S P\Wo[f Creek SP\STAFFRPT. PC for 12-6-00.doc
2
ANALYSIS
Staff's summary of the disposition of all items as listed in the Resolutions follows.
Resolution for the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Item No. 1: Zoning based Development Standards
· The Specific Plan proposes residential lot sizes below those authorized by the
Development Code. Utilize the existing 7,200 square foot minimum lot size.
· The development proposal does not offer project amenities and innovative site
planning techniques and certainty of design so as to justify deviation from the
City's existing standards.
· The overall development presents an overabundance of medium density
residential development and an inadequate amount of Iow-medium housing
densities.
· Provide a maximum lot coverage of 35%.
Disposition:
The project has been redesigned, with the elimination of all "small lot"
single family residential 4,000 and 4,500 square foot lots previously
proposed (369 units). The Planning Areas have been reconfigured to provide a
transition of lot sizes from 7,200 square foot lots at the perimeter of the project, to
5,000 square foot lots and courtyard homes at the interior of the project. The
revised Land Use Plan is provided as Attachment No. lA. The number of
dwelling units proposed is 1,881 which is 263 units less than the originally
proposed plan at 2,144 (and 496 units less than the originally proposed plan
without the high school, at 2,377). The number of dwelling units at 1,881 is the
same as last submitted by the developer on October 4, 2000.
Comparison of Residential Lot Sizes
Previous Acres Previous Units Revised Acres Revised Units
20,000 s.f. 4.1 8 4.1 8
7,200 s.f. 71.6 258 85.2 309
6,000 s.f. 80.7 346 90.6 390
5,500 s.f. 0 0 27.3 126
5,000 s.f. 130.7 617 129.6 6'12
4,500 s.f. 46.9 229 0 0
4,000 s.f. 23.3 140 0 0
SFD 12.0 114 29.0 267
Courtyard
SFD 14.1 169 14.1 169
Courtyard or or
or MF Sr. 310 310
Totals 383.4 1,881 379.9 1,881
or or
2,022 2,022
R:\S P~Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
3
Disposition:
Item No. 2:
Disposition:
Disposition:
Disposition:
Item No. 3:
Disposition:
Disposition:
Item No. 4:
Single Family Dwelling Courtyard Planning Areas 7, 10, and 18 shall come
forward as Planned Development Overlay (PDO) zones with their own
Supplemental Design, Development Standards and Development Plan.
Condition of Approval No. 13 has been added to the Specific Plan reflecting this
requirement. The PDO application process, as provided within the Development
Code, assures the opportunity for innovative site planning techniques and the
City's ability to direct future residential developers with regard to the product
offered.
Design and Development Guidelines
· Allow for narrower public streets by providing an alternate street section.
· Provide criteria for alternate sidewalk locations both at back of curb and
behind a landscaped right-of-way and identify homeowner association
maintenance.
· Develop architectural guidelines that assure diversify, a mix of one and two
story housing, comprehensive architecture forward design and alternate
garage configurations.
· Define alternate roofing styles and materials, siding materials and treatments,
front porches and alternate construction materials and technologies.
· Provide detailed landscape and architectural standards for any parcel under
5,000 square feet.
The applicant has submitted the exhibit entitled "Option 2 - Through Local
Streets." See Attachment No. lB. Condition of Appr0val No. 12 has been added
to the Specific Plan stating that, in the event Option 2 street sections are used,
the parkways shall be maintained by homeowner associations. Furthermore,
Condition No. 12a. requires that sidewalks be a minimum of five feet in width on
both sides of the street.
Alternate garage locations have been provided entitled "Front Yard Setbacks
(Typical Condition)." See Attachment No. 1C.
Single family residential lots less than 5,000 square feet are no longer
proposed; therefore, no detailed standards were submitted.
Land Use: The Land Use Matrix for the Neighborhood and Community
Commercial zoning districts shall be modified.
The Zoning Ordinance has been revised to reflect commercial uses as
determined by the Commission. See Attachment No. 1E.
The Residential Development Standards Matrix has been revised to reflect
the latest redesign of housing products. See Attachment No. 1D. Lot
coverage limitations have not been modified because the applicant argues that
deviations from the Development Code are tradeoffs for the various project
amenities. Please see the applicants 'Response to Planning Commission
Findings," Attachment No. 6.
Village Center:
· Provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages from residential areas to open
space/recreation facilities, commercial and employment centers, to
encourage non-vehicular travel.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
4
· Establish a thorough and detailed set of design guidelines, development
standards and incentive programs for uses within the Village Center, so as to
provide reliable guidance to future users.
· Ensure that adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated to
allow for social interaction and community activities.
Disposition:
The applicant discusses those elements already within the specific plan
that addresses these concerns. Please see his "Response to Planning
Commission Findings," Attachment No. 6, Pages 9 through 11.
Resolution for the Tentative Tract Map
Item No. la: The designation of the category of street improvement for Pale Road from State
Route 79 South to Fairview Road must be resolved.
Disposition:
The City and the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement that
replaces the Interim Pale Road improvements with 6-lane ultimate width
improvements. See the Development Agreement Deal Points exhibit provided
as Attachment 4A.
Item No. lb: Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 600 feet.
Disposition:
Condition of Approval No. 103 of the Map and Condition of Approval No. 75
of the Specific Plan have been amended to replace "1320 feet" with "600
feet."
Item No. lc: A condition of approval requiring payment of the applicant's fair share of the costs
for sound attenuation measures adjacent to Pale Road shall be included.
Disposition:
Condition of Approval No. 5 has been added to the Specific Plan; a
Mitigation Measure regarding noise has been added; the fair share
contribution has been included in the Development Agreement Deal Points.
Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report
Item No. 2a: Traffic Impact Analysis should be examined and confirmed as being accurate and
reliable.
Disposition: The Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department confirms
that the data utilized is accurate and reliable.
Item No. 2b: Interim Pale Road improvements should be confirmed as being adequate
measures.
Disposition:
The Development Agreement Deal Points replace the Interim Pale Road
improvements with 6-lane ultimate width improvements. See the
Development Agreement Deal Points exhibit provided as Attachment 4A.
Item No. 2c: Interstate 15 Interchange should be reevaluated to ensure the proposed
mitigation measures and derivative conditions of approval are appropriate.
R:\S P~Wo]f Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
5
Disposition: The Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department confirms
that the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate.
Item No. 2d:
General Plan mitigation measures should be incorporated as mitigation measures
for the specific plan and conditions of approval should be added to implement the
same.
Disposition:
Condition of Approval No. 6 has been added to the Specific Plan Conditions
of Approval referencing the General Plan mitigation measures as applying
to the specific plan.
Disposition:
Condition of Approval No. 6A. has been added to the Specific Plan
requiring where feasible inclusion of Energy Star/Edison Comfort Wise
Programs, solar roof panels, and programs that offer maximum
energy/utility efficiencies.
Item No. 2e1: Augment the Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program to include
coordination with Metropolitan Water District.
Disposition:
Metropolitan Water District has been added to Condition of Approval Nos.
25 and 44 of the Map requiring their clearance prior to the approval of the
Final Map and the issuance of grading permits. Additionally, Condition of
Approval No. 28 has been added to the Specific Plan to identify the need to
coordinate design activities with MWD.
Item No. 2e2: Landscaping and irrigation devices shall conform to the California Model Water
Conservation Ordinance.
Disposition:
Condition of Approval No. 6B. has been added to the Specific Plan
requiring where feasible inclusion of landscaping and irrigation devices
that conform to the California Model Water Conservation Ordinance.
Item No. 2e3:
Disposition:
Sound attenuation measures shall satisfy the General Plan and City ordinances.
Condition of Approval No. 7 has been added to the Specific Plan requiring
noise assessments as described in the EIR Noise Section, 3.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS
Staff and the applicant have reached consensus on the Deal Points for the Development
Agreement. The Deal Points represent the most important part of the Development Agreement,
basically laying out the City's and the applicant's obligations. These Deal Points are listed in
Attachment 6 and include provisions for the land dedication of a 40-acre sports park, park
improvements, an option for the City to accept a Community facility site, the land dedication and
construction of a fire station, formation of the Community Facilities District for the permanent
improvements to Pala Road, Development Agreement fees, and Level of Service D considerations.
The City Attorney has determined that the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to
the City Council regarding the Development Agreement by considering the Deal Points and without
the benefit of the entire Development Agreement document. Due to time constraints, the final
Development Agreement document has not been included as part of this Staff Report because
attorneys representing both the City and the applicant continue to fine-tune the details of this legal
document.
The City Council Subcommittee for Wolf Creek, consisting of Council members Pratt and
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
6
Naggar, has reviewed the Deal Points and will hold their final meeting on the Deal Points during
the next week. Their final recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission at the
hearing on December 6, 2000.
The Project Description for the Environmental Impact Report shall be amended to include the
Development Agreement. This inclusion does not result in additional impacts since the
Development Agreement is an implementing tool for the Specific Plan. Condition No. 14c. has
been added to the Specific Plan noting this inclusion in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
CORRESPONDENCE
Staff has provided as Attachment No. 5a additional correspondence received since October 4,
2000, from Pamela Miod.
FINDINGS
Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
and Planninq Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment
The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of
the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and
Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards
that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface
buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed
within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan
Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms
to the design of the specific plan.
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
See Attachment 3 for full text.
Planninq Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural
Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process
initiated in 1979.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the
R:\S P~Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT,PC for 12-6-00.doc
7
tentative map. The site is generally fiat topographically, with no unique land features. It is
surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses
generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation property across Pala Road.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on
the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is
surrounded by development and is an infill site.
An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report;
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
7. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
9. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
10. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has been
conditioned to provide these fees.
Planning Application No. PA00-0029 - Development Agreement
1. An environmental review has been conducted and approved for this Agreement in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Developer and Owner for the
development of the property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
The Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the
Developer to develop the Developer's Project on the Developer's Parcels in accordance
with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement.
The Owner desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Owner to
develop the Owner's Parcel in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter
defined) and this Agreement.
Developer and Owner have applied to the City in accordance with applicable procedures
for approval of this mutually binding Agreement. The Planning Commission and City
Council of the City have given notice of intention to consider the Agreement, have
conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the Government Code, and have found
that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the Specific Plan and the City's
General Plan.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
8
=
This Agreement is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the
residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered
and approved the impact and benefits of the development of the Property in accordance
with this Agreement upon the welfare of the region.
This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement
and will limit, to the degree specified in the Agreement and under State law, the future
exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development on the
Property, except a provided for herein.
In accordance with the Development Agreement Statutes, this Agreement eliminates
uncertainty in the planning process and provides for the orderly development of the
Property. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions
imposed by the City, allows installation of necessary improvements, provides for public
services necessary for the region with incidental benefits for the Property, and generally
serves the public interest within the City of Temecula and the surrounding region.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
9
Attachments:
PC Resolution for the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan - Blue Page
Exhibit A - Revised Wolf Creek Specific Plan Land Use Plan
Exhibit B - Option 2 - Through Local Streets
Exhibit C - Front Yard Setbacks (Typical Condition)
Exhibit D - Revised Residential Development Standards Matrix
Exhibit E - Revised Zoning Ordinance
Exhibit F - Revised Conditions of Approval
11
PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 18
Exhibit A- Revised Conditions of Approval
PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit A - Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 21
PC Resolution for the Development Agreement Deal Points - Blue Page 22
Exhibit A - City's Proposal for the Wolf Creek Development Agreement
Correspondence received subsequent to October 4, 2000 - Blue Page 24
a. Pamela Miod, correspondence dated November 15, 2000.
Applicants Responses to Planning Commission Findings, dated November 20, 2000. -
Blue Page 25
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT,PC for 12-6-00.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
REVISED WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE PLAN
R:~S P\Wotf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6,O0.doc
12
EXHIBIT B
OPTION 2 - THROUGH LOCAL STREETS
R:\S P~Worf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
13
'1
EXHIBIT C
FRONT YARD SET BACKS (TYPICAL CONDITION)
R:~S P\Wo[f Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC for 12-6-00.doc
14
Wolf
FRONT YARD SETBACKS
S~E~
HOUSE
(Typical Condition)
STANDARD RESIDENTIAL FRONT
YARD SET~ACK
STREET
HOUSE
STANDARD RESIDENTIAL FRONT Y~D
SET~ACK WTT'H SECOND-STORY OV~P, HANG
Spring Pacific Properties L.L.C.
15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUII~ 100 - IRVINE, CA 92618
Page IV-36
Figure IV- ~!A
~ro]~ Cree~L
FRONT YARD SETBACK~
(Typical Condition)
HOUSE
2-CAR GN~AGE
! HOUSE
Spring Pacific Properties L.L.C.
15751 ROCKI=IELD BLVD. - SUlil: 100 - IRVINE, CA 92618
l~age IV-37
Wolf Creek
FRONT YARD SETBACKS
(Typical Condition)
STREET
(average)
1
ARCHWAY
(optional)
HOUSE
2~AR GARAGE
ATTACHED REAR GARAGE SETBACK
Spring pacific Properties L.L.C.
15751 ROCK/:IELD BLVD. - SlJ[J~ 100 - IRVINE, CA 92618
Ic:~ge IV-38
Figure
Wo] Cree
FRONT YARD SETBACK~
(Typical Condition)
ARCHWAY
(optional)
STREET
HOUSE
2-CAR GARAGE
granny fiat
permiffed over
garage
DETACHED REARGARAGES~ACK
For
Spring Pacific Properties L.L.C.
15751 ROCKI=IELD BLVD.. SUlt l: 100 - IRVINE, CA 92618
T~e IV-39
EXHIBIT D
REVISED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MATRIX
R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
15
EXHIBIT E
REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT, PC for 12-6.00.doc
16
Wolf Creek Zoning
City of Temecula Specific Plan No. 12 Zoning
(1)
(2)
(3)
Planning Area 1 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (7~200 s.f. lots)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 1 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
The development standards for Planning Area 1 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
C.
D.
E.
F.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than seventy-two hundred (7,200) square
feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20').
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 1
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 2 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (6,000 s.f. lots)
(1)
(2)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
The development standards for Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20).
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20').
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line..
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000
Page 2
Wolf Creek
Pl~nnim, Area 3 - PI District Middle School
Zoning
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 3 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the PI Public Institutional District of Chapter 17.12 of the City of
Temecula Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 3 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the PI Public Institutional District Zone in Section
17.12.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Planning, Area 3 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (7~200 s.f. lots)
(If school site is not acquired by District)
(i)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 3 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 3 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
C.
D.
E.
F.
H.
I.
I.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than seventy-two hundred (7,200) square
feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20).
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3) from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 3
Wolf Creek
Plannln~ Area 4 - PR Zone Kent Hintergardt Park
Zoning
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 4 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the PR Parks and Recreation District of Chapter 17.14 of the City of
Temecula Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 4 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the PR Parks and Recreation District in Section 17.14.040
of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12
11/28/2000 Page 4
Wolf Creek
Planning Area 5 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (6,000 s.f. lots)
Zoning
The uses permitted in Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of th,e City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (Iff).
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35')..
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20').
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(Iff) from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The maximum pement of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 pement of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one'story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000
Page 5
Wolf Creek
p!annin~ Area 6 - M Zone Single Family Residential (5,000 s.f. lots)
Zoning
The uses permitted in Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the M Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section ! 7.06.030 shall
also include noncommercial community association recreation and assembly buildings and
facilities.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum of ten feet (10').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet Off).
The interior side yard shall be not less than 5 feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for
entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot
(10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the pr, operty line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square
feet (800 sq. ft.).
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12
11/28/2000
Page 6
Wolf Creek Zoning
Plannin? Area 7 - M Zone Single Family Residential (Courtyard Homes)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the M Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
E.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) square feet.
The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30').
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than thirty feet (30').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than sixty-five feet (65').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum of ten feet (10').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall have a minimum setback of zero feet (0).
The rear yard shall be not less than five feet (5').
The maximum height, shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way
entrances that face the street and ten feet (10') for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type
garage doors shall be required.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of ttiree feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the. same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
(4)
When courtyard homes are implemented, proper site design involves detailed integration
of architectural floor plan design with plotting and site design. Therefore, a Planned
Development Overlay (PDO) Plan approval by the Planning Commission subject to the
requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code shall be required.. The
Development Plan submittal shall include an architectural design package including
floorplans and elevations for all product types proposed., Minimum rear yard
requirements are set at 5' for courtyard home products, however courtyard home site
planning is highly dependent on integration of product design and placement of homes
on the lots. The Development Plan must demonstrate a minimum of 200 square feet of
usable private yard space for each lot.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 7
Zoning
Wolf Creek
Planning Area 8 - PI District Elementary School
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the PI Public Institutional District of Chapter 17.12 of the City of
Temecula Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Pl.anning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the PI Public Institutional District Zone in Section
17.12.020 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Planning Area 8 - M Zone Single Family Residential (Option) (5,000 s.f. lots)
(If school site is not acquired by District)
(i)
(2)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the M Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
The development standards for Planning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
F.
G.
H.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet.
The minimum width of a lot at the front setback line shall not be less than forty-five
feet (45').
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45').
The minimum lot depth shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum often feet (10').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15').
The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square
feet (800 sq. ft.).
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way
entrances that face the street and ten feet (10~) for a side entry garage. Roll-up type
garage doors shall be required.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3) from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 8
Wolf Creek
M.
Zoning
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of.
the lot coverage.
N. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of
the lot coverage.
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
(3)
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000
Page 9
Wolf Creek Zoning
Plannin.~ Area 9 - M Zone Single Family Residential (5,000 s.f. lots)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 9 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the M Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 9 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
F.
G.
H.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum of ten feet (10').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15'):
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for
entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot
(10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square
feet (800 sq. ft.).
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000
Page 10
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 10 - M Zone Single Family Residential (Courtyard Homes)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 10 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the M Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 10 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
E.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) square feet.
The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30').
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than thirty feet (30').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than sixty-five feet (65').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum of ten feet (10').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall have a minimum setback of zero feet (0).
The rear yard shall be not less than five feet (5').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way
entrances that face the street and ten feet (10') for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type
garage doors shall be required.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be h minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
(4)
When courtyard homes are implemented, proper site design involves detailed integration
of architectural floor plan design with plotting and site design. Therefore, a Planned
Development Overlay (PDO) Plan approval by the Planning Commission subject to the
requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code shall be required. The
Development Plan submittal shall include an architectural design package including
floorplans and elevations for all product types proposed. Minimum rear yard
requirements are set at five feet for courtyard home products, however courtyard home
site planning is highly dependent on integration of product design and placement of
homes on the lots. The Development Plan must demonstrate a minimum of 200 square
feet of usable private yard space for each lot.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 11
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 11 - PR Zone Neighborhood Park
(1)
(2)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 11 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the PR Parks and Recreation District of Chapter 17.14 of the City of
Temecula Development Code.
The development standards for Planning Area 11 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the PR Parks and Recreation District in Section 17.14.040
of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000
Page 12
Wolf Creek
Planning Area 12 - NC Zone Neighborhood Commercial
Zoning
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 12 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the NC Neighborhood Commercial District of Chapter 17.08 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except that the following uses shall not be permitted:
A. Auditoriums and Conference Facilities
B. Automobile Sales
C. Automobile Parts-sales
D. Automobile Repair Services
E. Automobile Rental
F. Automobile Service Stations
G. Banks and Financial Institutions with drive-throughs
H. Bowling Alley
I. Building Material Sales
J. Car Wash, Full Service
K. Communications Equipment Sales
L. Convenience Market
M. Discount/Department Store
N. Dry Cleaning Plant
O. Equipment Sales and Rentals
P. Funeral Parlors, Mortuary
Q. Furniture Sales
R. Garden Supplies and Equipment Sales and Service
S. Health and Exercise Clubs (greater than 5,000 square feet)
T. Hospitals
U. Hotels/Motels
V. Kennel
W. Libraries, Museums and Galleries
X. Liquor Stores
Y. Mini-Storage or Mini-Warehouse
Z. Movie Theaters
AA. Music and RecordingStudios
BB. -Nightclubs/Taverns/Bars/Dance Club/Teen-Club
CC. Nurseries (R~tail)
DD. Offices, Administrative or Corporate Headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq.
ft.
EE. Paint and Wallpaper Stores
FF. Pawnshops
GG. Pest Control Services
HH. Printing and Publishing
II. Radio and Broadcasting Studios, Offices
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 13
Wolf Creek
LL.
NN.
00.
PP.
Recycling Collection Facilities
Restaurants with Lounge or Live Entertainment
Rooming and Boarding Houses
Swimming Pool Supplies/Equipment Sales
Taxi or Limousine Service
Tile Sales
Wedding Chapels
Zoning
(2)
The following uses are conditionally permitted in Planning Area 12 of Specific Plan No.
12 subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
Parcel Delivery Services
Alcoholic Beverage Sales
Liquor Stores
(3)
The development standards for Planning Area 12 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the
same as those standards identified for the NC Neighborhood Commercial District in
Section 17.08.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
(4)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000
Page 14
Wolf Creek Zoning
Pl~nnin~ Area 13 - CC Zone Community Commercial
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the CC Community Commercial District of Chapter 17.08 of the City of
Temecula Development Code, except that the following uses shall be prohibited:
A. Auditoriums - Conference Facilities
B. Automobile Rental
C. Automobile Sales
D. Automobile Repair Services
E. Automobile Services Stations
F. Automotive Oil Change/Lube Services
G. Automotive Service Stations Selling Beer and/or Wine With or Without an
Automated Car Wash
H. Banks and Financial Institutions i with drive-throughs'
I. Bed and Breakfast
J. Building Material Sales
K. Car Wash, full service
L. Dry Cleaning Plant
M. Equipment Sales and Rentals
N. Funeral Parlors, Mortuary
O. Garden Supplies and Equipment' Sales and Service
P. Hotels/Motels
Q. Mini-Storage or Mini-Warehouse
R. Music and Recording Studios
S. Nurseries (Retail)
T. Offices, Administrative or Corporate Headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. ft.
U. Pawnshops
V. Pest Control Services
W. Printing and Publishing
X. Radio and Broadcasting Studios, Offices
Y. Recycling Collection Facilities
Z. Restaurant, Drive-in
AA. Rooming and Boarding Houses
BB. Taxi or Limousine Service
CC. Tile Sales
DD. Wedding Chapels
(2)
The following uses are conditionally permitted in Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 12
subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
B.
C.
D.
Parcel DeliveryServices
Convenience Market
Liquor Stores
Restaurant, Fast Food
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 15
Wolf Creek Zoning
(3)
(4)
The development standards for Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan NO. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the CC Community Commercial District in Section
17.08.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Except as provided above, ali other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 16
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 14 - PI Zone Recreational, Fire Station or Library
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 14 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the PI Public Institutional District of Chapter 17.12 of the City of
Temecula Development Code. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section
17.12.030 shall also include fire stations.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 14 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the PI Public Institutional District Zone in Section
17.12.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 17
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 15 - M Zone Single Family Residential (5~000 s.f. lots)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 15 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the M Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 15 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
F.
G.
H.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15) and a minimum of ten feet (10%
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for
entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot
(10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square
feet (800 sq. ft.).
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 18
Wolf Creek Zoning
Plannim, Area 16 - L-2 Zone Single Famil~ Residential (20~000 s.f. lots)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 16 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the L-2 Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Ai'ea 16 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the L-2 Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except the following:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than one hundred feet (100%
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than ninety feet (90').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty-five feet (25').
The comer side yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15').
The interior side yard shall be not less than ten feet (Iff).
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20').
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(Iff) from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 25 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 25 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 19
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 17 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (6~000 s.f. lots)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 17 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 17 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20').
The comer side yard shall he not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20').
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000
Page 20
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 18- M Zone Single Family Residential (Courtyard Homes)
(i)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the M District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development
Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
E.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) square feet.
The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30').
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than thirty feet (30').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than sixty-five feet (65').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum of ten feet (Iff).
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall have a minimum setback of zero feet (0).
The rear yard shall be not less than five feet (5').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way
entrances that face the street and ten feet Off) for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type
garage doors shall be required.
Patio covers for side and r~ar yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
(4)
When courtyard homes are implemented, proper site design involves detailed integration
of architectural floor plan design with plotting and site design. Therefore, a Planned
Development Overlay (PDO) Plan approval by the Planning Commission subject to the
requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code shall be required. The
Development Plan submittal shall include an architectural design package including
floorplans and elevations for all product types proposed. Minimum rear yard
requirements are set at five feet for courtyard home products, however courtyard home
site planning is highly dependent on integration of product design and placement of
homes on the lots. The Development Plan must demonstrate a minimum of 200 square
feet of usable private yard space for ~ach lot.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 21
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 18 - H Zone Multiple Family Senior Housing (Option)
(If courtyard homes are not implemented)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the H Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the H Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30').
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than one hundred feet (100').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of twenty feet
(20') and a minimum of ten feet (10').
The comer side yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15').
Variable interior side yard setbacks may be permitted provided the sum of the
setbacks shall not be less than ten feet (10') and the distance between adjacent
structures shall not be less than ten feet (10').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20).
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20') from the right-of-way entrances
that face the street and ten feet (10') for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type garage
doors shall be required.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of five feet (5') from the property line.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 22
Wolf Creek Zoning
plannin.o Area 20 - M Zone Single Family Residential (5,000 s.f. lots)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 20 of Specific Plan NO. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the M Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 20of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80).
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum of ten feet (10').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for
entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot
(10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square
feet (800 sq. ft.).
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 23
Wolf Creek
Planning Area 21 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (6,000 s.f. lots)
Zoning
(i)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 21 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those
uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 21 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20').
The coruer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (Iff).
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20').
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 24
Wolf Creek
(i)
Zoning
Planning Area 22 - LM Zone ,glm, le Family Residential (7,200 s.f. lots)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 22 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be 'the same as those
uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula
Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 22 of Specific Plan No. i2 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City
of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
C.
D.
E.
F.
H.
I.
J.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than seventy-two hundred (7,200) square
feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20').
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
(3)
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those
requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 25
Wolf Creek
Plannin? Area 23 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (5,500 s.f. lots)
Zoning
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 23 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as
those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of
Temecula Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 23 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the
same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040
of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
Minimum net lot area shall not be less than fifty-five thousand (5,500) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50').
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum of ten feet (Iff).
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet {5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for
entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot
· (10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of
the lot coverage.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 26
Wolf Creek Zoning
Planning Area 24 - City Sports Park
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 24 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as
those uses permitted in the PR Parks and Recreation District of Chapter 17.14 of the City
of Temecula Development Code and shall also include as permitted uses:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Trails, including bicycle and pedestrian trails.
Lighted athletic fields.
Picnic group facilities.
Parking areas and lots.
Restrooms and snack bars.
Restaurants (no alcoholic beverage sales or drive thrus).
Skate parks.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 24 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same
as those standards identified for the PR Parks and Recreation District in Section 17.14.040
of the City of Temecula Development Code.
planning Area 24- LM Zone Single Family Residential (Option) (5,500 s.f. lots) (If City
Sports Park option is not implemented)
(1)
The uses permitted in Planning Area 24 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as
those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of
Temecula Development Code.
(2)
The development standards for Planning Area 24 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the
same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040
of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following:
B.
C.
D.
Minimum n~t lot area shall not be less than fifty-five thousand (5,500) square feet.
The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50).
The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').
The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet
(15') and a minimum of ten feet (10').
The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10').
The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum
five feet (5').
The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20').
The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for
entrances that face the street. R011-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot
(Iff) setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage.
Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of
five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be
a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 27
Wolf Creek
K.
Zonin
Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet
(10~) from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a
minimum of three feet (3~) from the property line.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of
the lot coverage.
The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of
the lot coverage.
Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 28
EXHIBIT A
REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP~TAFFRPT. PC for 12-6-00.doc
21
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA98-0481 (Specific Plan)
Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Revised December 6, 2000
AIR QUALITY
1. General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Long-term operational emissions due to vehicular travel will
exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Establish bus routes and stops to service the residents within
the specific plan area.
The City shall notify the Riverside Transit Agency or other
responsible public transit provider of pending development
applications within the specific plan, in order that the agency
may assess and identify demand for bus service.
Prior to the approval of development plans or tentative tract
maps
Planning Department
AIR QUALITY
2. General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Long-term operational emissions due to vehicular travel will
exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
The developer shall provide bus turnouts at strategic locations
throughout the project.
The City shall review and condition project entitlements which
are adjacent to or include identified bus routes that serve the
residents in the specific plan area.
Prior to the approval of development plans or tentative tract
maps
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
R:kS P\WolfCrcck SP~ditigation Monitoring Program.doc
ENERGY CONSERVATION
3. General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
ENERGY CONSERVATION
4. General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Long-term operational emissions due to on-site energy
consumption will exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Compliance with applicable energy conservation guidelines for
construction in accordance with the most recent edition of the
Uniform Building Code and any other City requirements.
The developer shall submit planchecks that include compliance
with energy conservation guidelines for City review and
approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building Department
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Long-term operational emissions due to on-site energy
consumption will exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
The developer shall install energy-efficient lighting for all
lighting systems.
The developer shall submit planchecks that include energy-
efficient lighting.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Building Department
LAND USE PLANNING
1. 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
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~litigation Monitoring Program.doc
2
LAND USE PLANNING
I. General Impact: Conflict with Metropolitan Water District plans for the San
Diego Pipeline No. 6 alignment and related construction and
operation activities
Mitigation Measure: Coordination of design activities between the Developer and
Metropolitan Water District
Specific Process: Clearance from MWD
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of the
Final Map
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works and Planning Department
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
General Impact: Exposure to seismic ground shaking
Mitigation Measure: Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards
Specific Process: A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit
Responsible Monitor: Depattinent of Public Works and the Building and Safety
Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to seismic ground shaking
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the
Uniform Building Code
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety
Department for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a building permit
Building and Safety Department
RAS P~WolfCreek SPWlitigation Monitoring Pro~'am.doc
3
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:
Responsible Monitor:
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 ora 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 by the planting of slopes
consistent with Ordinance No. 457
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 Depmhnent
R:~S P~WolfCr~:k Sp~vlitigation Monitoring Program.doc
4
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Affecting the capacity of soils to adequately support the use of
septic systems
Conduct a Soils Percolation Test
The submittal of the results of the Soils Percolation Test and
clearance from the Department of Environmental Health for
septic sewage disposal systems
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
General Impact: The degradation of water quality and/or waste discharge
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 Resoumes Board.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Create excessive runoff exceeding the capacity of existing
facilities
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
R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP~Mitigation Monitoring program.doc
5
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
An increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and the
capacity of the existing street system
Payment of fees to contribute to City-wide traffic
improvements
Payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) for commercial
development
Prior to the issuance of a building permit
Depza tment of Public Works
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Alter federally protected wetlands
Compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish' and
Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game,
and the Army Corps of Engineers
Obtain a 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement fi.om the
Department of Fish and Game and a 404 Permit fi.om the Army
Corps of Engineers
Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Planning Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds)
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo
Rat habitat
Prior to the issuance ora grading permit
Department of Public Works and the Planning Department
R:~S P\WolfCr~ek SP~Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc
6
HAZARDS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
NOISE
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
PUBLIC SERVICES
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to significant hazard
Obtain clearances from the Department of Environmental
Health, Fire and Building Departments for the use of hazardous
substances, their storage, quantities, security and handling
Submit clearance letters and/or signatures to the Building
Department
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Building and Safety Department and the Fire Department
Exposure to significant noise levels
The developer shall participate in any noise mitigation program
established by the City.
Payment of fair share costs of mitigation measures
commensurate with noise impacts attributable to Wolf Creek
traffic.
Prior to the roadway widening construction on Pala Road
Public Works Department and the Planning Department
Need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire or
police protection
Payment of Development Impact Fees for Fire and Police
Mitigation
Payment of DIF to the Building Department
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Building Department
R:LS l~WolfCreek SPhMitigation Monitoring Program.doc
7
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Need for new/altered schools.
Payment of School Fees
Payment ¤t mitigation fees to the Temecula Valley
Unified School District
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Building Department
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Adequate capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities
Verify the adequacy of existing facilities and require upgrading
or upsizing of these facililties where necessary
Prepare and submit a Hydrology Report to the Public Works
Department for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Depa~'tment of Public Works
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light
and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No.
655
Submit lighting plans that conform to the requirements of
Ordinance No. 655 to the Building and Safety Department for
review and approval
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Building and Safety Department; Planning Department
R:~S P\WolfCr¢¢k SPUvlitigation Monitoring Program.doc
8
CULTURAL RESOURCES
General Impact:
Adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource
Mitigation Measure:
Identify, recover, preserve and document resources of
historical and archaeological significance
Specific Process:
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.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading
operations
Responsible Monitor: Planning Department and Department of Public Works
R:XS P\WolfCreek SPWlitigation Monitoring Program.doc
9
ATTACHMENT NO. $
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO
OCTOBER 4, 2000
R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc
24
FAX~D
Pamela L. Miod
3199§ Via .Saltio
Temeculo, CA 92~92
909.30~.6744
~5 I~Ovember 2000
Carole Dona/me, ASsociate Planner
City of Temeculo Planning Doper?men?
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecu/a, Ca 92590
Wolf Creek Specific Plan Final Environme~?a~ ~mpoct Report, .SCH ~t88030705, August 2000
De~. ARs. Donahoe,
Due to u~.xpected circumstances, ! om unable ?o attend the Planning Commission meeting this
even rig.
However, ! would like to go on necord once agoin in opposition of the above-mentioned project. 'i'he
reasons for my opposition are detailed in my previous letters of 6 September 2000,
20 ,September 2000 and 4 October 2000.
.This project will bring severe impacts to the surrounding communities. Furthermore, the cumulative
~mpocts of this project have not been adequately addressed, as stated in my previous letters.
Thank you for making my Comments a port of the public record for this prOject.
Respectfully,
Pamela L. Miod
ATrACHMENT NO. 6
APPLICANTS RESPONSES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS
DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2000
R:\S P~Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT,PC for 12-6-00.doc
25
WOLF CREEK
RESPONSES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS
November 28, 2000
INTRODUCTION
The City of Temecula Planning Commission considered the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 and
EIR/EIR Addendums No. 1 and 2 and associated actions on September 6, 2000, September 20. 2000
and October 4,2000, at a duly noticed public hearing 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.
At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony both oral
and written, the Commission recommended that the City Council deny, collectively, the Application,
Certification of the EIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on the basis that the
project was not wholly in conformance with the City's General Plan and Growth Management
Program Action Plan goals and policies.
City Staff prepared draft findings in response to Planning Commission input. The Applicant has
reviewed the draft findings and has modified and augmented the project to bring the Wolf Creek
Specific Plan into conformance with the City's General Plan and Growth Management Action Plan.
The following document includes the draft findings. The findings as drafted by staff are in italics.
Each finding .is followed by a Project Consistency analysis that indicates why the revised project is
in compliance with the City's General Plan and the Growth Management Action Plan.
Page 1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
A. The project as proposed and conditioned is not compatible with the health,
safery and weIfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and
determined to be in conformance, in part, with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design
Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and
standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The overall concept and
general development proposal is of high quaIity. The proposal has the potential of providing an
enhancement to the quality of life for the City as a result of the proposed amenities and the
foreseeable quality of design and improvements within the development. However, the specific plan
(pa-98-0481) does not adequately address certain factors in relation to the General Plan,
Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Action Plan. This Commission has
determined, after deliberation upon the testimony, and has identified the following matters, which it
believes are not adequately addressed. The Planning Commission finds all matters not addressed in
the following to be compatible with the regulatory documents of the City and finds that such matters
will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The areas within the
proposed specific plan that require either clarification or augmentation, or both, are:
1. Zoning Based Development Standards. The property development standards
set forth in Specific Plan No. 12 are not consistent with the adopted City Development Code and
Design Guidelines. The Specific Plan proposes residential lot sizes below those authorized by the
Development Code. The Planning Commission has reviewed the standards and understands the
Applicant's desire to offer a wide range of housing options. However, this Commission has not
received testimony that it believes warrants a deviation from the City's current development
standards. The City's development standards reflect the implementation of the mandates in the
General Plan and should not be deviated from unless the alternate proposal substantially conforms to
the goals and policies in the General Plan, provides first class design attributes and assists the
community in achieving satisfaction of the intent of the Development Code. This Planning
Commission is aware of and has balance the following policies within the City's General Plan for
Land Use in reaching its conclusion that the project should not be approved.
Proiect Consistency: The property development standards set forth in the Specific
Plan do not have to be consistent in every last detail with the City's Development
Code. Specific Plans are defined in the City's General Plan (Land Use Chapter,
Section V. Implementation Programs) as an implementation tool that replaces the
zoning as prescribed in the Development Code. The General Plan specifically states
in Paragraph C, Specific Plans, "A specific plan is regulatory in effect and replaces
the prescribed zoning for the specific plan area." Zoning is found in the
Development Code. Therefore, it is intended that the Specific Plan replace the zoning
standards of the Development Code. As long as the Goals of the General Plan are
otherwise met by the Specific Plan, the actual standards contained in the Specific Plan
Page 2
zoning may be more strict or more lenient or a combination thereof when compared to
the Development Code. In point of fact, the Specific Plan development standards are
in some cases more strict and in other cases more lenient than the City's zoning
standards as contained in the Development Code.
Section 17.06.050 (a), Residential Density Incentives, allows increases in the
maximum residential density compared to the target density shown in the
Development Standards for Residential Districts up the General Plan maximum.
These increases are allowed if it can be shown that the project will "provide
outstanding and exceptional benefits to the City, exceptional landscape design
amenities [such as] landscaped entry features in the public right-of-way, public trail
systems or public plazas [or] new public facilities which are needed by the CiO' [such
as] community meeting centers, needed transportation improvements, offsite traffic
signalization, police or fire stations, public recreation facilities...." Although not
specifically stated, it must be assumed that some relief from the City's Development
Standards would be granted or it would not be possible to achieve the higher density
allowed by the General Plan in exchange for the additional public benefits.
As City staff evaluations show, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan is developing at or
below the General Plan minimums (except in the case that senior housing is
constructed in which case the project only slightly exceeds the General Plan
minimums) even though the project provides exceptional design amenities and needed
public facilities. Instead, the Specific Plan allows reduced setback standards in a
limited number of applications in exchange for providing the following significant
benefits for the City: the City Sports Park including a community meeting center,
transportation improvements (Pala Road widening and additional Right-of-Way for
six lanes, Loma Linda Road, Wolf Valley Road, Deer Hollow Road), on- and off-site
drainage facilities, noise mitigation for existing residents, elementary and middle
schools, public trail systems (bicycle and pedestrian), public plazas, entry landscaping,
center median landscaping in Wolf Valley Road, creative mixtures of housing types
(courtyard homes and seniors housing in addition to conventional single family
dwellings) and a fire station site
Policy 1.1 of Goal J of Section 111 of the Land Use Element in the General Plan
requires this Commission to "review all proposed development plans for consistency with the
community goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan,"
Policy 1.2 identifies the policy to "Promote the use of innovative site planning
techniques that contribute towards the development of a variety of residential product styles and
designs including housing suitable to the community's labor force '; and,
Policy 3.1 "consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in
terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of
existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and
other environmental conditions." The development proposal does not offer project amenities and
innovative site planning techniques and certainty of design so as to justify deviation from the City's
existing standards.
Pro[ect Consistency: The Planning Commission has conducted significant public
review of the project by conducting a scoping session and four public heatings. In
Page 3
addition, the project was presented to the surrounding community in a publicly
advertised community workshop and several meetings with adjacent homeowners and
homeowners associations.
The project includes courtyard homes that utilize innovative site planning techniques
to provide affordable single-family detached housing for the community's labor force.
The project also provides an option for seniors housing in a village center setting.
This situation occurs nowhere else in the City.
The revised project is compatible with adjacent properties. Adjacent land uses east of
the project in Redhawk and Vail Ranch consist of single family residential uses (5,000
minimum lot size), parks and schools. The City's General Plan Land Use Map shows
these uses to be Low Medium residential and Public/Institutional Facilities. The same
exact uses are shown on the City's General Plan for the adjacent portions of the Wolf
Creek site. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan implements the Low Medium (3 - 6 du/ac)
residential and Public/Institutional Facilities uses shown on the City's General Plan by
providing a middle school, an expansion of Kent Himergardt Park and single family
residential housing of varying densities but with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square
feet.
West of the project across Pala Road, the City's General Plan shows Low Medium
residential uses north of Wolf Valley Road. The minimum lot sizes in this area range
from 4,500 to 7,200 square feet as depicted in the Assessor's records. The City, in
approving its General Plan, determined that Low Medium and High Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial uses on the Wolf Creek site would be compatible with the
existing residential areas west of Pala Road and north of Wolf Valley Road. The
Wolf Creek Specific Plan as currently designed provides for minimum 5,000 and
7,200 square foot single family residential uses in the areas designated for Low
Medium uses and reduces the density in the area shown for High Density residential
uses to fit the Medium density residential category of the General Plan. The project
will implement the Neighborhood Commercial uses shown in the General Plan at the
comer of Pala and Wolf Valley Road. The Wolf Creek project will further enhance
compatibility for uses west of Pala Road by providing Open Space/Recreation use as
defined by the General Plan in the form of the Drainage Greenbelt buffer that will be
implemented along the Pala Road frontage.
South of Wolf Valley Road and west of Pala Road, the General Plan depicts a Not a
Part (the Pechanga Casino and associated uses) and Low Residential. The General
Plan identifies Community Commercial, High and Low Medium Residential and
Public/Institutional uses for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and determined that those
uses would be compatible with the General Plan designations west of Pala Road. The
Wolf Creek Specific Plan implements the Community Commercial, Low Medium
Residential and Public Institutional uses by providing Village Center Community
Commercial uses, single family homes at 5,000 and 5.,500 square foot minimums and
a City Sports Park. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan reduces the density of the area
shown for High Residential uses to Medium Residential uses in order to meet the
goals of the City's Growth Management Action Plan. The Drainage Greenbelt buffer
will be implemented along the Pala Road frontage to further buffer these adjacent
uses.
Page 4
The north and south portions of Wolf Creek are consistent with the General Plan land
use designations for those portions of the property and will therefore be consistent
with adjacent uses to the south and north respectively.
Further this Commission believes the overall development presents an overabundance of
medium density residential development and an inadequate amount of Low-medium housing
densities, thus failing to satisfy the goals inherent in Land Use Policy 1.2.
Proiect Consistency: The revised project converts approximately half of the land
designated by the adopted General Plan for High Residential to Medium Residential in
order to comply with the City's Growth Management Action Plan and in response to
land use compatibility issues raised by residents adjacent to the project. Furthermore.
the Specific Plan proposes that the Courtyard Homes, an innovative and affordable
site planning and product design concept, be implemented for all of the medium
density areas unless High Residential development for seniors housing, which is
specifically targeted as desirable in the General Plan (Section III.B.1 of the Housing
Chapter of the General Plan), is implemented. The project provides almost the same
acreage of Low-medium housing as specified by the General Plan. Those areas will
be implemented at an average density that yields the low end of the General Plan
density range for the Low-medium category in order to implement the City's Growth
Management Action Plan.
In summary, the Planning Commission recommends utilizing the existing 7,200 square foot
lot size with a minimum thirty-five (35) percent lot coverage standard based upon the testimony.
Proiect Consistency: The project has been revised to eliminate 4,000 and 4,500
square foot product types and to further reduce the land allocated for High Density
product types. In addition, the project contributes significant public benefits by
providing exceptional design amenities and needed public facilities as identified in the
General Plan and as specifically discussed under "Project Consistency" above. The
project also results in implementation of the General Plan land uses at the low end of
the density range in furtherance of the City's Growth Management Action Plan, even
though the project provides significant public benefits that would otherwise allow the
project to develop at densities higher than the low end of the General Plan density
range. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Specific Plan to allow single family lots as
small as 5,000 square feet with moderate increases in lot coverage standards as
provided for in the Specific Plan Development Standards
2. Design and Development Guidelines. The Design Guidelines set forth in
Specific Plan No. 12 present a valuable starting point but are inadequate. The inadequacy is the lack
of detailed goals and policies that will direct those.future persons developing the various tracts within
Specific Plan No. 12. The deficiencies in the Guidelines are:
A. Identify standards allowing for narrower public streets (revise
Street sections).
Proiect Consistency: The Wolf Creek Specific Plan includes several options for
narrower local public streets. Cross sections of these streets are depicted on Figure
III-4C (page III-16)in the Specific Plan document. In addition, a separate exhibit
entitled, Through Local Streets (Option 2), has been presented by the Applicant under
Page 5
separate cover. The Specific Plan identifies potential options for narrower public
streets include a street cross section with a 56-foot right-of-way for Through Local
Streets, a 56-foot right of way for cul-de-sacs and short local streets, and a 50-foot
right-of-way option for cul-de-sacs. However, both the City's Public Works and
Public Safety depamments have expressed concerns over fire safety relative to the use
of narrower streets within Wolf Creek. Because the Wolf Creek Specific Plan allows
for nan'ower streets as an option, it will be up to the City to determine whether to
allow the narrower street options. The Applicant has agreed to construct streets to the
widths ultimately determined by the City.
B. Develop criteria for locating sidewalks both at back of curb and
behind a landscaped right-of-way area and identify Homeowners Association maintenance
alternative:
Proiect Consistency: Using curbs adjacent to sidewalks on residential streets provides
the following benefits over separated parkways:
· Easier passenger access from on-street parking;
· Enhanced front yard appearance with deeper lawn area;
Ability to plant trees with less concern over root intrusion and damage to
hardscape;
Control of maintenance by homeowner with less likelihood that the parkway
section will be ignored. Separated parkways are often poorly maintained;
· Uniformity in use and appearance with front yard; and
· Enhanced driveway depth will keep vehicles out of pedestrian right-of-way.
As an alternative, however, incorporating a landscape parkway between the sidewalk
and the curb offers several advantages:
There appears to be less pavement and more vegetation, creating a nicer street
scene appearance.
Pedestrians are physically separated from automobile traffic, creating a greater
sense of security for the pedestrians.
Parkways allow trees to be planted close to the street pavement, creating the
appearance of a narrower streetscene.
Parkways can be uniformly maintained by an Homeowner's Association or
other entity, ensuring a consistent streetscene appearance.
Options for both curb/gutter/sidewalk and curb/parkway/sidewalk are depicted on
Figure rn-4c (page III-16) in the Specific Plan document. In addition, a separate
exhibit entitled, Through Local Streets (Option 2), has been presented by the
Applicant to you under separate cover. Potential options for narrower public streets
Page 6
include a street cross section with a 56-foot right-of-way for Through Local Streets. a
56-foot right of way for cul-de-sacs and short local streets, and a 50-foot right-of-way
option for cul-de-sacs.
C. Develop architectural guidelines that:
1. Provide for enhanced definition of architectural criteria to assure
diversi~., rather than uniformity in housing type, including a mix of one and two stoo' housing, and
comprehensive "architecture forward" design criteria and a variety of alternate garage configura-
tions.
Project Consistency: The comprehensive architectural design guidelines contained
within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan will ensure that all dwelling units are designed to
present an articulated, visually interesting facade from all streets. Special attention is
given to corner lots. The residential design guidelines are comprehensive and cover
an extensive array of information including:
Building elevations/facade articulation/building elements -- pages IV-55 & 60
Architectural massing, height & scale -- pages IV49 & 53
Building siting & orientation -- pages IV-43 & 59
Materials and colors -- pages IV-54 & 60
Roof-types and variations - pages IV-55 & 60
Windows and doors -- pages IV-50 & 56
Patios, balconies and porches -- pages IV-51, 56 & 61
Architectural detailing -- pages IV-52, 57, 58 & 59
Walls and fences -- pages IV-57 & 60
Laundry facilities (Multi-Family Senior Residential only) -- see page IV-59
Handicapped Units (Multi-Family Senior Residential only) -- see pages IV-59
& 60
Security (Multi-Family Senior Residential only) -- see page IV-60
Patios and balconies (Multi-Family Senior Residential only) -- page IV-61
The design guidelines encourage single-story elements on comer lots:
"The use of a mixture of one- and two-story elements are encouraged." (p. IV-
53)
· "Varied roof forms are encouraged" (p. IV-53)
Single-story elements are encouraged to reduce architectural massing when
located on a corner lot." (p. IV-53)
"Homes shall maintain low lines and horizontal forms as feasible, especially
on comer lots2 (p. IV-53)
"Building projections and recesses shall be provided on the front facade of
each residential structure." (page IV-53)
"The highly visible front, side, and rear elevations of home located adjacent to
major circulation corridors shall include architectural enhancements.
Page 7
Examples of possible enhancements to side and rear building elevations
include: changing roof lines, incorporating dormers with windows into roofs.
varying siding material(s) and/or color(s), installation of window trim on
second stories, and using shutters to frame windows." (page IV-53)
"Two-story elevations shall be visually broken up with offset stories, changes
in materials, architectural banding or other similar accents, and/or sloping roof
lines. This is especially important where two or more elevations of a
residence are prominently visible, as at stxeet corners." (page IV-54)
A variety of alternative garage configurations are depicted on Figures IV-34A-D,
Front Yard Setbacks, on pages IV-36 tlxrough IV-39 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
These exhibits illusu'ate the following garage configuration options available in Wolf
Creek:
Front-Facing Garage (18' minimum setback)
Side-Facing Garage (garage door does not face sn'eet)
Attached Rear Garage with Optional Archway (this option places the attached
garage at the rear of the lot)
Detached Rear Garage Setback with Optional Archway (this option places the
detached garage at the rear of the lot)
Split Car Garage (2 car and 1 car garage are separated; 1 car garage is side-
facing)
2. Provide for and define alternate roofing styles and
materials, siding materials and treatments, front porches, and alternate construction materials and
technologies;
Proiect Consistency: The Wolf Creek Specific Plan allows for simple gable, hip or
shed roof forms (see page IV-55). Page IV-55 also includes discussion of roofing
materials, colors, pitches, and design. Front porches are discussed on pages IV-56
under Balconies and Porches. Building materials and usage are identified on pages
IV-54 and 60. The Specific Plan does not preclude use of alternate construction
materials and technologies.
3. Provide detailed landscape and architectural standards
for any parcel under five thousand (5000) square feet.
Pro[ect Consistency: The current Wolf Creek project proposal does not include any
residential lots smaller than 5,000 square feet in size.
3. Land-Use. The land use matrix for the Neighborhood Commercial and
Community Commercial zoning districts shall be modified as set forth on Attachment 1.
Project Consistency: The land use matrix will be modified to comply with
Attachment 1.
Page 8
4. Village Center. The city of Temecula General Plan identifies and
encourages the creation of Village Centers. Village Centers are discussed within Goal 5 of Section 3
and within Section B of Part IV of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Village Center
proposed in Specific Plan No. 12 represents a valuable starting point for the ultimate design ora
Village Center that conforms to the General Plan. However, this Commission cannot recommend
approval until refinements are made to the proposed development. The necessary refinements are
consistent with the following General Plan policy statements:
5.2 "Require the provision of pedestrian and bicycle linkages from
residential areas to open space/recreation facilities, commercial and employment centers." The
proposed Village Center, as configured is not conductive to pedestrian and bicycle usage. The
Applicant should consider a redesign that integrates higher density (medium density) residential in
the area between Pala Road and the loop road together with low-medium density from residential
areas to the Village Center must be integrated into the specific plan land use distribution so as to
encourage non-vehicular travel.
Pro[ect Consistency: Residential areas within Wolf Creek will be connected to the
Village Center via a 10-foot .wide pedestrian path/Class I bike trail adjacent to the
Interior Loop Road. In addition, sidewalks and on-street Class 1I bike lanes will allow
residents convenient non-vehicular access to the Village Center. A 30-foot wide
"green necklace" linear park along the Interior Loop Road will connect residential
neighborhoods with schools, parks, fire station, library/recreation center in the Village
Center, and to double as a recreational amenity and a pedestrian link to surrounding
off-site development.
The community's pedestrian/bicycle trail system will offer residents convenient and
safe access from their homes to nearby schools, parks and recreation facilities within
Wolf Creek. The school sites will be readily accessible by students through a
pedestrian/bicycle trail network designed to maximize pedestrian safety and facilitate
pedestrian movement on-site, thereby minimizing the need for unnecessary vehicular
trips on the major arterials.
5.6 Encourage higher density residential, mixed use development,
and supporting public and community facilities within Village Centers. The Applicant should
reconsider the proposed density and mixture of uses in light of the foregoing policy. A greater
mixture of uses should be considered so as to provide incentive for the residents to utilize the Village
Center for service and commercial needs.
Proiect Consistency: The "SP" zoning designation to accommodate a wide range of
housing product types within the Specific Plan, including both single-family and
multi-family housing. Wolf Creek is designed to provide a wide variety of housing
types, lot sizes and price ranges to accommodate the needs of all income levels of the
population, which will contribute to the City's fair share of low and moderate income
housing.
Conventional single-family housing types within Wolf Creek will range from 5,000 to
20,000 square feet, including:
· Estate-type residential lots;
Page 9
Conventional single-family lots;
Zero lot line housing; and
Patio homes.
The community includes designated areas for innovative single-family detached
courtyard homes at densities of up to 9.5 du/ac. As an option, multi-family senior
housing may be provided at 22 du/ac in PA 18. The project also proposes some small
lot single-family detached housing in the medium density courtyard home
neighborhoods. These neighborhoods will providing ownership opportunities for
seniors, first time home buyers, singles and busy professionals looking for smaller,
less maintenance-intensive lots.
Wolf Creek's variety of lot sizes and housing types will allow diversity in
architectural expression, building massing and streetscenes not typically found in
neighborhoods of homogeneous lots and houses. The WOLFCREEK Specific Plan
includes standards and guidelines to promote architectural variation and articulation,
while ensuring architectural continuity.
It should be noted that the Wolf Creek project, while providing for residential
diversity throughout the project as well as higher density housing near the Village
Center, will not exceed the maximum for each residential density range as identified
in the City's General Plan. In fact, the 1,881 to 2,022 dwelling units planned for Wolf
Creek are significantly less than the 3,236 dwelling units City staff determined is
permitted by the General Plan.
5. 7 "Establish design guidelines, development standards, and
incentive programs for uses within Village Centers." The Specific Plan No. 12 standards must either
conform to the Development Code or alternately, present a more thorough an detailed set of
development code and architectural design standards. The present plan is without sufficient detail so
as to provide reliable guidance to futare users of the Specific Plan.
Proiect Consistency: The project already contains a strong and thorough set of
design guidelines for the Village Center. These guidelines are present on pages IV-1
through IV-25 and are very detailed. The guidelines includes discussions of:
Site planning (pages IV-l, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 18 (Figure IV-17), 19 (Figure
IV-18), 20, 23, 24 & 25)
Land use variety (page IV-3)
The Village Center's strong pedestrian orientation (page IV-3)
Typical building facades (pages IV-4 & 5)
Building scale and design (pages IV-7 & 8)
Parking lot design (pages IV-9, 10, I 1, 12, 13 & 17)
Pedestrian nodes, plazas & linkages (pages IV-5, 6, 7 & 17)
Landmark elements (page IV-8)
Building and monument signage (pages IV-13, 14, 15 & 16)
5.10 "Ensure that adequate public gathering areas or plazas are
incorporated within Village Centers to allow for social interaction and community activities." The
proposed plan does not demonstrate the presence of adequate public assembly areas.
Page 10
Proiect Consistency: Figure IV-1 in the Specific Plan is entitled, "Village Center
Pedestrian Linkages and Gathering Place." It depicts one "Community Hub," two residential
gathering places, three pedestrian plazas, several "Pedestrian Connections," a meandering
Class I bike lane/pedestrian pathway, pedestrian secondary routes and Class I1 bike routes.
The project provides a variety of public gathering areas and plazas within the Village Center.
The most visible plaza is located at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and the Interior Loop
Road. This plaza is clearly depicted on Figure ffl-1 on page 1II-32 in the Specific Plan. Other
gathering areas include the City Sports Park with its gazebo, pergola, picnic tables and tot lot
(see Figure Ill-10 on page III-31), and the activity nodes (see Figure III-12 on page III-34).
There are three activity nodes located throughout the project along the Interior Loop Road.
Figure IV-27 depicts a commercial pedestrian plaza/gathering place that is easily accessible
from an adjoining single-family home subdivision. In addition, page IV-27 includes a
statement that Uenn'y courtyards and plaza spaces are encouraged." Also, Figure IV-18 on
page IV-19 depicts a public plaza at the southeast comer of the Wolf Valley Road/Interior
Loop Road intersection. Figure IV-17 on page IV-18 depicts two commercial gathering
plazas. The two school sites will also function as gathering places for social interaction and
community activities, as will the private recreation center and the public neighborhood parks.
B. The Project is not compatible with surrounding land uses because of the
deficiencies identified in Section A above. The project does not propose, generally, residential
development adjacent to existing, surrounding neighborhoods with interface buffers and to
substantial to complete roadway improvements. The commercial component does attempt to
implement the Village Center concept at a site located across from the Pechanga Casino.
Project Consistency: Adjacent land uses east of the project in Redhawk and Vail
Ranch consist of single family residential uses (5,000 minimum lot size), parks and
schools. The City's General Plan Land Use Map shows these uses to be Low Medium
residential and Public/Institutional Facilities. The same exact uses are shown on the
City's General Plan for the Wolf Creek site. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan
implements the Low Medium (3 - 6 du/ac) residential and Public/Institutional
Facilities uses shown on the City's General Plan by providing a middle school, an
expansion of Kent Hintergardt Park and single family residential housing of varying
densities but with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
West of the project across Pala Road, the City's General Plan shows Low Medium
residential uses north of Wolf Valley Road. The minimum lot sizes in this area range
from 4,500 to 7,200 square feet as depicted in the Assessor's Records. The City, in
approving its General Plan determined that Low Medium and High Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial uses on the Wolf Creek site would be compatible with the
existing residential areas west of Pala Road and north of Wolf Valley Road. The
Wolf Creek Specific Plan as currently designed provides for minimum 5,000 and
7,200 square foot single family residential uses in the areas designated for Low
Medium uses and reduces the density in the area shown for High Density residential
uses to fit the Medium density residential category of the General Plan. The project
will implement the Neighborhood Commercial uses shown in the General Plan at the
comer of Pala and Wolf Valley Road. The Wolf Creek project will further enhance
compatibility for uses west of Pala Road by providing Open Space/Recreation use as
defined by the General Plan in the form of the Drainage Greenbelt buffer that will be
implemented along the Pala Road frontage.
Page 11
South of Wolf Valley Road and west of Pala, the General Plan depicts a Not a Part
(the Pechanga Casino and associated uses) and Low Residential. The General Plan
identifies Community Commercial, High and Low Medium Residential and
Public/Institutional uses for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and determined that those
uses would be compatible with the General Plan designations west of Pala Road. The
Wolf Creek Specific Plan implements the Community Commercial, Low Medium
Residential and Public Institutional uses by providing Village Center Community
Commercial uses, single family homes at 5,000 and 5,500 square foot minimums and
the City Sports Park. Wolf Creek Specific Plan reduces the density of the area shown
for High Residential uses to Medium Residential uses in order to meet the goals of the
City's Growth Management Action Plan. The Drainage Greenbelt buffer will be
implemented along the Pala Road frontage to further buffer these adjacent uses.
The north and south portions of Wolf Creek are consistent with the General Plan land
use designations for those portions of the property and will therefore be consistent
with adjacent uses to the south and north respectively.
C. The proposed project will have adverse effect on the community because of the
areas of inconsistency with the General Plan identified in Section A above. The General Plan
Amendment is in a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designation that conforms to the
design of the specific plan. In light of the identified need to augment the Specific Plan, no General
Plan Amendment should occur unless and until Specific Plan No. 12 is revised consistent with these
recommendations.
Proiect Consistency: The Wolf Creek Specific Plan has been modified and
augmented by the applicant to respond to Planning Commission consistency concerns
as outlined in the analysis above.
Page 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 4, 2000
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94)1.doc
27
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 4, 2000
Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek
Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
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 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS
TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0052- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE
SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE
PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES
OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW
AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -
005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SFASTAFFRPT.PC for 10-4-00,doc
1
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-
0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR
THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA
ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -
006 AND -010.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
SP Murdy, LLC
REPRESENTATIVES:
STATUS
Bill Griffith and Camille Bahd, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC
Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
Donald Lohr and Tony Tedch, Lohr + Associates, Inc.
Sam Alhadeff, Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
At their last meeting on September 20, 2000, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing
for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, but asked the applicant to reassemble the various documents
pertaining to the project for their final review. The applicant was asked to return on October 4,
2000, to address Commissioner's concerns regarding the 4,000 and 4,500 square foot lots, the mix
of one and two-story homes in each subdivision, and the list of commercial uses for the
neighborhood and community commercial sites.
Staff received the reassembled documents on Wednesday, September 27, 2000, and the binder
containing these documents is attached. Responses to the concerns noted above shall be
presented verbally at the hearing on October 4, 2000.
CORRESPONDENCE
Staff has provided as Attachment No. 8 all correspondence received since the printing of the first
Staff Report. These documents were previously distributed to the Commission as additional
information, at the September 6 and September 20, 2000 hearings. They have been assembled
here for your convenience, including letters from the same correspondent.
Ballfield Lightinq at the Middle School
The Notice of Public Hearing indicated that the Middle School ballfields would be lighted for
evening play. Redhawk residents adjacent to the Middle School site have voiced opposition to this
activity, as noted in the correspondence received. The Temecula Community Services Distdct has
confirmed that the ballfields at the Middle School site will not be lighted because adequate fields
are available at the proposed community park and City sports park that located in other portions of
the specific plan.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 10-4-00.doc
2
FINDINGS
Planninq Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
and Planninq Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment
The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare
of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staffand determined to
be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and
Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards
that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with
interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is
proposed within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan
Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms
to the design of the specific plan.
Planninq Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
See Attachment 3 for full text.
Planninq Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural
Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process
initiated in 1979.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the
tentative map. The site is generally fiat topographically, with no unique land features. It is
surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses
generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation property across Pala Road.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat
on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site
is surrounded by development and is an infill site.
An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (a) (3), finding that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT,PC for 10-4.00.doc
3
identified in the environmental impact report;
9. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
10. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible
11. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
12. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
13. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has
been conditioned to provide these fees.
Attachments:
5.
6.
7.
8.
PC Resolution for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment- Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Wolf Creek Specific Plan text - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit C - General Plan Amendment - Blue Page 6
PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit B - Revised Exhibit
PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit A - FEIR text - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit B - FEIR Technical Appendices - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit C - Addendum to the FEIR dated August 23, 2000 - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit D - Addendum No. 2 to the FEIR dated September 14, 2000 - (Under Separate
Cover)
Exhibit E - Mitigation Monitoring Program - (Under Separate Cover)
Staff Report dated September 6, 2000 - Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes of September 6, 2000 - Unavailable
Staff Report dated September 20, 2000 - Blue Page 9
planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2000 - Unavailable
Correspondence received subsequent to staff reports - Blue Page 10
a. Endangered Habitats League, Dan Silver, Coordinator, dated 9/3/00.
b. William & Ted Lee Tams, E-mail received 9/4/00.
c. Pamela Miod, correspondence dated 9/6, and fax received 9/20/00.
d. Pamela J. Jones, M.D., fax dated 9/6/00.
e. Sterlyn & Janie Rigsby, correspondence dated 9/6/00.
f. Pechanga Cultural Resource Center, John A. Gomez, Jr., Supervisor, fax dated
9/6/00, and correspondence delivered 9/20/00.
g. Peter Lucier, correspondence delivered to the Commission dated 9/6/00.
h. Tracy Luke, request to inform the Commission per telecon on 9/8/00.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 10-4-00.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. '12
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
R:~PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-94)l.doc
28
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 2000
Planning Application No. 98-0481 -Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek
Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
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 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS
TOTAENG 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 -
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES
INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN
SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT, PC for 9-20-00.doc
1
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECUL.A RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING
APPECATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERPJDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-O01, -
005, -006 AND -010.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
SP Murdy, LLC
REPRESENTATIVES:
Bill Gdffith and Camille Bahri, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC
Ban~ Bumell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
Donald Lohr and Tony Tedch, Lohr + Associates, Inc.
Sam AIhadeff, Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
STATUS
On September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took testimony
from nine citizens for, against or neutral to the project. Additionally, Planning Commissioners
commented upon the following areas of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan: traffic signals and street
widths, village center design, specific plan Zoning Standards and Design Guidelines, and the Final
Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
The Planning Commission continued the matter for two weeks, in order to receive additional
information regarding the proposed regional sports park for Planning Area 24, the former high
school site. Commissioners requested that staff, the applicant, and consultants for the project
respond to their concerns. The applicant was asked to submit a Revised Traffic Study, Specific Plan
Land Use Map, Design Guidelines and Mitigation Monitoring Program no later than Wednesday,
September 13, 2000. Staff will review the revised documents and prepare a verbal response to the
Planning Commission at their hearing on September 20, 2000.
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 9-20-00.doc
2
FINDINGS
Plannin.q Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
and Plannin.q Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment
The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of
the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and
Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards
that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface
buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed
within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan
Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms
to the design of the specific plan.
Planninq Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
See Attachment 3 for full text.
Planninq Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural
Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process
initiated in 1979.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the
tentative map. The site is generally fiat topographically, with no unique land features. It is
surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses
generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation properly across Pata Road.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on
the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is
surrounded by development and is an infill site.
An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report;
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC fef ~-20-00.doc
3
9. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements ara not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
10. The design of the subdivision provides for futura passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible
11. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
12. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
13. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has been
conditioned to provide these fees.
Attachments:
PC Resolution for the Specific Plan - Blue Page 14
Exhibit A - Wolf Craek Specific Plan text - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Revised Conditions at Hearing
Exhibit C - General Plan Comparison
PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 16
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Revised Conditions at Headng
PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report- Blue Page 18
Exhibit A - FEIR text - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit B - FEIR Technical Appendices - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit C -Addendum to the FEIR dated August 23, 2000 - See Staff Report of 9-6-00
Exhibit D - Mitigation Monitoring Program - Revised Program at Hearing
Staff Report dated September 6, 2000 - Blue Page 21
Planning Commission Minutes of September 6, 2000 - Unavailable
R:~.S P\Wolf Creek SP'GTAFFRPT, PC fa' 9-20.-00.doc
4
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Dedicated to Ecosystem Protection and Improved Land Use Planning
Dan Silver * Coordinator
PMB 592
8424-A Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267
TEL 323-654-1456 · FAX 323-654-1931 · dsilver~exo.com
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Planning Commission
ATrN: Carole Donahoe
City of Tcmecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
Sept. 3, 2000
RE: Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission:
In recognition of its many positive features, the Endangered Habitats League (EHL) wishes
to support the Wolf Creek Specific Plan as proposed. For your information, EHL is a Southern
California organization dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and
collaborative conflict resolution. We serve on the Advisory Committees to the three components of
the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP), namely the Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), General Plan Update, and Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Program (MSHCP).
EHL supports the project as proposed for the following reasons:
,, The in-filling of underutilized land within municipal boundaries represents an efficient use
of land.
· A diversity of housing opportunities is offered, all within a high quality setting.
· The village center configuration, which also integrates parks and schools, will create a
livable and vibrant community.
· Walking and biking opportunities will reduce auto trips and pollution compared to other
potential projects.
· The design facilitates adaptation to accommodate a future transit system.
We stress, however, that all these positive qualities absolutely depend upon the provision
of multifamily and smaller lot detached housing. Absent these features, the proposed project
would not produce a "smart growth" outcome. We thus most strongly urge you to retain the
multifamily and smaller lot housing and, indeed, increase their relative proportions.
EHL is, however, concerned over the additive traffic impacts of this and many other
projects, both inside and outside of Temecula. We urge you to effectively address this problem,
including through the CETAP process. In no case, should Temecula sacrifice its finest natural
habitats for ill-conceived highway projects, such as a new Rainbow Canyon Road interchange.
We look forward to wor 'king w/th you to make Temecula a regional leader in integrating
land use and ~xansportation. Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Dan Silver, MD
Coordinator
From: "Mike Naggar" <mnaggar~citycouncil.org>
To: "Sue Steffen" <STEFFENS~co.riverside,ca.us>, "Debhie Ubnoske"
<UBNOSKDS@co.riverside.ca.us>
Date: 9/4/00 4:04PM
Subject: Fw: Road
Sue, Debbie
Please make sure all Planning Commissioners receive a copy of the attached letter. It is in regard to the
Wolf Creek project that is going to be heard on Wednesday the 6th.
Thanks,
Mike
..... Original Message .....
From: Bill Tams
To: mnaggar@citycouncil.org
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 10:20 PM
Subject: Road
Hello Mike Naggar,
My name is Ted Lee Tams, 31430 Loma Linda Road. My family and I live all most across from the
area
that will be home to the Middle School 0Noir Valley Development). I am in agreement we need these
schools.
So please understand I am not against the school issue, but have great concern about the ROAD these
children and parents will be traveling on. The area where the turn around and parking lot will be is the
run
off water drain. During heavy rains that fills up like a large pond. Nothing has come out on what they
(developers) plan on doing. Also the road (Loma Linda Road) between Pala Road and Via Del Coronado
is a nightmare. Full of holes, narrow and No sidewalks. Most of the cars speed down that road in a
hurry to beat the traffic going to 79 Highway. They do not care whether the children are walking on the
side of the
road or in some cases down the middle. They speed past the children barley missing other cars or local
residents walking there pets. In the eady morning it is heavy in fog. (This is of course not year round),
but it
is during most of the school year. The school bus stop for now is on Temecula Lane by the Pala
Community Park.
We have children from Via Cordoba and streets above as will as Loma Linda and all the streets off of it
hitting
the road.
What I am getting at is, what is going to take place first? I know is is a joke if the VOTERS think
they have a
say. But with the added cars we already are dealing with, and you put heavy trucks on this road, it will
not hold up.
Every couple of years the road gets a patch job, and it's way over due. The amount of TRAFFIC that
cuts thru our
area is increasing daily. Most of the cars do not live in this area, and those who so almost never stop at
the
stop signs, and they fly through as if it's Highway 79. The POLICE due give tickets, but we do not have
that
many officers to man the city, let alone this street. I plan on attending the meeting this coming sept. 6.
But if
you don't mind, please answer my questions if you can. I like my friends in Redhawk are having trouble
understanding
this mess.
again thank you.
William L. & Ted Lee Tams
31430 Loma Linda Road
Temecula, California 92592
FAXED AND HAND DELIVERED
6 September 2000
Pamela L. Miod
31995 Via Sa]rio
Temecula, CA 92592
euroconWg pe. net
909.302.6744
SEP 0 s 2000
Corote bonohoe, Associate Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200 gusiness park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Wolf Creek 5pacific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 5CH ~88030705, August 2000
Dear Ms. Donahoe,
After reviewing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEZR), I hove
the following comments and concerns which I respectfully request be made part of the punic
record for the project.
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ~MPACTS:
In my letter to the Planning Commission dated December 13, 1999 1 raised as the primary
issue the inadequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DITIR) with respect to
traffic impacts. The DEZR and the FEIR fail to accurately describe impacts expected
when the Wolf Creek Specific Plan is combined with other approved and planned projects.
Considering how out of date the traffic studies are for this project, t request the city
prepare an up to date traffic study that considers new cumulative impacts and recirculate
it for public review and comment.
The documents utilize and reference prior Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's)
certified many years ego for the cumulative traffic impact analysis. The General Plan
was certified almost seven years ago (1993) and the AD 159 ~R over 12 years ago (1988).
And yet these documents ore the basis of the cumulative traffic impact analysis. The
response to my comments suggests the project will "avoid traffic impacts over the long
term" because baseline conditions were current. However, the response fails to mention
if the 1993 study includes new projects approved or developed since then. The FEIR also
indicates the City is working on o new Circulation Element Update and has prepared a new
study that is not included in the
The FEIR states the cumulative traffic analysis was based on a "worst case" scenario but
the prior documents were prepared before new circumstances arose which could
significantly increase the number of automobiles that will use $.1~. 79, Pala road and
Foirview Avenue. What about the Pachanga Casino, Morgan Hill and the RCZP? What
about the new casinos under construction on Pala Road in San Diego County? Are roads
Pamela L. Miod Page 2 09/06/00
like 5R 79, Polo Road and Fairview Avenue going to be wide enough if the FE'J:R doesn't
include any of those projects in the cumulative traffic study or in light of The proposed
t~eaumont-B~nning/Temecula Corridor in the RCZP?
On page 90 of the FI:'ZR, Table 18 indicates o cumulative ADT of 29,800 on Pala Road
north of P, oinbow Canyon Raad. Traffic figures supplied by the City Public Works
Deportment indicate the road is already carrying over 22,000 ADT before the proJect is
even built. On page 66 it says the Polo Road Bridge will handle 58,400 ADT but on page
90, Table 18 indicates 5.R. 79 will only be at 52,200 ADT with project and cumulative
impacts. Do the cars disappear after they cross the bridge? 5omebody should double
check the projections because there are thousands of new homes proposed to be built in
this project and many others. There are also the new casinos just getting started.
The FEaR also fails to adequately describe and recommend realistic traffic mitigation
measures for off site improvements and cumulative impacts. Pages 68, xv and xv/all
reference old, out of date mitigation measures. Item No. 6 requires the owner to
participate in the funding for Pala Bridge through AD 159 and yet the bridge is already
constructed using other funds. How can the City force someone to buy improvements
that are already paid for with an assessment district? All of the mitigation measures
listed in Item No.8 are already paid for by the assessment district and are almost
complete. There is no indication how the city plans to pay for the clover leaf interchange
that was recommended at Interstate 15 and 5.R. 79 or what the City will require of the
developen to help fund the interchange.
Please also consider the fact that Item No. 7 is a clear reference to on out of date
document and is entinely inappropniate in light of the fact that Pala Road gnidge was
already constructed for six lanes not four lanes. Why require the developer to study the
adequacy of a four-lane structure when the decision to go with six lanes was made several
years ago. That just shows you how out of date these documents are. Finally, there are
several instances where mitigation measures for cumulative impacts are deferred to a
futune date. Please refer to Ttem Nos. 7, I! and ~2 which all defer the analysis of
cumulative impacts and mitigation measures to some future date when the city might have
a better idea of what to expect in terms of cumulative traffic impacts.
HOUSZNG DENSZTIES:
According to the DEIR the majority of single-family residential dwelling units, approximately
L496 out of 2,144, will be placed on lot sizes between 4,000 square feet and 6,000 square
feet. The concentration of smaller lots creates a "high" density situation, which increases
the cumulative impact situation. The high percentage of smaller lot sizes on this project is
unacceptable.
Environmental ];mpacts and Mitiqation Measures, paqe 60, 2.6 Transportation and Circulation,
Threshold for Determining Significance: Goal ! in the C/fy'~ Genera/Plan Circulation Element
indicates that the City wi//"strive to maintain a LOS D or be~er at ali intersections w/thin the
Ci~ durin~ peak hours and LO5 C or better durin~ non-peak hours".
Pame~a L. Mied Page 3 09/06?00
To "strive" is a weak and noncommittal term. ];1' is not acceptable to assume 1'he
residents of Temecula are willing to settle for "severely restricted freedom to maneuver
and a poor level of comfort and convenience when driving'".
Executive Summary. Imoact Summary Matrix. oaae xv, Table S-l: The City traffic engineer has
indicated that monitoring and follow-up studies may be required to assess and respond to the
incremental impact associated with each project phase.
Zf "follow-up" studies indicate incremental impacts associated with this project, there
are no provisions in this plan to mitigate traffic once the project is already in progress
and once uncalculated traffic impacts start affecting local and regional roadways. This
plan does not address how many additional lanes would be needed to accommodate the
uncolculated traffic impacts in order to maintain a level of service "D" or better after
the project is underway, nor does it address the source of funding for additional road
improvements at a later date. There must be o viable mitiqation plan that details
implementation of plan and identifies means of fundinq for future road improvements.
With an already congested situation on Polo Road and Hwy 795, additional truck traffic,
prior to proposed road improvements, will increase traffic congestion cnd lower the
already Iow level of service on these roads. The 'FEAR does not address the addition of
construction truck traffic in its traffic study and the effect it will have on the level of
service during the construction period---§-ZO years.
Executive Summary, Unavoidable 5iqnificant Tmpacts, page viii:
Such a statement finds that the Lead Agency has reviewed the E~R and has balanced the
benefits of the project against its unavoidable, significant effects and has considered
the adverse effects to be acceptable.
The ER identifies one area of UNAVOIDABLE, 5IGN~FZCANT TMPACT of the project:
Air pollutant emissions (long-term) associated with vehicular traffic and energy
consumption resulting from the pro~ect.
This E~R also identifies two areas in which the project will contribute incrementally to
UNA VOZDABLE CUMULA'EVE 5T~NIF'~CANT effects:
· Regional air quality, and
* The loss of agricultural land.
It is irresponsible for the Lead Agency to put a higher value on "development" than the
value of natural resources and the very element that keeps human beings alive--Clean A];R.
Executive Summary, Imoact Summary Matrix. Daae xi. Table 5-1:
Pamela L. Miod
Page 4 09/06/00
The FEIR states "Long term operational emissions (due to vehicular travel end on-site
energy consumption) will exceed the 5CAC~MD thresholds of significance. (The residents
of the Wolf Creek community will use electricity and natural gas, resulting in increased
air pollutant emissions from regional power plants and facilities generating the energy. In
the long term, development pursuant to the proposed 5pacific Plan will result in additional
vehicular traffic and hence, additional vehicular air pollutant emissions.)" Tt further
stated: 'INa FEASIBLE MITZGATION EXISTS."
This project will have a detrimental affect on the future health, safety end welfare of
the residents of the Temecula Valley, especially those individuals located in the Southern
region of Temecula and it is unconscionable and irresponsible to ignore this element.
Furthermore, outdoor play areas may be affected by potential carbon monoxide (CO) hot
SpotS, which directly affect the children living in the Wolf Valley region.
Executive Summary. Imoact Summary Matdx. Daoe xJv, Table S-l:
The FEIR states that construction contractors will maintain and service construction
equipment to minimize exhaust emissions. However, the "monitoring program" of the
construction site and equipment maintenance shall be the developer. The FEIR does not
mention who will "monitor" the developer. Furthermore, the issue of controlling
dangerous diesel pollutants, which are generated by heavy construction equipment, is not
addressed. In addition, it is noted that during grading activities chemical applications
may be used to prevent wind erosion and release of dust and particulates. The FEIR does
not address the health hazards that may be associated with chemical applications.
Environmental Impact and Mitiqation Measures, 2.2 Population and Housinq:
The retail complex mentioned, "similar to o,her commercial businesses, such as the one on
Rancho California Road near 1-15", (assuming the report is referring to the Target Center) is
not compatible with adjacent residential uses and is not consistent with the General Plan land
use patterns of protecting and enhancing residential neighborhoods. With the creation of
approximately 600 jobs in the Village Center (commercial/retail complex) and approximately
344 new jobs created by the development of the schools, approximately 944 additional cars
will be traveling to and from this site. What is the percentage of individuals living in the
Wolf Creek project who are expected to work in the commercial/retail center? It is
ridiculous to assume that individuals living within the Wolf Creek and bordering developments
will fill all the jobs created by this project. Teachers living in the already existing
developments will most likely maintain their positions at the outlying schools of which they
are already employed.
Environmental Impact and Mitiqation Measures, 2.4 Water I~esources, pnqe 42, and paqe 43,
Water Manaqement:
Both the EMWD and RCWD provide reclaimed water supplies to developers interested in
using such resources within Temecula. However, the Specific Plan for the Wolf Creek
project does not include provisions for irrigation of the parks, schools, or the greenbelt
channel with reclaimed water. With the continued loss of natural resources due to over
Pamela L. Miod Page 5 09/06/00
development, this developer should be mnndal'ed 1'o provide for reclaimed water
opportunities on park, schools, greenbelt channels and open space areas.
Environmental Impcct and Mitiqction Mecsures 2.12 Drcincqe, poqe 113:
· The swale, parallel to Pala I~oad, will have grass-lined side stopes and bottom section, with n 4-
foot-wide, concrete-lined, Iow-flow "V" channel in the center. A concrete-lined, Iow-flow "V"
channel is contrary to recognized methods of drainage for treating pollutants and run off.
Keeping in mind that maintaining the "quality of life" that is so valued by the residents of the
Temecula Valley, I thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns for this project.
Sincerely,
~amela t.. ~iod
31995 Via 5oltio
Temecula, CA 92592
J~ednesday September :~0~ 1900 2:57F~ -- Fram '909 6995533' -- Page 11
EUROCONNECTt'ON~: 989 6995S~ P. 81
Pomela L Mlod
31995 Via 5aJtio
Te,rng~la, G*, 92592
909.302.674~
FAXED AND HAh, ID bEL3:VEREb
Z0 September 2000
Carale Donohoe. Associate Planner
City of Te~ecuic Planning De4xu-tme.~
43200 ~usiness Ixu'k helve
Temecul~. CA 92590
Re: Wolf Creek Specific Plan final Enviranmentol Impact Relxzt, 5CH #88030705, August 2000
~n addition to comments submitted in my last letter of 6 September 2000. ]: berewith submit the
following comments ord concerns which 1: respectfully request be mode p~t of the public record
for the project.
CUMULATI~VE TRAFF/C: ZMPACTS:
Z request the city prepare an up to date tzaffic study that considees new cuadative impacts
ami recieculate it fee public eeview end comment. T~is eequest is ~ on the fact that in my
letter to the Planning Commission doted December ]3, 1999 T raised aZ the primary issue the
inadequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Db'T.R) with respect to traffic impacts. The
Db-IR end the FEIR foil to accurately describe impacts expected when the Wolf Creek 51~..cifJ¢ Plan
is combined with other approved a~d planned projects. The documents utilize and r~ference prior
Environmental ]~mpact Reports (EZR's) certified many years ago for the cumulative traffic impact
analysis. The General Plan b-IR w~s certified almost seven ye~s ego (1993) and the AD 159 ~
over 12 years ego (1988~ And yet these documents are the Ix~is of the cumulative traffic impact
onalysls. The response to my comments suggests the project will "avoid traffic impacts over the
long term' because b~eline conditio~ were cureeat. However, the rz~polt~g foils to mention if the
1993 study includes ~ew projects approved or developed sincg the~ Zt is not sufficient to say, 'It
will all work out ih the long ru~' W~at about in the short a~d medium term7
Furthermore, it was noted et the planning commission meeting 6 September 2000. that o draft of
the Circulation Element Update is not a certified document and should only be used as b~ckground
informatior~ The FET. R notes on p~ge xv that one of the mitigation measures (l. om~ Undo Road from
Polo Roa~ to Via Del Coror~do to its ultimate half-section width os a Collector) will be met 'TJ~ TH~
CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPI)ATE O1: THE GENERAL PLAN IS APPROVED'. If the Circulation
Element is not approved, when and ~ow will this mitigation element be achJevea? The FI:-IR does not
address this issue. C:C--~A requires dl phesez of the pre, ed m~l it~ nam, end long term
Impacts to be de~_~ibed la detail. Deferred ~ioet is lit violation ef CEQA.
This pro~'t will hove a significant ~ o~ traffic, during oil IAa~es of the project, evea
after ~tkjotiae measures.
ll;ednesday September 20~ 1~00 2:57F~ -- Frr~ '909 ~95553' -- Page
Pamela L Mied
Page 2 20 5~pt~rnber 2000
All pha_~s of the project, short t~m, ~i~ t~ g~ ~-t~ im~cts ~ ~t ~ ~tcly
d~i~ in ack.ncc with
Transportation and Circulation Element, paqe x~. The 0~' ~'~f~c en~nem,
a~at~ with ~ ~d~ ~
~[f the monitoring system indicates that the project can na longe, support a LO5 D or be~ter, wh~t
plan is in place to stop the developer from pre~-_eding with further development of the project?
The FET~ does net addre, tf~ issue Fm'thermom, if future traffic studies determine that
additional improvements are required of the project to meet City LOS ablatives, where will the
funding for the new improvements come from? There must bee viable mitiq<rtion Dian that detail.:
implementation Of pl~n and identifies means af fundlnq for future road improvements, and that
the i_eem~ce Of subdivision maps to specific tr, aff;c p~forr~ance star.~e~ What are the time
frc.,-~s for the proposed "monitoHn~ system'} ur.. ~L .......
~ -z . ~,,..mr~ oe mommy, qum-terly, yearly man taring?
Which agency will be conducting the 'manitoring system'? ~ FE]~ does not address this issue.
At. what point in time will the 'ultimate' ~-~§ and SJ~. 795 interchange is required and haw is it
game to be funded, constructed and traffic congestion mitigated before it r~nehes that critical
point? What measures will be taken along the weyto ansuee that a 'critical point' does not occur?
The FEaR does not disclose these details.
CEQA eeWiees d p..h~s, es of the Fa Jeer and its nar ed leaj ten~ bpacts to be de.~nl~d I.
detail. Deferred mit,g~tien is in violetle, of CEQA.
Z further request a report on aved~ge travel times in the vidnity of this pro~ect and surrounding
communitie.~. Studies for LOS standards at intersections do not m~.xluately detail the impact on
air quality. ' ' '
M~t~g~tmn measures such es additional traffic lights increase average travel tJllles from
point A to point B. Regardless if LOS standards ~t each teeffic light ore b or better, each cycle
t~s I-4 minutes. Multiply that by 10 er 15 traffic light intersections ed a ~ could be sitl'ing in
traffic for up to an hear. Multiply that by an average additional 5,000 vehicles generated by this
project. Zn addition, an estimated 42,000 daily car teips ere projected to be generated as a result
of this project. The FETJ~ identifies 'Air pollutant e/nisSions (long-term) associated with vehicuka*
traffic end energy consumption resulting from the project' to have an UNAVOTDAIiLE AND
S[&N~FCANT ZMPACT on the community. A result of the m:lditional vehicles generated by this
pro~eat, coupled with the additional time spent at traffic lights will severely, further, impact ai~
quality in the community. A~in, the cumulative effects of current and future projects on SJ~. 795
~d Pale Road have not bee~ m~-Xluately addressed in the I~
~ZF the 'proposed' regional pork, middle school taxi project related road canstruction is allowed to
proceed ahead of the required on site and off-site 0nfr~structure) road improvements what
measures will be taken to ensure that ac:k~itionai traffic congestion will nat occur on an already
congested area?
A~_~_~UA/TTy:
Statement of Overriding ~onsiderations. Section 15093 of CEQA requires the decision-making
agency to b~lm~ce, es applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, ar other benefits of a
proposed project against its unoveid~ble environmental risks when determining whether to approve
IUe~flesda~ September ~0~ 1~00 ~:57F~ '- Fr~ '~ 6995533, -- Pag~ 3I
EUROCOHNECTIONS 9~19 6995533 Po 8~
Pome N, L.
the p~oject. . . Page 3 20 5eptembe~ 20O0
in the The statemerrr of ove~'td~r~ ¢on~ider~Tio~ sh~ll be ~uppex~ted by substantial evidence
record. When the lead agency approves a peo~_,ct whicJ1 will result in the occurrence OF
significant effects which or~ identified in the fJrlol FT~ but ~e not avoided o~ ~ub~tanti~tly
leaned, the c~jency shall ~'rate in wr'iting the specific t~ons to ~uppcmt its actk~ based o~ the
final FTI~ and/ar othar inforr~tion in the record. The Staff I~epart dated 6 E~ptemba~ 6, 2000
~tates unde~ FTN~Tb~S, 7b that 'the design of the subdivision and the type of impcovements ~e
not likely to COLLie serious public health i~,oblem~., Clean AZR just happens to be one element that
keeps hurn~n beinDs alive. The FE]:~ does not list mitigation measures fo~ health ~eloted illnesses
which residents in thi~ oreo will he subjected to.
~iti~tion me~s~re~ are stated ~s follows: 'Upon identifying a ~M f~ b~ ~ke to the
~ojec¢ ~, t~ Ri~ide T~Jt A~, ~ ot~ ~ible publ~ ~it ~ovid~ will
~tablish b~ ~es and stop~ to ~ t~ ~sid~te in t~ ~if~ p~n a~.'
Who will 'identi~ the '~ f~ b~ ~e> ~ will this i~ti~i~ ~ be dore~ When
will it ~ do~ ~f t~ ~ide~ ch~ ~t to ride a ~, ~ if RTA ie u~ble ?o ~vide t~
equip~nt end f~di~, what initiation ~es will then ~ t~ken?
A~pti~ a Statist of ~idl~ C~id~ti~
violation of the h~elth, ~efety ~ ~elfare of the ¢it~ of th~
~PACT TO ~Eb~WK ~SID~NT~
The FF_,Zl~ does not address the impact this project will hove o~ the residents of the I~edhawk
community. Ou~ neighborhood roads ore already heavily impacted by additional development in the
Redhawk area a~ well a~ the Pachanga C~ino expaneior~ When Pala I~oad becomes impo~eabte due to
the cons~muctJon of r~d improvements and project development (schools, hemes, pm'ks,
c-omme~'cial/retail center~), the least fru~ating route will be through au- neighborhood streets.
Wolf Valley I~oad end Redhowk Par~way or~ already heavily t~aveled with school and to~- buses,
vehicles, and commercial vehicles. Traffic trying to exit residential ~reets onto ~edhawk P~kway
is already becomir~ dangerous. Additional traffic ~ener~ted by this I~oject will have a detrimental
impact on the community of I~edhawk.
How much money is left in Assessment #].5~. Will the r~sident~ of Redhawk be additionally
o~essed for' additional bonds to fund road im~ovements associated with this p~oject?
In clo~ir~j, it is noted that nftar Peviewing PC RE~OLUT~ON #2000, it d~ ~t comp~ with CEQA
~1~93 by shawi~ t~ ~la~s of Ov~idi~ Co~id~tiom and t~ ~fits to the ~mmuni~.
C~itical im~ct~ OF thi~ ~oj~t to the communi~ ha~ ~t ~en adeq~te~ add~s~ed, ~ h~
detailed inf~tion on initiation ~as~ ~en gi~ O~ again, l ~ue~t the ci~ p~e~e an
up 1o date ~affic ~u~ that co~id~ new c~ulati~ im~te a~ ~ci~cuiate it f~ public review
and co~ent. F~the~e. I req~t that a full in~i~tion ~ how the ~lth, sofe~ and
weff~ OF the co~uni~ will ~ aff~ by the signif~ant ~ir q~li~ im~te this ~j~t will
Port. la L. ~Aiad
cc; City Coo~¢il
t~e~nesday September 6f 1900 11:38a~n -- Fr~ '1 90~ 693 5250' -o Page lJ
Sep OG OO ~2:25p I ot Hoon HD R Hedica! C ! ~9)-G93-SZSO p.!
TEMECULA PSYCHIATRIC CENTER.
MEDICAL CORPORATION
DATE:
TO:
29377 Rancho California Rd., Ste. 204, Temec-h_ CA 92591
Phone (909) 693-1181 Fa~ (909) 693-5250
PAGES (~Md~ Cover Sh~t) ~
COMMENTS:
Confidentiality. Note:
This telecopy may contain confident/al and or legally privileged information and is intended only tbr the
use of the individual or enti .ly to whom it is --,rtrh-essad. If you are not the intended recipient, the emplo.~
or agent responsible for delivering this telecopy to the intended recipient, be advised that any copying
dissemination, di~"ib~ion. Ge dlselosure of information fi'om this t¢leeopy is strictly prohibited. Persons
disclosing confidential information are subject to I~nalties under applicable law.
If you have received this telecopy in error, please notify the sender immediately by. telephone and mail the
entire thcsimile m,-~age b~c.k to us at the address above.
JWedrmsday September 6~ 1900 11:~SSam -- Fro- '1 909 693 5250, -- Page 2I
Sep 06 00 1;~:2Gp L .ok ~loon 110 It Medical C I ,39)-6S3-SZSO
tgednesday Septealber 6f 1900 11:38aal -- Frc~ '1 909 693 5250' -~ Page 31
C:ep OS OO 12:2Gp L .or Moon Mn R MedJ, ca]. C ]. ~3SI)-G93-5250
p.3
September 6, 2000
Sterlyn & Janie Rigsby
45861 Classic Wa5'
Temecula. CA 92592
909-676-3188
Temecula Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula. CA 92590
Re: Wolf Creek Development
To whom it ma5' concern:
I oppose the Wolf Creek project due to traffic concems. I live in the Rainbow Canyon
development and fight traffic on a daily basis. It is ex'tremely difficult to get my child to and from
school on Pauba Road. We also make six round trips to the sports park per week. We also exit
Pala road to go grocer3.' shopping, movies, etc. I used to take the most direct route: Loma Linda to
Via del Coronado to Via Cordova to Red Hawk Parkway to Margarita Road. Because of all of
the traffic problems in Red Hawk, I now go out to Highway 79 to Jedediah Smith (Thank you for
the suggestion Mr. Pratt). Highway 79 near Jedediah Smith is an accident waiting to happen. Even
after the much anticipated completion of Highway 79, Jedediah Smith is a residential street and not
meant for everyone on Pala Road to use it to get across town. Considering what the people along
Jedediah Smith in Los Ranchitos had to pay for their land. I think it is safe to assume that the5' do
not want their front yards to be named into a major thoroughfare.
Pechanga Entertainment outdoor concert and box/ng facilites alone can accomodate 6,000 people
per event. Presently, during ever).' shift cbange traffic is backed up both directions. On concert
nights, traffic is backed up out to the freeway, doxx~ the off-ramps and on the freeway itself. All
life ceases to exist for homeowners on Pala Road because of this traffic problem. We cannot and
have not been able to exit our housing developments because of lack of traffic management on the
part of the Pechanga organization and the Cit?' of Temecula.
The new high school presents a problem all its oma. The present attendance at Temccula Valley
High School is 3.000. Now. if the new high school has just half that attendance, one can expect
1,000 round-trips daily to get children to and from school, not to mention buses, teachers.
deliveries, etc. If attendance at a Friday night football game is 1.000 and Pechanga has a sold out
crowd the same evening, them will be 7.000 people on Pala Road. Spnng Pacific officials may sa5'
that this sort of thing will never happen. I remember the week-end of the Rave party on thc
reservation when traffic xxas deadlocked for hours. That wasn't supposed to happen either. It can
happen and will happen. We am being promised six lanes on Pala Road (talk about a thoroughfare
in 3'our backTard!) and four lanes on Wolf Valley. Not even'one will take these routes, especially
teen-agers frequenting the high school!
The Sports Park on Rancho Vista Road presently accomodates at least 6.000 soccer and baseball
participants per year, not including invitational tournaments. The new sports park xx'hich naa3 bc
on Pala Road will be similiarly used. Other plans for the development include housing for 7.00(t
ness- residents, apartment buildings, an elemental' school, a fire station...everyone ss'ill has e to get
out of the area some way and Pala Road with its many stop lights just isn't a viable solution.
When the Palomar fire this summer started getting close, if an evacuation was ordered, there is NO
WAY we could have all gotten out of here.
With the problems at the border patrol, hundreds of cars are using Rainbow Canyon Road That
two-lane, pot-holed road is not equipped to handle to traffic it presently holds much less additional
usage. Homes bordering on Rainbow Canyon Road are not safe to even back out of their drive-
way.
People will take the shortest route from A to Z. even if it is through an already crowded street.
Case in point: Avenida de la Reina (now road-blocked), Avenida Pina Colada (now have speed
bumps), Calle Medusa (alternate road was constructed), and Via Cordova (median circles and stop
signs failed, problem has yet to be solved).
A plan needs to be set in motion to join Butterfield Stage to this end of toxin and extend Via del
Coronado to Highway 79 or some other means in which to move traffic more efficiently. These
roads need to be in place before Spring Pacific construction crews move in (as they apparently
have already on Via del Coronado). Residents of the Pala Road area will not wind around the
planned "internal loop road" or go out of their way (north) to get to Wolf Valley Road. onto Red
Hawk Parkway then onto Margarita. Ness' Wolf Creek residents on the southern portion of the
addition and the traffic from the Middle School (proposed for the comer of Via del Coronado and
Loma Linda) will exit out Via Cordova. Haven't those people had enough grief already?
The Planning Commission has the responsibility to manage growth in such a way that people will
be enhanced bynew projects. At the crowded Temecula Creek meeting (August 1999). a Spring
Pacific official said that the traffic problems were here before he and his people got here.
Even'one in the room agreed sxSth him. The problems are STILL are here and Spring Pacific
Properties are not part of the solution. The Wolf Valley plan would be a great plan if our
infrastructure were in place. Right now. however, the project can only make matters worse.
Thank you for 5'our time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Janie Rigsby
· : SEF' fl Z[lI!fl :!i
IWec~esday Septef~ber 6~ 1900 2:57~m -- Fr~m '0"g069~,91' -o Page 11
Og/P$/20OO w~ 15:33 FA.[ 909~0, Jl ~echanga Cul~:ttr81 Ce~ I~001
Pechanga Cultural Resource Center
Pec~ P.e. servati~e
Po.~" Offic~ B~x
T~cul~, Califo~i,., 92593
Telepho~: (~09) 308-9295
Facsimile: (909} 506-g491
FACSIMILE INFO~TION PAGE
PLEASE DELIVER TO: ~. ~-~oc~ ~_=.. 'i~,,.l~cO~ ;x.4lt"~
FROM:
Total Number of Pages Sent Including this Page:
NOTICE:
SENT BY:
DATE SENT:
XF YOU DO NOT RECFAV'E LF_~-I~LE COPIES OF ALL ~
PAGES, Pt.w.ASE CALL (909) 308=9295 ASA~' AND ASK
This transm;~elon is ~nded only for flue u~ of'the individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information t~t is privil~ed, confidential and ~T_empt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the re~d~ of this message ;* not the intended recipient,
or the employee or agent respond'hie for d~'ing tag message to the int~'ncled re. pleat,
you are hereby notified that any d~on~ dist~'bufion or photocopying ofthls
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have r,'~';ved this cnmraunicatiou in r. rror,
please notify us ~IATF.~y by tdephone, and return the original messaRe to ~ at the
above address via the US. Postal Service. Thank you.
ORIGIINAL: ~ ,. ~
CON~4 RECEmT: YES "~
~ NOT
NO
SKNT
IWe~,~esday September 6r 1900 2:57[x. -- Frm '9n~0~9491, *- Page 2I
09/06/2000 WED 15:33 FAX 90950 ~1 Pechan~a CuZtm. al Cm ~002
PECHANGA CULTURAL RF.,SOURCE, S
Teraecu/a Ba~d ~e~ M/,~s~c~
Past Office Bo~ 2183 · Temomla, CA 92593
Tele~ (909) ~0~=9295 · Fax [909) 506-$491
Sep~mber 6, ~
~ ~en~
A~:' Marm~o
T'mn Line
Datkme So, do
C~..,dt-aaring O-mura~mt
city o Tcmec
43200 Busings Park Drive
Temccul~ CA 92590
~ F~ ~~ ~R~ for ~ W~ Spccific Plan
The P~,gn Band ofLu~se~ ~;,t~on Indians, a federally recognized Indian Tn'be
(hereinalter, tl~ "P~"~ngn Band") sulxnits ~he followi%~ eommct~t~ to r~spon.~ in the Final
~nrn~ ~ R~ (EIR) for~ Woff~ Spccific plum
The Pechang~ Indian Rcm'retina is the closest rescrv~on ortho Luisctn Indians to the
proposed project si~, and ~ Pechanga Band a~,iders nny Luisefio cultural it=ms and any
Nativ~ Amo'ican hnmn-n r~maJns which may ~ f~uad in th~ vicinity of thi,= p~ojoct ~o bCiOil~ lO
project's h'kely impn~ts on Nn~e Am~'ic~n cultmal nad m'chncologicnl rcsonrc~ 'f~
P~hanga Band/s c~m~l/~e ~ of ~ and iffeplao~h~e coltm'nl
SITF.5 lm,IPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT
Pechanga Band also disagrees with a number of th~ City,s r~lx~es m ou~ initial conm~,t~ (sc~
letter da/~l De. tuber 3, 1999) ns ~tnt,'d in the Final EIR. In the Draft ~-.9% tl~ lead agency, 0~e
City, m'rive~ at the conclmion tha~ the thm-e wal bo no impact on cultural n:~ourcc~ based on ~
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And ~Fith Honor ~ge l?a~e To The Nted
I~ecinesda)~ september 6t 1900 2:5?FZa -- Fr~n '~0~9491' -- Page 3j
09/06/2000 WED 15:34 FAX 90950 ~! Pechanga Cultural Ce] i~003
pmpos~m~6~onraeasores(DEIR.~lS2). The Pechanga Band fervently disagrees with en~e
th~ impact thi~ d~,'elopment w~l haw on a~:heological ,~'_~ ~n may be found dining
co~'mction of the project. Th~ Pec, hax~ Band, therefore, believes, th/s project will have
should bc consulted ~.a should have a comm;~-~ from the City and Spring Pacific Properly,
~-garai%~ fl~ pre~nvnfion of tl~ ~ ~soux~cs/a ~h/_~ g~ph~c arm.
Comme~ to Req~on~e~ 12-1~ 122, and 12-3
In response m thc Pcchanga Band's commenl le~er d~t~ D~-~,~h~- 3, 199~, Ihe C'i~ reco~,ed
~~~~m~l ~ ~l~a~~ ~P~
Thc City fa*Is to identify who ~ ~ thc de~enaination, during construction of the
e~, a cultural rmou~c~ has bean impacted. V~ili aa axchac~dogic, al or m~oal monitor be present
rim'/rig all grotmd distmbing work to idg~. any im.nacts as tl~ occ~ Will it I~ thc duty of
cvil~m~ resource? If it is fl~ duty oflt~ hca~ cquipm~: ~ re'il fl~ each lmvc tl~
F_.xti:udin_~ mifigmion n~ #I to indud~ ~ Pcchan~ Band's pat6ci~t;on after a cultural
I~:soume has beea imtnlctod tony be too biz: in th~ ~m~. Rmay take 2 or 3 o~4 pa~ ~a
scraper orbull do*z_e~r forthcopcrator to realiz~lhatthey hawimpactcdacultund p~soux'ce. This
i~ ass~unl-2 they reach tl~ realization at all.
An a~Jm~cological or m~oal monitor/s mfimd and specializ~ in field idcatificmion of cultural
resomces and c~n make such ideatifi~;om faster and mom accmately than a heavy oquipmcnt
operator who has no experie~e aM is tiding ~doag at 20- 30 miles aa hour. An mv. hagologicai
Pechanga Cultural Resources * Temecula Band of l. uise~o Mission lndimu
Post Office Bax 2183 · Tetnecuio, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Can~ And VAth Honor We Rise To The Need
Ige~nesday September 6, 1900 Z:57pm -- Fr~ '9no~069~91, -- Page ~
09/06/2000 ~ 15:35 F~ 90950: ~1
P~ ~t~al' Ce] ~004
An archaeological or tn~aal monitor k tmin~l ~mi ~ in field i~catlon of oultural
r~ource$ and ga:l make sueJl ~nn~ fastez and more accun~ly titan a heavy equipment
Commenb to Response 12-7
Thc Pechanga band does not feel that ~ l~,uagc of the c:cpand~l mifi~a;;on ~ ~ci~y
~ ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~tion ~ ~or
Comments tO Responses 12-8 and 12-9
Thc nxotds search and field sm~tey of the project slmwed no known .qofade cv/dencc of
~225~ Givm tl~ lacaticm oftl~ p.uj~t, tl~ Pcchzz~a Band appreo~ the oppommity to
t~c~pa~ ~n ali .nt,,,~ng n~{~d~g h~u~h,'crtcut d{scov~Hes ~ t{~ em~h:st ~s~bic s~c.
Fum~mor~, the P~ {Bzud docs uo~ believe tha~ m~6on measure # 1 adeq~.~t~ly
Once again, the Pcchanga Band reclueSts th,, Tn~aal t~orcacumfivcs assist thc City and
gac Dc~eJope~ with clffwl~ l~X/neut and lealsonable mifi?a~n mcasm~ for ~ [~
in¢ludiag tl~ pr,~l~m6on of,, ~ plan fm ~ r~ovm3r and ffe~,~mt ofs~ificam
arclm~ological resourc~ TI~ Pcc. ban~B~,,~ f~&crrcqucm e~au~ncnt planbc adOl~Xl
P~ga Cu~ R~um~ · T~cu~ ~ ofl~e~ M~n I~
Pozt ~we ~ ~1~ · T~c~ CA 92592
~md I~ ~ D~ ~ed Umo O~ ~re A~ ~rh Ho~r We R~e To ~ Need
lue~esda¥ Septem~r 6t 1900 2:57pm -- Frml '9~'~069491' -- Page 5I
09/06/2000 ~ 15:35 FA~ 90950 ~1 Pechanga Culttmal Ce~ ~005
that tlm Developer :md/m landowm= agr~ to wa/ye alh-~h~, to ownet~p of say. and all
cultural i*ern~ ar artifac~ flint may be discovered during the development of the project and o=
REQUF_,STgD INVOLVEMENT AND bllTIGATION blEASURES
requests the following dumses:
momtor, duzi~g ctmsln~o~
scientific 5-~em af flgxse objects and tim Pechanga Band would I/ke tbe opportunity to
come to aa undemamting with the Developer rcgar, ll.g the trim,eat of all Luiseflo
ealtmal item~ TIs: l~mmcnt ptan should be approved and in place prior to t~
The Pcchanga Band apto, o~;-~,'s the oppomn~ty to v. ud& comm~i~ on ~ Final
Environmental Impact Report for tbe WolfCrce, k 3pc=ific Plan. We look fonvard to working
together with thc City and other intc~ ~,encics in prot~.g thc invaluable Natixc
you have any qucs~ions ar wish m discuss this m~,t,-~ further, please £ccl fn:c to contact me at
Supervisor, Pcchanga Cultural Resma-ces
Pechanga C~ltural Rerource3 · Temecula Band of Lulse~o Mix,ion Indians
Part O~e Box2183. Te. mecula, CA 92592
.~a~red Is 77~ Duty Truated Unto Our Care And Widx Honor We Riz¢ To The Need
MARK A. MACARRO
TRIBAL CHAIRMAN
JOHN MAGEE
TRIBAL COUNCIL
PHILLIP IBANEZ
TRIBAL COUNCIL
BILL (Wolf) TINSLEY
TRIBAL COUNCIL
BENJAMIN VASQUEZ
TRIBAL COUNCB.
BETTY BARRIENTOS
TRIBAL COUNCIL
RAYMOND BASQUEZ
TRIBAL COUNCIL
PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION
Ternecula Band of Luisego Mission Indians
Posl Office [lox 14.77 · Temecula. CA 92593
Telephone (909) 676-2768 Fax (909) 695-1778
September 20, 2000
Ms. Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Comments presented at public heating on September 20, 2000, 6:30
p:m. for The Final Environmental Impact Report, Wolf Creek Specific
Plan.
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
The Pechanga Band of Luisefio Mission Indians (hereinafter
"Pechanga Band") submits the following comments regarding the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, through its Cultural Resources Committee and its
counsel, John L. Macarro, Esq., Pechanga Tribal Attorney and Ms. Laura
Miranda, Esq., of California Indian Legal Services.
The Pechanga Band has received copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for this project. The Pechanga Band
is not opposed to this project. The Band's primary concerns are with the
project's potentially significant impacts on Native American, particularly
Luisefio, cultural resources. The Pechanga Band is concerned with the
lawful treatment of Native American remains and with the preservation of
unique and irreplaceable Luisefio cultural resources, village sites and
archaeological sites which would be displaced by ground disturbing work.
Testing Program/Surveys
Christopher Drover conducted an archaeological survey of the 557-
acre property. This survey consisted of a site records search through the
UCR Archaeological Unit and a walk-over field survey of the project area.
Based on this survey Drover concluded that there would be no significant
potential impacts to cultural resources by the development of this project
(Em, pg. 131).
However, since the City has acknowledged that subsurface
resources may exist within this project area (EIR, pg. 131) and there is no
evidence to the contrary, the Pechanga Band believes that cultural
resources will be uncovered during the development of this project.
Because this project area is in a culturally sensitive area, as acknowledged
by all parties, is in close proximity to the Pechanga Reservation, and is
likely to contain subsurface artifacts, the Pechanga Band asserts that it is
imperative to have tribal representatives monitor all the ground-breaking
associated with the project, and that an agreement be executed between the
Tribe and the City to address treatment of the cultural resources that ~vill
be found during development of the project.
Recommended Mitigation Measure
The Pechanga Band requests that the following mitigation measure #2 be
add to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan to bring this project into compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, including the California
Public Resoui'ce Code, section 21081 (a).
That the developer enter into a PRE-EXCAVATION AGREEMENT
and CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PLAN,, specific to this project,
to the satisfaction of the Pechanga Band, before approval of the site
plans, any grading plan and prior to any grading pertnit being issued.
The pre-excavation agreement would set forth the specific details
regarding the Native American monitors, reburial of Native American
remains, and treatment of Luise~o cultural items.
Lastly, in previous comments the Pechanga Band has stated their
opposition to the language in the NOP (see, page 222, FEIR), which calls
for Native American participation only after it is determined by the
applicant that Native American resources are involved. Unfortunately,
those comments were not taken into account when drafting the FEIR.
Again, the Pechanga Band is opposed to language in the FEIR mitigation
measures which call for Native American involvement only "if and when
resources are encountered." (FEIP,., 2.15 (1)). This is impractical
because there will be no one monitoring the grading of this project with
knowledge in Luiseno cultural resoumes to identify whether resources are
actually encountered. The cultural resources can not be protected, in a
manner sufficient under state law, if there is no one on-site during the
grading to identify the resources which warrant protection. With the
current plan the resoumes will likely be destroyed without anyone's
knowledge that they were ever there.
The Pechanga Band appreciates the opportunity to participate in
this stage of the process. Allowing active tribal participation in these early
stages will prevent misunderstandings and help your project move forward
smoothly.
Sincerely, ,~
Laura Y. I~iranda
California Indian Legal Services
L. Macarro
Pechanga'Tribal Attorney
September 6, 2000
Planning Commission
ATTN: Caroie Donahoe
City of Temecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92f89
RE: Wolf Creek
Dear MS. Donahoe;
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Wolf Valley Homeowners
Association and its residents. We have previously made
regarding the draft EIR for the above referenced ~roject and have
conducted meetings with the City Manager, Mr. Shawn Nelson, and The
William Hughes, the Director of Public Works. We appreciate the lime
the City staff has spent in addressing our concerns regarding this
project. While we have not always seen eye-to-eye on the issues, we do
appreciate the staff's willingness to listen to the concerns of the HCA
and our members.
We have, in the past, opposed this project for many of the issues
included in our original letter to the City. These issues involved
housing density; the use of multi-family and .........
~ ......... =_ zones directly
across from homes in The HOA, the lack of any ulan for the widening of
Pala Road, speed and safety issues on Pala Road and, most
significantly, the existing and future noise levels on Pala Road. Our
concerns have been "heard" by the developer of thls project and we have
attended at least three separate meetings with Mr. Bill Griffith,
Managing Director of Spring Pacific Properties, LLC, and his staff to
discuss this project and its impacts on this area cf Temecula.
During these discussions, we have come to learn 5ha5 many of the
concerns we have regarding Pala Road are issues 5ha5 the City of
Temecula has not yet addressed. For example, Eke City is presently
only 70% completed in its plans for the final build out of Pala Road
and, as a result, there is no answer to our questions regarding noise
mitigation. Mr. Griffith has indicated on several occasions that he
has informed the City of his willingness for the project [o pay its
fair share of any costs to widen Pa]a Road inc!udin? neise mitigation
measures. Unfortunateiy, there is presently nc ulan for the final
build out of Pala Road that we are aware of. The City's proposed
solution to this problem is for the HOA and The residents to be willing
to accept an interim widening of Pala Road ~o four lanes from ~he Pala
Bridge to Wolf Valley Road - without any regard 5c noise or other
possible mitigation measures that may be reculrec. We find this
_e_~_ve is strengthened by
proposal unreasonable and unacceptable. Our ~
Mr. Nelson's statement that the timing and nature of any final solution
to this problem was indeterminate since the project may never be buii~
or built much more slowly than anticipated a~
situation would result in less need to make "final" improvements ~o
Pala Road for many years. I cannot believe 5ha5 5he City would ask
residents to support a temporary fix to a problem without knowing the
probable "final" solution and it timing.
We also understand that the City ~= concerned '~-~ .....
are. ~orcuna~eiy, at present - =nc~ ' we believe for the foreseeable
future - the congestion is an Loma Linda=n~- ~ ~~r=z=~ - Roads.~.~_=~-~- nr-ffi2
clears %his bottleneck it moves smoothly stuck cn ~a!s Rca~ an~ ~here
is little or no congestion at Wolf Valley Road in either the ~{ or
Thus, we find that the best solution for concerns about Paia Road and
this project should not be rushed through in the name of sclvinc a ncn-
existen% congestion problem.
Regarding the project specifically i am pleased 5o tell you that we
would support the project based on the following conditions:
1. The total residential density does not exceeo 2!00 uni5s {as
indicated by Mr. Grifflth on Sepnember
Pals Road is widened to six lanes from the Pa!a Road Bridge
to Wolf Valley Road rather than to Via Gilberuo, as presentiy
proposed. This additional length of less than a quarter m~!e
will prevent a future bo55le neck (similar 5c the Lcma Linda
problem now) at Wolf Valley Road after the final build ou5 of
this project and Pechanga Casino improvements;
3. That Pa!a Road not be temporarily widened to four lanes
without noise mitigation measures being taken to reduce the
probable impact of noise from more and fast moving traffic.
4. We would again ask the City to consider options to improve
traffic flow and speed on Pala Road. We do not want fatality
motivated traffic control as we have in other parts of the
City.
5. The multi-family area designated as PA-10 be limited to
attached, fee ownership residential units, as proposed ~o us
by Mr. Griffith.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for permi5ting [he
HOA to participate in this process and we urge you to consider the
issues we have raised. These are important to not only us, but also
all the people living along Pals Road today and who live here in the
future.
Thank you.
~eter Lucier, C~A/PFS
Chair Person
· Wolf Vall~y.~ome Owners Association
Ad Hoc Committee on Wolf Creek Project
CITY OFTEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NOTE TO FILE
Carole Donahoe
September 8, 2000
Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Tracy Luke, Via Quivera, Redhawk, Riverside County
Called today because she has a "big concern" regarding the lights and noise from the proposed
Middle School. The rear of her home looks out onto Wolf Creek, and 3 bedrooms would be
affected. She is concerned about the brightness of the ballfield lights, and the noise that would
emanate from the fields.
ATTACHMENT NO. 13
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
R:\PLANNING\S P\Wolf Creek SP\CC Staff Report 1-9431,doc
29
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 6, 2000
Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek
Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
Prepared By: Carele K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
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 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING
APPUCATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPMCATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS
TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA MNDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-t 10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 -
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES
INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN
SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC f~r SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
1
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRJDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA MNDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110.002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -
005, -006 AND -010.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
SP Murdy, LLC
REPRESENTATIVES: Bill Griffith and Camille Bahd, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC
Barry Bumell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
Donald Lohr and Tony Tedch, Lohr + Associates, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
A mixed use specific plan which provides a full range of residential uses and product types,
school sites, park sites, open space and drainage greenbelt, roadways, private recreation
center, fire station site and commercial sites, specifically as follows:
· From 2,144 to 2,601 dwelling units for an overall density of 3.8 to 4.7 dwelling units per
acre. Residential product includes ~ acre estate lots, 7,200 square foot to 4,000
square foot lots, courtyard homes, an option for a senior community, and multi-family
apartments.
· School sites totaling 32 acres for an elementary and middle school. The middle school
site includes lighted ballfields.
· A 14-acre community park with lighted ballfields that anchors the Village Center, a 6.7
acre linear park with three activity nodes that traverses the entire length of the project,
a 4.5 acre neighborhood park, and an additional 1.5 acre parking area for the Kent
Hintergardt Park. Park sites were selected and coordinated for joint use with the
Temecula Valley Unified School District facilities.
· A 15-acre drainage greenbelt along the full length of Pala Road, designed as passive
open space.
· Roadways and circulation system that provide pedestrian linkages, bicycle paths and
interconnected uses throughout the project.
· Private recreation center, fire station and other public facility uses on 5 acres at the
Village Center.
· Neighborhood and Community Commercial areas totaling 20 acres at the Village
Center.
R:~ P\Wolf Creek SP~TAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
2
A General Plan Amendment that relocates and reallocates land use designations already
approved for the property, in order to align these designations to the Wolf Creek Specific
Plan planning areas and amenities. The relocation of designations is depicted in the
Exhibit entitled "General Plan Comparison" attached to this staff report. The reallocation
details are as follows:
Existing GP Proposed GP
Acreage Acreage
· Neighborhood Commercial 5 8
· Community Commercial 15 12
· Community & Neighborhood Parks 25 20
· Linear Park & Paseos 0 14.4
· Private Recreation Facilities 0 5
· Drainage Greenbelt Open Space 0 15
· Major Roads 50 29
· Elementary School 10 12
· Middle School 20 20
· High School 46 0
· Low Density Residential 0 4.1
· Low Medium Density (3-6 dus/acre) 328 370
· Medium Density Residential (7-12 duslacre) 21 19.5
· High Density Residential (13-20 dus/acre) 37 28
Total 557 557
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 which subdivides 557 acres into 47 lots, delineating the
planning areas within the specific plan and lots for parks and schools. The Map is divided
into two phases. Phase I is that portion of the project north of Wolf Valley Road, and
Phase II is that portion of the project south of Wolf Valley Road.
LOCATION:
At the southern end of the City of Temecula, apprOXimately two miles east of
Interstate 15, south of State Highway 79 South, on the east side of Pala
Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue.
EXISTING ZONING: SP Specific Plan
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: PO Professional Office
South: Riverside County - Redhawk Specific Plan
East: LM Low Medium Residential, Park and Riverside County
West: LM Low Medium Residential, Pechanga Reservation
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS:
LM Low Medium Residential - 3.0 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre
M Medium Residential - 7.0 to 12.0 dwelling units per acre
H High Residential - 13.0 to 20.0 dwelling units per acre
NC Neighborhood Commercial
CC Community Commercial
P Pubic Institutional Facilities
OS Open Space / Recreation
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.dee
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: LM Low Medium Residential - 3.0 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre
H High Residential - 13.0 to 20.0 dwelling units per acre
NC Neighborhood Commercial
CC Community Commercial
P Pubic Institutional Facilities
OS Open Space / Recreation
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant and light agricultural uses
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant and rural home sites
South: Vacant and rural home sites
East: Bridlevale subdivision, Kent Hintergardt Park and the Redhawk community
West: Wolf Valley subdivision and the Pechanga Indian Reservation with gaming casino,
recreational vehicle park, mini-market and vacant property
BACKGROUND
City staff has worked on a specific plan proposal for the subject site for many years, initially with the
former owner of the property who proposed the Murdy Ranch Specific Plan from 1995 to 1997.
Spring Pacific Properties began discussions with City staff in early 1998 and formally submitted the
Wolf Creek Specific Plan on December 10, 1998.
At the request of staff, the applicant hosted a community meeting on August 17, 1999, at the~
Temecula Creek Inn. A workshop was held with the Planning Commission on September 1, 1999, at
which time Commissioners provided comments and recommendations to the developer.
The developer and staff worked through several screencheck reviews prior to the submittal of the
fifth version of the specific plan dated August 2000.
Three weeks prior to the public hearing on this case, the Temecula Valley Unified School District
Board indicated their preference for a high school site on property not within the Wolf Creek Specific
Plan. While the middle school and elementary school sites remain within the plan, the proposed
high school that will serve the southeast area of the District will be located either directly across
Fairview Avenue from the project, or at a site further east. Wolf Creek Specific Plan designers
anticipated the uncertainty of school district selection, and provided an alternative land use for the
46.5 acre Planning Area 24, for 233 residential dwellings with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square
feet. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the plan considered environmental impacts of
the project both with schools and with residential development on these sites.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Villaqe Center
Because the General Plan identifies property at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and Pala Road
as a Village Center, the project was designed with all of the Village Center concepts in mind. The
applicant chose to incorporate the Wolf Creek Village Center where Wolf Valley Road intersects
with the project's loop road, thereby enhancing pedestrian access and community activities at ail
four comers of this project hub. The 14-acre community park and adjacent elementary school
anchor one comer, while a private recreation facility, fire station and other public uses occupy
another comer. The last two comers are slated for commercial development, both an 8 acre
R:',S P~Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC fa' SP,EIR,GPA, map.dee
4
neighborhood center, and a 12 acre community commercial area across the street, sized to meet
the needs of the local community. Immediately adjacent to the south, and with carefully designed
linkages to these centers, are multi-family residential dwellings, situated to encourage non-
automotive modes of transportation. The community hub is complete with gathering places and
plazas, monumentation and a community landmark. It is the main focal point for Wolf Creek
community activities, providing a concentrated, cohesive mixture of compatible uses.
The Linear Park, Activity Nodes and Trail System
Integral to the design of the Wolf Creek community is the intemal loop road, which is bordered by a
linear park along its entire length, and meandering Class I bicycle paths on both sides of the street.
The linear park is an ideal recreation amenity for active residents who live anywhere within the
project. The linear park is also accessible to non-residents. Benches, drinking fountains, tot lots and
passive open spaces are provided at the activity nodes along the way. Joggers or cyclists can also
stop at the par courses, parks, or the commercial centers at the hub.
To complete the trail system for the project, Class II bicycle paths are also provided along Loma
Linda Road, Via Del Coronado, Pala Road and Fairview Avenue, and both sides of Wolf Valley
Road and Street hA".
The Draina,qe Greenbelt Interface
The Wolf Creek project proposes an open, grass-lined drainage channel along the length of Pala
Road that vades in width from 100-feet to 128-feet. The developer has taken the opportunity to
design this channel as a greenbelt, passive open space area that provides a visually pleasing buffer
for existing development on the west side of Pala Road. The developer has proposed a semi-
meandering sidewalk for this stretch of Pala Road, where parkway ~pop-outs" will bring trees and
foliage to the street at appropriate intervals. Coupled with the raised landscaped median proposed
for Pala Road, the straetscape softens this major roadway.
The Redhawk Interface
Similarly, the applicant paid attention to the interface with the existing Redhawk community along its
east boundary. Below the slopes which provide an existing urban interface zone lies a jogging trail
that is used by Redhawk residents. The Wolf Creek plan intends to support continued use of this
trail, with project openings along its own edge that encourage surveillance rather than turning its
back to it.
Phasin,q
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan is projected to develop land uses in four phases, with Phase t and II
starting along the north side of Wolf Valley Road. A maximum of 472 dwelling units will be
constructed in Phase I, along with the 8 acre neighborhood commercial center, the middle and
elementary school, and the community park. Phase II will add another 350 dwellings along the south
side of Loma Linda Road.
Infrastructure for the project, however, will be constructed in two phases, the first phase on the
north side of Wolf Valley Road, and the last phase on the south side. Infrastructure will be
constructed ahead of and accommodate the development of land uses.
R:',S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.d~c
5
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The applicant has mapped the entire 557 acres into 47 lots for financing purposes. The lots conform
to the specific plan land use map, with planning areas further subdivided into neighborhood areas.
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 delineates major street widths, cross-sections and access
restrictions, as well as the lots designated for the drainage channel, schools and parks.
ANALYSIS
Consistency with the Growth Management Program Action Plan
General Plan Amendment Densities
The proposed General Plan changes in residential densities are as follows:
Density Existing Existing Proposed Proposed
Range (~ Low end @ High end @Low end (~ High End
Low % - 2 0 0 2 8
Low Medium 3 - 6 1,122 2,244 1,110 2,220
Medium 7- 12 147 252 137 234
High 13 - 20 481 740 364 560
Total 1,750 3,236 1,613 3,022
With respect to the range of dwelling units possible on the site, the proposed General Plan
Amendment decreases the range numbers overall by 137 to 214 residential units.
Specific Plan Densities
The proposed Specific Plan offers the following allocation of dwelling units:
Density Proposed Proposed Target Target Project
Range (~ Low end (~ High end Density Units Units
Low % - 2 2 8 1.3 22 8
Low Medium 3 - 6 1,110 2,220 4.5 1,665 1,833
Medium 7 - 12 137 234 9.5 185 128
High 13 - 20 364 560 16.5 462 408
Total 1,613 3,022 2,334 2,377
The total number of dwelling units proposed at 2,377 is 43 units greater than the target density of
2,334 units. However, it is 764 units greater than the lowest allowable density of 1,613. Staff
supports the breadth of residential product proposed with the project. By providing a wide spectrum
of housing opportunities, the project complies with the General Plan Housing Element. By
concentrating higher densities near the Village Center, the project offers the best opporlunity to
attract public transit alternatives, such as bus service, smart shuttles or vanpools. Established
Village Centers are more likely to be considered as connection points to larger forms of public
transportation, such as express buses, light rail or Metrolink.
R:~ P\Woif Creek SP~TAFFRPT. PC fa' SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
6
Infrastructure Improvements
As required by the Growth Management Program Action Plan, the project ensures that roadway
improvements are in place pdor to issuance of the first building permit. The project's Traffic Study
recommends as mitigation that the following off-site improvements are completed pdor to issuance
of the first building permit for either residential or commercial development within Wolf Creek:
· Interim interchange improvements at 1-15 and State Route 79 South
· Widening of State Route 79 South between 1-15 and Pala Road
· Widening of Pala Road to four lanes from Clubhouse Ddve to Wolf Valley Road
Additionally, the project is conditioned to provide the following on-site improvements prior to the first
building permit:
· Ultimate improvements to Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road
· Half-width improvements to Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road
· Ultimate improvements to Wolf Valley Road from the easterly Specific Plan boundary to
Pala Road
· Ultimate improvements for six lanes to Pala Road from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto
· Installation of traffic signals at Pala Road and Loma Linda Road, Pala Road and Wolf Valley
Road, and Pala Road and the Interior Loop Road North
Similarly, additional roadway, drainage and other infrastructure improvements are required in
conjunction with project phasing. Given these mitigation measures, the project ensures that
infrastructure is constructed ahead of the new development that it proposes.
Coordination with other A,qencies
Project developers have coordinated their efforts with many outside agencies concerned with
growth in the area. The City has assisted in the collaboration of efforts towards the widening of Pala
Road with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The developer has contributed to the Pala area
drainage solution, resolving existing flooding conditions and proposing to replace existing
undersized facilities. The developers have met numerous times with the Temecula Valley Unified
School Distdct to meet their need for school sites in the project area. Along with the park and open
space amenities offered in the project, the school sites in Wolf Creek will provide an impressive list
of recreational and cultural amenities not currently available in this area.
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
7
WOLF CREEK MASTER COMMUNTFY
Park Amenities
Amenities Existing Parks Wolf Creek
(Community;
(Kent Hintergardt; Pala Neighborhood; Unear; K-
Community; Loma Unda; H addition; Private Rec.)
3ohn Magee) = 30 +/- acres -
= 23 acres excludJnc, i schools
Snack Bar 0 1 (CP)
Football Field ! lit (Combined with soccerI lit (NS)
field)
Soccer Field 2 (KH) 3 lit (2-ES) (MS)
Softball / Baseball Field 0 6 lit (2-MS) (2-ES) (2-CP)
Basketball Courts ! (Pala) 12 (8-MS) (4-ES)
Basketball Half-Courts 2 (Pala) 2 (NP)
Tennis Courts 2 (Pala) 12 (4-C:P) (8-MS)
Volleyball Courts 2 (Pala) 0
Restrooms at largest parks (K-H / Pala) at schools, and
community and
neighborhood parks
Children's Play Areas Clot 4 8 (3-LP) (3-ES) (1-NP) (1-
Lot) CP)
Exercise / Par Course 0 1 (I.P)
Pdvate Recreation Center 0 1
Swimming Pool 0 3. (PRC)
Gymnasium 0 1 (MS)
Parking Spaces 108 (22 K~) (86 Para) 1653 (331 @ Parks & PRC)
(lt322 @ Schools)
Community Center 0 1 (PRC)
Water Play Area O 1 (PRC)
CP = Community Park
ES = Bementary School
KH = Kent Hintergardt
LP = Unear Park
MS = Middle School
NP = Neighborhood Park
PRC = Prfvate Recreation Center
R:~ P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC fo~ SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
8
With amenities at the schools, parks and commercial areas of the plan, it is entirely feasible that the
project could reverse existing traffic patterns by creating desirable land uses that would reduce or
eliminate out-of-neighborhood vehicle tdps.
Given the design of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and the amenities proposed, staff believes that
there are sufficient community benefits to warrant Planning Commission consideration of residential
units above the lowest density.
Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Zoning Standards, and Residential Development Matrix
Planning Commissioners offered several suggestions to the applicant dudng the Commission
Workshop in September, 1999, much of which has been addressed within the Design Guidelines,
Zoning Standards and Residential Development Matdx.
Senior Component
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan allows for the opportunity to provide residential dwellings
designed for seniors in Planning Area 18, which is adjacent to the commercial center and fronts
Pala Road. The Design Guidelines specify pedestrian access to the commercial center and
Loop Road, and identifies product design conducive to pdvacy, convenience and security.
Residential Product
Staff worked with the applicant to provide strong architectural guidelines for merchant builders in
the specific plan text, including the mixture of one and two-story elements, vaded roof forms,
structural enhancements, projections, recesses, articulated facades, treatment of comer lots,
and the selection of materials for visual interest. A variety of garage alternatives are noted, in
order to achieve a pleasing street scene.
Staff had concerns regarding the smaller lots sizes proposed at 4,000 and 4,500 square feet.
The applicant has provided a minimum 800 square foot rear yard for private recreational use on
these lots, as well as full access to the private recreational facility in Planning Area 14 for the
homebuyers. These lot sizes will accommodate zero lot line product, which the applicant feels
meets the market need for an alternative to conventional large single-family detached homes.
Less yard maintenance, land, infrastructure and construction costs are attractive to that
segment of the market with changing household requirements.
The applicant is proposing lot coverage percentages greater than the City's Development Code.
However, front, rear and interior yard setbacks are consistent with Code for the 7,200 and 6,000
square foot lots. In the smaller lot sizes, the 800 square foot minimum private rear yard is
required, which is greater than the Code requirement for 200 square feet. The project is
conditioned to correct the zoning standard text to comply with the Residential Development
Matrix.
Local Street Sections
The Local Government Commission, in reviewing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, has requested
that the project be revised to parkway sidewalks with greater pavement shading and street
canopies. The applicant offers parkway sidewalks on the local streets within the residential
planning areas as an alternative cross-section option, for consideration by the City.
R:~S P\Wolf Creel( SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.d~3c
9
Future changes to the Specific Plan
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan text proposes that processing of modifications to the plan which
do not change the general intent of the plan, be approved administratively by the Director of
Planning. While this proposal was dedved from the Minor Exceptions section of the
Development Code, staff has conditioned the project to add language as follows:
mat the sole discretion of the Director of Planning, any modification may be deemed a major or
minor change to the specific plan. In any event, the Director of Planning may refer any request
for modification to the Planning Commission or City Council."
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Screencheck Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and submitted for the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan on December 10, 1998. On October 13, 1999, a Notice of Completion and a
Notice of Availability were prepared and the Draft EIR was circulated by the California State
Clearinghouse under SC1-~99101094 for public review and comment from October 20, 1999 to
December 3, 1999. A total of 21 written comments were received and considered in preparation of
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), submitted August 1, 2000, with comments and
responses to comments included within Section 8.0.
An Addendum to the FEIR was also submitted on August 23, 2000 and is attached to this staff
report as Attachment No. 5. The Addendum addresses updated information regarding active
alcoholic beverage licenses at the Pechanga Casino. Previously, available information indicated
that no such licenses had been issued.
A summary of the FEIR analysis is as follows:
Unavoidable, si,qnificant impact: Air Quality
Potentially si,qnificant impacts that can be avoided or miti,qated:
Soils & Geology Traffic
Hazards Noise
Drainage
Impacts considered but not found to be si,qnificant*
Land Use & Planning
Water Resources
Energy Resources
Utilities
Aesthetics
Recreation
Cumulative Impacts
Population & Housing
Biological Resources
Public Services
Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Agricultural Resources
Traffic Study
A comprehensive Traffic Study was prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates dated
December 17, 1998, to analyze the impacts of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan upon the surrounding
roadway system. The study analyzed 14 intersections, from the 1-15 Freeway interchange, along
State Route 79 South, and Pala Road, focusing on peak travel periods between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.
and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The analysis concluded that the project would generate approximately 42,036
trips ends per day with schools, and 38,527 with residential development on the three school sites.
R:~,S P~Wolf Creek SP~,STAFFRPT,PC fa' SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
10
The Traffic Study lists roadway improvements required for the area, with or without the Wolf Creek
project in order to achieve an acceptable Level of Service D (LOS D) or better at the intersections
studied. When these identified roadway improvements are in place, LOS D or better is predicted at
all intersections at opening year of the project and at build-out in the year 2015. Therefore, the
FEIR identifies the completion of certain roadway improvements as mitigation measures to reduce
traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Because the timing of infrastructure improvements is
critical, the project has been conditioned that no building permit can be issued for either residential
or commercial development until certain improvements are completed. See the previous discussion
under "Consistency with the Growth Management Program Action Plan - Infrastructure
Improvements' above.
Noise Study
The City has included a Noise Study in conjunction with plans to widen Pala Road, to identify
any impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Capital Improvement Project. The
Wolf Creek project is conditioned to participate in any noise mitigation program established by
the City and shall pay its fair share of mitigation commensurate with noise impacts attributable
to traffic generated by the Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
Sports Park
There has been some discussion about the altemafive use of the 46.5-acre Planning Area 24
former high school site as the City's Sports Park. While staff does not anticipate that any
additional environmental impacts would occur that were not considered with the high school
complex, staff does recommend that an addendum to the Final Environmental impact Report be
prepared and assessed once a conceptual plan for the sports park and its amenities is
designed.
Statement of Overridin,q Consideration Required
In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission must
recommend that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan because the EIR has identified its impact to air quality as a significant
and unavoidable adverse impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any
significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan project includes a General Plan Amendment which relocates and
reallocates land use designations already approved for the property, in order to align these
designations to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan planning areas and amenities. The reallocation of
acreages can be considered minimal and consistent with the original intent of the General Plan.
The proposed Wolf Creek Specific Plan is consistent with the SP - Specific Plan zoning on the
property.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan because it is consistent with the
General Plan and provides the Village Center as required by the General Plan Village Center
Overlay designation. The project also provides a full range of residential product types in
compliance with the General Plan Housing Element. The Wolf Creek proposal is a master-planned
community offering schools, parks, commercial sites, and public facilities to serve its residents and
R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC fo~ SP,EIR,GPA, map.d~c
11
surrounding communities. The project design has provided carefully planned interfaces with
surrounding development and offers unique open space and recreational amenities, such as the
100-foot to 124-foot wide grass-lined and landscaped drainage greenbelt along Pala Road, the
linear park that runs the full length of the Wolf Creek Intedor Loop Road, the 14-acre Community
Park at the heart of the Village Center, and the neighborhood parks and activity nodes in the
residential neighborhoods.
FINDINGS
Plannin.q Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 17
and Plannin,q Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment
The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of
the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and
Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards
that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface
buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed
within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
o
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan
Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms
to the design of the specific plan.
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural
Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process
initiated in 1979.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the
tentative map.. The site is generally fiat topographically, with no unique land features. It is
surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses
generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation property across Pala Road.
7. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are:
a..N.ot likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
~njura fish or wildlife or their habitat. There ara no known fish, wildlife or habitat on
the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site.
The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site.
R:~S P\Wo~f Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC f~r SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
12
b. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that air quality
considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the environmental impact report.
8. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause sedous
public health problems.
9. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible
10. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
11. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
12. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has been
conditioned to provide these fees.
Attachments:
PC Resolution for the Specific Plan - Blue Page 14
Exhibit A - Wolf Creek Specific Plan text - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 15
Exhibit C - General Plan Comparison
PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 16
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 17
PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report - Blue Page 18
Exhibit A - FEIR text - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit B - FEIR Technical Appendices - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit C- Addendum to the FEIR dated August 23, 2000 - Blue Page 19
Exhibit D- Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 20
Project Exhibits - Blue Page 21
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Maps
Surrounding Land Use
Land Use Plan
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
R:~S P\Wo~f Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
PECHANGA
INDIAN
RESERVATION
CASE NO. -PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PA00-0052
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000
VICINITY MAP
RAS P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
14
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP Specific Plan
[-- ~ "' '"QVL ~
· -j o
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - NC Neighborhood Commercial, CC Community Commercial, OS Open Space,
P Public Institutional Facilities, LM Low Medium, M Medium, H Hi,Ih Density Residential
CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PA00-0052
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map,dec
CITY OF TEMECULA
'i : :,
~..._~c~
· ~ ~ Horse ,''
~ "' S~ble .....
~ -' Pa~
~ Te~cula
Cr~k Inn
a~ Golf
Coume
Rainbow
Canyon and Wolf Valle
R~id~tial
~ ~5 du/ac
~ (existing).
.' -,_ · '~.~.~ ~ /-, . Pe~anga
- ' "~' "/ .". ~'~:]~q~an
'"~
.... ~ - , .' ' ,: _~_ ' % ~ ' Mini-
....
Vail
· Resid~ : "'-
RedhaWk
Residentia.
4.3 du/ac - -
(developing)
Redh~k
Residential
10-11.9 du/ac
(planned)
Pechanga
Indian
.~Reservation
CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PA00-0052
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000
SURROUNDINGLAND USE
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC fo~ SP,EiR,GPA, map.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PA00-0052
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000
LAND USE PLAN
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EiR,GPA, map.doc
ITEM 14
APPROVAL
CiTY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR Of FINANC~'~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Herman Parker, Director of Community Services~,
January 9, 2001
Spring Concert on the Green at the Temecula Duck Pond
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider allocating $12,000 to the Arts
Council of Temecula Valley to provide a Spring Classical Concert on the Green at the Temecula
Duck Pond on May 13, 2001.
DISCUSSION: After the summer Concert on the Green, .that was held at the
Temecula Duck Pond and sponsored by the Arts Council of Temecula Valley, Mayor Jeff Stone
requested that the City implement a second concert to be held in the Spring of 2001. He
suggested that this concert feature a classical musical performance. During the summer concert it
appeared that everyone in attendance truly enjoyed the jazz performance.
Staff presented the Spring Concert concept to Martha Mi nkler of the Arts Council. The Arts Council
is extremely supportive of the concept and will coordinate this program, however funding of
$12,000, to provide the program is needed. These funds would off-set the cost for the orchestra
performance, advertising and promotion, printing, and stage and lighting. The Arts Council does
not have available funding.
The Ads Council is proposing to host the event at the Temecula Duck Pond at 1:00 pm on Mother's
Day, May 13, 2001. The band that has been selected to perform is the Idyllwild Arts Academy
International Chamber Orchestra. The orchestra is highly recommended by the Arts Council as an
orchestra that will be truly enjoyed by everyone in the community who attends this event.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of providing a spring concert at the Temecula Duck Pond is
$12,000. These funds are currently available in the Community Support Budget of the General
Fund.
ATTACHMENT:
Art Council Letter and Budget
R:~ZIGLERG\REPOR'F~121200 Closed Session Arts Council.doc
OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY
POST OFF1CEBOX2337 ~ TEMECULA, CA92593 ~ 909.695.2787 ~ FAX 909.695.9438 ~ email: temarts~pe.net
BOARD OF TRUSTEES November 16, 2000
Albert and Grace Ball
Elecktra Demos
Ellen Diederich
Maryann and Tom Edwards
Don and Bette Endresen
Sally Haserot
Barbara Keen
Mr. Herman Parker, Director
Community Services Department
City of Temecula
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Jori and Jane Laskin
Teresa Lubrani
Dorothy Meyler
RE: SPRING 2001CONCERT ON THE GREEN
Dear Herman,
Angels Morris-Myers
MarkMush
Steve Phelps
Corey P. Pono
Doris and CJ. Royer
Bruce Singer
Janet Tosches
Following the very successful 2000 Concert on the Green,
"Festival of Swing", Mayor Jeff Stone indicated a desire for two
Concerts on the Green. One would feature classical music and one
would feature jazz and swing. The Arts Council has organized a
second concert for the spring of 2001. The classical concert is
scheduled for Sunday, May 13, Mother's Day, at one o'clock in the
afternoon, as part of the Twelfth Annual Arts in the CountnJ
Festival.
Dr. Alan Winkelstein
CONSULTANTS
Fred Lamb
Jim Meyler
Stewart M. Morris, Jr.
Karen Parrott
Alicen Wong
The Arts Council is pleased that the Idyllwild Arts Academy
International Chamber Orchestra has indicated a willingness to
return for their fourth visit to Temecula. This is an extraordinary
orchestra that features forty talented te. enagers from all over the
world. The 1999 orchestra was comprised of students from the
United States, China, Bulgaria, Spain, Taiwan, Germany and
Korea. The orchestra is widely regarded as one of the best youth
ensembles in the Country. It was the only high school orchestra
in the United States to be invited to perform at the John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as part of the 25th gala
celebration in 1996.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Martha N. Minkler
The talented musicians of the Idyllwild International
Chamber Orchestra are an inspiration to any musician young or
old. We feel the community will be privileged to have an
opportunity to listen to them at this free concert. We feel also that
Mother's Day is the perfect day for such an event.
Many families search for new activities for Mother's Day
celebrations. We have discussed partnering with European Deli,
Oscars, or other restaurants to offer picnic box lunches for sale.
Concert on the Green provides a place where adults and children
can be together, without cost, and without concerns for the
proprieties that need to be acknowledged in a restaurant or other
formal setting.
We estimate the September Concert on the Green attracted
between fifteen hundred and two thousand people over the course
of the three-hour event. Concerts on the Green have attracted
between one and five thousand people over the years. We have
every reason to expect a Mother's Day event to attract several
thousand people.
We can produce the Spring Concert on the Green for the
same amount of money as the September Concerts on the Green:
Twelve thousand dollars ($12,000.00). In the year 2001, The Arts
Council cannot produce the Spring Concert without City funding.
We appreciate your consideration of assisting with this support.
If you need any additional infom~ation, please feel free to call
me at 909.695.2787 or E-mall to temarts~,pe.net.
(~j~-~'IVlartha N. Minkler Executive DirecWr
CC:
Mr. Jim Meyler, Community Services Commission
Mr. A1 Ball, Interim President, Board of Trustees and
Co-chair Spring Concert on the Green
Mr. Jon Laskin, Co-chair Spring Concert on the Green
Ms. Terrie Lubrani, President Elect, Board of Trustees
Enclosure: 2001 Spring Concert on the Green budget
THE ARTS COUNCIL OF TEMECULA VALLEY
SPRING CONCERT ON THE GREEN
TEMECULA COMMUKITY DUCK POND PARK
MOTHER'S DAY MAY 13, 2001, 1:00 P.M.
PROJECTED BUDGET
Idyllwild Arts Academy International Chamber Orchestra
Advertising/Public Relations
Permits and fees
Printing, fliers, programs
Refreshments for perfo,mers
Stage, shade cover, sound equipment
TOTAL EXPENSE8
$ 5,000.00
1,275.00
25.00
1,000.00
200.00
4,500.00
$12~000.00
Concert on the Green is traditionally a free concert.