The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About102202 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CiTY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE OCTOBER 22, 2002 - 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 11:00 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 11:00 P.M. 6:15 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Sections: Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation involving the City. The following case will be discussed: 1) City of Temecula v. Riverside County (French Valleyf'rucalotta Hills Associates). Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Sections 54957 and 54957.6 with respect to City Manager's Evaluation. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: Invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Mayor Ron Roberts Amanda Madrid Peter Lucier of Congregation Hauvurim Councilman Comerchero Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2002-08 Resolution: No. 2002-96 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Achievement to Hillcrest Academy Presentation of $5,000 to the Fire Departmer~t for the purchase of a trailer R:~Agenda\102202 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS 2 3 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 NOTICETOTHEPUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of September 17, 2002. Resolution Approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A R:~Agenda\102202 2 4 5 6 7 8 Community Service Fundinq Pro.qram RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Review and approve the 2002-03 Community Service Funding Program grants as per the committee's recommendation of 42 organizations totaling $113,900. Support of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors Rescission of Specific Plan No. 172 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE COUNTY'S PROPOSAL TO RESCIND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 172 (WALKER BASIN) AND DECREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM FOUR (4) DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES Crowne Hill Parks Fee and Dedication A.qreement RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Parks Fee and Dedication Agreement between the City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941 ); 6.2 Approve the First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract No. 23143 Park Site A; 6.3 Approve the First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site F. Pumhase of Police Motorcycles RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the purchase of two 2003 Police Road King motorcycles from Quaid Harley Davidson for a total amount of $38,740.30 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 02-05 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: R:~Agenda\102202 3 ORDINANCE NO. 02-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA00- 0139, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND MEDIUM DENSI3-! RESIDENTIAL (M) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO), AND ADOPTING THE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PDO DOCUMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 944-290-012, 013,014 RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:~Agenda\102202 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2002-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2002-09 Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone 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 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 8, 2002. 2 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT APPROVING THE MULTI-USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN R:~Agenda\102202 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, November 12, 2002, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~,genda\102202 6 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2002-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2002-09 Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts, Comerchero 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 no.~t 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 October 8, 2002. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, November 12, 2002, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\102202 7 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public Hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval of the project(s) at the time of 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. 9 Adoption of California Buildinq Codes RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SE]rING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODES; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA, AND HOT TUB CODE ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE 9.2 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-06 AN ORDIANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE R:~Agenda\102202 8 ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE 9.3 Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN URGENCY ORDIANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE ARE RESPONSIBLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE 10 Adoption of California Fire Codes RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION, ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE 10.2 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE VOLUME 1, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS VOLUME 2, 2000 EDITION R:'~Agenda\102202 9 10.3 Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE VOLUME 1, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS VOLUME 2, 2000 EDITION 11 Development Agreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (ACS), Inc. a subsidiary of the Guidant Corporation (Planninq Application No. 02-0217) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF GUIDANT CORPORATION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0217) COUNCIL BUSINESS 12 Pedestrian Bridqe over Winchester Road at Nicholas Road RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the recommendations of the Public Traffic Safety Commission to accept the no-build alternative and direct the Public Works Department to pursue intersection enhancements as recommended. 13 Al~-Way Stop Siqn Installation (located at North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Reject the Public Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation to establish an all- way stop at the intersection of North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod. 14 Resolution establishinq a Municipal Utility RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:~Agenda\102202 10 RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CREATION AND OPERATION OF A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING VARIOUS UTILITY SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF CERTAIN OTHER ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 15 Award of Contract for Open Space Survey of Voters RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve a contract in the amount of $16,625 to Godbe Research & Analysis to perform an Open Space Survey of Voters; 15.2 Appropriate $16,625 from the General Fund Open Space Reserves to fund this contract. 16 Combined Traffic and Public Transportation Miti.qation Proqram Report (as requested by Councilman Pratt) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Receive and file. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY A'I-rORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: City Council, Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, for the purpose of a City Council Workshop; and immediately following at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, for the purpose of a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop. Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecu[a, California. R:~Agenda\102202 11 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING . OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 After the Closed Session that convened at 6:00 P.M., the City Council convened in Open Session at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Absent: PRELUBE MUSIC Councilmembers: Comerchero, Pratt, Stone, Roberts Councilmember: Naggar The prelude music was provided by Hayley Lieberg. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Rabbi Yitzchock Hurwitz of Chabad of Temecula Valley. ALLEGIANCE The flag ceremony was presented by Councilman Pratt. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Kids Day America/International Proclamation Apprising the City Council and public of the upcoming event, Dr. Murray Galbraith relayed his appreciation of the proclamation. Santa Marqarita Watershed Clean-Up Day Proclamation Thanking the City Council for its recognition, support, and staff cooperation, Ms. Carole Bell commented on the involvement of the various agencies; recognized the Temecula Rotary for its involvement; and briefly commented on the activities of the upcoming events. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Referencing the statue dedicated by the City's Sister City Leidschendam-Voorburg Singing in the Rain in commemoration of the September 11, 2001, tragic events, Councilman Comercher~ referenced the City's Cultural Arts Master Plan in particular the section with regard to public art and raising community awareness of public art. In light of his comments, Mr. Comerchero requested that the Community Services Commission further review the matter and identify possible locations for the placement of public art. R:\Minutes\091702 1 B. By way of a photograph, Mayor Roberts further elaborated on the Singing in the Rain statue and encouraged individuals to visit the Duck Pond to view the statue. C. Councilman Pratt relayed his delight with the recent Sister City events as well as the September 11, 2001, commemorative ceremony. 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 inctuded in the agenda. 2 Approval of Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of July 23, 2002; 2.2 Approve the minutes of July 30, 2002. 3 Resolution Approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-76 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 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 2002. 5 Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2002; 5.2 Approve a budget transfer of $55,400 to City Attorney Department from CIP Admin Department; 5.3 Approve a budget transfer of $7,200 to City Council Department from CIP Admin Department; R:\Minutes\091702 2 5.4 5.5 Approve an estimated revenue and appropriation of $129,600 to the AB3229-COPS Fund; Approve a reduction of the estimated revenues for Grants (COPS) and an increase in operating transfers into the General Fund in the amount of $129,600. 6 Holiday Schedule for City Council Meetings RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Direct the City Clerk to reschedule the City Council meeting of December 24, 2002, to December 17, 2002 and to perform the appropriate postings and noticing requirements of the Government Code. 7 Purchase of Hiqh-Speed Emerqency Notification System RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Authorize the purchase of a City-wide Emergency Notification System from Plant Equipment for $42,791.25. 7.2 Appropriate $22,000.00 in the potice Depadment Equipment line item and increase estimated revenue gr~nt revenue for $22,000.00 (added as per supplemental material}. Purchase of one Fire Department Rescue Squad Vehicle RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the purchase of the Rescue Squad Vehicle Apparatus from KME in the amount of $108,906.16. 9 Substitute Aqreements and Bonds for various Tracts within the Crowne Hill Subdivision (located east of Butterfield Staqe RoadI south of Pauba Road, and north of De Portola Road) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 23143; 9.2 Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 23143-1; 9.3 Accept the Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 23143-1; 9.4 Accept the Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 23143-5; R:\Minutes\091702 3 9.5 9.6 9,7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 23143-6; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 23143-6; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 23143~8; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 23143-8; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 23143-10; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 23143-10; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 23143-11; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 23143-11; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 23143-F; Accept the Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 23143-F; Acknowledge that original bonds collected by the original subdivider, Crowne Meadows, LP, will be released upon acceptance of substitute bonds by separate administrative action; 9.16 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. 10 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract for the FY2001~2002 Slurry Seal Program - Project No. PW02-05 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Accept the FY2001-2002 Slurry Seal Program Project - Project No. PW02-05 - as complete; 10.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a 12-month Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 10.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. R:\Minutes\091702 4 11 Tract Map No. 29639-1 (located south of Date Street and west of Marqarita Road within the Harveston Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 29639-1 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 11.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond as security for the agreement; 11.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as security for the agreement. (Pulled for separate discussion; see pages 6-7.) 12 Tract Map Nos. 29928, 29928-1, 29928-2, and 29928-3 (located within the Harveston Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve Tract Map Nos. 29928, 29928-1, 29928-2, and 29928-3 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 12.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreements and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for the agreement; 12.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreements and accept the Monument Bonds as security for the agreement. (Pulled for separate discussion; see pages 6-7.) 13 Tract Map Nos. 29929 and 29929-1 (located within the Harveston Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve Tract Map Nos. 29929 and 29929-1 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 13.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreements and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for the agreement; 13.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreements and accept the Monument Bonds as security for the agreement. (Pulled for separate discussion; see pages 6-7.) 14 Tract Map No. 30088 (located north of Township Road, south of Harveston School Road, west of Marqarita Road, and east of Harveston Drive within the Harveston Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve Tract Map No. 30088 in conformance with the conditions of approval; R:\Minutes\091702 5 14.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond as security for the agreement; 14.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as security for the agreement. (Pulled for separate discussion; see pages 6-7.) MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 10 (Item Nos. 11-14 were pulled for separate discussion; see pages 6-7). The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Naggar who was absent. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 11-14 PULLED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION 11. Tract Map No. 29639-1 (located south of Date Street and west of Marqarita Road within the Harveston Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 29639-1 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 11.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond as security for the agreement; 11.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as security for the agreement. 12. Tract Map Nos. 29928, 29928-1, 29928-2, and 29928-3 (located within the Harveston Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve Tract Map Nos. 29928, 29928-1, 29928-2, and 29928-3 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 12.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreements and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for the agreement; 12.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreements and accept the Monument Bonds as security for the agreement. 13. R:\Minutes\091702 Tract Map Nos. 29929 and 29929-1 (located within the Harveston Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve Tract Map Nos. 29929 an8 29929-1 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 13.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreements and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for the agreement; 13.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreements and accept the Monument Bonds as security for the agreement. 6 14. Tract Map No. 30088 (located nodh of Township Road, south of Harveston School Road, west of Mar,qarita Road, and east of Harveston Drive within the Harveston Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve Tract Map No. 30088 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 14.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond as security for the agreement; 14.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as security for the agreement. For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, the following comments were made by staff with regard to Consent Calendar Item Nos. 11-14: · That the proposed four tract maps are not all tract maps within the Specific Plan · That this project has been phased and that these maps would represent the first phase · That the Development Impact Fees (DIF) are not actually due until building permits are issued; that Development Impact Fees include fees for traffic, parks, art in public places, etc. · That the proposed maps pertain to the eastern podion of the project (eastern lake area and around the school site) · That product review will considered at the next Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve the staff recommendation for Item Nos. 11- 14. The motion was seconded by CounciLman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Naggar who was absent and Councilman P[att who abstained. At 7:25 P M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Temecula Public Financing Authority, the City Council Meeting resumed with regular business at 7:37 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 15 Villaqes of Temecula General Plan Amendment (PA00-0138), Chan!qe of Zone (PA00- 0139), Development Plan (PA00-0140), Tentative Parcel Map (PA00-0152) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT R:\Minutes\091702 7 15.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0'I38, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REALIGN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M) LAND-USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARIES OF A 23-ACRE SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD, AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 944-290-012, -013, AND -014, BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT 15.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0139, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO) AND ADOPTING THE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PDO DOCUMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD, AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 944-290-012, -013, AND -014 15.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0'I40, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 160-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND EIGHT RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 68,700 SQUARE FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD, AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 944-290-012, -013, AND-014 R:\Minutes\091702 8 15.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0152 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29140 SUBDIVIDING THE SITE FROM THREE LOTS INTO EIGHT LOTS, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD, AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 944-290-012, -013, AND -014 Planning Director Ubnoske presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: That two Planning Commissioners voiced objection solely based on the proposed gas station; · That the trip generation analysis as a result of the zone change from office professional to residential zone indicated no increase; · That staff has not had the opportunity to review the proposed changes and, therefore, staff would recommend a continuance. At this time, Mayor Roberts opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B, reviewed the proposed changes and noted the following: · That the building originally proposed for the east side of the site has been removed and incorporated into the remainder of the site · That a second building originally proposed for the southeast area of the site has also been removed and incorporated into a three-story component · That there will be no grading at southeast corner of the property; that this corner will be retained in a natural state; that the entire pad slides to the north away from the residences on the south side; that the development was, as well, pulled away from the residences on the east side; that the open space area in the southwest corner has been increased (approximately two acres); that an open turf play area, landscaping, and trail has been incorporated, which could be taken by the Community Services Depadment for maintenance purposes · That the initially proposed parking areas on the east and southeast sides have been converted into an enclosed parking garage to eliminate potential light impacts to the neighbors to the east · That by adding a third floor, nine feet were added to the height of the four buildings located adjacent to the recreation building but, in turn, it lowered the entire site by approximately eight feet · That there will be three tot lot areas throughout the site · That the overall circulation system has not been changed · That the commercial theme has been incorporated into the apartment project · That the apartment component will be readdressed by the Planning Commission · That there will be a recreation building and pool area with work-out rooms · That there will be a heavy landscaping treatment along Rancho California Road R:\Minutes\091702 9 · That the architectural theme was, as well, incorporated into the day care facility · That the gas station will not be 24 hour; that there will be limited hours of operation; that no sale of alcohol will be permitted; that there will not be a car wash; and that there will be no sale of fast food · That there have been a series of additional section cuts to ensure limited impact on view shed · That numerous efforts have been undedaken to minimize impacts to the single-family neighbors to the east and south · That the decrease in the commercial acreage has created a net benefit as to traffic impacts · That the development will operate as an owner-operated facility · That the owner will market any age · That there will be 160 apartment units · That the development will be a gated community, sharing access with the Temecula Ridge project - gated on the west and north entrances · That affordable housing had not been requested by the Redevelopment Agency · That the graded area to the west would be large enough for a small but not a regulation- sized field. City Manager Nelson noted that the Quimby requirement for this project will be approximately two acres and, therefore, the owner would receive a 50% credit because of the recreational improvements that are being provided but will still pay a one-acre Quimby fee and a development impact fee, noting that within the development, there are two additional acres of open space to the south and that although not yet determined, the developer/manager will be responsible for the maintenance of this particular site. Thanking City staff for all their assistance and efforts and in response to the City Council, Mr. Barton Buchalter addressed the following items: · That the project does not designate a senior use · That the proposed project will be a very Iow-density apartment community · That affordable units were not required but would have no objection to working with the City · That the project wilt consist of 160 units and that three tot lots are being provided · That if the southwest area were retained by the developer, it would be graded, irrigated, and planted with grass and trees; that the property would be of the same grade as the adjacent apartments · That the landscaping area in the front of the property (Rancho California Road) will be approximately 20' to 25'. Having originally opposed the project, Mr. Scott Hanson, 42298 Cosmic Drive, relayed his support of the project; continued to express his desire to have a stop light installed at the entrance on Rancho California Road; noted that the hours and lighting with the gas station is no longer a concern; and advised that the neighborhood would like to be able to utilize the two-acre open space area. Commending Mr. Hanson and the neighbors on their input, Councilman Comerchero commented on how beneficial such input has been to the City Council as well as the Planning Commission. Working in the apartment business, Mr. Paul Runkle relayed his support of this project and commended the applicant on the development and its transition between commercial and single-family. R:\Minutes\091702 10 Commending those involved on the level of communication in an effort to ensure issues of concern were addressed, Mayor Roberts echoed the comments made by Councilman Comerchero. Although he could approve the intent of the project because of the citizens' needs for housing and complimentary commercial economic development, Councilman Pratt noted that he will be abstaining on the project because the City will not be providing a safe traffic environment and convenient alternate transportation choice for the new citizens. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to continue this matter to the City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Naggar who was absent. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comment. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT With regard to Closed Session, City Attorney Thorson noted that there were no reportable actions under the Brown Act. ADJOURNMENT At 8:25 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday September 24, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\091702 11 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $1,285,927.97. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos2OO2/Resos 02- 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 02- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 22nd day of October, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos2002/Resos 02- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 10/03/02 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 10/03/02 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 10/10/02 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 10/10/02 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 10f22/02 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 192 193 194 210 261 280 300 320 330 340 471 GENERAL FUND RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND CFD 8~12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES CFD 9~1 ADMIN EXP 100 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUN~I'Y SERVICES O ISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 184 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 280 REDEVELOPMENT AG ENCY-CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 471 CFD 98-1 ADMIN EXP FUND TOTAL BY FUND: SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER 54,527.70 631,578.34 288,880.80 $ 1,285,927.97 531,769.89 7,748.83 120,408.63 5,213.93 13,469.72 715.12 234,933.16 4,867.07 15,199.74 19,409.66 15,842.14 8,058.84 19,240.38 170.06 205,473.11 5,048.55 52,207.93 73.04 4,560.54 625.35 2,302.02 947.64 10,046.16 1,981.12 5,285.40 329.94 $ 997,047.17 288,880.80 $ 1,285,927.97 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. apChkLst 10/03/2002 9:16:11AM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date 79605 10/3/2002 79606 10/3/2002 79607 10/3/2002 79608 10/3/2002 79609 10/3/2002 79610 10/3/2002 79611 10/3/2002 79612 10/3/2002 Final Check List City of Temecula Vendor Description 003445 A P I FUND FOR PAYROLL EDU( A/P year-end Conf:Yonker:l 1/05 A/P year-end Conf:Weston:l 1/05 000745 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES Cellular phone svcs:police 003392 AARON BROTHERS ART & FRA Framing of photographs & brochures 003304 ADAMS ADVERTISING INC Oct biltbeard rental:Old Town 000106 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITUR Double Hinged Chair Beiga:Sr Ctr 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CA Membership: Jay Oldham 56332042 Membemhip:Doug Armstrong 767660 000475 B N I PUBLICATIONS INC 2003 Gmenbook manuals:PW 005570 BALBOA ART CONSERVATION ( On site survey of museum artifacts Amount Paid 329.00 329.00 251.13 135.68 2,082.50 1,083.44 44.00 44.00 1,523.23 250.00 79613 10/3/2002 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA Dedicated cimuit for wtr heater:Stn 92 79614 10/3/2002 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC EE computer pumhase prgm:Castillo, 1 79615 10/3/2002 005416 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC Paramedic squad suppfies:Fire Paramedic squad supplies:Fire 79616 10/3/2002 002998 BRUNSWICK CAL OAKS BOWL Day Camp Excursion on 8/29/02 79617 10/3/2002 000502 CALIF MUNICIPAL STATISTICS Debt statement for the City 79618 10/3/2002 002520 CALIFORNIA 'r's SCREENPRINT PW Mntc Crew Uniform Shirts 79619 10/3/2002 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Misc. Welding Suppies for Public Work 79620 10/3/2002 004093 CARDIO CARE PLUS 79621 10/3/2002 002534 CATERERS CAFE 79622 10/3/2002 004381 CENTER FOR HEALTHCARE TCSD instructor earnings Refreshment:Mtg w/RVSD County CPR/AED instructor course:Fehler PALS instructor coume:Bolowich 1,295.00 2,000.00 1,220.91 770.07 287.00 400.00 570.00 121.43 556.80 143.69 375.00 155.00 Page: I Check Total 658.00 251.13 135.68 2,082.50 1,083.44 88.00 1,523.23 250.00 1,295.00 2,000.00 1,990.98 287.00 400.00 570.00 121.43 556.80 143.69 530.00 Page:l apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 10103/2002 9:16:11AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor (Continued) Description 79623 10/3/2002 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS (CELL PI- 8/9-9/8/02 cellular phone svcs 79624 10/3/2002 005417 ClNTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY FIRST AID SUPPLIES FOR PUBLIC ~ 79625 10/3/2002 005577 COMPENDIUM TECHNOLOGIES Refund: Security Deposit 79626 10/3/2002 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES Oct lease pmt for Po[ice sub-stn 79627 10/3/2002 003754 DOWNTOWN IDEA EXCHANGE subscription:Downtown Promotion Pm 79628 10/3/2002 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Rosales temp help PPE 09/20/02 Obmann temp help PPE 09/20/02 Bragg temp help PPE 09/20/02 Kanigowski temp help PPE 09/20/02 Rosa temp help PPE 09/20/02 Cammarota temp help PPE 09/20/02 000478 FAST SIGNS TMS after school pool hours sign 004239 FISHERMERRIMANSEHGALY,~ ARCHITECTUALDESIGN:OLDTOW 003281 FOREMOST FIRE PROMOTION Public Educ materials:Fire Prevention 79629 10/3/2002 79630 10/3/2002 79631 10/3/2002 79632 10/3/2002 796,33 10/3/2002 79634 10/3/2002 79635 10/3/2002 79636 10/3/2002 79637 10/3/2002 79638 10/3/2002 79639 10/3/2002 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC 003531 GATEWAY 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS 000871 HILTON Monitoring Unit w/Temp&Motion EE computer purchase prgm:Smith,Ja Application fee:Award Prgm. City/Chamber Tourism CD Add't tourism CD copies Hotel:l 1/18-22:Windsor/Buckley/Pidge 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals Pool sanitizing chem~als 002140 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS Network squipment mntcJrepairs 005571 JOAN F. SPARKMAN SCHOOL P Refund: Security Deposit Amount Paid 5,330.18 27.96 100.00 1,849.64 179.00 1,916.62 1,904.52 1,726.20 1,258.40 1,185.67 1,062.20 90.54 1,353.33 596.54 2,268.14 1,878.08 450.00 10,334.00 3,000.00 1,285.11 190.72 146.22 403.75 100.00 Check Total 5,330.18 27.96 100.00 1,849.64 179.00 9,053.61 1,353.33 596.54 2,268.14 1,878.08 450.96 13,334.00 336.94 403.75 Page2 apChkLst 10/0,3/2002 9:16:11AM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79640 10/3/2002 005576 KELLER, PAMELA 79641 10/3/2002 79642 10/3/2002 79643 10/3/2002 79644 10/3/2002 005287 KEY 3 MEDIA GROUP 005569 LEARNING FOR LIFE 004087 LOWE'S Final Check List City of Temecula (Continued) Description Refund: Security Deposit Comdex Conf:Wtndecr/Bucktey/Pidg Accidental Med Ins:Fire Explorer Res impr prgm:Clack, Ronald & Heath Amount Paid 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Aug:Public Notices:Planning Juf:Public Notices:Planning Aug:Legal Not[ce Adv:C[ty Clerk Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 100.00 300.00 168.00 829.14 281.00 167.50 88.36 Page: 3 Check Total 100.00 300.00 168.00 829.14 536.86 54,527.70 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 10103/2002 10:59:52AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79645 10/3/2002 79646 10/3/2002 79647 10/3/2002 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 005568 MAIN STREET SUB STATION 004141 MAINTEX INC 79648 10/3/2002 79649 10/3/2002 79650 10/3/2002 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY 003715 MORTON TRAFFIC MARKINGS 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS 79651 10/3/2002 79652 10/3/2002 79653 10/3/2002 005575 NATIONAL MULT. SCLEROSIS S 004191 NORTH COUNTY TIMES-PMT P 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS 79654 10/3/2002 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 79655 10/3/2002 79656 10/3/2002 79657 10/3/2002 79658 10/3/2002 79659 10/3/2002 004491 OLD TYME FOLK 002668 OMEGA LAKE SERVICES 005573 PALOMA ELEMENTARY PTA 003218 PELA 000249 PETTY CASH Description Amount Paid Check Total Misc. signs & hardware:PW Maint. Misc signs & hardware:PW Maint. Fac Imrpv Prgm:Reimb. Dev. Fees TCSD Custodial Supplies C.R.C Custodial Supplies City Hall Custodial Supplies Repair broken fences;var parks Stencil Paint Supplies:PW Maint. parts/supplies:PW Maint Misc parts/supplies:PW vehicles parts/supplies:Stn 84 vehicles Refund:Sec. Dep.:Educ.prgm:2/24/02 09/28-3/24/03 subscription svc Office Supplies for Planning Dept Misc Office Supplies: P.D.O.T. Stn Office Supplies for Planning Dept City vehicle maint/repair svcs City vehicle maintJrepair svcs City vehicle maint/repair svcs City vehicle maintJrepair svcs City vehicle maintJrepair svcs Entertainment:Heritage Days:l 0/4 TEMECULA DUCK POND WATER Q 387.90 124.99 512,89 190.00 190.00 530.43 340.29 38.14 908.86 531.41 531.41 3,523.43 3,523.43 148.57 21.44 12.75 182.76 80.00 80.00 61.00 61.00 338.16 323.83 141.52 803.51 875.58 274.56 234.03 36.67 35.11 1,455.95 250.00 250.00 800.00 800.00 Refund:Sec. Deposit:5th Grd End/Yr Jul plan check svcs:Planning Aug plan check svc:Planning Petty cash reimbursement 100.00 100.00 20,404.00 7,060.00 27,464.00 769.70 769.70 Page:l apChkLst Page: 2 10103/2002 10:59:52AM Bank: union UNION BANKOF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79660 10/3/2002 79603 9/30/2002 79661 10/3/2002 79662 10/3/2002 79663 10/3/2002 79664 10/3/2002 79665 10/3/2002 79666 10/3/2002 79667 10/3/2002 79668 10/3/2002 79669 10/3/2002 79670 10/3/2002 000252 POLYCRAFT INC 79604 9/30/2002 79671 10/3/2002 79672 10/3/2002 79673 10/3/2002 79674 10/3/2002 002185 POSTMASTER - TEMECULA 004529 QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON 004766 QUICK COVERS 000981 RHFINC 004457 R J NOBLE COMPANY 002612 RADIO SHACK INC 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Final Check List City of Temecula (Continued) Description City Seal Vehicle Decals:P.D. Postage:Tern. Community Newsletters repair/maint of P.D. motomycles Bal. due:Metal Cover:Fira Stn 92 mpair/maint P.D. radar equipment Pavement Rehab Prg:Hope/Cosmic Misc Computer Supplies 01-99-02003-0 Floating meter Sept 02-79-10100-1 NW Spor~s Pk 003517 REBEL EQUIPMENT RENTAL Equipment rental:Hol. Parade 12/01 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Var Parks electrical supplies 003742 REHAB FINANCIAL CORPORATI RDA loan servicing 004964 RHYTHM & BREWS Refreshments:Fire Mgmt Mtg:9/7 Refreshments:9/11 Ceremony Refreshments:Fira Mgmt Mtg:8/16 Credit:Sales tax chrgd twice:#802001 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & RECOr Ntc/Determination:R.C. Bridge Widenir 004907 RIVERSIDE CO TRANSPORTATI FY 02/03 RTA-CETAP Planning Act 004375 ROBOTRONICS iNC 005018 SACHER, SUZANNE L. 005572 SAITES, SALLY parts to repair equipment TCSD Instructor Earnings Refund:Tiny Tots - Creative Beg Amount Paid Check Total 677.01 677.01 3,711.72 3,711.72 2,586.54 2,586.54 1,000.00 1,000.00 186.72 186.72 220,046.16 220,046.16 30.13 30.13 244.12 74.92 319.04 537.20 537.20 396.71 396.71 32.00 32.00 32.16 19.88 17.68 -1.19 68.53 1,314.00 1,314.00 24,425.00 24,425.00 25.60 25.60 128.00 128.00 21.25 21.25 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 16/03/2002 10:59:52AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 79675 10/3/2002 000403 SHAWN SCOTt POOL & SPA 79676 10/3/2002 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 79677 10/3/2002 002718 SO CALIF CITY CLERKS ASSN 79678 10/3/2002 000537 SO CALtF EDISON 79679 10/3/2002 79680 10/3/2002 79681 10/3/2002 79682 10/3/2002 79683 10/3/2002 79684 10/3/2002 79685 10/3/2002 79686 10/3/2002 79687 10/3/2002 79688 10/3/2002 79689 10/3/2002 79690 10/3/2002 Amount Paid Sept TES pool maint svcs Supplies for EE recognition events Supplies for EE recognition events SCCCA workshop:10/24:S.Jones Sept 2-00-397-5042 City Hall Sept 2-02-502-8077 West Wing Sept 2-00-397-5067 various mtrs Sept 2-19-683-3263 Front St Ped Sept 2-22-575-0876 O.T. Front St. Sept 2-18-528-9980 Santiago Rd Sept 2-22-496-3439 Winchester 000282 SO CALIF MUNICiPALATHLETI Spor~s Mgmt:9/12:Pagan/Willcox 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR¢ Pest Control Svcs:Stn 84 & 92 TCC Pest Control Svcs 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CL clean carpets:C.H, hallways/I.S. 001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & PLU 6th St. Restrooms plumbing svcs 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN Gifts:Committee Recogn. Dinner 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY, Children's Museum lecksmith svcs 003140 TEMECULAVALLEYTAEKWON TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED S Refund:Sec. Deposit:End/Yr 6/6/02 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC Dj for teen event - 6/28/02 Dj for teen event - 6/15/02 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE I Traffic Control Supplies:PW Maint 002065 UNISOURCE Var. Fac. dishwashing detergent 004846 UNITED GREEN MARK INC Misc irrigation supplies:TCSD Mntc Misc irrigation supplies:TCSD 718.60 186.83 106.01 65,00 8,461.12 2,382.91 907.98 451.13 336.84 52.38 50.14 206.00 110.00 395.00 55.00 537.78 64.96 100.00 100.00 400.00 350.00 120.14 321.64 163.14 39.22 Check Total 718.60 292.84 65.00 12,642.50 50.00 316.00 395.00 55.00 537.78 64.05 100.00 100.00 750.00 120.14 321.64 202.36 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 10/03/2002 10:59:52AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79691 10/3/2002 005574 VAIL ELEMENTARY PTA 79692 10/3/2002 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 79693 10/3/2002 004774 WOODCREST UNIFORMS (Continued) Description Amount Paid Ref und;Sec. Depos[t:End/Yr 6/11/02 SEPT XXX-2676 GENERAL USAGE SEPT XXX-1408 P.D. SATELLITE ST SEPT XXX-2626 PD TARGET STORE SEPT XXX-9897 GENERAL USAGE SEPT XXX-3526 GENERAL USAGE uniforms for P.D.C.A.P. team 100.00 28.68 394.24 217.55 89.59 83.15 157.89 Check Total 100.00 813.21 157.89 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 310,941.13 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM City of Temecuia Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description 44 10/10/2002 000245 PERS {HEALTH INSUR. PREMIU Employees health insurance 45 10/10/2002 000642 TEMECULACITY FLEXIBLE Employee contribution to flex 46 10/10/2002 000246 PERS(EMPLOYEES'RETIREME Employees state retirement 47 10/10/2002 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 48 10/10/2002 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 79694 10/10/2002 003552 A F L A C 79695 10/10/2002 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI 79696 10/10/2002 000434 ACCELA.COM 79697 10/10/2002 005058 ADAMS, AARON 005582 ALADDIN RESORT& CASINO 79698 10/10/2002 79699 10/10/2002 79700 10/10/2002 79701 10/10/2002 79702 10/10/2002 Amount Paid 35,741.78 5,364.36 42,774.15 57,307.84 13,163.55 1,634.10 325.60 1,041.84 202.20 538.46 343.06 8,590.15 79703 10/10/2002 79704 10/10/2002 Employees fed pr taxes Employees fed pr taxes Supplemental std & cancer insurance TCSD instructor earnings Sales tax for Perm[ts Plus Mntc Contra Reimb:Leagues of Cities conf: 7/9 Htl:Eden sys:10/14-17:Staff 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI Membership:John Meyer 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALL Aug Animal control services 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 003485 AUDIO VIDEO SUPPLY INC Acosta temp help PPE 09/21/02 Acosta tamp help PPE 09/14/02 Kau temp help PPE 09/21/02 Kau tamp help PPE 09/14/02 Bottled wtr sews @ City Hall Bottled wtr sews @ West Wing Bottled wtr sews @ CRC Bottled wtr sews @ Museum Audio Tech Rack Mounting Plate 1,182.00 529.75 520.00 486.42 302.58 42.15 23.48 56.64 002541 BECKERCONSTRUCTIONSRV CitywideA.C. saw cutting for PW 2,280.00 CheckTotal 35,741.78 5,364.36 42,774.15 57,307.84 13,163.55 1,634.10 325.60 1,041.84 202.20 538.46 343.00 8,590.15 3,385.15 854.63 65.64 2,280.00 Page:l apChkLst 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79705 10/10/2002 79706 10/10/2002 79707 10/10/2002 79708 10/10/2002 005420 BILL & DAVEIS LANDSCAPE 003817 BLUE R~DGE MEDICAL 003126 BOOMGAARDEN, DENNIS 005416 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 79709 10/10/2002 79710 10/10/2002 79711 10/10/2002 79712 10/10/2002 Final Check List City of Temecula (Continued) Description DOG RUN FOR POLICE K-9:KAOS Paramedic squad supplies:Fire TCSD instructor earnings Paramedic squad supplies: Returned paramedic supplies:Fire Returned paramedic supplies:Fire 005584 BRUCE, MARLANA Refund: Security Deposit 004081 BUSINESS FURNITURE GROUP IS Staff room reconfiguration 002099 BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES Oct lease:Old Twn Restroom 000484 CALIF ASSN FOR LOCAL ECON( Retail Wrkshp:2/6/03:O'Grady Workshop:02/06:Wolnick 79713 10/10/2002 79714 10/10/2002 79715 10/10/2002 005375 CAMMAROTA, SUSAN 004618 CALIF NARCOTIC OFFICERS A 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Annual Training:l 1/23-26:Larson/Wad Helium tanks reffil:TCSD Reimb:Lunch mtg expense:lO/01/02 Amount Paid 2,499.00 324.10 386.40 1,559.35 -20.42 -80.80 100.00 887.09 826.00 195.00 195.00 710.00 18.80 89.13 79716 10/10/2002 79717 10/10/2002 79718 10/10/2002 79719 10/10/2002 79720 10/10/2002 79721 10/10/2002 79722 10/10/2002 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO Life insurance premium 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, I CITY COPIER CONTRACT FY 02/03- 005585 CHING, MARIA 005417 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 003997 COAST RECREATION INC 005281 COGNITECH INC 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI Reimb:Permits + Training:9/23-27 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FOR PUBLIC First Aid Kit Supplies:TCSD Vehicles Various playground equip:TCSD Video Surveillance software:Police Employees Charities contributions 1,170.25 6,882.81 280.77 63.36 35.29 186.25 2,708.36 136.50 Page: 2 Check Total 2,499.00 324.10 386.40 1,458.33 100.00 887.09 826.00 390.00 710.00 18.80 89.13 1,170.25 6,882.81 280.77 98.65 186.25 2,708.36 136.50 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 10110/2002 3:46:36PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 79723 10/10/2002 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE Amount Paid BREAKFAST:VOORBURG VISITORS 100.00 Check Total 100.00 79724 10/10/2002 003059 COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBE EEcomputerpumhaseprgm:Osvold 355.56 355.56 79725 10/10/2002 003409 COT INVESTMENTS Cfd 88-12 reimbursement 4,258.86 4,258.86 79726 10/10/2002 002697 CREATIVE LIGHTING INC Replaceballfieldlamps:TCSD 1,942.75 1,942.75 79727 10/10/2002 79728 10/10/2002 001393 DATATICKET INC 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK Aug Parking citation processing August parking citations processing Special events premiums for Sept 200 330.35 140.00 1,126.82 470.35 1,126.82 79729 10/10/2002 005382 DON LA FORCE ASSOClATAES, Mntc on auto door @ Sr. Center 250.00 250.00 79730 10/10/2002 79731 10/10/2002 79732 16/10/2002 79733 10/10/2002 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 002438 ENGEN CORPORATION 002577 ENGINEERING RESOURCES Fuel for city vehicles:TCSD Fuel for city vehicles:PW Fuel for city vehicles:Planning/Police Fuel for city vehicles: CIP Fuel for city vehicles: B&S Naaseh-Shahry temp help PPE 09/20 TEMP HELP - OFC ASST & BLDG IN McCoy tamp help PPE 09/20/02 Ebon temp help PPE 09/20/02 McClanahan & Ching tamp help PPE Martinez tamp help PPE 09/20/02 TEMP HELP - OFC ASST & BLDG IN GEOTECH TEST:PVMNT REHABILI Geotech test:Print Rehabilitation Pr Hydrology study:J.Wamer/Santiaga R 953.96 356.88 355.44 197.20 194.53 5,534.45 2,739.99 2,542.02 2,264.80 2,016.82 1,176.00 1,152.06 2,647.50 1,325.00 2,610.00 2,058.01 17,426.14 3,972.50 2,610.00 79734 10/10/2002 79735 10/10/2002 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 005586 FACTS Mobile Equip & Truck Rapair:PW Mobile Equip & Truck Repair:PW Refund:Cancelled event on 7/20/02 750.00 300.00 34.00 1,050.00 34.00 79736 10/10/2002 79737 10/10/2002 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMP,~ Express mail services Express mail services Lot Book Repts for Res Imp Prog 316.97 118.37 900.00 435.34 900.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 79738 10/10/2002 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 79739 10/10/2002 004944 FULLCOURT PRESS Amount Paid x;<-6165 Yates:Mtgs/Conf/Misc suppli xx-0432 Elmo:Conf(Delta/Boca Int) xx-7824 Comemhero:Prof Mtgs/Conf xx-2292 Robert G:SW Air/Eden Conf:S ~<-9277 Roberts:Conf expenses xx-1143 Parker:Conf-Delta Air xx-1405 Ubnoske:Mtg/Conf/Office Supl Payroll checks:Finance Dept 1,124.70 599.36 575.75 419.00 360.22 288.50 181.36 507.66 Check Total 3,548.89 507.66 79740 10/10/2002 79741 10/10/2002 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS 004607 GRACE BUILDING MAINTENANC Office Supplies:TCSD Office Supplies: Info Sys Office Supplies: Finance Office Supplies: RDA Low/Mod Office Supplies: City Mgr Office Supplies: Bldg & Safety Office Supplies:Human Resoume Custodial svcs for park restrooms 2,074.76 475.11 274.48 248.76 229.78 225.90 79.00 3,925.00 3,607.79 3,925.00 79742 10/10/2002 005311 H20 CERTIFIED POOL WATER ,~ CRC - Swimming Pool Mntc svcs 1,200.00 1,200.00 79743 10/10/2002 79744 10/10/2002 79745 10/10/2002 004053 HABITAT WEST INC 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 004242 HARMONY ARTISTS INC Prof svcs:Mntc agrmt Pala Bridge Prjt LONG CYN DETENTION BASIN:MAI Hardware suppl[es:TCSD Hardware supplies:CRC Hardware supplies:PW st mntc Hardware supplies: Fire Dept Hardware supplies: Museum Hardware supplies: Planning Hardware supplies: City Hall Hardware supplies: Old Town Hardware supplies:TCC Hardware supplies:Sr Center Hardware supplies:West Wing Hardware supplies: Info Sys Hardware supplies:PW Inspectom Hardware supplies: Aquatics Entertainment:Summer nights 1,174.98 761.66 711.41 480.93 272.58 206.11 125.85 48.28 46.63 45.20 17.83 17.04 13.11 9.31 6.10 5.36 600.00 1,936.64 2,005.74 600.00 79746 10/10/2002 000116 HEALTHNETDENTALANDVI Premiumforeevisionplan 907.10 907.10 79747 10/10/2002 002107 HIGHMARKINC City life ins policy premium 567.70 567.70 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total 79748 10/10/2002 002126 HILLYARDFLOORCARESUPPL CRC gym floor supplies 79749 10/10/2002 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE 79750 10/10/2002 005583 HUGHES, WILLIAM 79751 10/10/2002 001060 HYATT Storage for paramedics EE computer purchase prgm:Hughes HtI:NRPA Conf:Parker:32356GJC0 79752 10/10/2002 000194 I C M A RETIREMENTTRUST 45 Retirement contributions 79753 10/10/2002 003938 lAN DAVIDSON LANDSCAPE - I Idscp design svcs:First & Front St 79754 10/10/2002 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals 79755 10/10/2002 000388 INTLCONFERENCE BLDG OFFI( Uniform building code bks:B&S 79756 10/10/2002 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE Records mgmt microfilm storage unit 79757 10/10/2002 002140 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS Network equipment mntc/repairs 79758 10/10/2002 004292 KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL IN Halloween Carnival Supplies 79759 10/10/2002 000205 KIDS PARTIES ETC Party Jump: Halloween Camiva110/26/ 79760 10/10/2002 004413 KLAMATH BAY Various Crime Prevention Supplies Various Crime Prevention Supplies Kids track ID Kits:Temecula Police 79761 10/10/2002 000209 L & M FERTILIZER INC Misc mntc supplies:PW Mntc Misc mntc supplies:PW Mntc 79762 10/10/2002 000586 LEXISNEXlS MATTHEW SENDE Codification of adpted ordinances Codification of adopted ordinances 79763 10/10/2002 004174 LIGHT IMPRESSIONS Exhibit Supplies:Museum Exhibit Supplies: Museum 79764 10/10/2002 003028 LOS ANGELES TIMES Aug;various recruitment Ads:HR 79765 10/10/2002 004087 LOWE'S Misc hardware supplies:TCSD 2,372.29 2,372.29 214.42 214.42 1,646.99 1,646.99 918.40 918.40 8,030.62 8,030.62 2,599.40 2,599.40 209.79 209.79 63.64 63.64 158.75 158.75 300.00 300.00 307.25 307.25 370.00 370.00 1,973.46 331.73 264.43 2,569.62 629,35 103.78 733.13 357.07 37.83 394.90 233.60 11.37 244.97 4,572.00 4,572.00 294.25 294.25 Page5 apChkl.st 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79766 10/10/2002 004697 LOWES HIW INC 79767 10/10/2002 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 79768 10/10/2002 004141 MAINTEX INC 79769 10/10/2002 004068 MANALILI, AILEEN 79770 10/10/2002 000217 MARGARITAOFFIClALSASSN 79771 10/10/2002 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC 79772 10/10/2002 006591 MClNTYRE, KELLY 79773 10/10/2002 003448 MELODYS AD WORKS Final Check List City of Temecula (Continued) Description Misc hardware supplies: Misc hardware supplies:Fire Signs & Hardware for PW Maint Santa Gertrudis Crk Trail signs CRC Custodial Supplies CRC Custodial Supplies TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Sept Softball Officiating Svcs Printing:Inside Temecula Nwsltrs Reimb:Permits Plus Training:9/23-27 Marketing/Pmmo svcs for Old Town 79774 10/10/2002 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPAN City dental insurance Amount Paid 2,571.39 117.09 1,225.12 1,006.39 120.90 54.82 742.00 2,950.00 5,367.03 175.45 3,096.93 5,976.33 79775 10/10/2002 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM 79776 10/10/2002 005580 MINARD, NATALIE 79777 10/10/2002 004927 MINNESANG PEST SPECIALI 79778 10/10/2002 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 79779 10/10/2002 000437 MORELAND&ASSOCIATES 79780 10/10/2002 000230 MUNIFINANClAL 79781 10/10/2002 000233 NELSON, SHAWN 79782 10/10/2002 005588 NICOLAS VALLEY ELEMENTAR 79783 10/10/2002 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Release claims agreement pmt CITYWIDE APPLICATION OF POST- Business Cards:D.Caravelli/Z.Smith Sept temp help M. Boardman Sep-Dec Assess Eng svcs:TCSD Reimb:League Conf:10/02-05/02 Refund:Sec. Dep.:5th Grd:6/10/02 REPAIR & MAINT OF VEHICLES~ City vehicle maint/repair svcs 736.00 288.00 714.25 3,215.00 85.66 7,040.80 4,870.26 11.70 100.00 103,81 91.63 Page: 6 CheckTotal 2,688.48 2,231.51 175.72 742.00 2,950.00 5,367.03 175.46 3,096.93 5,976.33 1,024.00 714.25 3,215.00 85.66 7,040.80 4,870.26 11.70 100.00 195.44 Page~ apChkLst 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM Check # Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Date 79784 10/10/2002 79785 10/10/2002 005589 PARKSIDE LANDSCAPE 79786 10/10/2002 000733 PARTY PZAZZ Final Check List City of Temecula (Continued) Vendor Description 001619 ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER I Sept:variousrecruitmentAds:HR Refund:room rental:potluck 3/02/02 Dunk tank rental:Gift Giving Campaign 79787 10/10/2002 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG Employee benefits 79788 10/10/2002 000249 PETTYCASH Petty cash reimbursement 79789 10/10/2002 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Aug Ads: Summer Nights:RDA 79790 10/10/2002 005067 PURSUITTECHNOLOGY INC install keyboardJlaptops:Fire vehicles 79791 10/10/2002 004529 QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON P.D. motomyle mpair/maint svcs 79792 10/10/2002 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Various water meters Various water meters Various water meters Sept 01-08-00035-0 Hwy 79S Sept 01-02-98010-0 Pauba Road Sept 01-02-02001-0 Rancho Vista Rd Sept 01-08-38009-0 Overland Tr Sept 01-06-84860-5 Pujol St Sept 01-02-98000-0 Pauba Road 79793 10/10/2002 005587 RANCHO ELEMENTARY SCHO Refund:Sec. Dep.:5th Grd:6/4/02 79794 10/10/2002 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH(~ July 2002legal se~/ices 79795 10/10/2002 000266 R~GHTWAY equipment rental-Long Cyn Crk Pk 6quipment rental-Riverton Pk Cred[t:Graffitti removal chrg waived 79796 10/10/2002 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD CONTR(; Strmwtr Mgmt Pract:10/21-22:Land De 79797 10/10/2002 000268 RIVERSIDE CO HABITAT Sept 2002 K-Rat payment 79798 10/10/2002 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST Aug Promenade Mall undercover prg Amount Paid 275.04 160.00 178.00 250.15 187.69 2,461.16 448.78 712.82 16,208.79 10,516.60 502.67 495.36 877.90 325.41 48.62 45.11 10.10 100.00 144,179.74 54.39 42.50 -22.50 135.00 18,035.00 4,127.20 Page: 7 Check Total 275.04 160.00 178.00 250.15 187.69 2,461.16 448.78 712.82 28,530.56 100.00 144,179.74 74.39 135.00 18,035.00 4,127.20 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79799 10/10/2002 79800 10/10/2002 79801 10/10/2002 79802 10/10/2002 79803 10/10/2002 004773 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFFS 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. 001942 S C SIGNS 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE 79804 10/10/2002 004609 SHREDFORCE INC 79805 10/10/2002 003804 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEM 79806 10/10/2002 000645 SMART&FINALINC 79807 10/10/2002 000645 SMART& FINAL INC 79808 10/10/2002 002536 SMITH, ZENAIDA B. 79809 10/10/2002 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 79810 10/10/2002 79811 10/10/2002 79812 10/10/2002 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTRC 004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUN 000574 SUPERTONER (Continued) Description Aug 2002 booking fees Reimb:APTA Conf:9/21-24/02 Rb:TIS Steering Comm. Mtg:9/25-29 Jul public ntcs:Planning withholding payment Aug:various recruitment Ads:HR Aug:Recruitment Ads:HR Aug:various recruitment Ads:HR Sept bulk doc. shredding svcs TCSD Instructor Earnings Refreshments:Make Diff. Day:10/26 Rec. class supplies:High Hopes EE advance CMBTA Conf:10/15-18 Oct 2-01-202-7603 street lamps Oct 2-00-987-0775 street lamps Oct 2-05-791-8807 various mtrs Oct 2-22-417-8772 Rancho Vista Sept 2-10-331-2153 TCC Sept 2-19-683-3255 Front St Ped Sept 2-19-538-2262 various mtrs Sept 2-20-798-3248 Children Mus. Oct 2-23-693-2610 Pala Rd Oct 2-24-077-3o69 Pala Rd Oct 2-23-548-1975 various mtrs Sept 2-23-051-9399 Marg Ped Pest Control Svcs:Duck Pond R.R. Sept 02 workers' comp premium HP Printer Supplies Oct HP Printer Maint Svcs Amount Paid Check Total 9,715.20 9,715.20 54.00 51.90 105.90 585.00 585.00 107.00 107.00 1,267.44 1,137.58 485.75 2,890.77 110.00 110.00 2,527.20 2,527.20 150.00 150.00 80.87 80.87 200.00 200.00 13,766.90 5,146.28 3,726.96 1,661.18 1,641.37 820.48 121.24 117.7o 54.16 36.89 31.95 16.41 27,141.52 39.00 39.00 18,279.26 18,279.26 952.51 828.32 1,780.83 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79813 10/10/2002 79814 10/10/2002 79815 10/10/2002 79816 10/10/2002 79817 10/10/2002 79818 10/10/2002 79819 10/10/2002 79820 10/10/2002 79821 10/10/2002 79822 10/10/2002 79823 10/10/2002 79824 10/10/2002 7982.5 10/10/2002 79826 10/10/2002 79827 10/10/2002 79828 10/10/2002 79829 10/10/2002 000305 TARGET STORE 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL911 (Continued) Description Amount Paid Rec. class supplies:High Hopes Rec. Supplies:Family Fun Nights Recreation Supplies for CRC Recreation Supplies:TCSD Employee's union 71.10 47.37 46.33 20.94 2,302.50 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL Sunshine Fund 103.34 005412 TEMECULA GARDEN & POWER Repair/Maint of Small Equipment PW 33.94 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LL P.D. motomycle repair/maint svcs P.D. motomycle repair/maint svcs 793.59 493.12 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN 003140 TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON 003149 TERRA CAL CONSTRUCTION I 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE I 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE 004846 UNITED GREEN MARK INC P.E. EE svc recognition awards P.D. EE recognition pins TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Reissue#73191:Rel Stp ntc:Robertso Traffic Control Supplies for PW Employee def comp plan P/T EE retirement Postage meter deposit Misc irrigation supplies for TCSD 1,031.33 100.00 20.00 2,891.26 297.55 16,929.75 2,487.78 3,098.61 7.93 70.00 255.80 5,923.83 30.00 005581 UNITED STATES MARINE CORP Reiss#73640:trans cost:hol.parade 000325 UNITED WAY 004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERI 004504 VAIL RANCH SELF STORAGE Employee contributions Employee group health pmt Oct off-site records storage Check Total 185.74 2,302.50 103.34 33.94 1,286.71 1,131.33 20.00 2,891.26 297.55 16,929.75 2,487.78 3,098.61 7.93 70.00 255.80 5,923.83 30.00 Page9 apChkl, st Final Check List Page: 10 10/10/2002 3:46:36PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 79830 10/10/2002 (Continued) Description 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE Sept Plan check svcs:B&S Amount Paid Check Total 79831 10/10/2002 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA SEPT XXX-5509 GENERAL USAGE SEPT XXX-2629 NAGGAR SEPT XXX-1289 PRATT SEPT XXX-0049 GENERAL USAGE 79832 10/10/2002 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. SEPT ACCESS-CRC PHONE LINE SEPT ACCESS-RVSD CO PHONE L 79833 10/10/2002 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Phone svcs/EOC backup @ stn 84 79834 10/10/2002 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC Citywide Tree Trimming Maint Svcs 79835 10/10/2002 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLIN 4/1-5/7 base charge:DC220 copier 79836 10/10/2002 004764 XEROX ENGINEERING SYSTEM svc/repair forcopier:PW Map Room Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 13,978.80 13,978.80 146.14 41.90 38.03 37.90 263.97 343.30 268.20 611.50 69.95 69.95 198.00 198.00 313.24 313.24 305.00 305.00 631,578.34 Page:10 ITEM 4 APPROVAL ~., ~/~"~ CiTY ATT~ -~"~' ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance October 22, 2002 Community Service Funding Program PREPARED BY: Denise Caravelli, Administrative Secretary RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Review and approve the 2002-03 Community Service Funding Program grants per the attached table outlining the committee's recommendations of 42 organizations totaling $113,900. DISCUSSION: The City Council appointed Councilmembers Jeff Stone and Mike Naggar to the 2002-03 Community Service Funding Program Ad Hoc Committee to allocate grant funds to non-profit organizations that provide community services to the citizens of Temecula. Community Service Funding Program applications were mailed to approximately 100 non-profit organizations in the Temecula Valley area. Applications were sent to community-based organizations that were in our database from the last distribution period as well as those organizations that called requesting the application. In addition to the mailing, advertisements were placed in the local papers. A total of 53 organizations submitted applications requesting $230,590 in grant funding. The Committee, along with staff members, reviewed the requests for funding based on criteria previously adopted by the entire council. After review and discussion the committee recommends 42 of the 53 organizations receive grants, totaling $113,900. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds have been made available in the Community Service Funding line-item to fund these requests. The above grant recommendations totaling $113,900 plus $15,000 to the Safe Alternatives for Everyone (SAFE) Program and $15,000 to the SAFE-T Partnership/Rancho Springs Medical Center Program brings the total Community Service Funding grants allocated in this fiscal year to $143,900. Attachment: Community Service Funding Program Committee Recommendation Schedule R:tCaravelli DeniselCSFlO2-O31CSFAgenda report, doc 10/16/02 ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Plan No. 172 CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager/~'-~''''' October 22, 2002 Support of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors Rescission of Specific PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE COUNTY'S PROPOSAL TO RESCIND SPECIFIC PLAN NO.172 (WALKER BASIN) AND DECREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM FOUR (4) DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES BACKGROUND: The Walker Basin Specific Plan is located west of the City of Temecula in the De Luz area of Riverside County. The specific plan has a direct impact in regard to traffic on the City of Temecula. The County Planning Department staff proposal to rescind the specific plan and reduce the density of the area will greatly lower traffic counts on Rancho California Road west of the 1-15 Freeway in the City of Temecula. The County Planning Commission's decision to rescind the Walker Basin Specific Plan and to reduce the project's density was heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 24, 2002. At that hearing the Board continued the rescission of the specific plan and the staff proposed zone change to five-acre minimum lot sizes until March 25, 2002. The applicant was instructed by the Board to return with a project that was less than the 500 dwelling unit proposal but not necessarily lots as large as five acres. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2002-__ R:\BROWNS~agency review\Walker Basin CC stafrpt 9-30-02.doc 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE COUNTY'S PROPOSAL TO RESCIND SPECIFIC PLAN NO.172 (WALKER BASIN) AND DECREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM FOUR (4) DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES WHEREAS, the City of Temecula was notified by Riverside County Staff and informed of their recommendation to rescind the Walker Basin Specific Plan No. 172; and WHEREAS, the County further stated in their recommendation to reduce the density from four dwelling units per acre to one dwelling unit per five acres; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors did continue the rescission and density reduction of the Walker Basin Specific Plan No. 172 to March 25, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has commented numerous times to the County on the negative impact of the Walker Basin Specific Plan No. 172 on the local infrastructure of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula supports the reduction in density to one dwelling unit per five acres; and WHEREAS, the reduction in density will lessen the impacts to traffic and other infrastructure within the City of Temecula NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council: endorses the rescission of Walker Basin Specific Plan No. 172 and the reduction in density to one dwelling unit per five acres. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22nd day of October 2002. A~q'EST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CiTY OF TEMECULA ) R:~BROWNS~agency review\walker basin reso.doc I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:~BROWNS~agency review\walker basin reso.doc 2 ITEM 6 APPROVAL CITY A'I-rORNEY '~--~/::~, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service~,~___~ October 22, 2002 Crowne Hill Parks Fee and Dedication Agreement PREPARED BY: Cathy McCarthy, Development Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Parks Fee and Dedication Agreement Between City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941) 2. Approve the First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site A 3. Approve the First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site F BACKGROUND: Crowne Hill is a large specific plan development in the eastern area of the City south of Pauba Road and east of Butterfield Stage Road. Currently 249 residential units have been developed, which is approximately 25% of the total project. Several months ago, staff evaluated the Quimby and Development Impact Fee (DIF) requirements for the Crowne Hill development as part of the approval process for their remaining final maps. It was determined that there was no park development agreement that addressed the Park and Recreation DIF credit for the development of the two public parks. As a result, staff began discussions with the developer to insure the City received the appropriate DIF fees for the project. The developer is required to provide 13.3 acres of park land to meet the Quimby requirement. Crowne Hill is satisfying this obligation by providing 7.74 acres of public parks (Park Sites A and F), which will be conveyed to the City after the improvements are completed. Crowne Hill will also provide 11.72 acres of private parks (Park Sites B, C, D and E), which will receive a 50% credit toward the Quimby requirement. The remaining DIF requirement (excluding the previous 249 units in Tract Nos. 23143-2, 23143- 3 and 23143-4) is $1,386,548. This agreement provides a DIF reduction of $936,548 for the improvements to be completed by the developer for park sites A and F. The remaining DIF of $450,000 will be paid by the developer. A payment of $250,000 will be made with the execution of this agreement and the remaining $200,000 will be paid to the City prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the overall development, including the 249 permits which have already been issued. These fees of $450,000 have already been allocated to the Sports Complex project through the past CIP process. Included in this agreement are the First Amendments To Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreements for Park Sites A and F. These amendments only substantiate the cost of developing each park and amend the faithful performance bonds and the labor and materials bonds for the park sites. The amendment for park site A also accelerates the completion of this site by 200 building permits. FISCAL IMPACT: $450,000 in DIF revenue which has been allocated to the Sports Complex project in the five year CIP. A'I-rACHMENTS: 1. Parks Fee and Dedication Agreement Between City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941 ) 2. First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site A 3. First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site F PARKS FEE AND DEDICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. (TRACT NOS. 23143 AND 26941) THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of October 22, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Greystone Homes, Inc., a California corporation ("Developer"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which each party acknowledges as true and correct: a. The City Council of the City of Temecula has enacted a comprehensive development impact fee ordinance which is set forth in Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. The actual development impact fees are set forth in Resolution No. 2000-31 of the City Council as authorized by Section 15.06.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code ("DW"). b. Developer is the owner of certain real property in the City of Temecula, which is legally described on Exhibit A., Legal Description of Property ("Property"). Developer warrants and represents to City that it is the duly authorized and lawful successor in interest to Pacific Century Homes, Inc., a California corporation, and Crowne Meadows, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California limited partnership, with respect to the Property. c. Greystone Homes has the full right, title and authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out the obligations of the Subdivider under the original agreement and this Agreement without the consent or approval of any other parties d. The Property is subject to certain Tract Maps which are also identified on Exhibit A. The conditions of approval for the tract maps require the Developer to dedicate certain park land and to construct certain park improvements. The Developer's specific obligations with respect to the construction of these improvements is set forth in that certain "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Park Site A between the City and Crowne Meadows, L.P. a Washington limited partnership, dated as of August 13, 2001, as amended on October 22, 2002, and in that certain "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreemenf' for Park Site F between the City and Crowne Meadows, L.P. a Washington limited partnership, dated as of March 31, 2000, as amended on October 22, 2002. e. Developer has certain park development obligations under Government Code Section 66477 and Chapter 16.33 of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Quimby Act Requirement"). Pursuant to an agreement between Taylor Woodrow Homes, Developer's predecessor in interest, and the City, dated as of June 23, 1992, as amended on August 28, 1996, Developer's Quimby Act Requirement shall be the dedication of 13.3 acres of land for park purposes. Developer acknowledges and agrees that it has assumed the benefits and obligations of Taylor Woodrow Homes in said agreement, as amended. R:XlvlcCarthC~Crowne Hill I)evelopmenth~ark Fee and Dedication Agreement 2.DOC 1 f. Developer has certain development impact fee obligations for the Park and Recreation Improvement Component of the DIF pursuant to Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Resolution No. 2000-31 ("Park DIF Requirement"). Developer's total Park DIF Requirement for Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941 (excluding the previous 249 units in Tract Nos. 23143-2, 23143-3, and 23143-4) is one million three hundred eighty six thousand five hundred forty eight dollars and thirteen cents ($1,386,548.13). g. Pursuant to Section 15.06.050.A.2. Developer has requested a reduction in the Park and Recreation Improvement COmponent of the DIF. h. The purpose of this Agreement is to confirm and set forth the appropriate dedication and park development obligations of the Developer in order to fulfill its Quimby Act Requirements and to confirm and set forth the appropriate reduction of the Park DIF Requirement pursuant to Chapter 15.06 and to provide for the implementation of the fee reduction for the development of the Property. i. The following Exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Legal Description of Property Regional Improvements Public Park Sites Private Park Sites Private Park Development Standards Private Park Development Schedule 2. Reduction in Park DIF Requirement. Pursuant to the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreements for Park Site A and Park Site F described in Section 1.d., Developer shall design and construct certain public park improvements on the Property. A portion of these improvements are public park facilities which are regional or regionally significant public facilities substantially similar to those facilities that are listed or otherwise identified on the City's Capital Improvement Plan within the meaning of Section 15.06.050 A.2. of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Regional Improvements"). These Regional Improvements are described on Exhibit B., attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Therefore, Developer shall be entitled to a reduction in the Parks and Recreation Improvements Component of the DIF in the amount of nine hundred thirty-six thousand five hundred forty eight dollars and thirteen cents ($936,548.13) based upon the amount of the costs of design, engineering and construction of the Regional Improvements which Developer is obligated to complete under the terms of the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreements for Park Site A and Park Site F described in Section 1.d. Developer's remaining Park DIF Requirement shall be four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000.00) payable to the City as provided in this Agreement ("Remaining Park DIF Requirement"). 3. Other DIF Obligations. This Agreement only affects the reduction in the DIF obligation for the Parks and Recreation Improvement Component of the DIF and no other poffion of the DIF. Developer shall pay the DIF for each component in accordance with Chapter R:k,McCatth~Crowa¢ Hill Development~Park Fee and Dedication Agreement 2.DOC 2 15.06 and the then current Council Resolution established DIF at the time of issuance of building permits, subject to such other modifications of the DIF as may be agreed to in writing by City and Developer. 4. Satisfaction of Quimby Act Requirement. The Developer's obligation for the dedication of land for parks and recreational facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 66477 and Chapter 16.33 of the Temecula Municipal Code shall be satisfied by compliance with the following requirements: a. Developer shall dedicate to the City and construct and improve Park Site A (Lot 104 of Tract No. 23143-F) pursuant to that certain agreement entitled "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract Map No. 23143 (Park Site A), dated as of August 13, 2001, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Map 23143 Park Site A" dated as of October 22, 2002. Developer shall also dedicate to the City and construct, and improve Park Site F (Lot 2 of Tract No. 23143- 5) pursuant to that certain agreement entitled "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site F), dated as of March 31, 2000 as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract Map 23143 Park Site F" dated as of October 22, 2002. The Public Park Sites are depicted on the map attached as Exhibit C, Public Park Sites. b. Developer shall construct and improve the following private parks which shall be available for residents living on the Property: (1) Park Site B (Lot 79 of Tract No. 23143-10); (2) Park Site C/D (Lot 134 of Tract No. 23143-9); (3) Park Site E (Lot 123 of Tract 23143-6); and (4) Open Space (Lot 82 of Tract 23143-1). Sites. The Private Park Sites are depicted on Exhibit D, Private Park ii. The Private Park Sites shall be developed in accordance with the development standards described on Exhibit E, Private Park Development Standards. iii. The Private Park Sites shall be developed in accordance With the Schedule set forth on Exhibit F, Private Park Development Schedule. c. The requirements for construction of both the Public Park Sites and the Private Park Sites reflect the City and Developer's agreement that Developer receive 100% credit for the useable acreage of the Public Park Sites and 50% credit for the useable acreage of the Private Park Sites. Thus, Developer is receiving credit for 7.74 acres of Public Park Site improvements and 5.86 acres of Private Park Site improvements for a total of 13.6 acres of credit towards the Quimby Act Requirement. d. Developer acknowledges and agrees that in the event it does not complete the Public Park Sites and the Private Park Sites in the manner described in this section and within the time schedules required by this Section, the City, in addition to any other remedies it may R:WIcCarthC~Crowae Hill Dev¢lopment~ark Fee and Dedication Agreement 2.DOC 3 have, shall be entitled to withhold the issuance of building permits until such time as the required improvements and conveyances are completed as required by this Agreement. 5. Payment of Remaining Park DIF Requirement and In-lieu Quimby Fee. The Remaining Park DIF Requirement of $450,000.00 as described in Section 2. of this Agreement, shall be paid to the City pursuant to the following: a. A payment of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) shall be paid to the City prior to the City Council's consideration of this Agreement which payment shall be refunded in the event the Agreement is not approved; b. A payment of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of the 400t~ building permit for Tract Maps Nos.23143 and 26941, including the 249 building permits previously issued in Tract Nos. 23143-2, 23143-3, and 23143- 4. c. Developer shall not be entitled to any refund of Development Impact Fees previously paid on the Property. d. Developer acknowledges and agrees that in the event it does not make the payments described in this section, the City, in addition to any other remedies it may have, shall be entitled to withhold the issuance of building permits until such time as the payment is made as required by this Agreement. 6. Model Homes. Developer shall be allowed to construct not more than eight (8) model homes for Tract Nos. 23143-7 and 23143-9 prior to the completion of the Park Improvements for Park Site F provided that Developer has made the payments required by this Agreement when due, notwithstanding the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for Tract Nos.23143-7 and 23143-9, "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site A), dated as of August 13, 2001, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site A" dated as of October 22, 2002, and "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site F), dated as of March 31, 2000, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site F' dated as of October 22, 2002. 7. Notice. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or(iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. R:~lcCarthC~Crowae Hill Developraent~ark Fee and Dedication Agreement 2.DOC 4 To City: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Developer: Greystone Homes, Inc. 40980 County Center Drive, Suite 110 Temecula, California 92591 Attn: Greg McGuff, President 8. Litigation. Neither party may commence litigation until such time as a notice of default has be properly served on the other party and the party fails to cure within twenty working days from the service of the notice of default. If either party commences litigation against the other for the purposes of determining or enforcing its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive its reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the prosecution or defense of the action. 9. General. a. This Agreement contains the entire un~lerstanding between the parties relating to the Developer's Park DIF Requirement and Quimby Act Requirement obligations of the pmies described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written concerning the Developer's Park DIF Requirement and Quimby Act Requirement are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no fuaber fome or effect except for the following Agreements: i. Park Agreement between Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California limited partnership, and City of Temecula dated June 23, 1992, as amended by that certain First Amendment dated as of August 28, 1996. ii. "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract Map No. 23143 (Park Site A), dated as of August 13, 2001, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site A" dated as of October 22, 2002; and iii. "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site F), dated as of March 31, 2000, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site F" dated as of October 22, 2002. b. Each pa~y is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. c. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the City and Developer and their respective successors and assigns. R:kMcCarthC~Crowne Hill Dev¢lopment'd~ark Fee and D~dicatica Agreement 2.DOC 5 d. Developer shall not assign, transfer, or otherwise convey this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be reflected in an amendment to this Agreement. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney GREYSTONE HOMES., INC., a California corporation By:. Name: Title: By:. Name~ Title: (Two corporate officer's signatures required or corporate authorization resolution) R:',McCarthC~Crowne Hal Development~Park F~ and Dedieatioa Agreement 2,DOC 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF KB HOMES, INC. THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, is made and effective as of October 22, 2002, to the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), by KB Homes Coastal Inc., a California corporation (KB Homes). 1. Recitals. a. This Acknowledgement is made in respect to the following four (4) Agreements between the City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. and its predecessors in interest: (1) Park Agreement between Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California limited partnership, and City of Temecula dated June 23, 1992, as amended by that certain First Amendment dated as of August 28, 1996; (2) "Parks Fee Dedication Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. (Tract Map Nos. 23143 and 26941)" dated as of October 22, 2002; (3) "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract Map No. 23143 (Park Site A) between the City of Temecula and Crowne Meadows, L. P., dated as of August 13, 2001, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site A" dated as of October 22, 2002; and (4) "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site F) between the City of Temecula and Crowne Meadows, L. P., dated as of March 31, 2000, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site F" dated as of October 22, 2002. b. KB Homes has purchased two (2) Tract Nos. 23143-7 & 23143-9 (consisting of a total of 212 home sites) within the Crowne Hill Community from Pacific Century Homes (PCC III -- Crowne Hill, LLC). This purchase transaction has closed and title to the referenced properties is now vested in KB Homes. c. KB Homes and Pacific Century Homes have entered into a "Purchase Agreement" and a "Construction Agreement" in respects to these properties. The Agreements refer to Pacific Century Homes as the ("Contractor") acting in the capacity as a Master Developer obligated to perform stipulated real property master improvements and obtain or enter into certain Public Entitlement obligatory matters with the City and other Public Agencies on the behalf of KB Homes. KB Homes warrants and represents to the City that Pacific Century Homes has been acquired by Greystone Homes, Inc., a'California corporation, and that Oreystone Homes, Inc., is the lawful successor in interest t6 Pacific Century Homes and is obligated to complete the obligations of Pacific Century Homes in said agreements. As the successor in interest to Pacific Century Homes, Gmystone Homes, Inc., must comply with the City of Temecula "Conditions of Approval" for the Crowne Hill Development (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941) and will allow KB Homes to complete those improvements required to comply with the terms of this Agreements, pursuant to the remedies made available to KB Homes which are further defined with the "Purchase Agreement" and the "Construction Agreement" referred to herein. R:WIcCa~hCSC~wn¢ Hill DevelopmentWark Fee and Dedication Agreement 2.DOC ? 2. Acknowledgements. a: KB Homes acknowledges awareness that the "Conditions & Obligations" stipulated within the above referenced Agreements are also applicable and enforceable on the two Tract Nos. 23143-7 & 23143-9 purchased by KB Homes. b. KB Homes acknowledges that in the event that Greystone Homes, Inc., does not comply with the requirements within the above referenced Agreements KB Homes, will be denied Home Building permits until such time as the requirements have. been met by Greystone Homes, Inc., KB Homes or other party. KB HOMES COASTAL, INC. A California corporation By: Name: Title:. By:. Nanle: Title: (Two corporate officer's signatures required or corporate authorization resolution) R:',lvl~wn¢ Hill Developmeat'~ark Fee and Dedication Agreement 2,DOC 8 1~-100418 ?age 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A CROWNE HILL LEGAL DESCRIPTION The property is situated in the State of California, County of Riverside, City of Temecula, and is described as follows: PARCEL A: Tract No. 23143 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages 25 through 38 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL B: Tract No. 23143-1 as shown by map on file in book 241, pages 79 through 88 of Maps, records of Riverside County, Califomia. PARCEL C: Tract No. 23143-6 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 58 through 70 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL D: Tract No. 23143-7 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 71 through 80 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL E: Tract No. 23143-8 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 81 through 91 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL F: Tract No. 23143-9 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 92 through 104 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. EXHIBIT A CROWNE HILL LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page 2 of 2 PARCEL G: Tract No. 23143-10 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages 1 through 12 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL H: Tract No. 23143-11 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages 13 through 24 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL I: Portions of Parcels 4, 5 and 6 as shown on Parcel Map No. 22429 filed in Parcel Map Book 147, pages 14 through 19 in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, California. O'he land is as shown on Tentative Tract No. 26941.) EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION OF REGION.~L PARK IMPROVEMENTS Crowne Hill Park (Park Site F) Parking area for 19 vehicles Tot lots with age appropriate play equipment with shade structure Picnic tables Covered picnic shelter Restroom Facility Bike Rack BBQ Grill Nine (9) Benches Drinking Fountain 2 Half Basketball Courts Useable tuff area Security lighting Future Public Park* (Park Site A) Parking area for 15 to 25 vehicles Tot lots with age appropriate play equipment Picnic tables Covered picnic shelter Restroom facility Drinking fountain Half court basketball Meandering pathway with bench seating and trash receptacles Useable turf area Security lighting Coollard type) Natural' area *The park improvement plans for this park have not been finalized. Amenities may vary. R:~smRhb\Crowne Hill~Exhibit B Regional Park Improvements.doc EXHIBIT C PUBLIC PARK SITES EXHIBIT D PRIVATE PARK SITES Pdvate Parks Parcels Streets EXHIBIT E PRIVATE IgARK DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS · Park Site B Park Site C & D Park Site E Concrete walkways Park benches Informal open play area Tuff Trees and shrubs D.G. paths Park benches Turf Trees and shrubs Pedestrian access to: Swoboda Court Dupont Street Sparks Street Drennon Court Concrete walkways Basketball facilities (two half courts) Tot lot play structure Informal open play area Trees and shrubs R:~qmithb~Erowae Hilr~Exhibit E Private Park Development Standards.doc EXHIBIT F PRIVATE PARK DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Park Site B The conceptual park master plan shall be approved by the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 1st Building Pen'nit within Tract 23143-10. All park improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 50th Building Permit within Tract 23143-10. Park Site C & D The conceptual park master plan shall be approved by the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 1st Building Permit within Tract 23143-9. All park improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 750th Building Permit within Tracts 23143 and 26941. Park Site E The conceptual park master plan shall be approved by the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 1st Building Permit within Tract 23143-6. Al! park improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 50th Building Permit within Tract 23143-6. R:~smithb\Ctowne HillXExhibit F Priviate Park Developement Schedule.doc FIRST AMENDMENT TO PARKLAND/LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT NO. 23143 PARK SITE A THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, is made and effective as of October 22, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Greystone Homes, Inc., a California corporation ("Subdivider"). In consideration of the mutual .covenants and conditions set foRh herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: a. Developer is the owner of certain real property in the City of Temecula, which is legally described on Exhibit A., Legal Description of Property ("Property"). b. On August 13, 2001, Developer's predecessor in interest, Crowne Meadows, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and the City entered into that certain agreement entitled "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for the dedication, construction and improvement of certain park property on Tract No. 23143, commonly known as Park Site "A" (the "Agreement") c. Greystone Homes, Inc., warrants and represents to the City that: (1) it is the lawful and duly authorized successor in interest to Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California limited partnership, Crowne Meadows, L.P., a Washington limited partnership with respect to the Propertyi (2) Greystone Homes is now the fee owner of the Property and Taylor Woodrow Homes, Crowne Meadows, L.P., and Pacific Century Homes, have no remaining interest in the Property; (3) Greystone Homes has the full right, title and authority to enter into this First Amendment and to carry out the obligations of the Subdivider under the original agreement and this First Amendment without the consent or approval of any other parties; and (4) Greystone Homes, Inc., hereby accepts all of the obligations of the Subdivider as set foRh in the Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment. 2. Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: a. The second unnumbered paragraph on Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the name of the Subdivider shall be Greystone Homes, Inc., a California corporation. b. The seventh unnumbered paragraph on Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the total estimated costs of the Parkland Improvement shall be one million, eighty five thousand dollars ($1,085,000.00). R:kMcCarthC~Crowne Hill Development~First Amendment to Parkland Agreement ~ Park Site A.DOC 1 c. The eighth unnumbered paragraph on Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended to prOvide that a new Labor and Materials Bond from St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company Bond No. SV 9804 in the amount of five hundred forty two thousand five hundred dollars ($542,500.00) is hereby accepted by the City and substituted in place of the Labor and Materials Bond from American Motorists Insurance Company, Bond No. 3SM99027300. d. The ninth unnumbered paragraph on Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that a new Performance Bond from St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company Bond No. SV 9804 in the amount of one million, eighty five thousand dollars ($1,085,000.00) is hereby accepted by the City and substituted in place of the Faithful Performance Bond from American Motorists Insurance Company, Bond No. 3SM99027300. 3. The first sentence of Paragraph 20. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read a s follows: "SUBDIVIDER shall complete construction of the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Work required by this Agreement no later than issuance of the seven hundredth fiftieth (750th) building permit is issued for Tracts 23143 and 26941." 4. Paragraph 22. of the Agreement, Notices, is hereby amended to delete the address for "Communities Southwest" and insert in its place the following: "Greystone Homes, Inc. 40980 County Center Drive, Suite 110 Temecula, California 92591 Attn: Greg McGuff, President 5. Paragraph 27. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "27. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the Subdivider's obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written concerning said obligations are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect except for the following Agreements, which shall not be modified by this Agreement: (1) Park Agreement between Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California R:'~McCarthC'~Crowne Hill l)evelopment~First Amendment m Parkland Agreement - park Site A.DOC 2 limited partnership, and City of Temecula dated June 23, 1992, as amended by that certain First Amendment dated as of August 28, 1996; (2) "Parks Fee Dedication Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. (Tract NoS. 23143 and 26941)" dated as of October 22, 2002; and (3) "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site A) between the City of Temecula and Crowne Meadows, L. P., dated as of March 21, 2000, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site A" dated as of October 22, 2002. Paragraph 28. is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "28. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the requirements of Labor Code Section 1720, Subdivider shall pay prevailing wages for all work performed for the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair for the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Work required by this Agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract Ih-om the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's Office. Subdivider shall post a copy of such wage rates at tbe job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Subdivider shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code and other applicable laws and regulations with respect to the payment of prevailing wages. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Subdivider shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Agreement, by it or by any subcontractor under it, in violation of the provisions of the Agreement or in violation of any applicable laws or regulations pertaining to the payment of prevailing wages." Paragraph 29. is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: R :'uMcCatlhC'~Crowne Hill DevelopmentkFirst Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site A.DOC 3 29. Acceptance of Park by City. For the benefit of City, the acceptance of the Subdivider's irrevocable offer of dedication of the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Work and the property on which it is located by action of the City Council shall be contingent upon and subject to the occurrence of all of the following (or City's written waiver thereof, it being agreed that City can waive any or all such contingencies): a. The Park/Landscape Improvement Work has been constructed in accordance with all approved Parkland Improvement Plans. b. First American Title Company has issued a commitment to issue in favor of City of a CLTA Standard Coverage Developer's Policy of Tide Insurance with liability equal to the value of the land and the value of the Park/Landscape Improvement Work showing the fee interest in the Property vested in the City subject only to such tide exceptions as are approved by the City Manager. c. City's approval of any environmental site assessment, soils or geological reports, or other physical inspections of the Park Property or the underlying real property. d. The City Council decides in its sole and absolute discretion to accept the Park. 8. Paragraph 30. is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "30. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Subdivider shall keep itself informed of ail local, State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. The Subdivider shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Subdivider to comply with this,section." 9. Except as specifically provided in this First Amendment, ail other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. R:WlcCarthC~Crowne Hill DevelopmentWirst Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site A.DOC 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts Mayor Attest: Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney GREYSTONE HOMES, INC., a California corporation By:. Name: Title: By:. Nanle~ Title: (Two corporate officer's signatures required or corporate authorization resolution) R:WIcCarthCSCrowne Hill DevelopmenfiFirst Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site A.DOC 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF KB HOMES, INC. THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, is made and effective as of October 22, 2002, to the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), by KB Homes Coastal Inc., a California corporation (KB Homes). 1. Recitals. a. This Acknowledgement is made in respect to the following four (4) Agreements between the City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. and its predecessors in interest: (1) Park Agreement between Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California limited partnership, and City of Temecula dated June 23, 1992, as amended by that certain First Amendment dated as of August 28, 1996; (2) "Parks Fee Dedication Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941)" dated as of October 22, 2002; (3) "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site A) between the City of Temecula and Crowne Meadows, L. P., dated as of March 31, 2000, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to ParklandfLandscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site A" dated as of October 22, 2002; and (4) "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site F) between the City of Temecula and Crowne Meadows, L. P., dated as of August 13, 2001, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site F" dated as of October 22, 2002. b. KB Homes has purchased two (2) Tracts No. 23143-7 & 23143-9 (consisting of a total of 212 home sites) within the Crowne Hill Community from Pacific Century Homes (PCC m -- Crowne Hill, LLC). This purchase transaction has closed and title to the referenced properties is now vested in KB Homes. c. KB Homes and Pacific Century Homes have entered into a "Purchase Agreement" and a "Construction Agreement" in respects to these propeffies. The Agreements refer to Pacific Century Homes as the ("Contractor") acting in the capacity as a Master Developer obligated to perform stipulated real property master improvements and obtain or enter into certain Public Entitlement obligatory matters with the City and other Public Agencies on the behalf of KB Homes. KB Homes warrants and represents to the City that Pacific Century Homes has been acquired by Greystone Homes, Inc., a California corporation, and that G-reystone Homes, Inc., is the lawful successor in interest to Pacific Century Homes, and is obligated to complete the obligations of Pacific Century Homes in said agreements. As the successor in interest to Pacific Century Homes, Greystone Homes, Inc., must comply with the City of Temecula "Conditions of Approval" for the Crowne Hill Development (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941) and will allow KB Homes to complete those improvements required to comply with the terms of this Agreements, pursuant to the remedies made available to KB Homes which are further defined with the "Purchase Agreement" and the "Construction Agreement" referred to herein. R:WlcCarthCSCrowae Hill Development~First Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site A.DOC 6 2. Acknowledgements. a. KB Homes acknowledges awareness that the "Conditions & Obligations" stipulated within the above referenced Agreements are also applicable and enforceable on the two Tracts No. 23143-7 & 23143-9 purchased by KB Homes. b. KB Homes acknowledges that in the event that Greystone Homes, Inc., does not comply with the requirements within the above referenced Agreements KB Homes, will be denied Home Building penmits until such time as the requirements have been met by Greystone Homes, Inc., KB Homes or other party. KB HOMES COASTAL, INC. A California corporation By: Name: Title: By: Nallae~ Title: (Two corporate officer's signatures required or corporate authorization resolution R:hMcCarthCXCrowne Hill DevelopmentXFirst Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site A.DOC 7 EXHIBIT A 15-100418 Page 1 of 2 , CROWNE HILL LEGAL DESCRIPTION The property is situated in the State of Califomia, County of Riverside, City of Temecula, and is described as follows: PARCEL A: Tract No. 23143 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages 25 through 38 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL B: Tract No. 23143-1 as shown by map on file in book 241, pages 79 through 88 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL C: Tract No. 23143-6 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 58 through 70 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL D: Tract No. 23143-7 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 71 through 80 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL E: Tract No. 23143-8 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 81 through 91 of Maps, records of Riverside County, Califomia. PARCEL F: Tract No. 23143-9 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 92 through 104 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. EXHIBIT A CKOWNE HILL LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page 2 of 2 PARCEL G: Tract No. 23143-10 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages I through 12 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL H: Tract No. 23143-11 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages 13 through 24 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL I: Portions of Parcels 4, 5 and 6 as shown on Pamel Map No. 22429 filed in Parcel Map Book 147, pages 14 through 19 in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, California. (The land is as shown on Tentative Tract No. 26941.) Bond No. SV 9804 Premium: $2,713.00 CITY OF TEMECULA SUBDIVISION FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, State of California, and Greystone Homes, Inc. (hereinafter designated as "Principal") have entered into an agreement whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements, winch said agreement, dated 20__, and identified as Project Tract 23143-10 , is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the agreement to furnish a bond for the Faithful Performance of the agreement: NOW, TIIEREFORE, we the Principal and st. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Temecula, California, in the penal sum of $1,085,000.00 lawful money of the United states, for the paymem of such sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally. The condition of this obligation is such that the obligation shall become null and void if the above-bounded Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, shall in all things stand to, abide by, well and truly keep, and perform the covenants, conditions, and provisions in the agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to this or their tree intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, agents, and employees, as therein stipulated; otherwise, this obligation shall be and remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face mount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or City of Temecula Subdivision Faithful Performance Bond Page 2 addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on October 7 ,20 02. [SEAL] [SEAL] ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY SURETY (Name) Patricia H. Brebner Attorney-in-Fact (l~tle) GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. a Delaware corporation PRINCIPAL* (Name) David Evans, Vice President ~itle) Czndy Thompson, Asst, Secretary (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: *Two signatures are required for corporations unless corporate documents are provided that indicate otherwise. Peter M. Thorson, CiU Attorney CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of Orange On October 8, 2002 before me, S. McDonald, Notary Public, personally appeared David Evans and Cindy Thompson, personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form, CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER Corporate Officers Cindy Thompson - Asst. Secretary David Evans - Vice President SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Greystone Homes, Inc. DESCRIPTON OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT Type of Document: Performance Bond No. SV 9804 Number of Pages: Two (2) Date of Document: October 7, 2002 Signers (other than those named above): Patricia H. Brebner C~,MFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Orange On October 7, 2002 beforeme, AlexlsH. Bryaa, NotazTPub]ic DATE NAME, 1TTLE OF OFFICER- E.G., "JANE DOE. NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared Patrlcia H. Brebaer NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] 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 capacitT(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entibj upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and ceuld prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF A1'I'ACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER Tm.E(S) [] PARTNER(S) F~ [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: LIMITED GENERAL TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR EN3TPF(IES) DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE S-4067/GEEF 2/98 O 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOClAllON · 8236 Remmet Ave,, P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Bond No. SV 9804 Premium included in charge for performance bond CITY OF TEMECULA SUBDIVISION LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, State of California, and Greystone Homes, Inc. (hereinafter designated as "Principal") have entered into an agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements, which said agreement, dated ,20__, and identified as Project Tract 23143-10 , is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the work, to file a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Temecula, to secure the clairn~ to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of thc State of California; and NOW, THEREFORE, wc the Principal and st. Paul Fire and Marine* as Surety, are held and fmuly bound unto the City of Temecula, California, and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and other persons employed in the performance of thc aforesaid agreement and referred to in Title 15 of the Civil Code, in the penal sum of $ 5z~2,50O .'00 , lawful money of the United States, for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, the Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount set forth. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to ftc claim~ under Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. If the condition of this bond is fitly performed, then this obligation shall become null and *Insurance Company City of Temecnla Subdivision Labor and Materials Bond Page 2 void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. lin WITNESS WI-IEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on October 7 ,20 02 [SEAL] [SEAL] ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY SURETY . u. Brebner Atgorney-~n-Fact {Titte) GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. a Delaware corporation PPdNCIPAL* David Evanse Vice President ~t~) Cxf/r~:e~hOmpson, Asst. Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: *Two signatures are required for corporations unless corporate documents are provided that indicate otherwise. Peter M. Thorson, C~ty Attorney CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of Oran.qe On October 8, 2002 before me, S. McDonald, Notary Public, personally appeared David Evans and Cindy Thompson, personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER Corporate Officers Cindy Thompson - Asst. Secretary David Evans - Vice President SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Greystone Homes, Inc. DESCRIPTON OFATTACHEDDOCUMENT Type of Document: Payment Bond No. SV 9804 Number of Pages: Two (2) Date of Document: October 7, 2002 Signers (other than those named above): Patricia H. Brebner C~LIFORNIA ALL. PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. ~;o? State of CaJifomia County of Orimge On October 7, 2002 beforeme, AlexisH. Bryan, Nota~Public DA'RE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE. NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared Pat~icJa H. Brebner NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) islars 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 instnJment. Notary Public - California ~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGNATUR~ OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE(S) [] PARTNER(S) F~ [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: LIMITED GENERAL TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE S-4067/OEEF 2]98 © 1993 NATIONAl. NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Remmet Ave,, P,O, Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 9'1309-7184 lheSl'RlU! POWER OF ATTORNEY Seaboard Surety Company United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, lne. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Power of Atlorney No. 22775 Certificate No. 14 0 15 9 7 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Seaboard Surety Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York, and that St. Paul Fire and Marine Insunmce Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and that United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of loves, and that Fidality and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, lac. is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called the "Companies'?, and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoint James A. Schaller, Rhonda C. Abel, lane Kepner, Nanette Mariella-Myers, Mike Pmizino, Linda Enright, Jeri Apodaca, Patricia H. Brebner, Leigh McDonough and Alexis H. Bryan of thc City of Costa Mesa , State California , their true and lawlal Attomey(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to sign its name as surety to, and to execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, undertakings, contracts ~nd other w~ttan i~truments in the nature thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of gnananteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the p~nformance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in any actions or proceedings allowed by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused this instrument to be signed and sealed this 4th day of Octob~l' ,2001 Seaboard Surety Company St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company eeeee Stata of ~iand City of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. ® e THOMAS E. HUIBREGTSE. Assistant Secretary On this 4th day of October 2001 , before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Peter W. Cra-man and Thomas E. Huibreglse, who acknowledged themselves to be the Vice P~esident and Assistant Secretary, respectively, of Seaboard Surety Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Cmardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Inmxr~ce Company, and Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Undexwriters, Inc.; and that the seals affixed to the foregoing instrument are the corporate seals of said Companies; and that they, as such, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing the names of the corporations by themselves as duly authorized officers. In Witness Whereof, I hereuato set my hand and official seal. My Commission expires the 1st day of July, 2006. REBECCA EASLEY-ONOKALA, Notary Public 86203 Rev. 7-2002 Pdnted in U.S.A. This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of the following r~sointions adopted by the Boards of Directors of Seaboard St~ty Company, St, Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Compony, Uni~d States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty lmurance Company, and Fidelity and Guaranty lmurance Underwriters, Inc. on Septembor 2, 1998, which rosofatfuns are now in full force and effect~ reading as follows: RESOLVED, that in connection with the fidelity and su~ty insurance business of the Company, all bonds, undertakings, comrac~s and other insisumant~ relating to said business may be signed, executed, and achnowledged by pocsons or entities appointed as At~mey(s)-in-Fact pursuant to a Power of A~omey issued in accoedance with these resolutions. Said power(s) of Attorney for and on behalf of ~he Company may and shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the Company, either by the Chairman, or the President, or any Vice President, or an Azsistant Vice President, jointly with the Secretary or aa Assistant Secre~ry, under their respective designations. The signature of such officers may be engraved, prin~ed or lithograpbed. The signatoxe of each of the foregoing officers and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing A'~oraey(s)~in-Fact for purposes only of executing and attes~g bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nstore thereof, and subject to any limitations set forth therein, any such Power of Attorney or certificata bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company, and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile ~ shah be valid and binding upon the Company with respect to any bond or undel~king to which it is validly attached; and RESOLVED FURTHEP~ that A~mey(s)-in-Fact shall have the pow~' and authority, and, in any case, subjec~ to ~he terms and limitations of ~e Power of AU. omey issued them, to execute and deliver on behalf of the Company and to attach the seal of the Company to any and all bonds and undertakings, and other vnitings obligatory in the nature the~of, and any such insmunent executed by such Atthm~y(s)-in-Fact shall ha m binding upon ~ Company as if signed by an Executive Officer and sealed and attasted to by the Secretary of the Company. I, Thomas E. Huibregt~e, Assistant Secretary of Seaboard Surer/Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St Paul Mercury Insuranc~ Company, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Fidelity and Guarmty Insurance Company, and Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Umle~riters, Inc. do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a ~cue and corre~ copy of the Power of A0~omey executed by said Companies, which is in full force and effect and has not been revoked. INTESTIMONYWHEREOF, I hereunto set my. hand this 7th day of October 2002 . ~lb ~erify the authe~ty of this Power of A#orney, call 1-800-421-$$80 ami ask for the Power of Attor~ey clerk Please refer to the Po~er of A~tor~ey number, the above-named individuuls emd the details of the bond to whlck the po~er ls attached. FIRST AMENDMENT TO PARKLAND/LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT NO. 23143 PARK SITE F THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, is made and effective as of October 22, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Greystone Homes, Inc., a California corporation ("Subdivider"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: a. Developer is the owner of certain real property in the City of Temecula, which is legally described on Exhibit A., Legal Description of Property ("Property"). b. On March 31, 2000, Developer's predecessor in interest, Crowne Meadows, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and the City entered into that certain agreement entitled "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for the dedication, construction and improvement of certain park property on Tract No. 23143, commonly known as Park Site 'W" (the "Agreement") c. Greystone Homes, Inc., warrants and represents to the City that: (1) it is the lawful and duly authorized successor in interest to Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California limited partnership, Crowne Meadows, L.P., a Washington limited partnership with respect to the Property; (2) Greystone Homes is now the fee owner of the Property and Taylor Woodrow Homes, Crowne Meadows, L.P., and Pacific Century Homes, have no remaining interest in the Property; (3) Greystone Homes has the full right, title and authority to enter into this First Amendment and to carry out the obligations of the Subdivider under the original agreement and this First Amendment without the consent or approval of any other parties; and (4) G-reystone Homes, Inc., hereby accepts all of the obligations of the Subdivider as set forth in the Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment. 2. Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: a. The second unnumbered paragraph on Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the name of the Subdivider shall be G-reystone Homes, Inc., a California corporation. b. The seventh unnumbered paragraph on Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the total estimated costs of the Parkland Improvement shall be eight hundred nineteen thousand dollars ($819,000.00) and the completion date for the Parkland Improvements shall be December 1, 2002. c. The eighth unnumbered paragraph on Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that a new Labor and Materials Bond from St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Bond No. SV 9803 in the amount of four hundred nine thousand, five hundred dollars ($409,500.00) is hereby accepted by the City and R:'tlvlcCarthCXCrowne Hill Development'~First Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site F 2.DOC 1 substituted in place of the Labor and Materials Bond from American Motorists Insurance Company, Bond No. 3SM99027300. d. The ninth unnumbered paragraph on Page 1. of the Agreement is hereby mended to provide that a new Performance Bond from St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company Bond No. SV 9803 in the amount of eight hundred nineteen thousand dollars ($819,000.00) is hereby accepted by the City and substituted in place of the Faithful Performance Bond from American Motorists Insurance Company, Bond No. 3SM99027300. 3. The first sentence of Paragraph 20. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read a s follows: "SUBDIVIDER shall complete construction of the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Work required by this Agreement no later than issuance of the two hundredth fiftieth (250t~) building permit is issued for Tract Maps 23143 and 26941." 4. Paragraph 22. of the Agreement, Notices, is hereby amended to delete the address for "Communities Southwest" and inse~t in its place the following: "Greystone Homes, Inc. 40980 County Center Drive, Suite 110 Temecula, California 92591 Attn: Greg McGuff, President 5. Paragraph 27. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "27. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the Subdivider's obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written concerning said obligations are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect except for the following Agreements, which shall not be modified by this Agreement: (1) Park Agreement between Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California limited parmership, and City of Temecula dated June 23, 1992, as amended by that certain First Amendment dated as of August 28, 1996; (2) "Parks Fee Dedication Agreement Between the City of Temecula and R:V,,icCarthC~Crowne Hill DevelopmentWirst Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Sile F 2.DOC 2 Greystone Homes, Inc. (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941)" dated as of October 22, 2002; and (3) "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract Map No. 23143 (Park Site F) between the City of Temecula and Crowne Meadows, L. P., dated as of August 13, 2001, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract Map No. 23143 Park Site F" dated as of October 22, 2002. 6. Paragraph 28. is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "28. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the requirements of Labor Code Section 1720, Subdivider shall pay prevailing wages for all work performed for the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair for the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Work required by this Agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and oveffime work in this locality for each craft,'classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's Office. Subdivider shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Subdivider shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code and other applicable laws and regulations with respect to the payment of prevailing wages. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Subdivider shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for ,each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Agreement, by it or by any subcontractor under it, in violation of the provisions of the Agreement or in violation of any applicable laws or regulations pertaining to the payment of prevailing wages." 7. Paragraph 29. is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: 29. Acceptance of Park by City. For the benefit of City, the acceptance of the Subdivider's irrevocable offer of dedication of the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Work and the property on which it is located by action of the City Council shall be R:WIcCarthC~Crowne Hill Development~First Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Sim F 2.DOC 3 contingent upon and subject to the occurrence of all of the following (or City's written waiver thereof, it being agreed that City can waive any or all such contingencies): a. The Park/Landscape Improvement Work has been constructed in accordance with all approved Parkland Improvement Plans. b. First American Title Company has issued a commitment to issue in favor of City of a CLTA Standard Coverage Developer's Policy of Title Insurance with liability equal to the value of the land and the value of the Park/Landscape Improvement Work showing the fee interest in the Property vested in the City subject only to such title exceptions as are approved by the City Manager. c. City's approval of any environmental site assessment, soils or geological reports, or other physical inspections of the Park Property or the underlying real property. d. The City Council decides in its sole and absolute discretion to accept the Park. 8. Paragraph 30. is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "30. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Subdivider shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. The Subdivider shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Subdivider to comply with this section." 9. Except as specifically provided in this First Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. R:'cMcCarthC~Crowne Hill Development~irst Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site F 2.DOC 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts Mayor Attest: Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney GREYSTONE HOMES, INC., a California corporation By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: (Two corporate officer's signatures required or corporate authorization resolution) R:'4vlcCarthC~Cmwne Hill DevelopmenfiFirst Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Paxk Site F 2.DOC 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF KB HOMES, INC. THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, is made and effective as of October 22, 2002, to the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), by KB Homes Coastal Inc., a California corporation (KB Homes). 1. Recitals. a. This Acknowledgement is made in respect to the following four (4) Agreements between the City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. and its predecessors in interest: ( 1 ) Park Agreement between Taylor Woodrow Homes, a California limited paxtnership, and City of Temecula dated June 23, 1992, as amended by that certain First Amendment dated as of August 28, 1996; (2) "Parks Fee Dedication Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Greystone Homes, Inc. (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941)" dated as of October 22, 2002; (3) "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site A) between the City of Temecula and Crowne M~adows, L. P., dated as of March 31, 2000, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract 23143 Park Site A" dated as of October 22, 2002; and (4) "Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement" for Tract No. 23143 (Park Site F) between the City of Temecula and Crowne Meadows, L. P., dated as of August 13, 2001, as amended by that certain "First Amendment to Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement Tract No. 23143 Park Site F" dated as of October 22, 2002. b. KB Homes has pumhased two (2) Tracts Nos. 23143-7 & 23143-9 (consisting of a total of 212 home sites) within the Crowne Hill Community from Pacific Centmy Homes (PCC m -- Crowne Hill, LLC). This purchase transaction has closed and title to the referenced properties is now vested in KB Homes. c. KB Homes and Pacific Century Homes have entered into a "Purchase Agreement" and a "Construction Agreement" in respects to these properties. The Agreements refer to Pacific Century Homes as the ("Contractor") acting in the capacity as a Master Developer obligated to perform stipulated mai property master improvements and obtain or enter into certain Public Entitlement obligatory matters with the City and other Public Agencies on the behalf of KB Homes. KB Homes warrants and represents to the City that Pacific Century Homes has been acquired by Greystone Homes, Inc., a Cal(fomia corporation, and that Greystone Homes, Inc., is the lawful successor in interest to Pacific Century Homes, and is obligated to complete the obligations of Pacific Century Homes in said agreements. As the successor in interest to Pacific Century Homes, Greystone Homes, Inc., must comply with the City of Temecula "Conditions of Approval" for the Crowne Hill Development (Tract Nos. 23143 and 26941) and will allow KB Homes to complete those improvements required to comply with the terms of this Agreements, pursuant to the remedies made available to KB Homes which are further defined with the "Purchase Agreement" and the "Construction Agreement" referred to herein. R:'~McCarthCXCrowne Hill DevelopmentXFffst Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site F 2.DOC 6 2. Acknowledgements. a. KB Homes acknowledges awaren6ss that the "Conditions & Obligations" stipulated within the above referenced Agreements are also applicable and enforceable on the two Tracts No. 23143-7 & 23143-9 purchased by KB Homes. b. KB Homes acknowledges that in the event that Greystone Homes, Inc., does not comply with the requirements within the above referenced Agreements KB Homes, will be denied Home Building permits until such time as the requirements have been met by Greystone Homes, Inc., KB Homes or other party. KB HOMES COASTAL, INC. A California corporation By: Name: Title: By: N'alrle: Title: (Two corporate officer's signatures required or corporate authorization resolution) R:'~V/cCarthCXCrowne Hill Development,First Amendment to Parkland Agreement - Park Site F 2.DOC 7 EXHIBIT A 15-100418 Page I of 2 · CROWNE HILL LEGAL DESCRIPTION The property is situated in the State of Califomia, County of Riverside, City of Temecula, and is described as follows: PARCEL A: Tract No. 23143 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages 25 through 38 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL B: Tract No. 23143-1 as shown by map on file in book 241, pages 79 through 88 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL C: Tract No. 23143-6 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 58 through 70 of · Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL D.'. Tract No. 23143-7 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 71 through 80 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL E: Tract No. 23143-8 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 81 through 91 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL F: Tract No. 23143-9 as shown by map on file in book 313, pages 92 through 104 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL G: EXHIBIT A CROWNE HILL LEGAL DESCP,1P~ON Page 2 of 2 Tract No. 23143-10 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages I through 12 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCEL H: Tract No. 23143-11 as shown by map on file in book 314, pages 13 through 24 of Maps, records of Riverside County, California. PARCELI: Portions of Parcels 4, 5 and 6 as shown on Parcel Map No. 22429 filed in Parcel Map Book 147, pages 14 through 19 in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, California. (The land is as shown on Tentative Tract No. 26941.) Bond No. SV 9803 Premium: $2,048.00 CITY OF TEMECULA SUBDIVISION FArrttgUL PERFORMANCE BOND WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, State of California, and Greystone Homes, Inc. (hereinafter designated as "Principal") have entered into an agreement whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements, which said agreement, dated 20__, and identified as Project Tract 23143-5 , is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the agreement to furnish a bond for the Faithful Performance of the agreement: NOW, THEREFORE, we the Principal and st. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Temecula, California, in the penal sum of $ 819 ~ 000.00 lawful money of the United States, for the payment of such sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally. The condition of this obligation is such that the obligation shall become null and void if the above-bounded Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, shall in all things stand to, abide by, well and truly keep, and perform the covenants, conditions, and provisions in the agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in ail respects according to this or their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, agents, and employees, as therein stipulated; otherwise, thig obligation shall be and remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or City of Temecula Subdivision Faithful Performance Bond Page 2 addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed theretmder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notioe of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on October 7 ,20 02. [SEAL] [SEAL] ST.. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY SURETY (Name) Patricia H. Brebner Attorney-in-Fact (I"ttle) APPROVED AS TO FORM: GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. a Delaware corporation PRINCIPAL* David Evans, Vice President (I[tle) Cfndy Thompson, Asst. Secretary 07tle) *Two signatures are required for corporations unless corporate documents are provided that indicate otherwise. Peter M. Thorson, C~ty Attorney CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of Orange On October 8, 2002 before me, S. McDonald1 Notary Public, personally appeared David Evans and Cindy Thompson, personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachrnent of this form, CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER Corporate Officers Cindy Thompson - Asst. Secretary David Evans - Vice President SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Greystone Homes, Inc. DESCRIPTON OFATTACHEDDOCUMENT Type of Document: Performance Bond No. SV 9803 Number of Pages: Two (2) Date of Document: October 7, 2002 Signers (other than those named above): Patdcia H. Brebner CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 8~07 State of California County of Orange On October 7, 2002 before me, Alexis H. Bryan, Notary Public DATE NAME, 'm'LE OF OFFICER - E.G.. "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared Patricia H. Breb, er NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] 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(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SI~NATUI~ OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER TI'n.E(S) [] PARTNER(S) ~ [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: LIMITED GENERAL TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) DATE OF DOCUMENT SlGNER(S) 6THER THAN NAMED ABOVE S-4067/GEEF 2/98 O 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Remmet Ave,. P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Pa~ CA 91309-7184 Bond No. SV 9803 Premium included in charge for performance bnfid CITY OF TEMECULA SUBDIVISION LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, State of California, and Greystone Homes, Inc. (hereinafter designated as "Principal") have entered into an agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements, which said agreement, dated ., 20__, and identified as Project Tract 23143-5 , is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said a~eement, Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the work, to file a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Temecula, to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of California; and NOW, THEREFORE, we the Principal and st. Paul Fire and Marine* as Surety, are beld and firmly bound unto the City of Temecula, California, and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid agreement and referred to in Title 15 of the Civil Code, in the penal sum of $ 409,500.00 , lawful money of the United States, for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, the Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount set forth. As a part of the Obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. If the condition of this bond is fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and *Insurance Company · 'City of Temecula Subdivision Labor and Materials Bond Page 2 void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications aCCompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above ~amed, on Oetober 7 ,20 02 . [SEAL] [SEAL] ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPAN~ SURETY ~cia H. Brebner · Attorney-~n-Fact Crltte) GREYSTONE HO~S, INC. a Delaware corporation PRINCIPAL* (Name) David Evans, Vice President (title) City Thompson, Asst. Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: *Two signatures are required for corporations unless corporate documents are provided that indicate otherwise. Peter M. Thorson, L~U Attorney CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of Oran.qe On October 8, 2002 before me, S. McDonald, Notary Public, personally appeared David Evans and Cindy Thompson, personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Commission# 1260983 Notary Public - California OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. · CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Corporate Officers Cindy Thompson - Asst. Secretary David Evans - Vice President Greystone Homes. Inc. OESCRIPTON OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT Type of Document: Payment Bond No. SV 9803 Number of Pages: Two (2) Date of Document: October 7, 2002 Signers (other than those named above): Patricia H. Brebner CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of On October 7, 2002 bef°reme, AlexisH. B~a~,NotaxTPublic DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER * E.G., "~IANE DOE, NOTARY PUBUC" personally appeared Patficia II. Brcbncr [] personally known to me - OR - [] NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) 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. VVITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not requimcl by law, it may prove valuable to persons retying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF A'I-rACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER TrrLE(S) [] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED GENERAL [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) DATE OFDOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE S-40671GEEF 2/98 O 1993 NA'nONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION * 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 lheSl'nlUl POWER OF ATTORNEY Seaboard Surety Company United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, lac. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Power ofAttorney No. 22775 CertincateNo. 1401595 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Seaboard Surety Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York, and that St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company and St. Paul Memury Insurance Company are corpomtinns duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and that United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. is a corporation duly organized under thc laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called the "Companies"}, and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoim James A. Schaller, Rhonda C. Abel, Jane Kepner, Nanette Mariella-Myers, Mike Patizino, Linda Enright, Jeff Apodaca, Patricia H. Brebner, Leigh McDonough and Alexis H. Bryan of thc City of Co$ta Mesa , state California , their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to sign its name as surety to, and to execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, undertakings, contracts and other written insmunenls in the natare thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of gtmranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contcacls and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in any actions or proceedings allowed by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused this instrument to be signed and sealed this 4th day of October ,2001 . Seaboard Surety Company St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company eeoc Stata o£ ~d C~ ~ ~a~o~ this ~ d~ of OCt~ United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. , 2001 , before me, the undersigned officer, pemonally appeared Peter V< Carman and Thomas E. Huibregtse, who aclmowledged themselves to be the Vice President and Assistant Secretary, respectively, of Seaboard Surety Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, United States Fideliiy and Guaranty Company, Fidelity and Ouaranty Insurance Company, and Fidelity and Guaranty lnsmance UndeP~/te~s, Inc.; and that the seals affixed to the foregoing instrument are the corporate seals of said Companies; and that they, as such, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing the names of the corporations by themselves as duly authorized officers. In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission expires the 1st day of July, 2006. REBECCA EASLEY-ONOKALA, NOtsD' Public 86203 Rev. 7-2002 Printed in U.S.A. This po~er of ARomey is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions edopted by the Boards of Directors of Seaboard Surety Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian thsurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, FidaHty and Guarronty lnsur~ce Company, and Fidelity and Guanmty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. on September 2, 1998, which resolutions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows: RESOLVED, that in connection with the fidelity and surety insurance bnsincss of the Company, aH bonds, undertakings, contracts and other instruments relating to said business may be signed, executed, and aclmowledged by peesons or entities appointed as At~omcy(s)-in-Fact pursuant to a Power of Attorney issued in accordance with these resolutions. Said Power(s) of Atlorney for and on behaif of the Company may and shall be executed in the name and on behaif of thc Company, either by thc Chairman, or the President. or any Vice Pres/dent. or an Assistant Vice President, jointly with the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary, under their respective designations. The signature of such officers may be engraved, printed or lithogsapbed. The signature of each of the foregoing officers and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any power of Artomcy or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Artorney(s)-in-Fact for purposes only of executing and altcsting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and subject to any limitations set forlh thercth, any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signaton: or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company, and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company with respect W any bond or undertaking to which it is validly attached; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that AiXorney(s)-in-Fact shall have the power and authority, and, in any case, subject to the terms and limitations of the Power of AOorney issued them, to execute and deliver on behalf of the Company and to attach the ~eal of the Company to any and all bonds and undertakings, and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such instrument executed by such Attomey(s)-in-Fact shall be as binding upon the Company as if signed by an Executive Officer and sealed and attested to by the Secretary of the Company. 1, 'l~omas E. Huibregtae, Assistant Secretary of Seaboard Su~c~ Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Fidelity and Gtmranty Insurance Company, and Fidelity and Guaranty insurance Underwriters, Inc. 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 in full force and effect and has not been revoked. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this eeee 7th ~yof October eec 2002 . Thomas E. Huibregtse. Assistaat S~re~ary To ~Oey the authenticity of this Power of /lttorney, call 1-800-421-3880 and ask for the Power of Attorney clet~ Please refer to the Power of Attorney number, the above-named lndividuais and the details of the bond to which the pawer is attache,; ITEM 7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY DIR. OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council James Domenoe, Chief of Police October 22, 2002 Purchase of Police Motomycles Recommendation: That the City Council approve the pumhase of two 2003 "Police Road King" motorcycles from Quaid Harley Davidson for a total amount of $38,740.30. Discussion: These motorcycles are additions for the traffic team, and allow the two recently acquired traffic officers motorcycles with which to perform their traffic duties. In October 2002, a review was conducted of motorcycles generally used for police service. Reviewed were the BMW, Harley Davidson and Kawasaki and many factors were considered. Quaid Harley Davidson was determined to be the most cost effective option because of the performance factors and the "buy back" program. After considering the purchase-back program with Quaid Harley Davison, the net cost to the City is $16,740.30 for both motorcycles. Essentially, both motorcycles will be purchased back from the City after three years for a total amount of $22,000. A request for quote was sent to three (3) Harley Davidson authorized dealers. Staff was in communication with all of the vendors to ensure a complete understanding of the request for quote. Additionally, the location of the Quaid dealership allows for prompt service for any scheduled or unscheduled repairs. Vendors Mode! Purchase Price Cost After Buy Back Quaid Harley Davidson Skip Fordyce Motorcycle Center Harley's House of Harley's Police Road King $19,370.15 $8,370.15 Police Road King $20,013.35 $11,013.35 Police Road King $20,946.53 $11,946.53 Fiscal Impact: In anticipation of acquiring the two additional motor officer positions, funding within the police department budget to cover the purchase of these two motorcycles was requested and approved. Adequate funds exist within the 2002-03 police department budget to make this purchase. Attachment: Motorcycle Vendor List Motorcycle Vendor List Harley's House of Harley's 555 South Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 Skip Fordyce Motorcycle Center 7840 Indiana Ave, Riverside, CA 92504 Quaid -Temecula Harley-Davidson 28822 Front St, #205-207 Temecula, CA 92590 ITEM 8 ORDINANCE NO. 02-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA00- 0139 A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO), AND ADOPTING THE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PDO DOCUMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 944-290-012, 013, 014. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and MJW Property Group filed Planning Application Nos. PA00-0138, General Plan Amendment, PA00-0139, Zone Change, PA00-0140, Development Plan, and PA00-0152, Tentative Parcel Map, for the property consisting of approximately 23 acres generally located south of Rancho California Road, west of Cosmic Road and east of the Moraga Road intersection of Rancho California Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 944-290-01 2, 013, AND 014 ("Project"). The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on February 20, 2002 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-003 recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Development Plan and a Te~,tative Parcel Map. On September 17, 2002 and October 8, 2002, the City Council of the City of Temeeula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-05 1 On October 8, 2002, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 02-88, and Resolution No. 02- -89, approving a General Plan Amendment for the project. Section 2. findings: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following The Project, including the zone change and text amendment, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Project, including the zone change and text amendment, has been reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General 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, including the zone change and text amendment, is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Project, including the zone change and text amendment, will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. Section 3. The City Council hereby amends the Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula as follows: For the parcel identified as APN # 944-290-012, change the zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO 5), as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. For the parcel identified as APN # 944-290-013, change the zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO 5), as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. For the parcel identified as 944-290-014, change the zoning designation from Medium Density Residential (M) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO 5), as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Section4. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 17.22 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding thereto the Villages of Temecula Planned Development Overlay District as Sections 17.22.140 through 17.22.149, inclusive, of the Temecula Municipal Code, as said sections are set forth in the document attached hereto as Exhibit B to this Ordinance and incorporated herein as though set forth in full, including the text shown on the Errata Sheet as recommended by the Planning Commission. Section 5. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by Jaw. R:/Ords 2002_/Ords 02-05 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of October, 2002. Ron Robe,s, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02-05 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of October, 2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22'd day of October, 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-05 3 Exhibit A Exhibit B Temecuia Village Planned Development Overlay R:\D Pk2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Chapter 17.22, Sections 17.22.140 through 17.22.156 Table of Contents 17.22.140 17.22.142 17.22.143 17.22.144 17.22.146 17.22.148 17.22.150 17.22.152 17.22.154 17.22.156 Title Purpose and Intent Project Vision Relationship With Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines 1. Development Standards 2. Design Guidelines 3. Approval Authority Use Regulations Schedule of Permitted Uses Design Standards and Setback Standards Vehicular Circulation System Standards Architectural and Landscape Design Standards Incorporation of Exhibits Exhibit 17.22.156 A. Conceptual Site Plan and Sub Area Map Exhibit 17.22.156 B. Sidewalk Plan Exhibit 17.22.156 C. Landscape Plan and Section Legend, Plans and Sections Exhibit 17.22.156 D. Conceptual Building Elevations Exhibit 17.22.156 E. Color and Material Board Exhibit 17.22.156 F through ff Exhibits Attached to Application Text of new section 17.22.156: 17.22.156 Incorporation of Exhibits. All development within the Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District shall conform and comply with the requirements set forth in the following Exhibits, which exhibits are on file in the Official Records of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full and which are also reduced in size to be included in the Zoning Code Text: Exhibit 17.22.156 A. Conceptual Site Plan and Sub Area Map Exhibit 17.22.156 B. Sidewalk Plan Exhibit 17.22.156 C. Landscape Plan and Section Legend, Plans and Sections Exhibit 17.22.156 D. Conceptual Building Elevations Exhibit 17.22.156 E. Color and Material Board Exhibit 17.22.156 F through ff Exhibits Attached to Application" R:kD i~000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 2 TEMECULA VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT 17.22.140 TITLE Sections 17.22.140 through 17.22.156 shall be known as "PDO-5" (Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District). 17.22.142 PURPOSE AND INTENT The Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-5) is intended to provide regulations for the safe and efficient operation, and creative design of a unique office/retail and residential area within the City. PDO-5 encompasses 22.97 acres and is located on the south side of Rancho California Road, approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Cosmic Way. PDO-5 has been divided into three distinctive sub areas, as depicted on Exhibit A (Conceptual Site Plan & Sub Area Map). Sub Area A consists of office/retail property which immediately abuts existing single-family residential to the east. Sub Area B consists of the remainder of the office/retail area. Sub Area C consists of M (Medium Density Residential, 7-12 dwelling units/acre) which encompasses the rear portion of the site and abuts existing single- family residential to the south. The PDO area is surrounded by existing single-family development to the northeast, east and south and multi-family development to the northwest. The property to the west is currently vacant, but zoned M (Medium Density Residential, 7-12 dwelling units/acre). This special overlay zoning district regulation is intended to permit a range of neighborhood convenience uses, which are compatible and complimentary to the existing residential development and M (Medium Density Residential, 7-12 dwelling units/acre) proposed as part of the PDO. Performance standards, in addition to those referenced from the City's Development Code and City-wide Design Guidelines, have been provided to ensure internal project compatibility as well as compatibility with the adjacent single-family residential development and to protect these adjoining uses from excessive noise, odor, smoke, toxic materials, and other potentially objectionable impacts. It is the intent of the City to use these special regulations to supplement the regulations of land uses and development already existing within the adopted Development Code. (Ord. 99-03 § 2) 17.22.143 PROJECT VISION The Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District (PDO) is intended to provide a comprehensive planning approach to the development of 22.97 acres. As discussed above, the project has been divided into three distinctive sub-areas, which have been created to foster an overall development to serve the needs of existing and future residents. While it is not feasible to create a pure "Village Center" at this location because the project is considered "in-fill," the project will include many design features, which are found in a Village Center. These features include: pedestrian scale of development, unique signage, gathering places, transit provisions and neighborhood serving uses. This is accomplished through its design, development standards, permitted and conditionally permitted uses and guidelines that will be implemented at the Development Plan stage. R:'~D P~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 3 Sub Areas A & B comprises the office/retail component of the project. Uses in Sub Area A have been selected which provide support services to existing and future residents. These uses are limited in size and scope and are intended to be compatible with the existing single-family residential to the east. Single story elevations have been included to help te create a pedestrian scale. Drive-through facilities have been prohibited in Sub Area A. This area will also provide a place for existing and future residents to work. Uses in Sub Area B have been chosen that cater to both the pedestrian and the automobile. Existing and future residents, as well as passing motorists will be able to utilize potential services provided in this area. Some auto-oriented uses are permitted in Sub Area B. This is a necessary component to the project, as it will serve to internalize vehicle trips and reduce vehicle trips to auto-oriented services along Rancho California Road. Sub Area C is the residential component of the PDO. A total of one hundred sixty (160) units may be developed in this area. As depicted on Exhibit A, multi-family residential development is envisioned in this Sub Area, although other residential and limited non- residential uses are also envisioned in this Sub Area (reference Section 17.22.146, Use Regulations). Large landscaped buffer areas have been provided between this Sub Area and the existing single-family development to the east and south. Several obstacles to pedestrian access exist within the Sub Areas, as well as to the existing single-family residential to the east and south, the existing multi-family residential to the north (across Rancho California Road) and to planned multi-family residential development to the west. A comprehensive sidewalk plan, which has been coordinated with the landscape plan, is included as Exhibit B (Sidewalk Plan). This plan will foster pedestrian access within the site. When coupled with the existing/proposed pedestrian network, obstacles to pedestrian movement will be greatly reduced. 17.22.144 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ClTYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES The list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses for the Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District is contained in Table 17.22.148. Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.03.050, the following rules and regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area. 1. Development Standards. The development standards in the Development Code (Chapter 17.08) that would apply to any development within a Neighborhood Commemial zoning district that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete for Sub Area A. The development standards in the Development Code (Chapter 17.08) that would apply to any development within a Community Commercial zoning district that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete for Sub Area B. R:kD PX2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 4 The development standards in the Development Code (Chapter 17.06) that would apply to any development within a Medium Density Residential zoning district that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete for Sub Area C. This includes site open space and private open space requirements, as well as overall project density. d. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements per Chapter 17.24 of the Development Code will apply to Sub Areas A, B & C. e. Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code will apply to Sub Areas A, B, and C. 2. Design Guidelines. The City-Wide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. Chapter 3 (General Commercial Design Guidelines) and Chapter 4 (Specific Commercial Development Type Design Guidelines) for Sub Area A and Sub Area B. b. Chapter 5 (Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines) for Sub Area C. Approval Authority. The Conceptual Site Plan is depicted in Exhibit A. Approximate building square footage and location, as well as approximate location of parking, drive lanes, access points and landscaping, are shown on this Exhibit. Conformance with Exhibit A, as well as the provisions contained below will allow the Approval Authority for projects approved under PDO-5 as follows: Permitted uses, which are within Sub Area A and Sub Area B of PDO-5, and are consistent with the provisions contained within PDO-5, shall be a staff level approval and shall not require a noticed public hearing. Those permitted uses found to not be consistent with the above shall be heard by the Planning Director at a noticed public hearing. Conditionally Permitted uses, which are within Sub Area A and Sub Area B of PDO-5, and are consistent with the provisions contained within PDO- 5, shall be approved by the Planning Director and will require a noticed public hearing. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete for Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses within Sub Area C. 4. Any other retevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. (Ord. 99-03 § 2) R:\D I~2000\00-0140 Village i)f Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 5 17.22.146 USE REGULATIONS The list of permitted land uses for the Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay district is contained in Table 17.22.148. Where indicated with a letter "P" the use shall be a permitted use. A letter "C" indicates the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Where indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone. R:~,D P~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula~Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 6 Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use IAI B I C A Adult business Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (less C than 5,000 sq. ft.)* Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (greater P than 5,000 sq. ft.)* Airports Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient) Alcoholic beverage sales ~ C Ambulance services Animal hospital (indoor only) Antique restoration C Antique sales P P Apparel and accessory shops P P Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances) Arcades (pinball and video games) Art supply stores P P Auction houses Auditoriums and conference facilities C Automobile dealers (new and used) Automobile sales (brokerage)-showroom only (new and used)-no outdoor display Automobile Oil Change/Lube Services with no major repairs Automobile painting and body shop Automobile repair services Automobile rental C Automobile salvage yards/impound yards Automobile service stations P Automotive parts -sales Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine - with or without an automated car wash~ B Bakery goods distribution I I I R:~D P~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula~Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 7 Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use I A r B I c Bakery retail - P Bakery wholesale Banks and financial institutions, without drive-through P P Banks and financial institutions, with drive-through - P Barber and beauty shops P P Bed and breakfast C Bicycle (sales, rentals, services) P P Billiard parlor/pool hall Binding of books and similar publications Blood bank P P Blueprint and duplicating and copy services - P Bookstores P P Bowling alley Building material sales Butcher shop - P C Cabinet shop Camera shop (sales/minor repairs) P P Candy/confectionery sales P P Car wash, full service Carpet and rug cleaning Catering services - P Clothing sales P P Coins, purchase and sales P P Cold storage facilities Communications and microwave installations C Communications equipment sales C Community care facilities, less than 5,000 square feet* - Computer sales and service P P Congregate care housing for the elderly, less than 5,000 square feet2 Construction equipment sales, service or rental Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rental Construction trailer P P P R:\D 1~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temccula Village PDO 5.doc 8 Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use I A I B I C Convalescent facilities, less than 5,000 square feet* C P Convenience market~ !Costume rentals P P Cremator ums Cutlery sales P D Data processing equipment and systems C C Day care centers C C Delicatessen C P Discount/department store Distribution facility Drug store/pharmacy P P Dry cleaners, no drive through P P Dry cleaning plant E Emergency shelters Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage) P Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage) IF I Family day care homes (small and large) P Feed and grain sales Financial, insurance, real estate offices P P Fire and police stations Floor covering sales P Florist shop P P Food processing Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity Freight terminals Fuel storage and distribution Funeral parlors, mortuary Furniture sales Furniture transfer and storage R:kD PX2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 9 Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of UseIA I B I C G Garden supplies and equipment sales and service Gas distribution, meter and control station General merchandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq. ft.* C P Glass and mirrors, retail sales P Governmental offices, less than 5,000 sq. ft.* C P Granny Flat P Grocery store, retail & specialty less than 10,000 sq. ft. C Grocery store, wholesale Guest House P Guns and firearm sales H Hardware stores, less than 2,000 square feet* P P Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. ft.)* C Health and exercise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.)* P Health food store C P Health care facility, less than 5,000 square feet* P P C Heliports Hobby supply shop P P Home and business maintenance service Hospitals Hotels/motels I Ice cream parlor P P Impound yard Interior decorating service P P J Junk or salvage yard I I I K Kennel I I I R:~D P'x2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of UseIAI a I C L Laboratories, film, medical P Laundromat P P Laundry service (commercial) Libraries, museums and galleries (private) C P Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution Liquor stores and wine shops~ C Lithographic service Locksmith P P M Machine shop Machinery storage yard Mail order businesses P P Manufactured homes P Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to, the Following: Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of goods within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes which do not involve frequent truck traffic. Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and products which require frequent truck activity or the transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed building, freight handling, shipping, truck services and terminals, storage and wholesaling from the premises of unrefined, raw or semirefined products requiring further processing or manufacturing, and outside storage. Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage Massage Medical equipment sales/rental P P Membership clubs, organizations, lodges R:~D P~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use I A J B I C Mini-storage or mini-warehouse Mobile home sales and service Motion picture studio Motorcycle sales and service Movie theaters C Musical and recording studio C N Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club1 C Nurseries (retail) C Nursing homes/convalescent homes, less than 5,000 square feet* O Office equipment/supplies, sales/services C P Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than C 50,000 sq. ft.* Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. ft., including, but not limited to, business law, medical, dental, p p veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance* P Paint and wallpaper stores P Parcel delivery services Parking lots and parking structures, appurtenant to the primary C C use Pawnshop P Personal service shops P P Pest control services - Pet grooming/pet shop P P Photographic studio P P Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed) Postal distribution Postal services P P Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.) C Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities C C Commission) R:~D PX20~O\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 12 Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use IAI " I c Reserved I I I R Radio and broadcasting studios, offices P P Radio/television transmitter Recreational vehicle parks Recreational vehicle sales Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed building Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard Recycling collection facilities P Recycling processing facilities Religious institution, without a day care or private school C C C Religious institution, with a private school C C Religious institution, with a day care C C Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial C C or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business) Residential, multiple-family housing P Residential, single-family detached P Residential, duplex P Residential, single-family attached (greater than two units) P Residential care facilities for the elderly C C P Restaurant, drive-in/fast food C Restaurants and other eating establishments C P Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment~ C Retail support use (15 percent of total development square footage in BP and LI) Rooming and boarding houses C P S Scale, public Schools, business and professional C C Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12) C C Scientific research and development offices and laboratories Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care) z R:XD 1~2000\00-0140 Village of Temccula\Tcmecula Village PDO 5.doc 13 Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use I A I B I C Solid waste disposal facility Sports and recreational facilities Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building Swap Meet, outdoor Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales no outdoor storage P T Tailor shop P P Taxi or limousine service - Temporary real estate tract offices Tile sales P Tobacco shop C Tool and die casting Transfer, moving and storage Transportation terminals and stations Truck rentals (no sales or/service) TVNCR repair P P U Upholstery shop I I I V Vending machine sales and service Veterinarian clinic w/overnight facilities (indoor kennels) P W Warehousing/distribution Watch repair P P Wedding chapels Welding shop Welding supply and service (enclosed) Y Reserved i i I R:XD PX2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 14 Table 17.22.148 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use C Z Reserved 1. The CUP will be subject to Section 17.08.050(G) of the Development Code, special standards for the sale of alcoholic beverages. 2. All Senior Project housing residential projects shall use the development and performance standards for the M (Medium Density Residential) zone and the provisions contained in Section 17.06.050.H of the Temecula Development Code. * The Director of Planning may approve an increase in floor area up to 15% for those uses that have a maximum square footage specified. Ord. 99-03 § 2) 17.22.150 DESIGN AND SETBACK STANDARDS The following standards are designed to increase the compatibility between uses within and adjacent to the project. The standards are to be implemented based upon the appropriate Sub Area. A. Sub Area A 1. Landscape Setback/Buffer. A landscaped buffer area, not less than twenty-five feet (25') in width shall be provided between Sub Area A, and the existing residential development to the east. Reference Exhibits C-3a (Plan) and C-3b (Section). The landscaping shall include (at a minimum) specimen trees, shrubs, and appropriate ground cover. No parking areas are allowed in this visual buffer area. A wall shall be provided on the eastern property line between Sub Area A, and the existing residential development to the east. The height of the wall shall be six feet and may be increased to eight feet if deemed necessary and appropriate by the Community Development Director. A minimum twenty-five foot (25') landscape setback from the property line shall be provided along the Rancho California Road frontage. No parking or drive lanes may be allowed to encroach into this area. Reference Exhibits C-2a (Plan) and C-2b (Section). R:~D PL2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 15 Pedestrian Linkaqes. · Pedestrian linkages shall be provided in accordance with Exhibit B (Sidewalk Plan). · Pedestrian linkages shall be provided between Sub Area B, Sub Area A and Rancho California Road. Pedestrian access between Sub Area C and Sub Area A will be via Sub Area B. A pedestrian linkage shall be provided to the east of the drive lane that connects Sub Area B to Sub Area C. Buildinq HeiRht. All buildings in Sub Area A shall be one-story. Varied roof heights shall not exceed twenty-eight feet (28') in height. Towers and other architectural features shall not exceed thirty-nine feet (39') in height. Gatherinq Spaces. A minimum of one (1) pedestrian gathering space shall be provided in Sub Area A. Gathering spaces shall contain the following items: · Shading. (i.e., umbrellas, shade structures). · Plantings (i.e., a mixture of trees, shrubs, vines). within planter areas or potted. · Seating. (i.e., chairs, benches, seat walls). · Eating area. These may be Transit Provisions. Provisions for a transit stop shall be provided in either Sub Area A or B. Final location shall be determined at the Development Plan stage, through consultation with the developer, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the City Traffic Engineer. Loadinq Areas. All required loading spaces shall be located in the front of the building. No loading shall be allowed on the side or the rear of the buildings. Trash enclosures. No trash enclosures shall be permitted on the rear sides of the buildings or along Rancho California Road. All enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with the main building and screened with landscaping. Exact locations shall be determined at the Development Plan stage. Sub Area B. Landscape Setback. A minimum twenty-five foot (25') landscape setback from the property line shall be provided along the Rancho California Road frontage. No parking or drive lanes may be allowed to encroach into this area. Reference Exhibits C-la (Plan) and C-lb (Section). 2. Pedestrian Linkaqes. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided in accordance with Exhibit B (Sidewalk Plan). R:XD PL2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 16 · Two (2) pedestrian linkages shall be provided between Sub Area B and Sub Area C. In addition to the pedestrian linkage depicted on Exhibit B (Sidewalk Plan), a pedestrian linkage shall be provided to the east of the drive lane that connects Sub Area B to Sub Area C. · Pedestrian linkages shall be provided between Sub Area B, Sub Area A and Rancho California Road. Transit Provisions. Provisions for a transit stop shall be provided in either Sub Area A or B. Final location shall be determined at the Development Plan stage, through consultation with the developer, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the City Traffic Engineer. Gatherin.q Spaces. A minimum of one (1) pedestrian gathering space shall be provided in Sub Area B. Gathering spaces shall contain the following items: · Shading. (i.e., umbrellas, shade structures). · Plantings (i.e., a mixture of trees, shrubs, vines). planter areas or potted. · Seating. (i.e., chairs, benches, seat walls). · Eating area. These may be within 5. Loading Areas. All required loading spaces shall be located in the front of the building. No loading shall be allowed on the side or the rear of the buildings. Trash enclosures. No trash enclosures shall be permitted on the rear sides of the buildings or along Rancho California Road. All enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with the main building and screened with landscaping. Exact locations shall be determined at the Development Plan stage. Sub Area C. Buildinq Setbacks. All structures shall be setback a minimum of forty-five (45) feet along the eastern and southerly property line, which abuts existing single-family residential development. Reference Exhibits C-6a (Plan) and C-6b (Section). Pedestrian Linkaqes. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided in accordance with Exhibit B (Sidewalk Plan). · A minimum of one (1) pedestrian linkage shall be provided between Sub Area C and Sub Area B and between Sub Area B or Sub Area C and Sub Area A. · A pedestrian pathway system shall be provided within Sub Area C. Buildinq Heiqht. The height of structures shall not exceed three (3) stories or forty (40) feet in height. R:~D PL2000\00-0140 Village (ff Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc Buildinq Plottin,q. Buildings on the eastern property line shall be plotted so that they will not view into the existing residences to the east of the project. The ends of units or garages shall be located on the perimeter. R:'~D PL2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula~Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 18 17.22.152 VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SYSTEM STANDARDS Vehicular Circulation System Standards have been developed to assure that adequate vehicular access ingress and egress exist for the project, that internal project circulation and vehicle stacking are sufficient and that necessary emergency vehicle access requirements are met. A Conceptual Site Plan (Exhibit A) has been prepared with input from the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments. Locations and approximate square footage for building envelopes, access points from Rancho California Road and the western road, drive lanes, parking lots and parking lot landscaping have been provided on the conceptual plan in an effort to depict typical overall development of the site. Minor changes or modifications to the conceptual plan may occur provided they are reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula at the development plan stage. Access Points: Three (3) access points to the project have been provided to the site from Rancho California Road. 1. Access to Sub Area A shall be provided from the easterly access point on Rancho California Road and by a drive lane, which is perpendicular to Rancho California Road (through Sub Area B). 2. Access to Sub Area B shall be provided from all three (3) access points on Rancho California Road. 3. Access to Sub Area C shall be provided from the two westerly access points on Rancho California Road and from the property to the west via the westerly Rancho California Road project access point. 17.22.154 ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines have been included for the commercial component of PDO-5 (Sub Area A and Sub Area B). These guidelines, when used in conjunction with the Citywide Design Guidelines, will provide the necessary assurances that a comprehensive and high quality project is developed on the site. Unless expressly stated below, Residential Architectural Guidelines for Sub Area C are contained within Chapter 5 of the City-Wide Design Guidelines. A. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Form, Height And Massing A variety of building form, height and massing techniques shall be utilized to achieve a pedestrian scale of development. The Guidelines contained below correspond to the Conceptual Building Elevations (Elevations), contained in Exhibit D. The Elevations are representative of the design concept that is strongly encouraged in the commercial component of Temecula Village. Final design of the individual buildings will utilize the design concepts depicted on the Elevations and may vary from the Elevations depicted in Exhibit D. · The architectural design of the office and retail area in Sub Area A shall be single-story structures with covered walkways, colonnades, arcades and R:'~D 1~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 19 openings that create interest. Structures in Sub Area B may be increased to two- stories; however, they must meet the criteria mentioned above. · Two-story buildings shall not exceed thirty-four feet (34') in height. Exceptions to this height limitation, up to forty feet (40') in height, shall be allowed for towers and other architectural features. · Offsets in planes shall be used to reduce the mass of building walls, accent entry areas, and create architectural interest. · Building forms shall be of simple geometry with sculptural or traditional forms acceptable. · Second floor balconies/dormers is a method that can be used to reduce the mass of large buildings. · Pediment entries, colorful window and door trim shall be used for accent purposes. · Building entries shall be defined and articulated through the use of items such as columns and stone veneers. · Recessed windows and entryways shall be used, especially at the ground level as they add interest to the product. · Windows or window-type elements are encouraged on second story elements. · Windows on the second floor should line up with windows on the first floor, making the column/structure apparent. · All sides of the buildings shall receive adequate detail treatment; however, reduced articulation shall be permitted for those sides of the buildings that are not clearly visible from public view. · The use of arcades is encouraged on front elevations of larger buildings (Shops "B" and Building "F") and on the western elevations of the buildings in Sub Area A (Buildings "G", "H" and 'T'). 2. Colors & Materials The colors and materials for all Sub Areas shall be consistent with the color and material board (Exhibit E). The purpose of the color and material board is to provide continuity between the components of the Temecula Village PDO. A. Colors · The predominant building color includes a mixture of earth tones (grays, whites, yellows, tans and browns, similar to colors already used throughout the City of Temecula and other Southern California cities. Warm or light colors are the most appropriate for trim. · Brighter colors shall be limited to signs, doors, window trim and other detailing related to pedestrian areas. B. Materials · Cement Plaster, or similar materials will be used predominantly throughout as will natural color ledger stone, wood trellis and copper patina metal roofing. · The use of canvas awnings is strongly encouraged over windows and entries. · Textured concrete (poured in place or tilt up) and concrete block may be used on building elevations. R:\D P~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 20 · High quality, dark colored roofing, such as sealed non-reflective metal, wood or concrete shingles or shakes, and asphalt/concrete composites are recommended. · Beams, posts and wooden or stone columns should be simple with camps and toes. Care should be taken so that the width of the column is in proportion to the scale of the building. 3. Roof Forms · Flat roofs with simple horizontal or gabled parapets are encouraged. Roofs shall be high enough to hide rooftop equipment. · Rooftops shall be designed to be visually attractive when viewed from adjacent buildings or roadways. · Varied roof heights shall be incorporated to reduce building massing. · The use of cornices is strongly encouraged. B. LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Project-Wide Landscaping Plant communities currently represented on the site are annual grasslands and woodland tree plantings. Existing development in the area also establishes a plant palette for the project to draw from. The landscape theme for the site development is intended to compliment the existing development, while at the same time establishing it own identity. The landscape theme is also intended to support the architectural guidelines by creating screens and buffers where needed and views where opportunities exist. Guidelines: · Plant material selection for street trees shall be determined by the Chapter 8 (Public Design Guidelines) of the City-Wide Design Guidelines and complement the existing street trees on Rancho California Road. · Introduced plant materials will be installed so that they reflect the surrounding plant species. · Irrigation systems shall include Iow flow drip systems, consistent with the Section 17.32 of the City's Development Code (Water-Efficient Landscape Design). · Landform grading and the use of berming shall be used in coordination with development pad landscaping to screen parking and loading areas. 2. Project Edges Project edges will be the most visible components of the project. These edges include: Rancho California Road edge, residential (internal)/office/retail (internal) edge, residential (internal)/residential (external) edge and residential (internal)/residential (external) edge. The intent is to provide a comprehensive landscape approach to the project, while paying attention to the particular needs of each edge condition. Plans and Sections are provided to guide future R:~D P~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Tcmccula Village PDO 5.doc Development Plans in these areas. The Landscape Plan and Section Legend, Plans and Sections are included as Exhibit C and Exhibits C-la through C-7b. a. Rancho California Road Edqe Landscaping along Rancho California Road will be complimentary to existing landscaping along Rancho California Road, as well as serve to identify the project. Streetscape plantings will be coordinated with interior streetscape and parking treatments as well as with adjacent parcel landscaping. Enhanced project entries at two locations will provide a gateway into the project. Reference Exhibits C-la (Plan) and C-lb (Section): Rancho California Road/Sub Area B Interface and Exhibits C-2a (Plan) and C-2b (Section): Rancho California Road/Sub Area A Interface. b. Residential (External)/Office/Retail EdRe This edge will serve to buffer the proposed development in Sub Area A from the existing single-family residential to the east. A minimum twenty (20) foot landscape buffer shall be required from the eastern property line to any structure. An architecturally treated wall shall be constructed on the eastern property line to further serve as a buffer. Evergreen trees with broad canopies may be utilized to allow for maximum privacy for the existing single-family residents. Reference Exhibits C-3a (Plan) and C-3b (Section): Sub Area A Interface at East. c. Residential (Internal)/Office/Retail (Internal) Ed,qe This edge will be viewed by residents living adjacent to the project and will act as a buffer between the development and residential use. Native vegetation in good condition will be retained where possible and layered densely planted evergreen landscape materials will be provided for further screening. Reference Exhibits C- 4a (Plan) and C-4b (Section): Sub Area C/Sub Area B Inter'race and Exhibits C- 5a (Plan) and C-5b (Section): Sub Area C/Sub Area A Interface. d. Residential (Internal)/Residential (External) Edqe Slopes created on the eastern and southern slopes will be extensively landscaped to meet current City Development Code standards. Since these are down slopes of various lengths, trees and shrubs are provided near the top of the slope to allow for maximum privacy for the existing single-family residents. The southwestern portion of the site will be graded and planted with turf, trees and shrubs in order to provide an active recreational open space for local residents. Reference Exhibits C-6a (Plan) and C-6b (Section): Sub Area C Interface at East and Exhibits C-7a (Plan) and C-7b (Section): Sub Area C Interface at South. 3. Major Entries Special landscaping will occur at the major entries that will identify the points of entry and set the tone for the center. Plantings will be coordinated with the Rancho California Road edge. Clear views for traffic safety and project signage must be maintained. Enhanced vehicular and pedestrian access will identify major entries, as follows. R:\D PX2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 22 17.22.156 Incorporation of Exhibits. All development within the Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay District shall conform and comply with the requirements set forth in the following Exhibits, which exhibits are on file in the Official Records of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full and which are also reduced in size to be included in the Zoning Code Text: Exhibit 17.22.156 A. Conceptual Site Plan and Sub Area Map Exhibit 17.22.156 B. Sidewalk Plan Exhibit 17.22.156 C. Landscape Plan and Section Legend, Plans and Sections Exhibit 17.22.156 D. Conceptual Building Elevations Exhibit 17.22.156 E. Color and Material Board Exhibit 17.22.156 F through ff Exhibits Attached to Application" R:\D PX2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO 5.doc 23 'i- EXHIBIT SECTION 17.22.156 C LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SECTION LEGEND, PLANS AND SECTIONS Exhibit C: Landscape Section and Plan Legend Exhibits C-la (Plan) and C-lb (Section): Rancho California Road/Sub Area B Interface Exhibits C-2a (Plan) and C-2b (Section): Rancho California Road/Sub Area A Interface Exhibits C-3a (Plan) and C-3b (Section): Sub Area A Interface at East Exhibits C-4a (Plan) and C-4b (Section): Sub Area C/Sub Area B Interface Exhibits C-5a (Plan) and C-5b (Section): Sub Area C/Sub Area A Interface Exhibits C-6a (Plan) and C-6b (Section): Sub Area C Interface at East Exhibits C-7a (Plan) and C-7b (Section): Sub Area C Interface at South R:'~D 1~,2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Tcmecula Village PDO 5,doc 24 R"~IIBIT SECTION 17.22-156 C RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. CONICAL DECIDUOUS STREET TREE T~PICAL MEDIUM FOREGROUND. SHRUB MASSING TYP. LARGE BACKGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYPICAL BROAD CANOPY DECIDUOUS TREE TYPICAL -- 3' CONCRETE FLOWERING ACCENT SHRUB MASSING TYPICAL UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE TYPICAL PYRAMIDAL EVERGREEN TREE WPICAL RESTAU RANT 1J PLAN VIEW (~) Rancho California Road / Sub Area B InterfaCe NTS SECTION 17.22.156 C O :=~ Wfl~ ~xstBIT SECTIOnal7.22.156 C RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. LARGE BACKGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYPICAL PYRAMIDAL EVERGREEN TREE TYPICAL 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK IYPICAL CONICAL DECIDUOUS STREET TREE TYPICAL -- BROAD CANOPY DECIDUOUS TREE FSMALL FLOWERING ACCENT SHRUB MASSING IYPICAL 2 2 -- MEDIUM FOREGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYP. -- MINOR ENTRY MONUMENT OFFICE PLAN VIEW (~ Rancho California Road / Sub Area A Interfe~ce NTS SECTION 17.22.1.56 C 17.22.156 C RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. 3 -- BROAD CANOPY EVERGREEN TREE TYPICAL LARGE BACKGROUND' SHRUB MASSINO ' TYPICAL MEDIUM FOREGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYP. -- PYRAMIDAL DECIDUOUS ACCENT TREE TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL --.CONCRETE BLOCK PERIMETER WALL TYPICAL VINES ATFACHED TO WALL IYPICAL 'PLAN VIEW Rancho California Road / Sub Area A Interface NTS xx-;BIT S~CTION 17.22.156 C ~.xhT~l~i'~ sEcTiON 17.22.156 C PYRAMIDAL DECIDUOUS ACCENT TREE IYPICAL PYRAMIDAL EVERGREEN TREE TYPICAL BROW DITCH BROAD CANOPY EVERGREEN TREE LARGE BACKGROUND SHRUB MASSING MEDIUM FOREGROUND SHRUB MASSING 'I'YP. SMALL FLOWERING ACCENT SHRUB MASSING TYPICAL 4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYPICAL All'ACHED TO FENCE -TYPICAL TUBULAR STEEL FENCE I'YPICAL PLAN VIEW Sub Area C / Sub Area B Interlace (~' ' NTS KXHI*'RT.T SEC~IOIi 17.22.156 C !1 SECTION 17.22.15'6 C eROAD c~opy .. DECIDUOUS TREE ~ICAL LARGE BACKGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYPICAL- BROAD CANOPY EVERGREEN TREE 'PfPICAL--~ PYRAMIDAL EVERGREEN TREE 1YPICAL PYEAMIDAL DECIDUOUS · ACCENT TREE TYPICAL- I PARKING 5 WALL DITCH blEOIUM FOREGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYP. 8' TUBULAR STEEL FENCE TYPICAL VINES ATTACHED TO FENCE TYPICAL 5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYPICAL 5 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLAN VIEW Sub Area C / Sub Area A Interface NTS xxHIBIT SECTION. 17.22.156 C MEDIUM FOREGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYP.- LARGE BACKGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYPICAl UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE TYPICAL GARAGES TYPICAL MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GARAGES / / SINGLE/FZAMILY I RESID,,ENTIAL I.... / '~ BROAD CANOPY DECIDUOUS TREE TYPICAL -- BROAD CANOPY EVERGREEN TREE TYPICAL NATURAL OPEN SPACE TYPICAL-- SLOPE GROUNDCOVER TYPICAL-- 8' TUBULAR STEEL FENCE TYPICAL PLAN VIEW Sub Area C Interface at East NTS KXHI~IT S~C*~]:O~] 17.22.156 C ~-kBIT SECTION 17.22.156 LARGE BACKGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYPICAL BROAD CANOPY EVERGREEN TREE TYPICAL MEDIUM FOREGROUND SHRUB MASSING TYP. PYRAMIDAL DECIDUOUS ACCENT TREE TYPICAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYPICAL PYRAMIDAL EVERGREEN TREE TYPICAL 8' TUBULAR STEEL FENCE TYPICAL SMALL EVERGREEN SCREEN TREE TYPICAL 7 SINGLE! FAMILY RESIDE~ITIAL 2,3 PLAN VIEW Sub Area C Interface at SOuth NTS .'~- axe[BIT SL~TION 1~.22.156 C 0 Guidelines: · Accent trees with fall or flowering color should be used as identify plantings. · Low-scale walls, shrubs and groundcovers with annual or perennial color should be used to highlight key areas, such as the base of project entry monuments. · Trees should be massed to create an effect similar to native plantings in undisturbed areas. R:~D P~2000\00-0140 ViItage of Temecula\Teraecula Village PDO - PC Changes.doc 25 Secondary Entries Secondary entries delineate the entry to the project interior. They are located at the westerly and easterly edges of the project along Rancho California Road. Design elements may include accent plantings, Iow scale walls, and monumentation. Guidelines: · Shrubs and groundcovers with annual or perennial color should be used at the base of project entry monumentation. · Accent trees, such as palm trees or crape myrtle varieties should be used to identify entries. R:~D P~2000\004}140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO - PC Changes.doc 26 ¢7.22.156 C 17.22.156 C _~ z< z D~n ~_0_ Project-Wide Hardscape Concept Hardscape elements should be used in coordination with the amhitecture and landscaping to provide a link between the street edge and individual developments. Attention to hardscape details can create a strong sense of community by relating different developments to an overriding theme. In addition, property hardscaping can improve pedestrian safety, movement and visual enjoyment of public areas. a. Pavin.q Materials The use of enriched paving treatment has been recommended for the major entry into the site and intersections to highlight key areas of the streetscape. Guidelines: · Paving materials that incorporate natural rock or stone are highly recommended. · Major intersection and project entry crosswalks shall be highlighted by enriched paving treatments such as stamped, colored concrete, interlocking pavers or cobblestones to visually denote crosswalks. · Near buildings, paving materials should be consistent with major intersection treatments, using interlocking pavers, cobblestone, natural stone, or textured concrete. R:~D 1~2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO - PC Oranges.doc 27 ~x~IBIT SEcTIONI7.22.156 C SMOOTH CONCRETE BANDS TYPICAL EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE ACCENT TYPICAL INTERLOCKING PAVERS TYPICAL -- FREE STANDING PILASTER W/ DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE · &: BUILT-IN LAMP TYPICAL-- PLAN VIEW EnhanCed Paving at Intersection Alternate 1 NTS ~.x.[BIT S,~'TIOI~ 17.22.156 C INTERLOCKING PAVERS TYPICAL SMOOTH CONCRETE BANDS TYPICAL EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE ACCENT TYPICAL COBBLE STAMPED COLORED CONCRETE TYPICAL FREE STANDING PILASTER W/ DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE &: BUILT-~IN LAMP I~'PICAL- PLAN VIEW . Enhanced Paving at Intersection Alternate 2 NTS b, Street Furniture Hardscape elements such as benches, bollards, paving and light standards should reflect the theme of the overall commercial center, complimenting the architecture and landscape. Materials used in construction of street furniture should compliment architectural materials used on adjacent buildings. Safety and durability need special consideration. Guidelines: · Natural stone, rock, textured concrete, wood, or metal are all acceptable building materials for street furniture. · Street furniture should be located within gathering and/or shaded seating areas within the center. · All benches should be of simple design of wrought-iron metal, or concrete with supports and scroll detailing and finished natural wood slats for the sitting area. · Trash receptacles and other minor details particular to individual parcels must relate to the amhitectural style of buildings. R:\D PX2000\00-01 ~0 Village o f Temecula\Temecula Village PDO - FC Changes.doc 28 KX.~'~IT SE, CT*rOI~ 17.22:156 C BENCH c. Walls and Fences When necessary for security or to mitigate grading, walls or retaining walls and fences can reinforce the project's identity and image. The material, style, and height of walls and fences shall in order to ensure visual consistency, provide an element of continuity throughout the center. Guidelines: · Construction materials and colors shall be consistent with the project architecture with dark-toned hues and earthtone colors preferred. The use of a hedge/bollard treatment is acceptable and encouraged. · For walls built to screen ancillary structures adjacent to buildings such as trash enclosures, construction materials should compliment the architecture. · The horizontal mass of continuous walls should be softened by landscape planting and vines. · Tubular steel or an equivalent may be used for fencing. Lighting Concept In the design of lighting, careful consideration must be given the overall architectural theme as well as to the safety of the site users. An emphasis should be made to emphasize human scale in public areas adjacent to buildings and along walks. Guidelines: · Warm white lighting is encouraged, bright colored or blinking lights shall not be allowed. · Light standards will blend architecturally with buildings, pedestrian areas, and other hardscape elements. · Design and placement of site lighting must minimize glare affecting adjacent properties, buildings and roadways. · Natural stone and concrete may be used for light standard bases. · All lighting shall be consistent with the Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance. · "Old town Style" lighting fixtures, either attached to building Or pedestal mounted along pedestrian walkways and gathering areas shall be utilized. R:'~D PX2000\00-0140 Village of TemeculaXTernecula Village pDO2¢ PC Changes.doc I~XHtlJl']~ SE~IOl~ '17.22,156 G LIGHTING STANDARD 5. Signage Program A comprehensive sign program is provided for Temecula Village in order to meet the different type of signage needs. Building-m6unted signage will need to be oriented to both to the pedestrian (internal to the project) and motorist (along Rancho California Road). In addition, it will be necessary to be sensitive to the existing single-family development to the south and east of the project site. Monument signs will be permitted along the Rancho California Road frontage, at project entries, which identify the commercial center, as well as the major tenants. Lastly, directional signage will be necessary to safely guide throughout all Sub Areas. A. Guidelines Appropriate. · Generally, small, Iow key signage for tenant spaces. · Building mounted signs for project identity. · A limit of four colors on a sign. Additional colors are acceptable only when incorporating a company logo. · Eye level signs; window and door signs. · Signs consistent with building texture, color and architectural style. · Uniquely shaped signs that are related to the product or service provided (i.e., barber poll). · Signs that have illumination sources consistent with Mount Palomar lighting standards and restrictions. 2. Inappropriate · Typical "can" or "box" signs with entire face areas made of plastic. · Signs mounted above building rooflines (parapet), or roof-mounted signs. · Signs that incorporate any manner of mechanical movement, audible elements, flashing or intermittent lighting, and/or moving or otherwise animated forms. · Signs that interfere with or conflict with any traffic control device, create a safety hazard by obstructing the clear view of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or interfere with efficient operations of emergency vehicles. · Signs, which prevent free access to or from any fire escape, door, window or exit, or access to any standpipe. · Landscaping or the use of annual or ornamental flowers that form a sign or message. · Signs not in scale with the pedestrian orientation. · Vehicle signs. · Signs extending above the eave or parapet, roof-mounted signs, non- projecting signs which project more than twelve inches (12") from a given building face. · Signs painted onto building sudaces or trash bins and their enclosu res. R:~D P,2000~00-0140 Village of Temccula\Tcmecula Village PDO - PC Changes,doc 3O · Signs with disproportionate, visually distracting, or reflective surfaced background or graphics. · Signs with non-contrasting background, graphics or font, which render the sign illegible. · Inflatable signs. · Off-site signage. B. General Sign Standards and Specifications · The area of a sign or logo with individual letters shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol. · Planning and Building and Safety Departments' review and approval is required prior to the placing, erecting, moving, or reconstructing of any sign within the Specific Plan area. · All permanent signs shall require a permit prior to erecting or attaching the sign. · Signage that is not approved as part of the Development Plan process, shall be approved administratively by the Planning Director. · If a situation arises that is not covered by these sign regulations or the type of permit required, the Planning Director shall provide written interpretation after consulting the City's Sign Ordinance. · All building-mounted signs shall meet or exceed all applicable city, state and federal codes. · All signs containing electrical components shall conform to the Uniform Lighting Code. C. Buildinq-Mounted Siqns General. · Signs shall be placed to be compatible with the building and accent the architectural design of the structure. · Sign colors should be compatible with the building's color. · Signs and letter sizes shall be used which are complementary to the building scale. · Signs should have individually spaced letters. · Signs shall have concealed illumination soume, either internal or external. Wall signs. · Signs attached to front walls and/or side walls of buildings shall have a surface area not to exceed one (1) square foot per linear foot of the respective face of the building. Sign attached to rear walls of buildings shall have a surface area not exceeding one-half (~) square foot per linear foot of the surface area of the rear face of the building. No wall-mounted signs shall be permitted on the rear of the buildings in Sub Area A, which face the existing single-family residential development. · For storefronts thirty feet (30') wide or less, a maximum letter height of 8" is required. R:~D B2000X004)140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO - PC Changes.doc 31 · For storefronts 30'-60' wide, a maximum letter height of 12" is required. · For storefronts 60' wide or greater, a maximum letter height of 16" is required. · The maximum letter height allowed is 24". 3. Permanent Window Signs. · Store identity, graphics, typography and/or company logo may be silkscreened or etched on the tenant's window. · The maximum square foot graphic area allowed per window shall not exceed four (4) square feet or fifteen percent (15%) of the total window area from the exterior of the building, whichever is greater. · Signs will not be permitted on doors. 4. Awning Signs · Twenty percent (20%) maximum coverage allowed of the total exterior surface of each awning. · Internalillumination is prohibited. Projecting Signs · No more than one (1) projecting sign will be allowed per tenant. · The maximum size may not exceed six (6) square feet and shall not extend more than three feet (3') from the wall surface. · Projecting signs shall only be attached to buildings and shall not be illuminated. Hanging Signs and Under Canopy Signs · No more than one (1) hanging sign shall be allowed per tenant. · Signs are permitted under a canopy and parallel to the parking lot; maximum size of six (6) square feet; minimum of seven feet (7') vertical clearance shall be required from walking grade to the bottom of the sign. D. Monument Signs General Requirements · All portions of signs, including the base, shall be constructed with materials and colors that are compatible with, and serve to complement the building. · All monument signs shall include the address of the site. Numerals shall be no larger than ten inches (10') in height and no smaller than six inches (6") in height. · Low growing shrubs, groundcover and/or annual color shall surround the base of the sign. The landscaping shall be a minimum of one (1) foot distance from the sign. R:~D PL2O00\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO - PC Change&dac 32 2. Specific Requirements Maior Monument Siqn · One major monument sign, not to exceed nine feet (9') in height above grade with up to fifty (50) square feet of signage area shall be permitted at the project major entry. Colors and materials for the sign shall reflect the center. Up to five (5) tenants may be advertised on the sign. · Each tenant placard shall not exceed one foot (12") high. R:kD 1~2000~00-0140 Village of TemeCula\Temecula Village PDO - I>C Changes.doc 33 KXHLBT~ SF-,C~TO~ 17.22.156 C FINISH PILASTER CAP RECESSED GLASS BLOCK W/ WROUGHT IRON GRILLE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED. TYPICAL 4 SIDES ~ Bo~ 8tc~'e STUCCO FINISH MASONARY PILASTER · DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE MOUNTED TO PILASTER E VENEER PILASTER BASE ALTERNATE: COBBLE STONE VENEER PILASTER BASE IISH GRADE 6" 2'-6" SQ. TYP. 3'-6" SQ. ELEVATION Pilaster Lamp / Directional Sign NIS Minor Monument Si.qns · A minor entry monument sign, not to exceed five feet (5') in height above grade with up to thirty-six (36) square feet of signage area shall be permitted at each minor entry monument sign. · Colors and materials for the sign shall reflect the center. · Up to three (3) tenants may be advertised on the sign. · Each tenant placard shall not exceed ten inches (10") high. R:kD Px2000\00-0140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO - PC {2]xanges.doc 34 Directional Si.qns · Shall consist of small-scale versions of monument sign design and contain graphics conforming to the design for monument signs and building mounted signs. · Shall have contrasting background/graphic colors. · Shall have direct or indirect concealed illumination. · Individual directional signs shall not exceed three (3) square feet in area, or have an overall height exceeding three feet (3') above finished grade. · Multiple-tenant directional signs shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area, or have an overall height exceeding six feet (6') above finished grade. · Shall not contain Iogos. R:LD P',2000\00-O 140 Village of Temecula\Temecula Village PDO - PC Ciumges.doc 35 SECTION 17.22.156 D SECTION 17.22.156 E TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OCTOBER 8, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:46 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Stone presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone None Aisc present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of September 24, 2002. MOTION: Director Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Director Naggar who abstained. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No comment. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comment. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. Minutes.csd\100802 1 ADJOURNMENT At 7:47 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, President Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Minutes.csd\100802 2 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTO R_~._. CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services~, October 22, 2002 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan PREPARED BY: Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services'~~''' RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRCT APPROVING THE MULTI-USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND: On January 22, 2002, the Board of Directors approved the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (MUTBMP) prepared by KTU+A for the City of Temecula. The purpose of the master plan is to provide a comprehensive guide for planning, developing and implementing a safe and efficient trails system including both off road trails and on road bikeways. One important function of the approved MUTBMP is the opportunity to obtain grant funding for trail and bikeway improvements. One such opportunity for bikeways is the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA). The FY 2003/04 BTA will provide $7.2 million for cities and counties to improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters "... to establish a b/cycle transportation system designed and developed to achieve the functional commuting needs for the employee, student, business person, and shopper as the foremost consideration in route selection, to have the physical safety of the bicyclist and bicyclist's property as a major planning component, and to have the capacity to accommodate bicyclists of afl ages and skills." To be eligible for BTA funds, local agencies must prepare and adopt a Bicycle Transportation Plan that is in compliance with Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code. This includes adoption of the Master Plan by resolution of the local governing authority, approval from Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), approval from CaITrans Bicycle Facilities Unit (BFU), a resolution certi~ing the availability of the required 10 percent local share of the total project cost and documentation of completed environmental clearance. R:\RUSEP~,GENDAS\Multi-Use Trails MP Reso-csd.doc BTA funds pay a maximum of 90 percent of the cost of an eligible project. Local agencies must provide 10 percent of the project cost from sources other than the BTA. For fiscal year 2003/04 the maximum amount an applicant may receive is $1.8 million or 25% of the available funding for that fiscal yea~:. As noted, in order to be eligible to apply for a BTA grant, the City must have formally adopted a Trails and/or Bikeways Master Plan by Resolution. The Board's approval in January was not by Resolution and, therefore, staff is bringing this item back for reconsideration and formal adoption. Staff has identified two projects for funding through the BTA grant process. The first project is the undercrossing at Margarita Road. This project will extend the existing Santa Gertrudis trail from its current terminus at Margarita westward to Interstate 15. The other identified project is the Murrieta Creek trail improvements. The City is currently seeking proposals for a design consultant for this project. BTA grant funding would provide for completion of additional portions of the work. Upon Board adoption of the resolution approving the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeway Master Plan, staff will submit the document to the Riverside County Transpodation Commission and then to CalTrans for their respective approvals. Staff will also obtain environmental clearances and complete the grant applications for our proposed projects. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant applications will seek the combined maximum funding of $1.8 million available for the completion of our bikeways and multi-use trails projects. The Murrieta Creek Multi-Purpose Trail project is budgeted and funded at $1.5 million using Development Impact Fees (DIF) and a Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program grant in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 2002/03. The Margarita Undercrossing is budgeted at $625,000 and funded with DIF in the CIP in FY2005/06. R:\RUSEP\AG~NDAS\Multi-Use Trails MP Reso-csd,doc RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT APPROVING THE MULTI-USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the City of Temecula Community Services District does find, determine and declare that: a. Since incorporation in December 1989, residents of the City of Temecula have expressed strong interest in a well-defined, integrated trails and bikeways system. b. On March 28, 2000, the Board of Directors awarded a contract to · KTU+A for the preparation of the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. The purpose of the master plan is to provide a comprehensive guide for pla. nning, developing and implementing a safe and efficient trails system including both off road multi-purpose trails and on road bikeveys. c. Great effort was made to ensure that all residents and interested padies had the opportunity to participate in the master plan process, identifying potential trail users, specific trails needs, proposed routes and potential regional trails connections. d. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan is designed to fulfill the needs for 1) non-motorized access to key recreational and transportation routes within the City, 2) connectivity of neighborhoods, schools, parks, employment and commercial areas, and 3) integration with regional trails and bikeways systems. e. This comprehensive master plan will ensure the thorough and systematic implementation of trails and bikeways within the City of Temecula. f. Implementation of the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan I~as begun with the inclusion of identified priority trails and bikeways segments in the City's FY 2002- 2007 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Section 2. The Board of Directors of the City of Temecula Community Services District hereby approves the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of the Resolution. R:\RUSEPXRESOS~muIti-use trails and bikeways master plan reso,doc Temecula this PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of __ day of ,2002. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, President 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. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: R:\RUSEP\RESOSImulti-use trails and bikeways master plan reso.doc TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service~ October 22, 2002 Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gall L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary The Master Plan for the Temecula Public Library was adopted at the September 26, 2000 City Council Meeting. Staff has negotiated a contract with LPA for the final construction documents and specifications for the Temecula Public Library. Staff is resolving the final issue with the construction documents and they will be submitted for final plan check. Staff released an RFQ for grant writing services to apply for the California State Library's Bond Act 2000. Staff and the consultant worked tirelessly to complete the grant application, which was delivered in person by Phyllis Ruse and Aaron Adams to Sacramento on June 13, 2002. The Board of Directors awarded a construction contract to R.E. Flemming, Inc. at their September 17, 2002 Board meeting. This contract will construct the white box tenant improvements for the Children's Museum. These improvements will include replacement of the roof, replacement of the wood siding on the building, reconstruction of the porch area and also reconstruction of the restroom facilities, office space and the driveway entry. The exhibitry for the interior of the building is under construction and progressing well in San Diego at the warehouse of Sparks Exhibits and Environment. Exhibits will begin to be installed in late November 2002. RHA Landscape Architects is preparing the construction documents for the improvements to Vail Ranch Park Site "C" adjacent to Pauba Elementary School. This project is identified in this year's CIP. The new amenities will include a tot lot, picnic shelter, tables, benches and walkways. The Community Services Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual master plan at their February 11, 2002 Commission meeting. This project is currently in plan check. The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh, Villages of Old Town and Harveston, as well as overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and recycling, cable television services and assessment administration. The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of parks and recreation facilities and assist in all aspects of Citywide special events. R:~ZIGLERGLXDEPTRPTXl002.doc October 10, 2002 The Recreation Division is currently planning for the upcoming holiday festivities including the Harvest Festival to be held October 26, 2002 from 2:00 pm to 7:00 pm at Margarita Community Park, the Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony to be held Thursday, December 5, 2002 at the Temecula Duck Pond, Temecula's Electric Light Parade to be held Friday, December 13, 2002 and the Annual Holiday Lights and Festive Sights. In addition, staff is putting the final touches on the WintedSpring 2003 Guide To Leisure Activities which will be mailed out to Temecula residents the first week of December 2002. R:~ZIGLERGL,XDEPTRPI~1002.doc October I o, 2002 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OCTOBER 8, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:47 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, and Comerchero 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 September 24, 2002. MOTION: Agency Member Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Naggar abstained. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS Having been approached by an Old Town business owner, Agency Member Naggar relayed the following concerns: · that items sold at the Farmers' Market are of a resale nature · that those items are also being sold by Old Town businesses but at a higher cost because of overhead expenses. Advising that Redevelopment Director Meyer and he have met with regard to that concern, Agency Member Comerchero noted that the matter is being explored. R:\Minutes,rda\100802 1 ADJOURNMENT At 7:51 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 22, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:~vlinutes.rda~100802 2 RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL .-~-,.'~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR ~ CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive DirectodRedevelopment Agency Members John Meyer, Redevelopment Director October 22, 2002 Monthly Departmental Report Attached for your information is the monthly report as of October 22, 2002 for the Redevelopment Department. First Time Homebuyers Program Funding in the amount of $200,000 is available for FY 02 -03. Residential Improvement Programs The program budget for FY 01/02 was $250,000 and $237,192 was funded on 57 units. The program budget for FY 02/03 is $250,000, with $57,000 funded on 12 units. Affordable Housinq The Planning Commission approved the tentative map on August 21. Construction is tentatively scheduled for the end of September 2002. Old Town Community Theater The Architect has submitted the construction drawings to the City for plan check. The Mercantile Building Retrofit Council approved the construction contract for the retrofit on August 13, 2002. The retrofit has begun with an estimated construction period of 60-90 days. R:\SYERS K~MONTH LLY\reportoct2OO2.doc I Facade Improvement/Non-Conformina Sian Proaram The following facade improvement/sign projects are in process or have completed: · Dentures4 U Sign Program · Premier Properties Sign Program · Bev-Ray Camera Repair & Sales Sign Program · Tricia's Wishes Sign Program recently been Old Town Promotions/Marketing Summer Ni.qhts The last "First Friday Summer Nights" themed American/Heritage Weekend was held on October 4th in Old Town. The evening featured Dave Stamey, named by the Western Music Association as the Male Performer of the Year, who headlined the entertainment. Stamey has toured the United States with his original tune and unique brand of western music. Joining us once again, was Silverado Bluegrass, with bandleader Mike Nadolson playing and singing Bluegrass music. He has since become an award winning guitar player and vocalist. Older than Dirt, a country music band comprised mostly of war veterans, performed at the Wild Cactus from 6p.m. to 9 p.m. The Old Town Temecula Gunfighters added to the entertainment with several performances from their zany cast of characters. The Quilt Show was produced by the "Valley of the Mist" quilting guild of the Temecula Valley. Up to 100 quilts were displayed on Saturday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Quilters from Santa Barabra to San Diego attended the event. The October 4th "First Friday Summer Nights" also included Dynamite Dave, party jumps, pony rides and carriage rides. Howl-O-Ween in Old Town The Agency will be sponsoring Howl-O-Ween in Old Town Temecula on October 27 and 28, 2002 from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The event will consist of a costume walk and contest each day at 3 p.m. on both Saturday and Sunday. Winners will be announced at the Shire at 3:30 p.m. each day with categories consisting of best family or group, best individual, and best pet and owner. The event will also be featuring Dynamite Dave and the Juggling Zombies, as well as friendly trick or treating from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and pumpkin decorating from 11:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. both days. R:\SYE RSK'~vlONTHLLY\reportoct2002,doc 2 Erie Stanley Gardiner Weekend The Agency, in conjunction with the Temecula Museum and Temecula Valley Players will be presenting Erie Stanley Garnder Murder Mystery Weekend on November 2 and 3, 2002 in Old Town Temecula. The weekend will consist of a Murder Mystery Contest where a cast of characters will be strolling through Old Town leaving various clues. In addition, there will be a mystery writing competition for youth and adults, as well as writing seminars and speakers. R:\SYE RSK~MONTHLLY~reportoct2002.doc 3 White Friday, July 5th 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. LIVE BLUES BANDS FEATURING Aunt Kiz~'s Boyz Rocky Zharp & the Blues Crackers Club Django Party Jumps, Pony Rides, Carriage Rides Free Kids Games & Crafts Dynamite Dave & His Crazy Creations AII ba~ls start at 6 p. m, Music is Free. B#ng your Chairs Friday, August 2nd 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Trtmdad Steel Drum Band Reggae and Beach Bands Mu~c ~s ~ 6 p.m. ~d is ~e Pa~ Jump, Po~ Rides, Carriage Rides ~ee Kids Games & C~ TEMECULA BOAT RACES! · ~ .mp.e ~a o.~ ~o~ eom .t Dynamite Dave and His Balloon Creations W SAVE THE DATES STREET PERFORMERS FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH Mimes, Musicians, and Whacky Performers Playing for Tips Kids Crafts and Dynamite Dave Pony Rides, Carriage Rides AMERICANA WEEKEND OCT. 4TH & OCT. 6TH FRIDAY 6 RM. Bluegrass by Silverado Top Male Western Vocalist Dave Stamey SATURDAY, OCTOBER 5TH Quilt Show Murder Mystery Weekend Saturday & Sunday November 2, and 3, 2002 presented by the City of Temecula, Temecula Museum and Temecula Valley Players MURDER MYSTERY CONTEST Watch for clues throughout Old Town Temecula all Weekend as our Cast of Characters stroll through town. MYSTERY WRITING COMPETITION For Youth and Adults WRITING SEMINARS ~ SPEAKERS All Free for information call (909) 694-6412 ;~ 'i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ or visiU the website at www.temeculacalifornia.com First Annual Erie Stanley Gardner Short Story Mystery Writing Contest Part of the Murder Mystery Weekend November 2 and 3 in Old Town Temecula sponsored by the City of Temecula and The Californian Rules: 1. A cover page must be atlached to each story, including the story name, the name and address of the author, telephone number, contest category (middle school, high school, adult), approximate word count and e-mail address if applicable. 2. The author's name should not appear beyond the cover sheet. The story title should appear on all pages of the manuscript. The contest is nm on a blind review and judges do not see the entrant's name until winners are chosen 3. All entries must be typed and double spaced on one side of 8-1/2 x 11 paper. 4. Manuscripts will not be returned. 5. Stories that have been published previously are not eligible. 6. Story should not exceed 1,000 words for middle school entries, 1,500 words for high school entries, and 2,500 words for adult entries. 7. No adult themes ....which includes excessively foul language. Submission should be no more than PG-I 3 rated and should be suitable for reading by anyone. 8. Only one entry per person will be accepted and it must be the creation of that person in whose name it is submitted. 9. Professional writers (those who make at least half of their income writing fiction) and teachers of creative writing at the college level are not eligible to enter. 10. Stories should of the mystery genre and include references to historical buildings and/or people, living or dead, of the Temecula Valley. 11. The Sponsors will retain the non-exclusive right to publish the winning entries in The Californian newspaper. 12. All work must be original work written by the applicant. Should work be discovered as a copy or contain plagiarized material, applicant/writer and his work will be disqualified. 13. Entries must be received by Oct. 20, 2002. Submit all entries to the Erie Stanley Gardener Short Story Writing Competition, City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 or bring to City Hall, care of the Redevelopment Agency, at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA, 92590. The Sponsors are not responsible for late, stolen, incomplete, illegible or misdirected mail or submissions. 14. Winning entries in the adult category will receive: $200 for first place, $100 for second place, $50 for third place. Winning entries in the school categories will receive $100 Savings Bond for first place, $50 Savings Bond for second place and $25 Savings Bond for third place. All entries in all levels will receive certificates of participation. 15. Only first place entries will be published in The Californian and the author will receive no remuneration from that newspaper for publishing those entries. 16. Any entry that does not conform to these roles will not be entered into the contest. 17. Winners will be invited to accept their awards on Nov. 3, 2002 at Sam Hicks Monument Park in Temecula at the conclusion of the Erie Stanley Gardner Mystery Weekend ITEM 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY D RECTOR OF F NANCE ClTYMANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building and Safet'~y''~'' October 22, 2002 Adoption of California Building Codes RECCOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO 02-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15,04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODES; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE 2. Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15,04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE R:/brockmei/agendar/urgency ord to municipal codes, ord and reso 3. Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN UGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE ARE RESPONSIBLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BACKGROUND: The adoption of the most current editions of the model building codes is one of the most important building safety issues that will be presented to you for your consideration and adoption. The Building Codes enforced by local jurisdictions in the State of California are reviewed, amended, and adopted by the Building Standards Commission on a three (3) year code adoption cycle. Upon adoption and publication of these codes, each local jurisdiction has a period of 180 days to further modify these codes with more stringent local amendments based upon specific local geological, topographical, and, or climatic conditions. Local jurisdictions within the state have until November 1, 2002 to adopt these regulations with certain local amendments as deemed necessary. The ordinance before you tonight is being presented as staffs' recommendation for the adoption of the model codes. The State mandated adoption date is November 1, 2002. Not amending the codes prior to the State's adoption date would preclude the City of Temecula from amending the codes as presented, thus the necessity for an urgency ordinance. The ordinance proposes very few local amendments. Staff has been involved in a Statewide effort to obtain uniformity among regional or county jurisdictions in the code provisions they enforce. Specifically, staff is proposing to modify the code provisions affecting the required plumbing fixture counts in the Old Town Specific Plan area. Due to the fact that space is of a premium in this area, past history has shown that a majority of buildings in the Old Town Specific Plan area are not capable of complying with current code provision without entering into costly additions to buildings. Unlike other areas of the city, public restroom facilities have been provided at various locations throughout Old Town with others planned. The code amendment proposed will raise the occupant loading before additional restrooms and fixtures are required. Other amendments in this legislation are mostly administrative in nature. Regulations that dictate the minimum fire resistance of roofing material used in the city and the requirement for licensed contractors to perform certain work in commercial buildings currently exist and will be carried forward. Staff is also recommending the requirement for installation of emergency gas shut-off valves based upon the geological fact of the known fault zones in Temecula. R/building and safety/brockmei/agendalurgency oral to municipal codes, ord and reso 2 FISCAL IMPACTS: None ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 02- Ordinance No. 02-06 Urgency Ordinance No. 02- R/building and safety/brockmei/agenda/urgency ord to municipal codes, ord and reso 3 RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, AND THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODES, 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE, THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE WHEREAS, certain building standards and other related uniform codes are adopted by the State of California in the California Building Standards Code which becomes applicable in the City unless amended by the City pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958; and, WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 provides make reasonably necessary changes or modifications based on certain adopting the most current edition of the model codes; and, for the City Council to local conditions before WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Temecula recommended that the modifications to the California Building Code, Code, California Plumbing Code, and the California Electrical Code are be adopted by the City of Temecula; and, has determined and California Mechanical reasonably required to WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires the City Council to make express findings of the necessity for modifications to the building standards in the most current editions of the model codes as adopted by the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEIV]ECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula finds that the following amendments and modifications to the Temecula Municipal Code and the California Building Code, 2001 edition, the California Mechanical Code, 2001 edition, the California Plumbing Code, 2001 edition, and the California Electrical Code, 2001 edition, Administrative Code, 2001 edition, International Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 2000 edition, California Housing Code, 2001 edition Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code, 2000 edition, contained in Ordinance 02- are reasonably necessary due to consideration of specific local climatic, geologica'~-or topographical conditions as follows: R:/buifding and safety/brockmei/reso/amending building code reso 100802 1 I. SECTION 15.04.020 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Building Code, 2001 Edition, adopted by this Chapter. Section 106.2 is hereby amended by modifying subsection five (5) to read as follows: Retaining walls which are not over two (2) feet in height, and garden walls not over four (4) feet in height, measured from the top of footing to top of wall unless supporting a surcharge or impounding flammable Class I, Class II or III-A liquids. This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local conditions: Geolo,qica Conditions: The City of Temecula is located in an area near high seismic activity. Because of the degree of the City's urbanization and close proximity to major fault lines, the risk of structural damage and loss of life due to ground shaking is considerable. During a major earthquake, emergency resources would be extremely taxed, and the ability to respond to such emergencies would be complicated. Local standards in excess of statewide minimums will assist in reducing risks associated with earthquakes and the consequent disruption of traffic flow. B. Section 304.1 is amended by adding the following exception: Exception 1. In the Old Town Specific Plan area, for the purpose of determining required sanitation facilities, B occupancies shall be those with an occupant load of fifty (50) or less. Section 304.1 This amendment is administrative in nature necessitated by the space restrictions in Old Town to accommodate modifications of accessible restroom fixtures. This amendment is in line with the B occupancy criteria of 50 or less occupant as provided in the California Building Code. C. Section 1202.2.6 is hereby amended by adding: When mechanical ventilation is required in a Group S, Division 3 repair garage, the ventilation shall comply with the design provision in Section 1202.2.4 Section 1202.2.6. This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local conditions Climatic Conditions: Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula has an arid climate. Annual temperatures can range from 30 degrees to 105 degrees resulting in the use of R:/buJlding and safety/brockmei/reso/amending building code reso 100802 2 closeable openings for all occupancy types necessitating in the use of mechanical ventilation. D. Section 1503 is hereby amended to read as follows: The roof covering or roofing assembly on any structure regulated by this Code shall be as specified in Table No. 15-A and as classified in Section 1504, except that no roof covering shall be less than a Class B roofing assembly. Exception 1. The roof covering or roofing assembly on any structure regulated by this Code within the Historical District Overlay, generally known as the Old Town Temecula Historical Preservation District, shall not be less than a Class C roofing assembly. 2. The roof covering or roof assembly of all re-roofing shall conform to the applicable provisions of this Section as amended herein, except that the roof covering for the re-roofing of ten percent (10%) or less of the area of any roof may consist of material comparable to the remainder of the roof. Section 1503 Roof-Covering Requirements... This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local conditions: Climatic Conditions: Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula has an arid climate. Annual rainfall varies from 3 inches in Blythe to over 33 inches in Pine Cove. Hot, dry Santa Ana winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These climatic conditions cause extreme drying of vegetation and common building materials and predispose the area to large destructive fires. Higher building standards are necessary to protect against the increased risk of fire. E. Section 1900.4.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: The minimum thickness of concrete floor slabs supported directly on the ground shall not be less than three and one-half (3;5) inches. All group R occupancies shall have a minimum six (6) mil moisture barrier with minimum two (2) inch sand cover. Exception 1. A moisture barrier shall not be required under slabs on grade of open or enclosed patios as defined in Section 217. Fo Section 1900.4.4.1 is hereby fudher amended by paragraph to read as follows: adding thereto a new Slab Dowels. In all occupancies, slab connection from existing slabs to new construction shall be placed at a minimum twenty-four (24) inches on center with reinforcing steel of one half-inch minimum diameter, eighteen (18) inches in R:/building and safety/brockmei/reso/amending building code reso 100802 3 length. Embedment to existing shall be a minimum of six (6) inches. For slab cuts 24" or greater shall also conform with these provisions. Section 1924. Minimum Slab Thickness...; and Section 1924.1 Slab Dowels... These amendments are reasonably necessary because of the following local conditions: Topoqraph cai Conditions: The City is comprised of varying soil conditions and a fluctuating water table that is fed by artesian springs. This water table will elevate substantially following heavy rain. The addition of a moisture barrier will mitigate excess moisture absorption into concrete placed on grade. Geolog ca Conditions: The City of Temecula is located Seismic Zone No. 4 and contains two (2) faults running north and south within it's boundaries. The addition of slab dowels as an additional means of attachment of added structures to existing is intended to help mitigate the effects of seismic activity on these connections. Appendix Chapter 4. Section 421.1 paragraph I Requirements Js hereby amended to read as follows: 421.1 Outdoor Swimming Pool. An outdoor swimming poor shall be provided with a barrier that shall be installed, inspected and approved prior to plastering or filling with water. The barrier shall comply with the following: The top of the barrier shall be at least 6._~.0 inches above grade measured on the side of the barrier that faces away form the swimming pool. The maximum vertical clearance at the bottom of the barrier may be increased to 4 inches (102 mm) when grade is a solid surface such as a concrete deck, or when the barrier is mounted on top of the above-ground pool structure. When barriers have horizontal members spaced less than 45 inches (1143 mm) apart, the horizontal members shall be place on the poolside of the barrier. Any decorative design work on the side away from the swimming pool, such as protrusions, indentations or cutouts away from the swimming pool, which render the barrier easily climbable, is prohibited. Appendix Chapter 4. Section 421.1 paragraph 1 is considered to be administrative in nature and necessary in order to allow for a 54 inch release mechanism height from grade specified. II. SECTION 15.04,030 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Mechanical Code, 2001 Edition adopted by this Chapter. R:/building and safety/brockrnei/reso/amending building code reso 100802 4 A. Section 504 is hereby amended by adding the following: Section 504.1 makeup and exhaust ducts. Bathroom and laundry room exhaust ducts may be of gypsum wallboard subject to the limitation of Section 1002 (a). Aluminum flex ducts are not permitted to be installed horizontally in rooms that produce steam. An angle greater that forty-five degrees from the vertical is considered a horizontal run. Section 504.1 Makeup and exhaust ducts... This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local conditions: Climatic Conditions: Due to the proximity to the ocean and the influx of moist air experienced in the City, water deposited in the corrugated depressions of the aluminum flex ducting will not properly evaporate, thus creating a potential for stagnation, mildew, and possible excessive build up. III SECTION 15.04.40 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Plumbing Code, 2001 Edition adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 413.1 is amended by adding the following: In Groups B.F.H.M. and S Occupancies, buildings or portions thereof where persons are employed shall be provided with at least one water closet for each sex when the number of employees exceeds four. Separate facilities shall be provided for each sex when the number of employees exceeds four. Such toilet facilities shall be located either in such building or conveniently in a building adjacent thereto on the same property. Such water closet room in connection with food establishments where food is prepared, stored or served shall have a non-absorbent interior finish as specified in Section 807.1 of the California Building Code, shall have hand-washing facilities therein or adjacent thereto, and shall be separated from food preparation or storage rooms as specified in section 302.6 of the California Building Code. Section 413.1 This amendment is administrative in nature. The deletion of this section is made in lieu of utilizing Chapter 29 and Appendix Chapter 29 of the California Building Code as the standard for establishing required number of plumbing fixtures. R:/building and safety/brockmei/reso/arnending building code reso 100802 5 Section 719.5 is amended to read as follows: Cleanouts installed under concrete or asphalt paving shall be made accessible by yard boxes, or extended flush with paving with a "brass cap" or other approved material for installation where subject to vehicular traffic. Section 719.5 This amendment is administrative in nature intended to clarify an approved material for clean out installations. This is in answer to our history of inquiries on this subject. Section 1202 is amended by adding the following: Section 1202. Downstream of Gas Utility - that portion of a gas piping which is away from the gas utility meter and is on the user or customer side of the meter sen/lng a building or structure. Section 1202.8.1 - Residential Building - any single family dwelling, duplex, apartment building, condominium, town house, lodging house, congregate residence, hotel or motel. 1202.81 Seismic Gas Shutoff Valve - a system consisting of a seismic sensing means and actuating means designed to automatically actuate means designed to automatically actuate a companion gas shut off means installed in a gas piping system in order to shut off the gas downstream of the location of the gas shutoff means in the event of a severe seismic disturbance. The system may consist of separable components or may incorporate all functions in a single body. The terms "Seismically Activated Gas Shutoff Valves" and "Ear[hquake Sensitive Gas Shutoff Valves" are synonymous. Section 1204.3.2 is amended by adding the following: Testing of gas piping greater than two and one quarter (2Y4) inches in outside diameter and all medium pressure gas piping, shall require a twenty-four (24) hour graph test witnessed by the jurisdiction. Such test shall be at sixty (60) p.s.i. Section 1204.3.2 Final Piping Inspection This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following conditions: Climatic Conditions: Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula has an arid climate. Hot, dry Santa Ana winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These conditions contribute significantly to the fluctuation of air pressure in gas plumbing lines. In lines larger that two (2) inches these fluctuations are subtler because of the volume, hence detecting a small leak becomes more difficult in the code prescribed time frame of ten minutes. R:/buJlding and safety/brockmei/reso/amending building code reso 100802 6 E. Section 1211 is amended by adding the following: The installation of Seismic Gas Shutoff Valves shall comply with the following requirements: Be installed by a contractor licensed in the appropriate classification by the State of California. Exception: Seismic gas shutoff valves may be installed by a gas utility provided a permit is obtained and the valves are installed and approved in accordance with this section. Be mounted rigidly to the exterior of the building or structure containing the fuel gas piping. Exception: This requirement need not apply if the Building Department determines that the seismic gas shutoff valve has been tested and listed for an alternate method of installation. Be listed by an approved testing laboratory and certified by the Office of the State Architect. d. Be approved by the Building and Safety Department. Have a thirty-year warranty, which warrants that the valve is free from defects, and will continue to properly operate for thirty years from the date of installation. Where seismic gas shutoff valves are installed as required by this section, they shall be maintained for the life of the building or structure or be replaced with a valve complying with the requirements of this section. Geologica Conditions: The City of Temecula is located in Seismic Zone No. 4 and contains two (2) faults running north and south within its boundaries. IV SECTION 15.04.50 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Electrical Code, 2001 edition, adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 90~8 is hereby amended by adding the following: Accessory uses or other building, signs, etc., separately located on the same lot or premises shall have, connecting conductors run underground. (Agricultural area excepted.) Where spare circuit protective devices are provided or space for future circuit protective devices are provided on the bus in any flush or semi-flush mounted R:/buiiding and safety/brockmei/resolamending building code reso 100802 7 panel, then raceways of sufficient capacity to permit utilization of such space or spaces shall be provided to an approved accessible location. Circuits for electric vehicle charging stations shall meet all the requirements of CEC Article 625. Residential garages shall have a minimum three quarter (3/4) inch flex conduit ran from meter box to the garage fire wall and terminated in a metal box at forty-two (42) inches above finished floor for future electric vehicle charging station. All residential electrical applications shall provide two (2) future expansion conduits from the meter box, stubbed to an accessible location. Section 90-8. This amendment is administrative in nature intended to bring the requirement of this section in line with the provisions of the Temecula Development Code. Section 110-5 is hereby amended by adding the following: Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, no aluminum conductors smaller than #6 A.W.G. shall be used. Section 110-5.This amendment is intended to establish a minimum size for the use of aluminum conductors primarily convenience receptacle and circuit breaker installations in residential and light commercial construction. The receptacles available are not designed for regular maintenance primarily due to the areas they are typically used in. CEC Table 300-5 is amended to read as follows: CEC Table 300-5 location of wiring method or circuit "Under a Commercial Building" is amended to read "Si_.~x (6) inches beneath the concrete slab". CECTable 300-5. This amendment is administrative in nature intended to address the installation of conduits in underslab areas. Section 336-4 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 336-4 Uses Permitted. Non-metallic sheathed cable shall not be used for exposed wiring, except as provided in Section 336-4(b), and shall only be used in one and two family dwellings or multi-family dwellings (apartment houses). Article 336 Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable. Section 336-3 Uses Permitted... This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local conditions: R;/building and safety/brockmei/reso/amending building code reso 100802 8 Topoqraphical Conditions: The City is located on a north/south transportation corridor and is developing both a medical manufacturing and micro component business base. These occupancies typically contain hazardous uses of varying degree. Non-metallic sheathed cable is not prohibited from use in the city, but only in commercial and industrial type applications where the type of construction and constant tenant improvement needs cause a concern for the potential damage that may be caused to this cable's soft insulation and protection sheathing. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby further finds that the administrative amendments and modifications to the Temecula Municipal Code and the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and California Electrical Code contained in Ordinance No. 02- regarding violations and penalties (Building Code Section 103, Mechanical Code Section 111, Plumbing Code Section 102.3.2, and Electrical Code Section 90-04), fees (Building Code Section 107 and Table l-A, Mechanical Code Section 115, and Plumbing Code Section 103.4), definitions (Plumbing Code Section 211) and other provisions (e.g., Building Code Section 106.3.1), are reasonable necessary to allow for the application of such Codes by procedures suited to the size and nature of the City's staff and administrative agencies by means suited to the City's experience with local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions and to provide sufficient staff support for the time-consuming inspections and analysis required by the City's fire and seismic hazards. R:/building and safety/brockmei/reso/amending building code reso 100802 9 Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22ND day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC 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, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/building and safety/brockmei/reso/amending building code reso 100802 10 ORDINANCE NO. 02-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE The City Council of the City of Temecula does ordain as follows: SECTION I: Chapter 15.04 Construction Codes of Title 15 (Building and Construction) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 15.04.010 Codes Adopted. Except as hereinafter provided in this Chapter, the following codes are adopted by reference as the Building Codes of the City of Temecula: A. California Building Code, 2001 Edition (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); B. California Mechanical Code, 2001 Edition (Part 4 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); C. California Plumbing Code, 2001 Edition (Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); D. California Electrical Code, 2001 Edition (Part 3 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); E. Administrative Code, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials; International Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 2000 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials; G. California Housing Code, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials; and H. International Swimming 0ool Spa and Hot Tub Code, 2000 Edition, published by the International Code Council R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 1 A copy of each of the above codes shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk and shall be made available for public inspection while such codes are in force. 15.04.020 California Building Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Building Code, 2001 Edition, adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 103 is hereby amended by adding the following: Violations and violation penalties are subject to Section 15.02.060 and Chapter 1.20 of the Municipal Code. Section 106.2 is hereby amended by modifying subsection five (5) to read as follows: 5. Retaining walls which are not over two (2) feet in height, and garden walls not over four (4) feet in height, measured from the top of footing to top of wall unless supporting a surcharge or impounding flammable Class I, Class II or Ili- A liquids Section 106.3.1 is hereby amended by adding thereto Subsection (8) to read as follows: 8. All contractors and their subcontractors must have current and valid city business licenses Section 106.4.4 is amended to read as follows Permit Expiration - Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit does not progress in a manner that results in an approval of an inspection that clearly moves the project forward. Any permit that has not progressed meeting this requirement within a period of 180 days shall be considered suspended or abandoned, and shall expire by limitation. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the fee therefore shall be one-half the amount required for a new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such work, no changes have occurred to any applicable codes, and provided further that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year. In order to renew action on a permit after expiration, the permittee shall pay a'new full permit fee. When changes to any applicable codes have been adopted, the permit may only be reinstated after a review has been made to certify that any new code requirements have been incorporated into the plans. R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 2 Section 107.2 Permit Fees. Is hereby amended to read as follows: Fees for permits and services rendered pursuant to these building and construction regulations shall be paid to the building official as set forth in schedules established by resolution of the city council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of these codes shall be made by the building official. The value to be used in computing the fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditions\lng, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment (Ord 95-14 § 1 (part)). Section 107.3 Plan review fees is hereby amended to read as follows: When submittal documents are required by Section 302.2 of the Uniform Administrative Code as adopted in Section 15.04.060 of this Municipal Code, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the submittal documents for plan review. Said plan review fee shall be seventy-five percent of the building permit fee as established by resolution of the city council pursuant to Section 15.02.010. The plan review fees specified in this section are separate fees from the permit fees specified in Section 15.02.010 and are in addition to the permit fee. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items as defined in Section 302.4.2. of the Uniform Administrative Code, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate established by resolution of the cit:¢ council. Ord 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 107.4 Expiration of plan review, is hereby amended to read as follows: Applications for which no permit is issued within one hundred eighty days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action by application of the applicant for a period not exceeding one hundred eighty days on written request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. An application shall not be extended more than once. An R\Ords 2002\Orals 02-06 3 application shall not be extended if this code or any other pertinent laws or ordinances have been amended subsequent to the date of application. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. (Ord. 95-14 § I (part)) Section 107.6 Fee refunds is hereby amended to read as follows: The building official may authorize refunding of a fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than eighty percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under the permit issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than eighty percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any examination time has been expended. The building official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except upon written application filed by the original permitee not later than on hundred eighty days after the date of fee payment (Ord. 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 107.7 Violations - Penalties is hereby added: It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this code.. (Ord. 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 107.8 Civil peqalty is hereby added to read as follows: Any person, firm or corporation who shall proceed with or commence work for which a permit is required by these building and construction regulations without first having obtained such permit shall,. If subsequently permitted to obtain a permit therefore, pay double the fee fixed for such work. The original permit fee shall be for issuance of the permit and the balance shall be a civil penalty. This provision shall not apply to emergency work when it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the building official that such work was urgently necessary and that it was not practical to obtain a permit before commencement of the work. In all such cases a permit must be secured as soon as it is practicable to do so, and if there is an unreasonable delay in securing the required permit, the civil penalty as provided in this section shall be charged. In no event shall such civil penalty exceed the permit fee plus five hundred dollars. 'the civil penalty provided in this section shall be in addition to any other fines and remedies prescribed elsewhere in this code. The payment of such fee and fine R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 4 shall not relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements of these building and construction regulations in the execution of the work. (Ord. 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 108.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: General. All construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and all such construction or work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved by the building official. In addition, certain types of construction shall have continuous inspection, as specified in Section 1701.5 Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid It shall be the duty of the permit applicant to cause the work to remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes. Neither the building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection. A survey of the lot shall be required by the building official to verify that the structure is located in accordance with the approved plans. The survey shall denote any variations from the approved plan in tenths of a foot for locations and elevations. Section 109.1 exception is amended to read as follows: Exception: Group R, Division 3 and Group U Occupancies. Occupancy shall not be permitted prior to obtaining final inspection approval. Table No. 1-A Building Permit Fees is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 217 - Progress - is the action or performance of work necessary to move forward, or to advance a project towards completion Section 304.1 is amended by adding the following exception: Exception 1. In the Old Town Specific Plan area, for the purpose of determining required sanitation facilities, B occupancies shall be those with an occupant Icad of fifty (50) or less. R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 5 Section 502 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: Numbers or addresses for commercial and industrial buildings shall be maintained a minimum of twelve (12) inches in height facing the street or front of the building. Numbers or addresses in the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) of the Old Town Specific Plan, is permitted to be a minimum of eight (8) inches. Ail suites must have a minimum of (6) inch high letters on both front and rear doors. Residential usages must have as a minimum four (4) inch high letters. All letters must be placed upon a contrasting background. P. Section 1202.2.6 is hereby amended by adding: When mechanical ventilation is required in a Group S, Division 3 repair garage, the ventilation shall comply with the design provision in Section 1202.2.4. Q. Section 1503 is hereby amended to read as follows: The roof covering or roofing assembly on any structure regulated by this Code shall be as specified in Table No. 15-A and as classified in Section 1504, except that no roof covering shall be less than a Class B roofing assembly. Exception: 1. The roof covering or roofing assembly on any structure regulated by this Code within the Historical District Overlay, generally known as the Old Town Temecula Historical Preservation District, shall not be less than a Class C roofing assembly. 2. The roof covering or roof assembly of all re-roofing shall conform to the applicable provisions of this Section as amended herein, except that the roof covering for the re-roofing of ten percent (10%) or less of the area of any roof may consist of material comparable to the remainder of the roof. R. Section 1900.4.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: The minimum thickness of concrete floor slabs supported directly on the ground shall not be less than three and one-half (3 ¥2) inches. All group R occupancies shall have a minimum six (6) mil moisture barrier with minimum two (2) inch sand cover. Exception 1. A moisture barrier shall not be required under slabs on grade of open or enclosed patios as defined in Section 217. Section 1900.4.4.1 is hereby further amended by adding thereto a new paragraph to read as follows: Slab Dowels. In all occupancies, slab connection from existing slabs to new construction shall be placed at a minimum twenty- four (24) inches on center with reinforcing steel of one half inch R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 6 minimum diameter, eighteen (18) inches in length. Embedment to existing shall be a minimum of six (6) inches. For slab cuts 24" or greater shall also conform with these provisions. T. Appendix Chapter 4. Section 421.1 paragraph 1 Requirements is hereby amended to read as follows: 421.1 Outdoor Swimming Pool. An outdoor swimming pool shall be provided with a barrier that shall be installed, inspected and approved prior to plastering or filling with water or filling with water. The barrier shall comply with the following: The top of the barrier shall be at least 60 inches above grade measured on the side of the barrier that faces away from the swimming pool. The maximum vertical clearance at the bottom of the barrier may be increased to 4 inches (102 mm) when grade is a solid surface such as a concrete deck, or when the barrier is mounted on top of the above-ground pool structure. When barriers have horizontal members spaced less than 45 inches (1143 mm) apart, the horizontal members shall be placed on the pool side of the barrier. Any decorative design work on the side away from the swimming pool, such as protrusions, indentations or cutouts which render the barrier easily climbable, is prohibited. The following appendi'ces are deleted in their entirety from the 2001 California Building Code; Appendix 3, 9.10,11,13,16,19,21,23,29, and 33. 15.04.030 California Mechanical Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Mechanical Code., 2001 Edition adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 111 is hereby amended by adding the following: Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code. Section 115 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections 15.02.010 through 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly incorporated herein by reference. All references in the Uniform Mechanical Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee schedule as established by Resolution of the City Council in accordance with Section 15.02.010 herein. C. Section 504 is hereby'amended by adding the following: Section 504.1 makeup and exhaust ducts. Bathroom and laundry room exhaust ducts may be of gypsum wallboard subject to the limitation of Section 1002(a). Aluminum flex R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 7 ducts are not permitted to be installed horizontally in rooms that produce steam. An angle greater than forty-five degrees from the vertical is considered a horizontal run. 15.04.50 California Electrical Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Electrical Code, 2001 edition, adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 90-4 is hereby amended by adding the following: Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code. For commercial projects an electrical contractor shall be responsible for obtaining permits for electrical work performed. B. Section 90-8 is hereby amended by adding the following: Accessory uses or other building, signs, etc., separately located on the same lot or premises, shall have, connecting conductors run underground. (Agricultural area excepted.) Where spare circuit protective devices are provided or space for future circuit protective devices are provided on the bus in any flush or semi-flush mounted panel, then raceways of sufficient capacity to permit utilization of such space or spaces shall be provided to an approved accessible location. Circuits for electric vehicle charging stations shall meet all the requirements of CEC Article 625. Residential garages shall have a minimum three quarter (3/4) inch flex conduit ran from meter box to the garage fire wall and terminated in a metal box at forty-two (42) inches above finished floor for future electric vehicle charging station All residential electrical applications shall provide two (2) future expansion conduits from the meter box, stubbed to an accessible location. C. Section 110-5 is hereby amended by adding the following: Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, no aluminum conductors smaller than #6 A.W.G. shall be used. D. CEC Table 300-5 is amended to read as follows: CEC Table 300-5 location of wiring method or circuit "Under a Commercial Building" is amended to read "Si.~x (6) inches beneath the concrete slab" R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 8 E. Section 336-4 is hereb.¢ amended to read as follows: Section 336-4 Uses Permitted. Non-metallic sheathed cable shall not be used for exposed wiring, except as provided in Section 336-4(b), and Shall only be used in one and two family dwellings or multi-family dwellings (apartment houses). 15.04.40 California Plumbing Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Plumbing Code, 2001 Edition, adopted by this chapter A. Section 102.3.2 is amended by adding the following Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code. Section 103.4 is deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections 15.02.010 through 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly incorporated herein by reference. All references in the California Plumbing Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee schedule as established by resolution of the city council in accordance with Section 15.02.010 herein. C. Section 211 is amended to read as follows: (a) Indirect Waste Pipe. An indirect waste pipe is a pipe that does not connect directly with the drainage system but conveys liciuid wastes by discharging through an approved air gap into a plumbing fixture, intemeptor or receptacle which is directly connected to the drainage system. D. Section 413.1 is amended by addition the following: In Groups B,F,H,M and S Occupancies, buildings or portions thereof where persons are employed shall be provided with at least one water closet for each sex when the number of employees exceeds four. Separate facilities shall be provided for each sex when the number of employees exceeds four. Such toilet facilities shall be located either in such building or conveniently in a building adjacent thereto on the same property. Such water closet room in connection with food establishments where food is prepared, stored or served shall have a non-absorbent interior finish as specified in Section 807.1 of the California Building Code, shall have hand- washing facilities therein or adjacent thereto, and shall be R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 9 separated from food preparation or storage rooms as specified in section 302.6 of the California Building Code. E. Section 719-5 is amended to read as follows: Cleanouts installed under concrete or asphalt paving shall be made accessible by yard boxes, or extended flush with paving with a "brass cap" or other approved material for installation where subject to vehicular traffic. F. Section 1202 is amended by adding the following: 1202.2.2 Downstream of Gas Utility - that portion of a gas piping which is away from the gas utility meter and is on the user or customer side of the meter serving a building or structure. 1202.8.1. Residential Building - any single family dwelling, duplex, apartment building, condominium, town house, lodging house, congregate residence, hotel, or motel. 1202.8.2 Seismic Gas Shutoff Valve - a system consisting of a seismic sensing means and actuating means designed to automatically actuate a companion gas shut off means installed in a gas piping system in order to shut off the gas downstream of the location of the gas shutoff means in the event of a severe seismic disturbance. The system may consist of separable components or may incorporate all functions in a single body. The terms "Seismically Activated Gas Shutoff Valves" and "Earthquake Sensitive Gas Shutoff Valves" are synonymous. Section 1204.3.2. is amended by adding the following: Testing of gas piping greater than two and one quarter (2 ~) inches in outside diameter shall require a twenty-four (24) hour graph test witnessed by the jurisdiction. Such test shall be at sixty (60) p.s.i. Section 1211.4 is amended by adding the following exceptions: Exception: 2. The installation of propane gas line for island fixtures is allowed beneath the slab as approved by the Building Official. Section 1211 is amended by adding the following: 1211.22 The installation of Seismic Gas Shutoff Valves shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Be installed by a contractor licensed in the appropriate classification by the State of California. R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 10 Exception: Seismic gas ~hutoff valves may be installed by a gas utility provided a permit is obtained and the valves are instal[ed and approved in accordance with this section. 2. Be mounted rigidly to the exterior of the building or structure containing the fuel gas piping. Exception: This requirement need not apply if the Building Department determines that the seismic gas shutoff valve has been tested and listed for an alternate method of installation. 3. Be listed by an approved testing laboratory and certified by the Office of the State Architect. 4. Be approved by the Building and Safety Department. Have a thirty-year warranty, which warrants that the valve is free from defects, and will continue to properly operate for thirty years from the date of installation. Where seismic gas shutoff valves are installed as required by this section, they shall be maintained for the life of the building or structure or be replaced with a valve complying with the requirements of this section. The following appendices are deleted in their entirety from the 2001 California Plumbing Code: Appendix E, mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks; Appendix H, commercial kitchen grease interceptors; Appendix J, reclaimed water systems for nonresidential buildings. SECTION 2. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22"d day of October, 2002. A'FI'EST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 11 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 the foregoing Ordinance No. 02-06 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of October, 2002, 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 22nd day of October, 2002 by the following roil call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R\Ords 2002\Ords 02-06 12 URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE The City Council of the City of Temecula does ordain as follows: SECTION I: Chapter 15.04 Construction Codes of Title 15 (Building and Construction) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 15.04.010 Codes Adopted. Except as hereinafter provided in this Chapter, the following codes are adopted by reference as the Building Codes of the City of Temecula: A. California Building Code, 2001 Edition (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); B. California Mechanical Code, 2001 Edition (Part 4 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); C. California Plumbing Code, 2001 Edition (Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); D. California Electrical Code, 2001 Edition (Part 3 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); E. Administrative Code, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials; International Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 2000 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials; G. California Housing Code, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials; and H. International Swimming Pool Spa and Hot Tub Code, 2000 Edition, published by the International Code Council R\Ords 2002\02- 1 A copy of each of the above codes shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk and shall be made available for public inspection while such codes are in force. 15.04.020 California Building Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Building Code, 2001 Edition, adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 103 is hereby amended by adding the following: Violations and violation penalties are subject to Section 15.02.060 and Chapter 1.20 of the Municipal Code. Section 106.2 is hereby amended by modifying subsection five (5) to read as follows: 5. Retaining walls which are not over two (2) feet in height, and garden walls not over four (4) feet in height, measured from the top of footing to top of wall unless supporting a surcharge or impounding flammable Class I, Class II or Ill- A liquids .Section 106.3.1 is hereby amended by adding thereto Subsection (8) to read as follows: 8. All contractors and their subcontractors must have current and valid city business licenses Section 106.4.4 is amended to read as follows Permit Expiration - Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit does not progress in a manner that results in an approval of an inspection that clearly moves the project forward. Any permit ;:hat has not progressed meeting this requirement within a period of 180 days shall be considered suspended or abandoned, and shall expire by limitation. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the fee therefore shall be one-half the amount required for a new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such work, no changes have occurred to any applicable codes, and provided further that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year. In order to renew action on a permit after expiration, the permittee shall pay a new full permit fee. When changes to any applicable codes have been adopted, the permit may only be reinstated after a review has been made to certify that any new code requirements have been incorporated into the plans. R\Ords 2002\02- 2 Section 107.2 Permit Fees. Is hereby amended to read as follows: Fees for permits and services rendered pursuant to these building and construction regulations shall be paid to the building official as set forth in schedules established by resolution of the city council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of these codes shall be made by the buildin0 official. The value to be used in computing the fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditions\lng, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment (Ord 95-14 § 1 (part)). Section 107.3 Plan review fees is hereby amended to read as follows: When submittal documents are required by Section 302.2 of the Uniform Administrative Code as adopted in Section 15.04.060 of this Municipal Code, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the submittal documents for plan review. Said plan review fee shall be seventy-five percent of the building permit fee as established by resolution of the city council pursuant to Section 15.02.010. The plan review fees specified in this section are separate fees from the permit fees specified in Section 15.02.010 and are in addition to the permit fee. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items as defined in Section 302.4.2. of the Uniform Administrative Code, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate established by resolution of the city council. Ord 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 107.4 Expiration of plan review, is hereby amended to read as follows: Applications for which no permit is issued within one hundred eighty days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action by application of the applicant for a period not exceeding one hundred eighty days on written request by the applicant showing tha~ circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. An application shall not be extended more than once. An R\Ords 2002\02- 3 application shall not be extended if this code or any other pertinent laws or ordinances have been amended subsequent to the date of application. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. (Ord. 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 107.6 Fee refunds is hereby amended to read as follows: The building official may authorize refunding of a fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than eighty percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under the permit issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than eighty percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any examination time has been expended. The building official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except upon written application filed by the original permitee not later than on hundred eighty days after the date of fee payment (Ord. 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 107.7 Violations - Penalties is hereby added: It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this code. (Ord. 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 107.8 Civil penalty is hereby added to read as follows: Any person, firm or corporation who shall proceed with or commence work for which a permit is required by these building and construction regulations without first having obtained such permit shall,. If subsequently permitted to obtain a permit therefore, pay double the fee fixed for such work. The original permit fee shall be for issuance of the permit and the balance shall be a civil penalty. This provision shall not apply to emergency work when it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the building official that such work was urgently necessary and that it was not practical to obtain a permit before commencement of the work. In all such cases a permit must be secured as soon as it is practicable to do so, and if there is an unreasonal~.le delay in securing the required permit, the civil penalty as provided in this section shall be charged. In no event shall such civil penalty exceed the permit fee plus five hundred dollars. ~'he civil penalty provided in this section shall be in addition to any other fines and remedies prescribed elsewhere in this code. The payment of such fee and fine R\Ords 2002\02- 4 shall not relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements of these building and construction regulations in the execution of the work. (Ord. 95-14 § 1 (part)) Section 108.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: General. All construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and all such construction or work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved by the building official. In addition, certain types of construction shall have continuous inspection, as specified in Section 1701.5 Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid It shall be the duty of the permit applicant to cause the work to remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes. Neither the building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection. A survey of the lot shall be required by the building official to verify that the structure is located in accordance with the approved plans. The survey shall denote any variations from the approved plan in tenths of a foot for locations and elevations. Section 109.1 exception is amended to read as follows: Exception: Group R, Division 3 and Group U Occupancies. Occupancy shall not be permitted prior to obtaining final inspection approval. Table No. 1-A Building Permit Fees is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 217 - Progress - is the action or performance of work necessary to move forward, or to advance a project towards completion Section 304.1 is amended by adding the following exception: Exception 1. In the Old Town Specific Plan area, for the purpose of determining required sanitation facilities, B occupancies shall be those with an occupant load of fifty (50) or less. R\Ords 2002\02- 5 Section 502 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: Numbers or addresses for commercial and industrial buildings shall be maintained a minimum of twelve (12) inches in height facing the street or front of the building. Numbers or addresses in the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) of the Old Town Specific Plan, is permitted to be a minimum of eight (8) inches. All suites must have a minimum of (6) inch high letters on both front and rear doors. Residential usages must have as a minimum four (4) inch high letters. All letters must be placed upon a contrasting background. P. Section 1202.2.6 is hereby amended by adding: When mechanical ventilation is required in a Group S, Division 3 repair garage, the ventilation shall comply with the design provision in Section 1202.2.4. Q. Section 1503 is hereby amended to read as follows: The roof covering or roofing assembly on any structure regulated by this Code shall be as specified in Table No. 15-A and as classified in Section 1504, except that no roof covering shall be less than a Class B roofing assembly. Exception: 1. The roof covering or roofing assembJy on any structure regulated by this Code within the Historical District Overlay, generally known as the Old Town Temecula Historical Preservation District, shall not be less than a Class C roofing assembly. 2. The roof covering or roof assembly of all re-roofing shall conform to the applicable provisions of this Section as amended herein, except that the roof covering for the re-roofing of ten percent (10%) or less of the area of any roof may consist of material comparable to the remainder of the roof. R. Section 1900.4.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: The minimum thickness of concrete floor slabs supported directly on the ground shall not be less than three and one-half (3 1/2) inches. All group R occupancies shall have a minimum six (6) mil moisture barrier with minimum two (2) inch sand cover. Exception 1. A moisture barrier shall not be required under slabs on grade of open or enclosed patios as defined in Section 217. Section 1900.4.4.1 is hereby further amended by adding thereto a new paragraph to read as follows: Slab Dowels. In all occupancies, slab connection from existing slabs to new construction shall be placed at a minimum twenty- four (24) inches on center with reinforcing steel of one half inch R\Ords 2002\02- 6 minimum diameter, eighteen (18) inches in length. Embedment to existing shall be a minimum of six (6) inches. For slab cuts 24" or greater shall also conform with these provisions. T. Appendix Chapter 4. Section 421.1 paraqraph 1 Requirements is hereby amended to read as follows: 421.1 Outdoor Swimming Pool. An outdoor swimming pool shall be provided with a barrier that shall be installed, inspected and approved prior to plastering or filling with water or filling with water. The barrier shall comply with the following: The top of the barrier shall be at least 6_.~0 inches above grade measured on the side of the barrier that faces away from the swimming pool. The maximum vertical clearance at the bottom of the barrier may be increased to 4 inches (102 mm) when grade is a solid surface such as a concrete deck, or when the barrier is mounted on top of the above-ground pool structure. When barriers have horizontal members spaced less than 45 inches (1143 mm) apart, the horizontal members shall be placed on the pool side of the barrier. Any decorative design work on the side away from the swimming pool, such as protrusions, indentations or cutouts which render the barrier easily climbable, is prohibited. The following appendices are deleted in their entirety from the 2001 California Building Code; Appendix 3, 9.10,11,13,16,19,21,23,29, and 33. 15.04.030 California Mechanical Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Mechanical Code, 2001 Edition adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 111 is hereby amended by adding the following: Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code. Section 115 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections 15.02.010 through 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly incorporated herein by reference. All references in the Uniform Mechanical Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee schedule as established by Resolution of the City Council in accordance with Section 15.02.010 herein. C. Section 504 is hereby amended by adding the following: Section 504.1 makeup and exhaust ducts. Bathroom and laundry room exhaust ducts may be of gypsum wallboard subject to the limitation of Section 1002(a). Aluminum flex R\Ords 2002\02- 7 ducts are not permitted to be installed horizontally in rooms that produce steam. An angle greater than forty-five degrees from the vertical is considered a horizontal run. 15.04.50 California Electrical Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Electrical Code, 2001 edition, adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 90-4 is hereby amended by adding the following: Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code. For commercial projects an electrical contractor shall be responsible for obtaining permits for electrical work performed. B. Section 90-8 is hereby amended by adding the following: Accessory uses or other building, signs, etc., separately located on the same lot or premises, shall have, connecting conductors run underground. (Agricultural area excepted.) Where spare circuit protective devices are provided or space for future circuit protective devices are provided on the bus in any flush or semi-flush mounted panel, then raceways of sufficient capacity to permit utilization of such space or spaces shall be provided to an approved accessible location. Circuits for electric vehicle charging stations shall meet all the requirements of CEC Article 625. Residential garages shall have a minimum three quarter (3/4) inch flex conduit ran from meter box to the garage fire wall and terminated in a metal box at forty-two (42) inches above finished floor for future electric vehicle charging station. All residential electrical applications shall provide two (2) future expansion conduits from the meter box, stubbed to an accessible location. C. Section 110-5 is hereby amended by adding the following: Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, no aluminum conductors smaller than #6 A.W.G. shall be used. D. CEC Table 300-5 is amended to read as follows: CEC Table 300-5 location of wiring method or circuit "Under a Commercial Building" is amended to read "Si__x (6) inches beneath the concrete slab" R\Ords 2002\02- 8 E. Section 336-4 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 336-4 Uses Permitted. Non-metallic sheathed cable shall not be used for exposed wiring, except as provided in Section 336-4(b), and shall only be used in one and two family dwellings or multi-family dwellings (apartment houses). 15.04.40 California Plumbing Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Plumbing Code, 2001 Edition, adopted by this chapter A. Section 102.3.2 is amended by adding the following Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code. Section 103.4 is deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections 15.02.010 through 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly incorporated herein by reference. All references in the California Plumbing Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee schedule as established by resolution of the city council in accordance with Section 15.02.010 herein. C. Section 211 is amended to read as follows: (a) Indirect Waste Pipe. An indirect waste pipe is a pipe that does not connect directly with the drainage system but conveys liquid wastes by discharging through an approved air gap into a plumbing fixture, interceptor or receptacle which is directly connected to the drainage system. D. Section 413.1 is amended by addition the following: In Groups B,F,H,M and S Occupancies, buildings or portions thereof where persons are employed shall be provided with at least one water closet for each sex when the number of employees exceeds four. Separate facilities shall be provided for each sex when the number of employees exceeds four. Such toilet facilities shall be located either in such building or conveniently in a building adjacent thereto on the same property. Such water closet room in connection with food establishments where food is prepared, stored or served shall have a non-absorbent interior finish as specified in Section 807.1 of the California Building Code, shall have hand- washing facilities therein or adjacent thereto, and shall be R\Ords 2002\02- 9 separated from food preparation or storage rooms as specified in section 302.6 of the California Building Code. E. Section 719-5 is amended to read as follows: Cleanouts installed under concrete or asphalt paving shall be made accessible by yard boxes, or extended flush with paving with a "brass cap" or other approved material for installation where subject to vehicular traffic. F. Section 1202 is amended by adding the following: 1202.2.2 Downstream of Gas Utility - that portion of a gas piping which is away from the gas utility meter and is on the user or customer side of the meter serving a building or structure. 1202.8.1. Residential Building - any single family dwelling, duplex, apartment building, condominium, town house, lodging house, congregate residence, hotel, or motel. 1202.8.2 Seismic Gas Shutoff Valve - a system consisting of a seismic sensing means and actuating means designed to automatically actuate a companion gas shut off means installed in a gas piping system in order to shut off the gas downstream of the location of the gas shutoff means in the event of a severe seismic disturbance. The system may consist of separable components or may incorporate all functions in a single body. The terms "Seismically Activated Gas Shutoff Valves" and "Earthquake Sensitive Gas Shutoff Valves" are synonymous. Section 1204.3.2. is amended by adding the following: Testing of gas piping greater than two and one quarter (2 ~,~) inches in outside diameter shall require a twenty-four (24) hour graph test witnessed by the jurisdiction. Such test shall be at sixty (60) p.s.i. Section 1211.4 is amended by adding the following exceptions: Exception: 2. The installation of propane gas line for istand fixtures is allowed beneath the slab as approved by the Building Official. Section 1211 is amended by adding the following: 1211.22 The installation of Seismic Gas Shutoff Valves shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Be installed by a contractor licensed in the appropriate classification by the State of California. R\Ords 2002\02- 10 Exception: Seismic gas .~hutoff valves may be installed by a gas utility provided a permit is obtained and the valves are installed and approved in accordance with this section. 2. Be mounted rigidly to the exterior of the building or structure containing the fuel gas pip~ng. Exception: This requirement need not apply if the Building Department determines that the seismic gas shutoff valve has been tested and listed for an alternate method of installation. 3. Be listed by an approved testing laboratory and certified by the Office of the State Architect. 4. Be approved by the Building and Safety Department. Have a thirty-year warranty, which warrants that the valve is free from defects, and will continue to properly operate for thirty years from the date of installation. Where seismic gas shutoff valves are installed as required by this section, they shall be maintained for the life of the building or structure or be replaced with a valve complying with the requirements of this section. The following appendices are deleted in their entirety from the 2001 California Plumbing Code: Appendix E, mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks; Appendix H, commercial kitchen grease interceptors; Appendix J, reclaimed water systems for nonresidential buildings. SECTION 2. State law requires that localities adopt the California Building Standards Code and modifications thereto, by November 1,2002. It is essential that the City have in effect on the date codes that comport with state law and contain those modifications necessitated by unique topographic, geologic and climatic conditions. In the absence of immediate effectiveness, the provisions of the building codes unique to the City's special circumstances will not be in place and this will have a detrimental effect on public, health safety and welfare. The modifications to the Codes contain vital provisions regarding administrative procedures, building standards and criteria, and other similar matters necessitated by the City's proximity to active earthquake fault zones, the City's exposure to Santa Ana winds, and the City's limited rainfall in the summer and fall months. For these reasons, the public health, safety and welfare require that this ordinance take effect on November l, 2002. R\Ords 2002\02- 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22nd day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC 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 the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was duly adopted and passed as an urgency ordinance at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22"d day of October, 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R\Ords 2002\02- 12 ITEM 10 APPROVAL ~.~.~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA, J~E/~'~ CITY MANAGER ~,/ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim McBdde, Fire Marshal October 22, 2002 Adoption of Califomia Fire Codes RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15.t6 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION, ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02- 07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE CALIFORINA FIRE CODE VOLUME 1, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS VOLUME 2, 2000 EDTION. Adopt an Urgency Ordinance entitled: URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 02. AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMCULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER t5.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE VOLUME '1, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS VOLUME 2, 2000 EDITION. DISCUSSION: The adoption of the most current edition of the Califomia Fire Code is one of the most important public health, safety and welfare issues that will be presented to you for your consideration and adoption. The fire codes enforced by local jurisdictions in the State of California are reviewed, amended and adopted by the Building Standards Commission on a three (3) year code adoption cycle. Upon the adoption and publication of the State Codes, each local jurisdiction has a period of 180 days to further modify these Codes with more stringent local amendments based upon local geographical, topographical and or climatic conditions. The ordinance before you tonight is being presented as an urgency ordinance. The state mandated adoption date is Nov. 1, 2002. Therefore, due to the length of time involved with staff's extensive study of the new code editions, and to enable staff to adopt the California Fire Code with local amendments before this date, the urgency action is necessary. The ordinance before you tonight proposes very few local amendments. Many of the provisions in this ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the current Municipal Code. Staff is proposing to modify the code provisions that are mostly administrative in nature and are substantiated on the requirements of fire apparatus for turning radius, weight and operational considerations. Provisions that dictate the requirement of fire extinguishing systems based on building construction type, size of the building, and required fire flow currently exist and will be carried forward. These provisions are consistent with regulations as currently required by Riverside County Fire Department. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 02- Ordinance No. 02- Urgency Ordinance No. 02- RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 16.t6 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION, ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. WHEREAS, certain building standards and other related uniform codes are adopted by the State of California in the California Building Standards Code which becomes applicable in the City unless amended by the City pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958; and, WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 provides for the City Council to make reasonably necessary changes or modifications based on certain local conditions before adopting the most current edition of the model codes; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Chief of the City of Temecula has determined and recommended that the modifications to the California Fire Code CCR, Title 24 Part 9, 2001 edition are reasonably required to be adopted by the City of Temecula; and, WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires the City Council to make express findings of the necessity for modifications to the building standards in the most current editions of the model codes as adopted by the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby expressly finds that the amendments and modifications to the Temecula Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, CCR Title 24 Part 9, 2001 edition, contained in Ordinance No. 02- regarding identification of fire protection equipment and premises (Subsections C and D of Sections 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code), fire apparatus access roads (Subsections E, F, G, H, I, J and K of Section 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code), fire protection systems and equipment (Subsections L, M, N, O, P and Q of Section 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code), fire extinguishing systems (Subsection R, S and T of Section 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code), fire alarms (Subsection U of Section 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code), fire flow requirements ( Subsection W of Section 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code) and fire hydrant locations (Subsection X of Section 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code) are reasonably necessary due to consideration of specific local climatic, geological or topographical conditions as follows: R:/Resos 2002/02-_._ I Climatic Conditions: Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula have an add climate. Annual rainfall varies from 3 inches in Blythe to over 33 inches in Pine Cove. Hot, dry Santa Ana winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These winds constitute a contributing factor, which causes small fires originating in high-density development presently being constructed in the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula, which spread quickly and create the need for an increased level of fire protection. This added protection, including, but not limited to on-site protection, will supplement normal fire Department response available in new development, and provide immediate fire protection for life and safety of multiple-occupancy occupants during fire occurrence. Topographical Conditions: Traffic and circulation congested in urban areas often place Fire Department response time to emergencies at risk. This condition makes the need for enhanced on-site protection for property occupants necessary. Geological Conditions: The City of Temecula is located in an area near high seismic activity. Because of the degree of the City's urbanization and close proximity to major fault lines, the risk of structural damage and loss of life due to ground shaking is considerable. During a major earthquake, emergency resources would be extremely taxed, and the ability to respond to such emergencies would be complicated. Local standards in excess of statewide minimums will assist in reducing risks associated with earthquakes and the consequent disruption of traffic flow. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby further finds that the administrative amendments and modifications to the Temecula Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, CCR Title 24 Part 9, 2001 edition, contained in Ordinance No. 02- regarding definitions (Subsections A and B of Section 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code) and cost recovery (Subsection V of section 15.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code), are reasonably necessary to allow for the application of the Fire Code by procedures suited to the size and nature of the City's staff and administrative agencies by means suited to the City's experience with local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions and to provide sufficient staff support of the time consuming inspections and analysis required by the City's fire and geological hazards. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:/Resos 2002/02-_ 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22"d day of October 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 02-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk R:lResos 2002/02-_ 3 ORDINANCE NO. 02-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE TH E CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE VOLUME 1, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS VOLUME 2, 2000 EDITION. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 15.16 of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE I CODES ADOPTED 15.16.010. Code Adopted. Except as hereinafter provided in this Chapter, the California Fire Code, 1998 Edition (Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), is adopted by reference as the Fire Code of the City of Temecula, including: A. California Fire Code (CFC) Volume 1, CCR Title 24 part 9, 2001 edition with appendices I-A, I-C, II-A, II-B, II-E, II-F, II-G, I1-1, II-J, Ill-A, Ill-B, IV-B and V-A. B. Uniform Fire Code Standards Volume 2, 2000 edition as amended by the California Fire Code (CFC), CCR Title 24 part 9, 2001 edition. ARTICLE II AMENDMENTS 15.16.020. Amendments. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as adopted by this Chapter: A. Section 204 is hereby amended by adding thereto: Corporate counsel shall mean the City Attorney of the City of Temecula. B. Section 214 is hereby amended by adding thereto: Municipality For the purposes of this code, jurisdiction shall De known as the City of Temecula a municipality. C. Section 901.4.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Fire Protection Equipment and Fire Hydrants Fire protection equipment and fire hydrants shall be clearly identified in an approved manner to prevent obstruction by parking and other obstructions. Hydrant locations shall oe identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots). See also Section 1001.7. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-07 1 D. Section 901.4.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: Premises Identification 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 of twelve (12) inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall have 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. EXCEPTION: Building address numbers within the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) of the Old Town Specific Plan, are permitted to be a minimum of eight (8) inches in size. Section 902.2.2.1 hereby is amended to read as follows: Dimensions Fire apparatus 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 and six (6) inches. EXCEPTION: 1. Vertical clearances may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance when approved. 2. Fire apparatus roads serving single family residences in accordance with Section 902.2.1 may have and an unobstructed width of net less than twenty (20) feet. Vertical clearances or widths shall be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. Section 902.2.2.2 is hereby amended to read as follows: Sudace Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of the apparatus and shall be with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 8704, prior to building construction all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. When temporary fire apparatus access roads are provided for use until permanent fire access roads are installed; the fire apparatus roads shall be R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-07 2 an all weather surface ~'or an 80,000 lbs GVW. Section 902.2.2.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Turnin.q Radius Fire apparatus access roads for commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a turning radius of a minimum forty-five (45) feet-outside radius. EXCEPTION: For single-family residential, fire apparatus access roads the turning radius shall be a minimum of a thirty-eight (38) feet outside radius. Section 902.2.2.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720mm) in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The maximum length of a dead end road or cul-de-sac shall not exceed 1320 feet. Section 902.2.2.5 is hereby amended to read as follows: Bridqes When a bridge is required to be used as a part of a fire apparatus access road, it shall be constructed and maintained with nationally recognized standards. See Article 90, Standard a.1.1 the bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. Bridges shall be capable to carry an imposed load of not less than 80,000 lbs. GVW. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges when required by the chief. Section 902.2.2.6 is hereby amended to read as follows: Grade The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. Subsection (a) of Section 902.2.4.1. Is hereby amended to read as follows: The required width of fire department access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under Section 902.2.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. Entrances to roads, trails or other access ways which have been closed with R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-07 3 gates and barriers in accordance with Section 902.2.4.2 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles. "No Parking, Fire Lane" signs or red painted curbs or other appropriate notice prohibiting obstructions shall be required and maintained. Any obstruction or impedance to said fire lane may be cited, as an infraction, or removed at the owners' expense, forthwith, by any public agency. Section 1001.3 is amended to read as follows: Plans Complete plans and specifications for fire atarm systems; fire-extinguishing systems, including automatic sprinklers and wet or dry standpipes; halon systems and other special types of fire-extinguishing systems; basement pipe inlets; and other fire-protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to system installation. Plan and specifications for fire alarm systems shall include, but not limited to, a floor plan; location of all alarm-initiating and alarm-signaling devices; alarm control and trouble-signaling equipment; annunciation; power connection; battery calculations; conductor type and sizes; voltage drop calculations; and manufacturers, model numbers and listing information for all equipment, devices and materials, [for SFM] and state fire marshal I/sting number of all equipment, devices and materials requiring listing. Plans and specifications for automatic fire sprinklers or suppression systems in addition to requirements of adopted standards plans shall include, but not limited to: a site plan; a building floor plan; piping plan (on a separate sheet); reflective ceiling plan (on a separate sheet); building cross sections; calculations; hanger details; earthquake sway brace details and calculations; manufacturer specifications, model numbers and listing information for all equipment, devices and materials. Hydraulic calculations shall be provided for each system riser serving a building and for each floor when system risers are serving multiple floors. Submittals of manufacturers technical data sheets for all materials to be installed shall be provide with the plan. System design shall be limited to 90 percent of the available water supply in calculated systems. Three (3) sets of as-built drawings shall be submitted to the fire department for approval within five (5) working days of the final acceptance testing. Section 1001.5.4 is amended to read as follows: Systems in h/qb-rise buildinqs. The owner of a high-rise building shall be responsible for assuring that the fire and life-safety systems required by the Building Code are maintained in an operable condition at all times. Unless otherwise required by the chief, quarterly tests of such systems shall be conducted by approved persons. A written record and current approved plans shall be maintained and shall be R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-07 4 made available to the inspection authority. (See CBC Section 403.) Section 1001.5.5 is amended to read as follows: Smoke-control systems. Mechanical smoke-control systems, such as those in high-rise buildings, buildings containing atria, covered mall buildings and mechanical ventilation systems utilized in smoke proof enclosures and for smoke-removal systems utilized in high-piled combustible storage occupancies, shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times. Unless otherwise required by the chief, quarterly tests of such systems shall be conducted by approved persons. A written record and current approved plans shall be maintained and shall be made available to the inspection authority. Section 1001.7.1 is amended to read as follows: General Posts, fences, vehicles, growth, trash, storage and other materials or things shall not be placed or kept near fire hydrants, fire department inlet connections or fire-protection systems control valves in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being immediately discernible. The fire department shall not be deterred or hindered from gaining access to fire-protection equipment or hydrant and shall comply with Section 1001.7.2. Automatic fire sprinkler system risers shall not be obstructed in any manner, if a system riser is to be concealed by means of a wall, soffit, column, or other building construction, it shall be provided with eighteen (18) inch clearance to each side and to the front of the system riser, access shall be provided by means of a door with the minimum dimensions two (2) feet six (6) inches wide by six (6) feet eight (8) inches tall from the exterior of the building directly to the 'riser as approved by the Chief. Section 1001.7.2 is amended to read as follows: Clear space around hydrants. A 3-foot (914.4mm) clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants, fire department inlet connections, post indicator valves, OS&Y valves and other fire department appurtenances. Section 1001.9 is amended to read as follows: Special Hazards. For occupancies of an especially hazardous nature or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus, or emergency operations is unduly difficult, the chief is authorized to require additional safeguards consisting of additional fire appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-07 5 for the protection of the hazard involved or to assist in emergency operations. Such devices or appliances can consist of automatic fire alarm systems, approved fire department communication systems, automatic sprinkler or water spray systems, standpipe and hose, fixed or portable fire extinguishers, suitable fire blankets, breathing apparatus, manual or automatic covers, carbon dioxide, foam, halogenated or dry chemical or other special fire-extinguishing systems. Where such systems are provided, they shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable Uniform Fire Code Standards and/or fire department requirements. See Article 90 and Section 101.3. Section 1003.1.1 is amended to read as follows: General. Fire-extinguishing systems shall be installed in accordance with the Building Code and Section 1003. Fire hose threads used in conjunction with fire-extinguishing systems shall be national standard hose thread or as approved. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved and be located within fifty (50) feet of a fire hydrant. Risers serving more than one floor shall have floor control valves as approved by the Chief. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire protection shall be in accordance with Article 81. Section 1003.2.1 is amended to read as follows: General An automatic fire-extinguishing system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in Section 1003.2. For provisions on special hazards and hazardous materials, see Section 1001.9 and Articles 79, 80 and 81. 1. All Occupancies Unless State Code or Statutes, California Building Code, Title 24 CCR part.2, or the California Fire Code, Title 24 CCR part 9, is more restrictive, every structure hereafter constructed, except residential structures of two dwelling units or less, which exceeds the Fire area square footage as listed in Table No. A-III-A-1 of the Uniform Fire Code requiring a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. R2Ords 2002,/Ords 02-07 6 2. Existing Occupancies Unless State Code or Statutes, California Building Code, Title 24 CCR part.2, or the California Fire Code, Title 24 CCR part 9, is more restrictive, every existing structure to which additions are made, where either the addition itself or the building and the addition in total exceeds the Fire area square footage listed in the Uniform Fire Code Table No. A-III-A-1 requiring a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. 3. Change of Use or Occupancy Every existing structure to which a change of use or occupancy occurs shall install sprinklers when required by State Code or Statutes, California Building Code, Title 24 CCR part 2 or the California Fire Code, Title 24_CCR part 9. Section 1003.3.1 is amended to read as follows: Where Required All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically monitored regardless of the number of sprinkler heads including interior and exterior valves regardless of location or floor. Valve monitoring and water-flow alarm and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved central station, remote station or proprietary monitoring station as defined by UFC. Standard 10-2 or, when approved by the chief, shall sound an audible signal at a constantly attended location. An approved sign shall be provide at or near the audible device stating the following: "SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM - WHEN ALARM SOUNDS CALL 9-1-1" Duct detectors in individual tenant spaces of multi tenant buildings shall be powered from the main building alarm power supply. Fire Alarm Control ParCels shall be located in the same room as, and sharing the same access as the fire sprinkler riser, as approved by the Chief. A minimum of one (1) manual pull station shall be provided at each automatic fire sprinkler system riser location. EXCEPTION: Underground key or hub valves in roadway boxes provided by the municipality or public utility need not be monitored. 2. One and two family dwellings provided with an approved residential sprinkler system need not be monitored. R:/Ords 2002JOrds 02-07 7 Section 1007.3.3.4 is amended to read as follows: Connections to other systems. A fire alarm system shall not be used for any other purpose other than fire warning unless approved [for SFM] by the authority having jurisdiction. Burglary, security systems, robbery and similar uses shall not be permitted to be a part of, or be connected to fire alarm systems. All additional fire suppression and fire detection systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system. Appendix Chapter II-A, Section 24 is hereby amended by adding thereto: Cost Recovery Section 24.1. Any person who negligently, or in violation of the law, sets a fire, allows a fire to be set, or allows a fire kindled or attended by him to escape his control or burn any structure, improvement, forest, range or grassland, is liable for the expense of fighting the fire, and such expense shall be a charge against that person, and that charge shall constitute a debt of such person which is collectible by the person, or by the federal, state, county, public, or private agency or the County Fire Depadment incurring such expenses in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under a contract, expressed or implied. Section 24.1.1. Any person who negligently, or in violation of any statute regulation or ordinance dumps, or causes to be dumped, or releases or causes to be released, any hazardous or extremely hazardous material or hazardous waste onto the ground or into the environment is liable for the expense of mitigating and/or removing the hazard created by said actions or omissions, and such expense shall be a charge against such person or persons. Said charges shall constitute a debt of such person or persons which shall be collectible by the person, or by the federal, state, county, public or private agency or by the County Fire Department and/or the County Health Department incurring the expense of mitigation and/or removal in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under arising contract, expressed or implied. Section 24.2. The expense of securing any emergency, which is a result of a violation of this ordinance, is a charge against the person whose violation of this ordinance caused the emergency. Damages caused by and expenses incurred by the Fire Depadment for securing such emergency shall constitute a debt of such manner as in the case of an obligation under a contract, expressed or implied. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-07 8 Section 24.2.1. The expense of securing any hazardous or extremely hazardous materials or waste incident which is a result of negligence or a violation of any statute, regulation or ordinance is a charge against the person or persons whose actions or omissions caused the incident. The expenses incurred bythe Fire Department and/or Health Department for securing such incident shall constitute a debt of such person or persons and shall be collectible by the County Fire Chief or Health Officer in the same manner as in the case of an obligation arising unde,' contract, expressed or implied. Section 24.3. Structure, improvement shall mean, for the purposes of this Section only, any building, garage, tent, out-building, barn, corral, fence, or bridge whether or not in actual use at the time of the fire. Section 24.4 Requests for copies of public and legal documents, photographs, etc., relating to department activities is available as authorized by law through the Fire Department's Custodian of Records. All document requests shall be in writing, accompanied by a check made payable to the Riverside County Fire Department, in the amount(s) set forth in Riverside County Ordinance 787. Appendix Chapter Ill-A, Section 5 is hereby amended by adding thereto: Fire-flow requirements for residential tracts, commercial, retail, industrial, heavy industrial and multi-family residential developments. 5.3 5.4 5.5 One and Two family residential tracts with structures less than 3,600 square feet shall have water mains capable of delivering a fire flow of not less than 1,500 gpm @ 20 psi residual pressure for a 2 hours duration. Fire hydrant locations and distribution shall be in accordance with Appendix III-B. Commercial, retail and Multi-family developments shall have water mains capable of delivering a fire flow of not less than 4,000 gpm @ 20 psi residual pressure for a 4 hours duration. Fire hydrant locations and distribution shall be in the accordance with Appendix III-B. Industrial and h~,avy industrial developments shall have water mains capable of delivering a fire flow of not less than 6,000 gpm @ 20 psi residual pressure for a 4 hours duration. Fire hydrant locations and distribution shall be in accordance with Appendix III-B. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-07 9 X. Appendix Chapter Ill-B, Section 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: LOCATION Fire hydrants shall be provided at street intersections and along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. Fire hydrants used or installed for the frontage requirements as stated by Table A III-B-1 shall be on the building side of fire depadment access roads and adjacent public streets. EXCEPTION: When required hydrants utilized or is installed to the frontage requirements, which serves single-family dwellings on residential streets, such fire hydrant may be on either side of the street. Section 2. All inconsistencies between the Fire Code, as adopted by this Ordinance, and the 2001 edition of the California Fire Code, as set forth in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, are changes, modifications, amendments, additions or deletions thereto authorized by California Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7. Section 3. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as new enactments. Section 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof or exhibit hereto is for any reason held to be invalid, such validity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof or exhibit thereto. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] RJOrds 2002/Ords 02-07 10 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 the foregoing Ordinance No. 02-07, was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of October, 2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the C~ty Councd of the Cty of Temecula on the 22 day of October, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-07 11 URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE VOLUME 1, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS VOLUME 2, 2000 EDITION. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 15.16 of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE I CODES ADOPTED 15.16.010. Code Adopted. Except as hereinafter provided in this Chapter, the California Fire Code, 1998 Edition (Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), is adopted by reference as the Fire Code of the City of Temecula, including: A. California Fire Code (CFC) Volume 1, CCR Title 24 part 9, 2001 edition with appendices I-A, I-C, II-A, II-B, II-E, II-F, II-G, I1-1, Il-J, Ill-A, Ill-B, IV-B and V-A. B. Uniform Fire Code Standards Volume 2, 2000 edition as amended by the California Fire Code (CFC), CCR Title 24 part 9, 2001 edition. ARTICLE II AMENDMENTS 15.16.020. Amendments. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as adopted by this Chapter: A. Section 204 is hereby amended by adding thereto: Corporate counsel shall mean the City Attorney of the City of Temecula. B. Section 214 is hereby amended by adding thereto: Municipality For the purposes of this code, jurisdiction shall be known as the City of Temecula a municipality. C. Section 901.4.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Fire Protection Equipment and Fire Hydrants Fire protection equipmunt and fire hydrants shall be clearly identified in an approved manner to prevent obstruction by parking and other obstructions. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots). See also Section 1001.7. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 1 D. Section 901.4.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: Premises Identification 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 of twelve (12) inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall have 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. EXCEPTION: Building address numbers within the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) of the Old Town Specific Plan, are permitted to be a minimum of eight (8) inches in size. Section 902.2.2.1 hereby is amended to read as follows: Dimensions Fire apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not tess than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet and six (6) inches. EXCEPTION: 1. Vertical clearances may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance when approved. 2. Fire apparatus roads serving single family residences in accordance with Section 902.2.1 may have and an unobstructed width of not less than twenty (20) feet. Vertical clearances or widths shall be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. Section 902.2.2.2 is hereby amended to read as follows: Surface Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of the apparatus and shall be with a sudace so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 8704, prior to building construction all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. When temporary fire apparatus access roads are provided for use until permanent fire access roads are installed; the fire apparatus roads shall be R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 2 an all weather surface for an 80,000 lbs GVW. Section 902.2.2.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Turninq Radius Fire apparatus access roads for commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a turning radius of a minimum forty-five (45) feet-outside radius. EXCEPTION: For single-family residential, fire apparatus access roads the turning radius shall be a minimum of a thirty-eight (38) feet outside radius. Section 902.2.2.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720mm) in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The maximum length of a dead end road or cul-de-sac shall not exceed 1320 feet. Section 902.2.2.5 is hereby amended to read as follows: Bridqes When a bridge is required to be used as a part of a fire apparatus access road, it shall be constructed and maintained with nationally recognized standards. See Article 90, Standard a.1.1 the bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. Bridges shall be capable to carry an imposed load of not less than 80,000 tbs. GVW. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges when required by the chief. Section 902.2.2.6 is hereby amended to read as follows: Grade The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. Subsection (a) of Section 902.2.4.1. Is hereby amended to read as follows: The required width of fire department access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under Section 902.2.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. Entrances to roads, trails or other access ways which have been closed with R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 3 gates and barriers in accordance with Section 902.2.4.2 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles. "No Parking, Fire Lane" signs or red painted curbs or other appropriate notice prohibiting obstructions shall be required and maintained. Any obstruction or impedance to said fire lane may be cited, as an infraction, or removed at the owners' expense, forthwith, by any public agency. Section 1001.3 is amended to read as follows: Plans Complete plans and specifications for fire alarm systems; fire-extinguishing systems, including automatic sprinklers and wet or dry standpipes; halon systems and other special types of fire-extinguishing systems; basement pipe inlets; and other fire-protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to system installation. Plan and specifications for fire alarm systems shall include, but not limited to, a floor plan; location of all alarm-initiating and alarm-signaling devices; alarm control and trouble-signaling equipment; annunciation; power connection; battery calculations; conductor type and sizes; voltage drop calculations; and manufacturers, model numbers and listing information for all equipment, devices and materials, [for SFM] and state fire marshal listing number of all equipment, devices and materials requiring listing. Plans and specifications for automatic fire sprinklers or suppression systems in addition to requirements of adopted standards plans shall include, but not limited to: a site plan; a building floor plan; piping plan (on a separate sheet); reflective ceiling plan (on a separate sheet); building cross sections; calculations; hanger details; earthquake sway brace details and calculations; manufacturer specifications, model numbers and listing information for all equipment, devices and materials. Hydraulic calculations shall be provided for each system riser serving a building and for each floor when system risers are serving multiple floors. Submittals of manufacturers technical data sheets for all materials to be installed shall be provide with the plan. System design shall be limited to 90 percent of the available water supply in calculated systems. Three (3) sets of as-built drawings shall be submitted to the fire department for approval within five (5) working days of the final acceptance testing. Section 1001.5.4 is amended to read as follows: Systems in high-rise buildinqs. The owner of a high-rise building shall be responsible for assuring that the fire and life-safety systems required by the Building Code are maintained in an operable condition at all times. Unless otherwise required by the chief, quarterly tests of such systems shall be conducted by approved persons. A written record and current approved plans shall be maintained and shall be R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 4 made available to the inspection authority. (See CBC Section 403.) Section 1001.5.5 is amended to read as follows: Smoke-control systems. Mechanical smoke-control systems, such as those in high-rise buildings, buildings containing atria, covered mall buildings and mechanical ventilation systems utilized in smoke proof enclosures and for smoke-removal systems utilized in high-piled combustible storage occupancies, shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times. Unless otherwise required by the chief, quarterly tests of such systems shall be conducted by approved persons. A written record and current approved plans shall be maintained and shall be made available to the inspection authority. Section 1001.7.1 is amended to read as follows: General Posts, fences, vehicles, growth, trash, storage and other materials or things shall not be placed or kept near fire hydrants, fire department inlet connections or fire-protection systems control valves in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being immediately discernible. The fire department shall not be deterred or hindered from gaining access to lira-protection equipment or hydrant and shall comply with Section 1001.7.2. Automatic fire sprinkler system risers shall not be obstructed in any manner, if a system riser is to be concealed by means of a wall, soffit, column, or other building construction, it shall be provided with eighteen (18) inch clearance to each side and to the front of the system riser, access shall be provided by means of a door with the minimum dimensions two (2) feet six (6) inches wide by six (6) feet eight (8) inches tall from the exterior of the building directly to the riser as approved by the Chief. Section 1001.7.2 is amended to read as follows: Clear space around hydrants. A 3-foot (914.4mm) clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants, fire department inlet connections, post indicator valves, OS&Y valves and other fire department appurtenances. Section 1001.9 is amended to read as follows: Special Hazards. For occupancies of an.especially hazardous nature or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus, or emergency operations is unduly difficult, the chief is authorized to require additional safeguards consisting of additional fire appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 5 for the protection of the hazard involved or to assist in emergency operations. Such devices or appliances can consist of automatic fire alarm systems, approved fire department communication systems, automatic sprinkler or water spray systems, standpipe and hose, fixed or portable fire extinguishers, suitable fire blankets, breathing apparatus, manual or automatic covers, carbon dioxide, foam, halogenated or dry chemical or other special fire-extinguishing systems. Where such systems are provided, they shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable Uniform Fire Code Standards and/or fire department requirements. See Article 90 and Section 101.3. Section 1003.1.1 is amended to read as follows: General. Fire-extinguishing systems shall be installed in accordance with the Building Code and Section 1003. Fire hose threads used in conjunction with fire-extinguishing systems shall be national standard hose thread or as approved. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved and be located within fifty (50) feet of a fire hydrant. Risers serving more than one floor shall have floor control valves as approved by the Chief. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire protection shall be in accordance with Article 81. Section 1003.2.1 is amended to read as follows: General An automatic fire-extinguishing system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in Section 1003.2. For provisions on special hazards and hazardous materials, see Section 1001.9 and Articles 79, 80 and 81. 1. All Occupancies Unless State Code or Statutes, California Building Code, Title 24 CCR part.2, or the California Fire Code, Title 24 CCR part 9, is more restrictive, every structure hereafter constructed, except residential structures of two dwelling units or less, which exceeds the Fire area square footage as listed in Table No. A-III-A-1 of the Un~form Fire Code requiring a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 6 2. Existing Occupancies Unless State Code or Statutes, California Building Code, Title 24 CCR part.2, or the California Fire Code, Title 24 CCR part 9, is more restrictive, every existing structure to which additions are made, where either the addition itself or the building and the addition in total exceeds the Fire area square footage listed in the Uniform Fire Code Table No. A-III-A-1 requiring a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. 3. Change of Use or Occupancy Every existing structure to which a change of use or occupancy occurs shall install sprinklers when required by State Code or Statutes, California Building Code, Title 24 CCR part 2 or the California Fire Code, Title 24.CCR part 9. Section 1003.3.1 is amended to read as follows: Where Required All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically monitored regardless of the number of sprinkler heads including interior and exterior valves regardless of location or floor. Valve monitoring and water-flow alarm and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved central station, remote station or proprietary monitoring station as defined by UFC. Standard 10-2 or, when approved by the chief, shall sound an audible signal at a constantly attended location. An approved sign shall be provide at or near the audible device stating the following: "SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM - WHEN ALARM SOUNDS CALL 9-1-1" Duct detectors in individual tenant spaces of multi tenant buildings shall be powered from the main building alarm power supply. Fire Alarm Control Panels shall be located in the same room as, and sharing the same access as the fire sprinkler riser, as approved by the Chief. A minimum of one (11 manual pull station shall be provided at each automatic fire sprinkler system riser location. EXCEPTION: Underground key or hub valves in roadway boxes provided by the municipality or public utility need not be monitored. 2. One and two family dwellings provided with an approved residential sprinkler system need not be monitored. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 7 U. Section 1007.3.3.4 is amended to read as follows: Connections to other systems. A fire alarm system shall not be used for any other purpose other than fire warning unless approved [for SFM] by the authority having jurisdiction. Burglary, security systems, rcibbery and similar uses shall not be permitted to be a part of, or be connected to fire alarm systems. Ail additional fire suppression and fire detection systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system. Appendix Chapter II-A, Section 24 is hereby amended by adding thereto: Cost Recovery Section 24.1. Any person who negligently, or in violation of the law, sets a fire, allows a fire to be set, or allows a fire kindled or attended by him to escape his control or burn any structure, improvement, forest, range or grassland, is liable for the expense of fighting the fire, and such expense shall be a charge against that person, and that charge shall constitute a debt of such person which is collectible by the person, or by the federal, state, county, public, or private agency or the County Fire Department incurring such expenses in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under a contract, expressed or implied. Section 24.1.1. Any person who negligently, or in violation of any statute regulation or ordinance dumps, or causes to be dumped, or releases or causes to be released, any hazardous or extremely hazardous material or hazardous waste onto the ground or into the environment is liable for the expense of mitigating and/or removing the hazard created by said actions or omissions, and such expense shall be a charge against such person or persons. Said charges shall constitute a debt of such person or persons which shall be collectible by the person, or by the federal, state, county, public or private agency or by the County Fire Department and/or the County Health Department incurring the expense of mitigation and/or removal in the same manner as in the case o.f an obligation under arising contract, expressed or implied. Section 24.2. The expense of securing any emergency, which is a result of a violation of this ordinance, is a charge against the person whose violation of this ordinance caused the emergency. Damages caused by and expenses i ncu rred by the Fire Department for securing such emergency shall constitute a debt of such manner as in the case of an obligation under a contract, expressed or implied. R:/Ords 2002_/Ords 02- 8 Section 24.2.1. The expense of securing any hazardous or extremely hazardous materials or waste incident which is a result of negligence or a violation of any statute, regulation or ordinance is a charge against the person or persons whose actions or omissions caused the incident. The expenses incurred bythe Fire Department and/or Health Department for securing such incident shall constitute a debt of such person or persons and shall be collectible by the County Fire Chief or Health Officer in the same manner as in the case of an obligation arising under contract, expressed or implied. Section 24.3. Structure, improvement shall mean, for the purposes of this Section only, any building, garage, tent, uut-building, barn, corral, fence, or bridge whether or not in actual use at the time of the fire. Section 24.4 Requests for copies of public and legal documents, photographs, etc., relating to department activities is available as authorized by law through the Fire Department's Custodian of Records. All document requests shall be in writing, accompanied by a check made payable to the Riverside County Fire Department, in the amount(s) set forth in Riverside County Ordinance 787. Appendix Chapter Ill-A, Section 5 is hereby amended by adding thereto: Fire-flow requirements for residential tracts, commemial, retail, industrial, heaw industrial and multi-family residential developments. 5.3 5.4 5.5 One and Two f~.mily residential tracts with structures less than 3,600 square feet shall have water mains capable of delivering a fire flow of not less than 1,500 gpm @ 20 psi residual pressure for a 2 hours duration. Fire hydrant locations and distribution shall be in accordance with Appendix llI-B. Commercial, retail and Multi-family developments shall have water mains capable of delivering a fire flow of not less than 4,000 gpm @ 20 psi residual pressure for a 4 hours duration. Fire hydrant locations and distribution shall be in the accordance with Appendix III-B. Industrial and heavy industrial developments shall have water mains capable of delivering a fire flow of not less than 6,000 gpm @ 20 psi residual pressure for a 4 hours duration. Fire hydrant locations and distribution shall be in accordance with Appendix III-B. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 9 X. Appendix Chapter Ill-B, Section 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: LOCATION Fire hydrants shall be p,'ovided at street intersections and along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. Fire hydrants used or installed for the frontage requirements as stated by Table A III-B-1 shall be on the building side of fire department access roads and adjacent public streets. EXCEPTION: When required hydrants utilized or is installed to the frontage requirements, which serves single-family dwellings on residential streets, such fire hydrant may be on either side of the street. Section 2. All inconsistencies between the Fire Code, as adopted by this Ordinance, and the 2001 edition of the California Fire Code, as set forth in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, are changes, modifications, amendments, additions or deletions thereto authorized by California Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7. Section 3. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Temeoula Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as new enactments. Section 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof or exhibit hereto is for any reason held to be invalid, such validity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof or exhibit thereto. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. State law requires that localities adopt the California Building Standards Code and modifications thereto, by November 1,2002. It is essential that the City have in effect on the date codes that comport with state law and contain those modifications necessitated by unique topographic, geologic and climatic conditions. In the absence of immediate effectiveness, the provisions of the Fire Code unique to the City's special circumstances will not be in place and this will have a detrimental effect on public, health safety and welfare. The modifications to the Codes contain vital provisions regarding administrative procedures, fire-extinguishing systems, and other similar matters necessitated by the City's proximity to active earthquake fault zones, the City's exposure to Santa Aha winds, and the City's limited rainfall in the summer and fall months. For these reasons, the public health, safety and welfare require that this ordinance take effect on November 1,2002. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22nd day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC 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 the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was duly adopted and passed as an urgency ordinance at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22"d day of October, 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02- 11 ITEM 11 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY '~P~, DiRECTOR OFFINANCEJ~[~---~ CITY MANAGER ClTY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager October 22, 2002 Development Agreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, a subsidiary of the Guidant Corporation (Planning Application 02-0217) PREPARED BY: David Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUlDANT CORPORATION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0217) BACKGROUND: The City Redevelopment Agency approved an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc (ACS) a subsidiary of the Guidant Corporation on February 12, 2002. The OPA identified a number of financial incentives to encourage ACS to expand its facilities within the community. ACS is currently the largest employer in the City, and the retention and expansion of this facility is considered to be an important priority for the City Council. The OPA anticipated, and established the framework for, this Development Agreement. The Development Agreement is the second part of the package to facilitate ACS's expansion in Temecula. The Development Agreement would guarantee Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. the ability to construct a corporate campus facility on a 28-acre site located at the northwest corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road. The project includes the existing parking areas at the north east corner of Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway. The Redevelopment/Economic Development Subcommittee (Mayor Roberts and Councilmember Comerchero) also participated in the negotiation of this Agreement and is recommending its approval. A copy of the Development Agreement is included in Attachment No. 2 of this staff report. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems has not yet made a decision on whether they would expand their operation in Temecula. This Agreement would facilitate that expansion, when a final decision to expand locally has been made by ACS. The proposed Development Agreement would guarantee the following. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Repor~ CC.doc 1 · Build up to 481,260 square feet of building area in up to five main buildings. The future land uses at the site could include a combination of office, research, manufacturing, and educational/training functions. The project would include shared ancillary facilities for the employees such as a fitness center, childcare and food services. · Allow for a maximum building height of 80 feet above the finished grade of building pad and establishes supplemental building setbacks along Solana Way and Margarita Road. · Provide for primary access to the proposed development via an entrance off Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway, with secondary access from Solana Way and Margarita Road. · Provide adequate parking to accommodate the proposed development. ACS is proposing to provide 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area to handle the need for additional parking during the shift changes. The parking could include a combination of both surface parking and up to two parking structures. · Provide for the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to link the existing Guidant facilities with the proposed expansion. The bridge is intended to be used by Guidant employees. · Establish general Design Guidelines and a color and material palette for any future buildings and authorize the Planning Director to approve the project based upon the approved Design Guidelines. · Requires the City to accept Motor Car Parkway for maintenance once the roadway is rebuilt to an acceptable City standard. · Ensure that Motor Car Parkway can be renamed "Guidant Way", if requested by ACS. · Authorize ACS to pay for certain plan check and inspection services on an actual cost basis. · Establish assignment/transfer provisions to ensure that the City can receive the economic benefits envisioned with this Agreement. · Establish the term of the Development Agreement at 15 City fiscal years from the date a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building. The assignment provisions in the Development Agreement have been created to provide reasonable flexibility to ACS while ensuring that the community would receive the economic benefits associated with this kind of major local business expansion. According to the proposed Agreement, the benefits of the DA are fully transferable to another division or subsidiary of the Guidant Corporation. The Agreement is also fully assignable once ACS has completed the construction and occupation of the first 135,000 square feet of building area. Prior to this point, the DA may be transferred only with the City's approval, to other major employers that would bring similar jobs and economic benefits to the community. A copy of an approved conceptual color and material palette was also reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. These are the generalized design guidelines that will be applied to any ACS expansion on the site under this Development Agreement. The draft is contained in a separate notebook that has been provided to the Council. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: To evaluate the impacts of this project, a detailed environmental review was prepared. The initial review indicated that the Project could result in the following potentially significant impacts without mitigation measures. The notice of the intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration was circulated for public review between April 1 and R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Repor~ CC.doc 2 April 30, 2002. The results of the Initial Environmental Review are shown in the following table. A copy of the complete Initial Environmental Review is contained in Attachment No. 4. Potentially Significant Measures will be Adopted Environmental Impact Topic Areas Impact to Mitigate the Impacts Aesthetics Yes Yes Agricultural Resoumes No Air Quality No Biolo~lic Resources Yes Yes Cultural Resources Yes Yes Geology & Soils Yes Yes Hazards & Hazardous Materials No Hydrology & Water Quality No Land Use & Planning No Mineral Resources No Noise Yes Yes Population & Housing No Public Services No Recreation No Transportation & Traffic Yes Yes UhTities & Service Systems Yes Yes Mandatory Findings No ~ While potentially significant impacts were identified for seven of the impact topic areas, all the impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance with specified mitigation measures. Staff is recommending that the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in Attachment No. 5 be adopted as part of this Project. During the cimulation period for the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City received three comments. Copies of these comments letters, and the City's response are contained in Attachment No. 6. FISCAL IMPACT: The construction of this project could result in the following projected fiscal impacts to the City: · $2.0 million in property taxes over 15 years. (Shared on a 50/50 basis with Guidant as provided by the OPA). · $400,000 in Development Impact Fee revenues. · $300,000 in plan check and inspection re-imbursement by ACS. As part of the OPA, the Redevelopment Agency is already obligated to reimburse Guidant for up to $750,000 for public Traffic Improvements contemplated with this project. Judicial validation of the Agreement is expected to cost between $15,000 and $20,000, and Guidant will share these costs up to a maximum of $10,000. Adequate funding is available in the City Attorney Budget (Department 130, Line Item 5246). ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 4 Proposed Development Agreement- Blue Page 10 PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 11 Initial Study- Blue Page 15 Mitigation Monitoring Program- Blue Page 16 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments - Blue Page 17 R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUlDANT CORPORATION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0217) WHEREAS, Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of agreements establishing and maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in City Resolution 91-52 and the Development Code, the City of Temecula has initiated said Development Agreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems; and, WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems has been duly given in the form and manner required by law, and the Planning Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public hearings on October 16, 2002 and October 22, 2002, respectively, at which time it heard and considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section '1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect to this Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, that: A. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for industrial, commercial and residential development; and B. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed; and, C. The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property consistent with the General Plan; and, D. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and, E. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and, R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 5 F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, and police and fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; and, G. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; and, H. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Development Agreement are an increase in higher paying jobs and increased local employment opportunities from an established local company. These community benefits also satisfy the requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.08.050.A. Section2. APPROVAL. The Development Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "1" is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized and directed to evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the name of, the City of Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance takes effect and the City has received from the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement. Section 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. A detailed Initial Environmental Study (lES) checklist was prepared for this project. Based upon the analysis contained in the checklist, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The analysis identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Biologic Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. However, because of the mitigation measures identified in the lES, all the potential impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The lES and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was circulated for public review between April 1 and April 30, 2002. As a result, the City Council hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, for this project. The approved Mitigation Monitoring Program is contained in Exhibit "2". Section 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining pads of this Ordinance. Section 5. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 6 Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 2002. ATTEST: Ronald E. Roberts, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of October, 2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk Susan Jones, CMC/AAE R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 10 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation and ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., a Subsidiary of Guidant Corporation TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION AND TITLE PAGE NO. Recitals .......................................................................................................... 1 1. Definitions .................................................................................................. 4 2. Development of Project .............................................................................. 8 2.1. Ownership Interests ......................................................................... 8 2.2. Vested Rights ................................................................................... 8 2.3. Project .............................................................................................. 8 2.3.1. FloorArea Ratio ........................................................................... 8 2.3.2. Location and Size of Improvements ............................................. 9 2.3.3. Design Guidelines; Architectural and Landscape Palette ............. 9 2.3.4. Height Limitation ........................................................................... 9 2.3.4.1. Rooftop Equipment ................................................................ 9 2.3.4.2. Underground Structure .......................................................... 9 2.4. Allowed Uses ................................................................................... 9 2.4.1. Consistent Development Standards ............................................ 10 2.4.2. Use for Parking ............................................................................ 10 2.5. Perimeter Fencing and Landscaping ............................................... 10 2.6. Access ............................................................................................. 10 2.7. Modifications ................................................................................... 10 2.8. Off-Site Public Improvements .......................................................... 10 2.9. On-Site Public Improvements .......................................................... 10 2.10.Dedication or Reservation Requirements ........................................ 11 2.10.1. Public Utility Easements ............................................................ 11 2.10.2. Motor Car Parkway .................................................................... 11 2.10.3. Margarita Road .......................................................................... 11 2.11. Motor Car Parkway .......................................................................... 11 2.12. Margarita Road ................................................................................ 11 2.12.1. Restriction on Improvements ..................................................... 11 2.12.2. Acquisition ................................................................................. 11 2.12.3. Compliance with Landscaping Standards ................................. 12 2.12.4. Compliance with Height and Other Requirements ..................... 12 2.13. Pedestrian Bridge ........................................................................... 12 2.13.1. Owner's Discretion .................................................................... 12 2.1 3.2. Location and Design; City Review ............................................. 12 2.13.3. Grant of Property Interest; Permits ............................................ 12 2.13.4. Costs, Ownership and Maintenance .......................................... 13 2.14. Development Plans ........................................................................ 13 2.14.1. Processing Application .............................................................. 13 2.14.2. Approval of Application .............................................................. 13 2.14.3. Phasing ..................................................................................... 14 SECTION AND TITLE PAGE NO. 2.14.4. Environmental Review ............................................................... 14 2.14.5. Development Plan Modifications ............................................... 14 2.15. Term of Map .................................................................................... 14 2.16. Substitute Tentative Parcel Map ...................................................... 14 2.17. Lot Line Adjustment ......................................................................... 14 3. Development Fees .................................................................................... 15 3.1. Development Processing Fees ........................................................ 15 3.2. Expedited Review ............................................................................ 15 3.3. Development Impact Fees .............................................................. 15 3.4. Landscaping Bond ........................................................................... 15 4. Rules and Regulations .............................................................................. 15 4.1. Applicable Rules and Laws ............................................................. 15 4.2. Applicability to Future Development Approvals ............................... 16 4.3. Model Codes ................................................................................... 16 4.4. Future Enactments .......................................................................... 16 4.5. Enforceability ................................................................................... 16 4.6. Representation ................................................................................ 17 4.7. Amendment to Rules ....................................................................... 17 4.8. Future Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 17 4.9. Districts ........................................................................................... 17 4.10.Phasing ........................................................................................... 17 4.11.Non-conformities ............................................................................. 17 4.12.Abatement and Revocation after the Term of the Agreement Lapses ................................................................ 18 4.13. Other Agencies ................................................................................ 18 5. Term .......................................................................................................... 18 5.1. Commencement .............................................................................. 18 5.2. Duration ........................................................................................... 18 5.3. Termination ..................................................................................... 18 5.3.1. Termination under Agreement ..................................................... 18 5.3.2. Completion of Project .................................................................. 18 5.3.3. Judgment ..................................................................................... 18 5.4. Effect of Termination ....................................................................... 19 5.5. Effect of Agreement on Title ............................................................ 19 6. Amendments; Administration of Agreement ............................................. 19 6.1. Amendment ..................................................................................... 19 6.2. Operating Memoranda .................................................................... 19 6.3. Administration of Agreement ........................................................... 19 7. Amendment to Authorizing Statute or Change in Law .............................. 20 7.1. Development Agreement Legislation ............................................... 20 7.2. Change in State or Federal Law ...................................................... 20 7.2.1. Notice ........................................................................................... 20 7.2.2. Hearing and Determination ........................................................... 20 8. Transfers and Assignments ..................................................................... 20 8.1. Transfers ........................................................................................ 20 8.2. Assignment ..................................................................................... 21 2 SECTION AND TITLE PAGE NO. 8.2.1. Assignment to a Guidant Assignee ........................................... 21 8.2.2. Assignment Before Completion of Phase 1 ............................... 21 8.2.3. Assignment After Completion of Phase 1 .................................. 22 8.2.4. Notice and Acknowledgement ................................................... 22 8.2.5. Pedestrian Bridge ...................................................................... 22 9. Representations and Warranties ............................................................ 22 9.1. City's Representations and Warranties .......................................... 22 9.2. Owner's Representations and Warranties ...................................... 23 10. Compliance Review ................................................................................ 24 10.1. Annual Review ................................................................................ 24 10.1.1. Good-Faith Compliance ........................................................... 24 10.1.2. Substantial Compliance ............................................................ 24 10.2. Failure to ConductAnnual Review ................................................ 24 10.3. Initiation of Review by City Council ............................................... 25 10.4. Availability of Documents .............................................................. 25 11. Default ..................................................................................................... 25 11.1. Default by Owner ........................................................................... 25 11.2. Default by City ............................................................................... 25 11.3. Estoppel Certificates ..................................................................... 25 11.3.1. Execution ................................................................................. 26 11.3.2. Costs; Reliance ....................................................................... 26 12. Judicial Review ....................................................................................... 26 12.1. Reference ...................................................................................... 26 12.1.1. Appointment ........................................................................... 26 12.1.2. Pretrial Matters ....................................................................... 26 12.1.3. Trial ........................................................................................ 26 12.1.4. Judgment ................................................................................ 26 12.1.5. Post-Trial Proceedings ........................................................... 27 12.1.6. Appeal .................................................................................... 27 12.2. Specific Performance ................................................................... 27 12.3. Remedies Cumulative .................................................................. 27 12.4. Applicability of Review .................................................................. 27 12.5. Attorney's Fees ............................................................................ 27 12.6. Third-party Challenge ................................................................... 28 12.6.1. Defense of Litigation .............................................................. 28 12,6.2. Compliance with Judgment ................................................... 28 12.6.3. Review of Future Development Approval .............................. 28 12.7. Indemnification ............................................................................. 28 12.8. Validation ..................................................................................... 29 13. Encumbrances and Lenders ................................................................... 29 13.1. Right to Encumber ........................................................................ 29 13.2. Notice of Default to Lender ........................................................... 2g 14. Waivers and Delays ................................................................................ 30 14.1. No Waiver ..................................................................................... 30 14.2. Extension by Agreement .............................................................. 30 14.3. Force Majeure .............................................................................. 30 3 SECTION AND TITLE PAGE NO. 14.4. Extensions .................................................................................... 30 14.4.1. Litigation ................................................................................... 30 14.4.2. Other Delays ............................................................................ 30 14.5. Notice of Delay ............................................................................. 30 15. Notices ................................................................................................... 30 15.1. Manner of Giving Notice ............................................................... 30 15.2. Address for Notices ...................................................................... 31 15.3. Effective Date of Notices .............................................................. 31 15.4. Undeliverable Notice .................................................................... 32 15.5. Change of Address ....................................................................... 32 16. General Provisions ................................................................................. 32 16.1. Opinions of Counsel ..................................................................... 32 16.2. Binding Covenants ....................................................................... 32 16.3. Relationship of Parties ................................................................. 32 16.4. Recording ..................................................................................... 32 16.5. Severability ................................................................................... 32 16.6. Interpretation and Governing Law ................................................ 32 16.7. Section Headings ......................................................................... 33 16.8. Word Usage ................................................................................. 33 16.9. No Joint and Several Liability ....................................................... 33 16.10. Time of Essence ........................................................................... 33 16.11. Counting Days .............................................................................. 33 16.12. Recitals ........................................................................................ 33 16.13. Exhibits ......................................................................................... 33 16.14. Entire Agreement ......................................................................... 33 16.15. Survival of Obligations .................................................................. 34 16.16. Third Party Beneficiaries .............................................................. 34 16.17. Ambiguities ................................................................................... 34 16.18. Counterparts; Duplicate Originals ................................................. 34 16.19. Necessary Acts ............................................................................ 34 Exhibits DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of the__ day of,2002 ("Agreement Date"), by ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation and a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation ("Owner"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ("City"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms, which are defined in this Agreement. The Parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use of the defined terms in these Recitals. B. The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the Development of such property. The purposes of the Development Agreement Legislation include, among other matters: 1. Reducing the uncertainty in the Development approval process. This uncertainty can result in a waste of resources, discourage investment and escalate the cost of Development to the consumer. 2. Strengthening the comprehensive planning process to provide for the most efficient use of public and private resources. 3. Assuring applicants for Development projects that, upon approval of their projects, they may proceed in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations. Providing for the financing and/or construction of necessary public facilities. 5. Providing a mechanism to allow alternative means of satisfaction of ordinances or regulations in order to promote flexibility and to respond more selectively to given proposals. 6. Streamlining and coordinating the Development approval process by combining discretionary approvals that would otherwise occur in separate processes. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 1 C. In addition to the general purposes listed above, the following are among the consideration supporting this Agreement: 1. The Owner of the Project has made significant contributions to the City of Temecula and its citizens, including: (a) creating approximately 3,100 local jobs, which contribute over $91,000,000 in payroll annually to the area economy; and (b) establishing a high quality medical device manufacturing facility at Owner's Existing Facilities. 2. The Agreement authorizes Owner to improve approximately 28 acres of light industrial and business park zoned real property in close proximity to residential areas in the City. Completion of the Project would create jobs for the City's citizens and reduce vehicle miles of travel by creating employment opportunities locally. 3. For both Parties, the Agreement helps provide for: (a) high quality Development of the Property that is the subject of this Agreement; (b) certainty in the type of Development to be undertaken on the Property; and (c) the assurance of adequate public facilities to ensure the good of the community regardless of the City's legal authority to impose such requirement under constitutional and statutory authority. 4. For City, the Agreement helps provide for: (a) employment growth anticipated to result from the Project, both during construction and use; (b) an increase in tax revenues anticipated to result from the Development of the Project; and (c) the achievement of the goals and objectives of its General Plan. 5. For Owner, the Agreement provides for specified limitations on, without the surrender of, the City's exercise of certain of its governmental and proprietary powers together with the certainty of Owner's rights to develop the Project. D. Owner desires to obtain authorization to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Owner has not made a final decision on whether to actually develop the Property with the Project, and requires completed land use Entitlements as a prerequisite for making that decision. E. Owner has applied for and City has approved this Agreement in order to create a beneficial Project and a physical environment that will conform to and complement the goals of the City, create a Development project sensitive to human needs and values, facilitate efficient traffic circulation, and develop the Property. As part of the process of granting this entitlement, the City has required the preparation of an initial study of environmental impacts and has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration as regards any potentially significant effects arising from the project and has otherwise carried out all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 2 F. On , following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Planning Commission approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended that the City Council approve this Agreement. G. On ., following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing and pursuant to CEQA, the City Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration. H. On , following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Council determined that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the City's General Plan. On ., following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement. I. On the City Council adopted the ordinance, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and adopted findings and conditions pertaining thereto, including those relating to the environmental documentation for the Project. J. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the project as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the Development of the Project and concluded that the Development of the Project, as provided herein, is in the best interests of the City. K. In consideration of the substantial economic development benefits that would accrue if the Project moves forward, and the strengthening of the planning process and reduction of costs of Development which may adversely affect achieving the goals of the City and the Project, by this Agreement the City intends to give the Owner assurances that Owner can proceed with the Development of the Project for the Term of this Agreement pursuant to its terms and in accordance with the City's General Plan, the Tentative Parcel Map, and the ordinances, rules, regulations and policies existing as of the Agreement Date, except as may otherwise be agreed to by the City and Owner during the further planning of the Project. L. In reliance on the City's covenants in this Agreement concerning Development of the Property, Owner has incurred substantial costs in planning, design, environmental review and site preparation, and may incur additional substantial costs for such purposes as well as for construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to complete the Project. M. Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement implements the goals and policies of City's General Plan, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land Development and usage in order to maintain the ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 3 overall quality of life and environment within the City; (ii) this Agreement is in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of City and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with City's General Plan and constitutes a present exercise of City's police power; and (iv) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, as it applies to City, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and in consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and for the further consideration described in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1. "Agreement Date" means the date of first introduction and reading of the Ordinance approving this Agreement; provided, however, that the Agreement will be in legal force and effect as of the first date at which the ordinance authorizing the Agreement is in force and effect pursuant to the provisions of California law. 1.2. "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. 1.3. "CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resoumes Code Sections 21000, et seq.) and the related California Code of Regulations sections (the "CEQA Guidelines"), as amended from time to time. 1.4. "City" means the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation and general law City, including its officials, council members, employees, consultants, contractors, agencies and departments. 1.5. "City Council" means the duly elected and constituted city council of City. 1.6. "City Laws" means all codified and uncodified enactments of City and all laws, regulations and standards of any governmental body having jurisdiction within City. 1.7. "Days" means calendar days, not business days. 1.8. "Design Guidelines" means the document described in Section 2.3.3. 1.9. "Development" shall have the same definition as in Government Code Section 65927, as that statute exists on Agreement Date. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 4 1.10. "Development Agreement Legislation" means Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 as they exist on the Agreement Date. 1.11. "Development Code" means Title 17 of City's Municipal Code in effect on the Agreement Date. 1.12. "Development Impact Fee" means fees imposed on Development by City to mitigate the impacts of Development. 1.13. "Development Moratorium" means any action of City, including actions or inactions required pursuant to a voter sponsored initiative, which prohibits or delays the Development of the Project or any portion thereof. 1.14. "Development Plan" or "Plan" means a plan for the Development of a particular phase of the Project as described in detail in Section 2.14 of this Agreement. 1.15. "Development Processing Fee" means a fee routinely imposed by City to pay the administrative costs of reviewing an application for an Entitlement for a proposed Development. 1.16. "District" means a public improvement district, assessment district, community facilities district, and any similar mechanism to impose, levy, collect, or allocate special assessments, improvement district fees, reimbursement district fees, general or special taxes, or other similar fees or charges. 1.17. "Encumbrance" means a mortgage, deed of trust or any other device by which the Owner's interest in the Property secures a loan or indebtedness. To "Encumber" means to create an Encumbrance. 1.18. "Entitlements" means all grants of authorization to develop real property issued by City and the statutes, ordinances, plans, decisions, resolutions, permits, rules, regulations, and official policies that must be complied with and/or issued as a condition to and in accordance with authorization for Development of real property. Examples of "Entitlements" include the general plan, zoning designations and regulations, subdivision maps, use permits, special use permits, conditional use permits, temporary use permits, Municipal Code and zoning ordinance provisions, site plans, Development Plans, design reviews, variances, building permits, certificates of occupancy, and amendments to any of the above. The term "Entitlements" is not dependent on the nature (such as legislative, quasi-judicial, ministerial or administrative) of the matter in question. 1.19. "Estoppel Certificate" means a writing, signed by the Party issuing it, certifying that: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if amended or modified, describing the amendments; and (iii) no default in the performance of the requesting Party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 5 1.20. "Existing Facilities" means Owner's property and facilities at 26531 Ynez Road (west of Ynez Road across from the Property). 1.21. "Fiscal Year" means the period from July 1 of one year to June 30, inclusive, of the following year. 1.22. "Floor Area Ratio" or "FAR" means the Gross Floor Area of all buildings on a lot divided by the gross lot area (Development Code Section 17.34.010). 1.23. "Future Development Approvals" means Entitlements to carry out Development of the Project that are granted by City and accepted by Owner, following the Agreement Date, and that may include City's approval of a Development Plan, lot line adjustment, final subdivision map, grading permit, encroachment permit, building permit and occupancy permit. 1.24. "General Plan" means the General Plan of the City of Temecula in effect on the Agreement Date. 1.25. "Gross Floor Area" means the total horizontal area of a building, in square feet, including the exterior walls of all floors (Development Code Section 17.34.010). 1.26. "Indemnified Persons" means City and City's agents, officers, attorneys, and employees. 1.27. "Law" means any official legislative enactment of a governmental agency, public body, or court that binds the Parties. Examples of a Law are case law, constitutional provisions, statutes, ordinances, initiatives, resolutions, policies, orders, rules and regulations. A matter is a Law regardless of whether it was imposed by a legislative body (such as the City Council or State Legislature), an administrative agency (such as the California Public Utilities Commission or City's Planning Department), the electorate (as by initiative or referendum), or any other official body, and regardless of whether it is federal, state er local. 1.28. "Lender" means the mortgagee of a mortgage, the beneficiary of a deed of trust, or the holder of any other security interest in the Property or any portion thereof, and its successors and assigns, including the purchaser at a judicial or non- judicial foreclosure sale or a person or entity which obtains title by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. 1.29. "Litigation" means all forms of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, such as complaints (for damages, declaratory relief, or otherwise), arbitrations, judicial references, petitions (for traditional mandate, administrative mandate, or otherwise), and judicial appeals, no matter how denominated. 1.30. "Mitigated Negative Declaration" means the environmental document under CEQA issued by the City on April 1,2002 and adopted in connection with this Agreement. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 6 1.31. "Model Codes" means the uniform codes governing construction and those adopted by the State of California and binding on City, as may be lawfully amended by City. Examples of Model Codes include the Uniform Building Code, National Electrical Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. 1.32. "Off-Site Public Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities not located on the Property, for dedication to, ownership, use or benefit of the public or a public entity or utility. 1.33. "On-Site Public Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities located on the Property, for dedication to, ownership, use or benefit of the public or a public entity or utility. 1.34. "Owner" is Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a California corporation and a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation, and includes any assignee authorized under this Agreement. 1.35. "Party" means City or Owner. "Parties" means City plus Owner. 1.36. "Phase I" means the Development of the Property under a Development Plan that includes construction of at least one of the five (5) office buildings allowed under this Agreement. The remainder of the Project may be built in one or more additional phases. 1.37. "Planning Commission" means the duly appointed and constituted planning commission of City. 1.38. "Processing Moratoria" means any significant delay in the City's consideration of Owner's requested Entitlements to advance Development where such delay is caused by other than: (i) the temporary unavailability of staff or staff time required to consider requested Entitlements, or (ii) the failure of Owner to respond to City's request for information, or similar causes. Processing moratoria shall include moratoria imposed by a voter sponsored initiative measure. 1.39. "Project" means the Development of the Property as described in Section 2 of this Agreement. 1.40. "Property" means the real property described in Exhibits "A" and '%-1 ." The real property described in Exhibit "A" consists of approximately seven (7) acres, and is owned in fee by Owner. The real property described in Exhibit "A-I" consists of approximately twenty (20) acres held and controlled by Owner under a synthetic lease. 1.41. "Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development" or "Rules, Regulations and Policies" shall mean City's General Plan and all applicable elements thereof, City's Zoning Ordinance, the Tentative Parcel Map, a final subdivision map (once adopted) based upon the Tentative Parcel Map, each Future Development ACS Devetopment Agreement 092002 Page 7 Approval, and the City's ordinances, policies, rules, regulations and written policies existing as of the Agreement Date, all as more specifically defined in Exhibit "B." 1.42. "Tentative Parcel Map" means that certain Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, approved by City on November 8, 2001, and applicable to the property described in Exhibit "A-I." If Owner files an application for a substitute tentative parcel map application under Section 2.16, then thereafter the term "Tentative Parcel Map" shall mean such substitute map except where the context requires otherwise. 1.43. "Term" means the period of time which extends from the Agreement Date through and including June 30th of the fifteenth (15th) full City of Temecula Fiscal Year from the date a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building to be built on the Property under this Agreement, unless extended by force majeure as described in Section 14.3. In no event shall Owner's construction on or use of any portion of the Property for parking purposes be considered to commence the referenced fifteen (15) year period. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT. 2.1. Ownership Interests. Owner represents that it owns approximately seven (7) acres of the Property in fee. Owner further represents that it holds approximately twenty (20) acres of the Property pursuant to a lease agreement with Atlantic Financial Group, Ltd., and that pursuant to the lease agreement, Owner holds all such beneficial rights of ownership as are necessary for Owner to enter into and meet its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties agree that Owner's interests in the Property constitute legal or equitable interests within the meaning of Government Code Section 65865. 2.2. Vested Rights. While this Agreement is in effect, Owner shall have the vested right to implement the Development of the Property and the Project in the manner described herein, and as further authorized by: (i) the Rules, Regulations and Policies affecting Development of the Project; (ii) the Entitlements; and (iii) Future Development Approvals. City shall have the rights granted to it as set forth in this Agreement, including the approval of Development Plans. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, the Rules, Regulations and Policies affecting Development and the Project shall control Development, Future Development Approvals, On-Site Public Improvements and Off-Site Public Improvements relating to the Property. 2.3. Project. "Project" means the Development of the Property with up to 481,260 square feet of occupiable space contained in up to five buildings, plus up to two parking structures, along with necessary public and private infrastructure, all as further described in this Section 2. 2.3.1. Floor Area Ratio. The Project as a whole shall not exceed a Floor Area Ratio of 0.40, exclusive of parking structures. Individual legal parcels within the Property shall not be required to meet a specific FAR standard, provided the entire ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 8 Project meets the FAR of 0.40, exclusive of parking structures. In approving this Agreement, City has made the findings set forth in Section 17.08.050(A) of the Development Code. 2.3.2. Location and Size of Improvements. The location of improvements, and the size and number of buildings (up to five), shall be in Owner's discretion, subject to the standards contained in this Section 2.3.2. If Owner develops the maximum authorized amount of square footage, such square footage shall be contained in a minimum of three buildings. Each of the two parking garages, if constructed, shall contain between 125,000 and 200,000 square feet, but in no event less than the square footage required to meet or exceed the City's parking standard or, at Owner's option, to provide up to five spaces per 1,000 square feet of occupied space (estimated at 500 to 750 spaces per garage) when combined with surface parking on the Property. Except as otherwise expressly provided here, the total square footage and number of stories in each building and parking garage shall be in Owner's discretion. In its discretion, Owner may provide more parking than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of occupied space, by way of combined surface parking and the parking structures permitted by this Agreement. The location of p~rking within the Property for any specific building shall be at Owner's discretion, without regard to parcel lines, provided that the building has legal access to the required parking. 2.3.3. Design Guidelines; Architectural and Landscape Palette. Development of the Project, including colors, materials and landscaping, shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines attached as Exhibit "C." 2.3.4. Height Limitation. No structure on the Property shall exceed a maximum height of 80 feet from finished grade of building pad. Additionally, no structure along Solana Way and Margarita Road shall exceed the height of the Setback Planes as defined and illustrated in Exhibits D-l, D-2 and D-3. 2.3.4.1. Rooftop Equipment. The height limitations contained in Section 2.3.4 shall be exclusive of rooftop mechanical enclosures and telecommunications equipment, and related screening. Nothing in this Agreement shall authorize any third party to construct rooftop telecommunications equipment absent compliance with the City's normal approval process. 2.3.4.2. Underground Structure. The height of an underground structure shall not be counted toward the height of any above-ground portion of that structure for purposes of determining compliance with a height limitation. 2.4. Allowed Uses. Allowed uses of the Property shall include Business Park as defined in the Development Code (including office, research and manufacturing, compounding of pharmaceuticals, and further including all uses carried out by Owner as of the Agreement Date at the Existing Facilities; employee day care facility; employee commissary or cafeteria; educational/training facility; employee gym; and all other ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 9 permitted uses in the Business Park zoning district. Owner shall not be required to obtain a conditional use permit for any use described in this Section 2.4. 2.4.1. Consistent Development Standards. The approximate seven acre parcel described in Exhibit "A" is zoned Light Industrial. The Development standards for this portion of the Property shall be the same as set forth in this Agreement for the remainder of the Property, which is zoned Business Park. 2.4.2. Use for Parking. A portion of the Property is presently used for parking by employees who work at Owner's Existing Facilities. The Parties agree that use of any portion of the Property for parking by Owner's employees who work at the Existing Facilities, and Owner's invitees thereto, is allowed and consistent with this Agreement. 2.5. Perimeter Fencing and Landscaping. Owner shall be allowed to fence the entire Property, and provide controlled access with guard gates at each point of entry consistent with the Agreement's provisions for design and landscaping standards and generally accepted engineering principles with regard to vehicle stacking, and (except as otherwise agreed between the City and Owner) consistent with City policies. Fencing and controlled access substantially similar to that utilized at the Existing Facilities shall be deemed allowed under this Agreement. A Development Plan for Phase I shall include the provision of perimeter landscaping as described in the Design Guidelines, and fencing (if proposed by Owner) for the entire Project. 2.6. Access. Access to the Property shall be from Ynez (via Motor Car Parkway), Margarita Road, Street "A" (as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map) and Solana Way. Owner intends its primary access to be from Ynez; however, access shall be authorized from Margarita Road, Street "A" and Solana Way as well. The points of access to Margarita Road, Street "A" and Solana Way shall be as described in Exhibit "E," and as otherwise approved by the City Engineer upon Owner's request. 2.7. Modifications. The Planning Director has the authority to approve minor modifications to the Development standards and Design Guidelines required for the Project under this Agreement. The Planning Director may determine that a particular modification requires an operating memorandum as described in Section 6.2, or an amendment to this Agreement. 2.8. Off-Site Public Improvements. As a condition to receiving a certificate of occupancy for Phase I, Owner shall construct the City-required Off-Site Public Improvements specifically described in Exhibit "F." Other than by payment of existing Development Impact Fees as specifically identified in and required by this Agreement, Owner shall not be required to contribute financially toward the cost of, or construct or cause to be constructed any City-required Off-Site Public Improvements that are not specifically listed in Exhibit "F." 2.9. On-Site Public Improvements. As a condition to receiving a certificate of occupancy for Phase I, Owner shall construct the City-required On-Site Public ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 10 Improvements specifically described in Exhibit "G." Owner shall not be required to contribute financially toward the cost of, or construct or cause to be constructed any City-required On-Site Public Improvements that are not specifically listed in Exhibit "G." 2.10. Dedication or Reservation Requirements. There shall be no dedication or reservation of land for public purposes, except as provided in this Section 2.10. 2.10.1. Public Utility Easements. Owner shall convey to City or other appropriate public agencies such easements and rights-of-way reasonably necessary and customarily required to accommodate any On-Site Public Improvements described in Section 2.9 which Owner dedicates or conveys to a public agency for public services (such as storm drains and public utility lines). 2.10.2. Motor Car Parkway. Potential dedication of Motor Car Parkway to the City shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.11, below. 2.10.3. Margarita Road. Dedication or City acquisition of additional right of way along Margarita Road shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.12, below. 2.11. Motor Car Parkway. Motor Car Parkway is a private street, under the control of a private owners~ association of which Owner is a member. Upon Owner's request, City shall accept an offer of dedication for Motor Car Parkway and thereafter own and maintain it as a public street. As a condition precedent to City's obligation to accept the offer of dedication, Owner shall cause Motor Car Parkway to be upgraded to public street standards as described in Exhibit "H." Owner shall be responsible for obtaining any consents or authorizations required for the validity of the offer of dedication. Upon Owner's request and with the concurrence of adjacent property owners, City shall rename Motor Car Parkway to "Guidant Parkway" or some other mutually agreeable name including the word "Guidant." 2.12. Margarita Road. Owner is making certain improvements to Margarita Road as part of the Off-Site Public Improvements. City has indicated its interest in widening Margarita Road in the future, at City expense, to include a third lane southbound along the Property. City estimates that the widening would necessitate City's acquisition of an additional 12 feet of right of way beyond the existing right of way (the "Additional Right of Way Area"). 2.12.1. Restriction on Improvements. In order to accommodate City's efforts, Owner agrees that any Development Plan it submits shall provide generally for landscaping of the Additional Right of Way Area. Owner shall not construct any buildings or parking facilities within such area. 2.12.2. Acquisition. Upon City's request, Owner shall convey the Additional Right of Way Area to City. As a condition precedent to Owner's obligation to make the conveyance, City shall compensate Owner for the then-fair market value of the land. The value of the land shall be determined without regard to the restriction on improvements or landscaping requirements contained in Section 2.12.1. If the Parties ACS Developmen! Agreement 092002 Page 11 are unable to agree upon the value, then they shall jointly identify three MAI appraisers. The Parties shall jointly select one of the three MAI appraisers, who shall conduct an appraisal of the Additional Right of Way Area. The expense for the third appraiser shall be divided equally between City and Owner, and that appraiser's determination of value shall be binding upon the Parties. 2.12.3. Compliance with Landscaping Standards. The Parties recognize that City's acquisition of the Additional Right of Way Area and construction of roadway therein will reduce the overall amount of landscaping on the Property. Owner shall not be required to replace such landscaping elsewhere on the Property in order to meet City standards for landscape coverage. The Additional Right of Way Area shall be counted as constituting "minimum required landscaped open space" as set forth in City's Development Code Section 17.08.040, regardless of ultimate acquisition and use by City. 2.12.4. Compliance with Heiqht and Other Requirements. City's acquisition of the Additional Right of Way Area shall not change the location of the Setback Planes as described in Section 2.3.4, nor shall such acquisition affect Project compliance with any other requirement defined or measured by reference to the size of the Property. For example, City's acquisition of the Additional Right of Way Area shall not alter setback requirements in the Development Code, allowed buildable square footage or allowed parking spaces on the Property. 2.13. Pedestrian Bridge. Owner owns and operates Existing Facilities on the west side of Ynez Road. Owner anticipates that there will be considerable pedestrian traffic between those facilities and the Property. In order to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, and to minimize the interruption of vehicular traffic on Ynez Road due to the existing surface pedestrian crossing, the Parties wish to provide for Owner's construction of a pedestrian bridge linking the Property with Owner's Existing Facilities. 2.13.1. Owner's Discretion. Owner may construct the pedestrian bridge at any time, regardless of whether Owner proceeds with the Project. Owner is not required to construct the pedestrian bridge as a result of having entered into this Agreement; provided, however, that if Owner proceeds with the Project and constructs Phase I, Owner shall complete the pedestrian bridge so that it is available for use by Owner's employees by the conclusion of the Term. 2.13.2. Location and Design; City Review. The location and design of the pedestrian bridge shall be in Owner's discretion, subject to review by City through the Development Plan process described in Section 2.14. Owner may submit an application for Development Plan approval for the pedestrian bridge as a stand-alone project, or as part of the Development Plan for Phase 1. The use of the term "pedestrian bridge" in this Section 2.13 shall not preclude Owner from designing the structure for use by small, motorized vehicles, including electric carts. 2.13.3. Grant of Property Interest; Permits. At Owner's request, the City shall convey a sufficient property interest (e.g., easement) to Owner at no cost, and ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 12 conduct any necessary proceedings to vacate the airspace in which the bridge is to be located, so that Owner's ownership of the bridge can be the subject of title insurance reasonably acceptable to Owner. The property interest shall acknowledge and provide that Owner shall have the exclusive use of the bridge. City shall also issue any permits required for the pedestrian bridge (e.g., encroachment permit). As a condition to issuance of such permits, and based upon its review of the specific design and the proximity of bridge structures to the public right of way, City may require Owner to indemnify City as to Owner's construction and operation of the bridge. Any such indemnification language may be implemented in the form of an operating memorandum as described in Section 6.2, and shall be in a form mutually agreeable to the Parties. 2.13.4. Costs, Ownership and Maintenance. If Owner constructs the bridge, Owner shall pay all costs for design, construction (including relocation of utilities) and maintenance, and for removal upon cessation of use. Owner shall own the bridge, and City shall have no ownership interest therein. 2.14. Development Plans. At such time as Owner is ready to obtain approval for specific structures, City shall process an application from Owner for Development Plan approval. 2.14.1. Processing of Application. City shall process the application so that a final decision is made within three months from the date the application is deemed complete and assuming timely responses from Owner; provided, however, that if a timely appeal from the decision is filed, the three month period shall be expanded by an additional two months, for a total of five months. The Plan shall be subject to a public hearing before City's Planning Director, with the Planning Director's decision subject to appeal to the Planning Commission, and from there to the City Council. The sole basis for appeal by a third party shall be whether the Development proposed is within the scope of Development authorized by, and is consistent with, this Agreement, including the Design Guidelines. Any such appeal shall specifically set forth in writing the section of this Agreement with which the Development is alleged to be inconsistent. 2.14.2. Approval of Application. City shall be obligated to approve Owner's proposed Plan as a ministerial act, provided the Development proposed is within the scope of Development authorized by, and is consistent with, this Agreement, including the Design Guidelines. The proposed Development shall be considered within the scope of Development if it meets the requirements of Sections 2.3 through 2.13, inclusive. All Development Plans, taken together, shall provide for the Project to meet the Development standards contained in Table 17.08.040A of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code for the Property as a whole; accordingly, no single legal parcel within the Property shall be required to independently meet Development standards for minimum gross area, Floor Area Ratio, maximum percent of lot coverage, or minimum required landscaped open space. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 13 2.14.3. Phasing. Owner may submit a series of Development Plans for approval, addressing different phases of the project. Each Development Plan shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of final approval by City, with such time extended for any force majeure event as described in Section 14.3. A valid Development Plan shall continue in effect for the full five (5) year period, regardless of whether the Term of the Agreement expires during such period. 2.14.4. Environmental Review. City has prepared an initial study and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Agreement and the Project. In conducting this environmental review, City has considered the maximum buildout of the Project that is possible under this Agreement and any potential environmental effects therefrom. Accordingly, no further environmental review will be required for individual Development Plans provided that the Development proposed by such Plans is within the scope of Development as described in section 2.14.2. 2.14.5. Development Plan Modifications. The Planning Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to a previously approved Development Plan applicable to the Project. The Planning Director, on the advice of the City Attorney, shall have the discretion to determine whether a particular modification is minor and may be processed administratively, or whether the modification requires an amendment to the Development Plan and should thus be the subject of a noticed public hearing before the Director. 2.15. Term of Map. City and Owner agree that multiple final maps may be filed as to Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, as provided in Government Code Section 66456.1. Specifically, the Parties agree that Owner may file a final map as to Parcels 4 and 5 of the tentative map, those lots being within Owner's Property and under separate ownership from Parcels 1, 2 and 3. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a)(1), the term of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 as to the Property shall be for a term equal to the Term of this Agreement. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement does not apply to Parcels 1,2 and 3. 2.16. Substitute Tentative Parcel Map. If for any reason Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 is withdrawn, or if Owner determines to obtain a new map applicable to the property described in Exhibit "A-1 ," then Owner may apply for, and City shall approve, a substitute tentative parcel map dividing such property into two lots substantially as described in Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. In approving such map, City may impose substantially the same conditions of approval as were included in the original tentative map. 2.17. Lot Line Adiustment. Upon Owner's request, City shall process and approve a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing two lots on the 7-acre parcel and (assuming a final map is filed as to the Tentative Parcel Map) the two lots on the 20-acre parcel. The reconfiguration shall be as specified by Owner, consistent with applicable state law. The reconfiguration shall also be consistent with City Development standards as set forth in Table 17.08.040A of Section 17.08.040 of the ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 14 Development Code, recognizing, however, that because the entire Project meets the Development standards for minimum gross area, Floor Area Ratio, maximum percent of lot coverage, and minimum required landscaped open space, individual parcels are not required to meet such standards independently. 3. DEVELOPMENT FEES. 3.1. Development Processin.q Fees. Development Processing Fees charged by City for filing and processing an application for an Entitlement shall be those in effect on the Agreement Date and in such amounts as are in effect at the time of submittal of an application for an Entitlement; provided, however, that at Owner's option, City shall charge its actual costs for plan check and inspection for on-site grading and public improvements. City shall charge its actual costs for other Development Processing Fees as mutually agreed between Owner and City. The Development Processing Fees which may be charged under this Agreement are listed in Exhibit "1," however, nothing in this Agreement restricts City's authority to increase the amount of those fees in the future, in the manner allowed by law. 3.2. Expedited Review. City shall provide expedited review of all approvals sought by Owner. City shall not impose a charge for such expedited review. For each Development Plan submitted by Owner, City shall designate a member of its senior executive staff as the project manager for City processing purposes. 3.3. Development Impact Fees. Development Impact Fees imposed by City in connection with an Entitlement for the Project shall be charged at the Industrial Rate that existed on February 12, 2002. Development Impact Fees shall be limited to those in existence on February 12, 2002 and charged at such fees' industrial rate (or equivalent) that existed on that date. The total Development Impact Fee payable by Owner in connection with the Project is listed by name and amount on Exhibit "J." Owner shall not be required to pay any Development Impact Fee that is not expressly set forth in Exhibit "J." 3.4. Landscaping Bond. Owner shall not be required to post a landscaping maintenance bond, but shall post a corporate guarantee as to landscaping maintenance obligations in a form reasonably satisfactory to City. 4. RULES AND REGULATIONS. 4.1. Applicable Rules and Laws. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development shall be those that are in force and applicable to the Business Park zoning district on the Agreement Date. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Laws governing Development of the Property and the Project, including those governing permitted uses, density and intensity of use of the Property, shall be those set forth in the General Plan, and other Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development, including those Laws ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 15 affecting design, improvement, construction standards, and other specifications applicable to Development of the Property, all as applicable on the Agreement Date. In considering Future Development Approvals, City shall act in a manner that complies and is consistent with this Agreement, the Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development, the Laws, and the other provisions contained in this Agreement. The Project as described in this Agreement and all Future Development Approvals shall be deemed to be in compliance with the Development Code and all Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development, Laws and City Laws. 4.2. Applicability to Future Development Approvals. Owner shall be entitled to apply for and receive Future Development Approvals at any time, free from Development Moratoria or Processing Moratoria, provided that Owner's applications for such approvals are made in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Rules Regulations and Policies, and such Future Development Approvals as the City approves and Owner accepts in writing. City shall accept and timely process all applications for Future Development Approvals in the normal and legal manner for processing such matters and consistent with this Agreement, and the Rules, Regulations and Policies. City shall not withhold any Entitlement, including a building permit, final inspection or certificate of occupancy from Owner if Owner has satisfied all conditions and requirements of this Agreement and any applicable Future Development Approval. City shall consider and approve any other Entitlements not specifically described in this Agreement that are reasonably necessary or a condition precedent to accomplish the Project. 4.3. Model Codes. The City shall apply the versions of all applicable Model Codes in effect at the time an application for Development Plan approval is deemed complete, as to all improvements described in that Development Plan, and shall continue to apply those same versions of Model Codes to that Development Plan for the longest period legally allowed and without interruption. As to each Development Plan, at Owner's request the appropriate City staff shall meet with Owner's representatives to discuss the implementation of Model Codes and relevant timing issues, in order to determine applicable Model Codes and achieve consistency of application of such codes for that phase of the Project. 4.4. Future Enactments. During the Term of this Agreement, City shall not enact any Law, ordinance, rule, regulation or policy applicable to the Property which conflicts with this Agreement, except as specifically requested or approved by Owner in writing. This prohibition shall include the imposition of limits on the density or intensity of use authorized for the Project and Property as provided by the General Plan. 4.5. Enforceability. Except to the extent it has been amended, canceled, modified or suspended, and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any Party notwithstanding any change in any City Law. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 16 4.6. Representation. City represents that there are no City Laws in force as of the Agreement Date that would prohibit the Development of the Project or use of all or any portion of the Property in accordance with this Agreement. 4.7. Amendment to Rules. No amendment to the Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development or to Future Development Approvals shall apply to the Property without Owner's written consent. 4.8. Future Mitigation Measures. City shall not impose on any Future Development Approvals any land use alternatives or mitigation measures other than those expressly described in this Agreement and the Tentative Parcel Map. 4.9. Districts. Except for Districts which are citywide and imposed on all properties in the City, City shall not include the Property in any District, including any future special assessment, special tax, reimbursement, impact fee or similar District. The Parties acknowledge that the Property is included in a pre-existing District, known as Community Facilities District No. 88-12, pursuant to the "Agreement Regarding Sales Tax Revenues as to Businesses Located Within the Boundaries of Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) of the County of Riverside, State of California," dated June 14, 1991, as amended by the "First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Temecula and Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana Corporation, Regarding Sales Tax Revenues of Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor)," dated April 12, 1994 (collectively, the "CFD 88-12 Agreement"). A default by the City in its obligations with respect to Owner under the CFD 88-12 Agreement, which is not cured within the times permitted by such agreement, shall be a default by the City under this Agreement. 4.10. Phasing. In Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), the parties therein entered into an agreement through a consent judgment concerning Development of certain property. The agreement did not specifically provide for the timing of Development. A later-adopted initiative measure placed limits on the number of building permits that could be issued each year. The California Supreme Court held that the initiative prevailed over the agreement, since the parties had failed to specifically address timing of Development. In order to avoid any potential for a similar holding as to this Agreement, the Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that Owner shall have the right (without obligation) to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to Owner's satisfaction of this Agreement and the Future Development Approvals. Owner, Project and Development of the Property shall be free of any other limitations or constraints on phasing or Project build-out, or any other limitations or constraints on Development that are inconsistent with this Agreement, whether by voter-sponsored initiative or action of the City. 4.11. Non-conformities. No use or structure that was consistent with this Agreement when it was established or built shall be deemed to be non-conforming at the time this Agreement terminates except to the extent the non-conformity arises from ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 17 a violation of a Model Code that constitutes an immediate and serious threat to health or safety. 4.12. Abatement and Revocation After the Term of the Agreement Lapses. No use or structure shall be subject to abatement as a nuisance, nor shall any Future Development Approval for a use or structure be subject to revocation, if the use or structure was consistent with this Agreement when established or built and if it remains consistent with the Future Development Approval which authorized it, unless the City finds that the use or structure has fallen into such a state of disrepair that it constitutes an immediate threat to health or safety. In that event, the use or structure may be re- established if it is re-established in a condition that does not constitute an immediate threat to health or safety and in compliance with the Model Codes. 4.13. Other A.qencies. City shall assist and cooperate with Owner, at no cost to the City, in securing County, State or Federal Entitlements, if any are necessary to develop the Property pursuant to this Agreement. 5, TERM. 5.1. Commencement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Agreement Date. As provided in Section 1.1, the Agreement will be in legal force and effect as of the first date on which the ordinance authorizing the Agreement is in force and effect pursuant to the provisions of California law. 5.2. Duration. Unless sooner terminated hereunder, this Agreement shall expire at the end of the fifteenth (15th) full Fiscal Year which follows after the earlier of either (1) the date a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the first Project building to be built on the Property, or (2) June 30, 2006. In no event shall Owner's construction on or use of any portion of the Property for parking purposes be considered to commence the referenced fifteen (15) year period. 5.3. Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 5,3.1. Termination under A,qreement, If termination occurs pursuant to any specific provision of this Agreement; 5.3.2. Completion of Project. Completion of the total build-out of the Project to the maximum square footage and parking structures allowed by this Agreement, or such lesser area as agreed upon by Owner and City in writing. "Completion" under this Section 5.3.2 shall include City's issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance of all dedications and improvements required to complete Development; or 5.3.3. Jud.qment. Entry after all appeals have been exhausted of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directed to the City as a result of any Litigation ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 18 filed against City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Agreement. 5.4. Effect of Termination. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect any right or duty arising from Entifiements issued by City before termination, nor shall it destroy any vested right arising from the completion of construction in reliance on an Entitlement. Upon termination of this Agreement, then subsequent Development of the Property shall be subject to City's then applicable Rules, Regulations and Policies. 5.5. Effect of Agreement on Title. The Parties shall execute and record an appropriate release upon termination of this Agreement. 6. AMENDMENTS; ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT. 6.1. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by the mutual agreement of the Parties. Any Party may propose an amendment to this Agreement, and shall give notice of the requested amendment to each Party. In the event of multiple Owners of different portions of the Property, notice shall be given to each such Owner. The procedure for adopting an amendment shall be the same as the procedure required under the Development Agreement Legislation for entering into this Agreement in the first instance. No amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by the Parties; provided, however, that an amendment of the Agreement as to a portion of the Property shall be binding if signed by the City and the Owner of the portion to which the Amendment is applicable. 6.2. Operating Memoranda. This Agreement requires a close degree of cooperation between City and Owner. From time to time, the Parties may wish to clarify or provide further detail of their performance obligations under this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, City and Owner may at any time agree that such clarifications are necessary or appropriate, in which event they shall effect such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by City and Owner. Each executed operating memorandum shall be attached to this Agreement. An operating memorandum shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Attorney shall be authorized to make the determination whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section, or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an amendment pursuant to Section 6.1. The City Manager may execute an operating memorandum without City Council action. 6.3. Administration of Aqreement. Any decision by City staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and Development of the Property in accordance herewith may be appealed by Owner to the Planning Commission for recommendation and thereafter forwarded to the City Council for final action, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) Days after Owner receives written notice of the staff decision. The City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing on the appeal, and shall render its decision to affirm, reverse or modify ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 19 the staff decision within thirty (30) Days after the appeal was filed. The City Council shall hear the matter de novo. 7. AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZING STATUTE OR CHANGE IN LAW. 7.1. Development Aqreement Leqislation. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance on the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation in effect on the Agreement Date. Subsequent amendments to the Development Agreement Legislation shall not be applicable to this Agreement, to the extent of any conflict, unless: (i) the amendments are necessary for the Agreement to be enforceable; or (ii) this Agreement is amended by mutual consent of the Parties to incorporate the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation as amended. 7.2. Chanqe in State or Federal Law. If any state or federal Law enacted after the Agreement Date prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of this Agreement: 7.2.1. Notice. A Party who believes that the change in Law prevents or precludes compliance shall provide each other Party written notice of the change in state or federal Law. The notice shall include a copy of the change in question and a statement describing how the change conflicts with this Agreement. The Parties shall then promptly meet and confer in a good faith and reasonable attempt to agree how to modify or suspend this Agreement only as necessary to comply with such change in state or federal Law. If City is the Party sending the notice, it shall send a copy of the notice to any Lender whose address is known to City. 7.2.2. Hearinq and Determination. Within forty-five (45) Days of a Party's notice under Section 7.2.1, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the matter. This hearing shall occur regardless of whether the Parties reached agreement on the effect of the change in state or federal Law. The City shall give public notice of the hearing at least ten (10) Days before it is held. At the hearing, the City Council shall determine the exact modification or suspension which is reasonably necessary to comply with the change in state or federal Law, while giving the maximum effect possible to the Parties' intent and objectives in entering into this Agreement. Owner shall have the right to offer oral and written testimony at the hearing regarding any proposed action by City. The City Council's determination shall be subject to judicial review as provided in Section 12. 8. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS. 8.1. Transfers. Owner shall have the right, at any time and on such number of occasions as it chooses, to sell or transfer any or all of its interest in the Property to any person or entity. Owner shall notify City of a transfer within twenty (20) Days after the event. No transfer shall convey any rights or obligations under this Agreement unless accompanied by an assignment as described in Section 8.2. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 20 8.2. Assignment. Owner's assignment of the Agreement, as to all or any portion of the Property, shall be subject to the following restrictions: 8.2.1. Assignment to a Guidant Assiqnee. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.2.2, Owner may assign any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement at any time to a Guidant Assignee. As used in this Section 8.2, "Guidant Assignee" means an entity in which a majority interest is owned by Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Guidant Corporation or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries, and which engages in the medical technology business. The City's consent shall not be required for an assignment to a Guidant Assignee. 8.2.2. Assignment Before Completion of Phase 1. For purposes of this Section 8.2.2 and Section 8.2.3, "Phase 1" means the construction of at least 135,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion thereof. Before the completion of Phase I, Owner may assign the Agreement as provided in Section 8.2.2.1 or Section 8.2.2.2. 8.2.2.1. Owner may assign any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement, along with all the vested rights described in Section 2, but only with the City's prior consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, provided that City determines that the assignee is similarly qualified in terms of its development experience, financial capabilities and ability to generate employment. a. ' The City Council shall be the decision-making body to determine whether to consent to the proposed assignment. The City Council may, in its discretion, hold a noticed public hearing before making the decision. b. City shall have forty-five (45) Days to approve er deny a proposed assignee, from the date of Owner's request for consent. Owner and City may extend that period by mutual agreement. 8.2.2.2. Owner may assign the Agreement, without City's prior consent, provided that of all the vested rights contained in Section 2, only the following provisions may be included in the assignment: a. Allowed square footage, as described in Section 2.3; b. Allowed Floor Area Ratio, as described in Section 2.3.1; c. The location and size of improvements, as described in Section 2.3.2; d. Height limitation and required Setback Planes, as described in Section 2.3.4; ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 21 e. Allowed uses and consistent development standards, as described in Sections 2.4 and 2.4.1; f. Approved access points, as described in Section 2.6; and g. Provisions as to widening of Margarita Road, as described in Section 2.12. Any assignee under this Section 8.2.2.2 shall comply with the Project Design Guidelines contained in Exhibit "C," and any Development Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission in accordance with the City's usual procedures. The assignee shall pay all then-current Development Impact Fees and Development Processing Fees. The term of the Agreement for such assignee shall be ten (10) years from the earlier of the date a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building to be built on the Property, or June 30, 2006, as described in Section 5. 8.2.3. Assignment After Completion of Phase 1. After completion of Phase I, Owner may assign any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement, along with all the vested rights described in Section 2, without the City's prior consent. 8.2.4. Notice and Acknowledgement. 8.1.1.2. Owner shall give City written notice of an assignment under Sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2.2 or 8.2.3 within twenty (20) Days thereof. 8.1.1.3. As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of any assignment, the assignee shall provide City with written acknowledgement that it has received and understood the Agreement, and agrees to be bound by it. The assignee shall also provide City with a copy of the agreement effecting the assignment. 8.2.5. Pedestrian Bridge. An assignee other than a Guidant Assignee shall not be required to construct the pedestrian bridge as described in Section 2.13. 9. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. 9.1. City's Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Owner as of the Agreement Date as follows: 9.1.1. City is a municipal corporation, which has been duly formed and organized and is validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. 9.1.2. City has the power, right and authority to enter into this Agreement and to undertake the actions contemplated hereby. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 22 9.1.3. All requisite action has been taken by City in connection with entering into this Agreement. 9.1.4. The individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of City have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind City to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 9.1.5. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor the incurrence of the obligations herein set forth, nor compliance with the terms of this Agreement will conflict with or result in a breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of, or constitute a default under, any note or other evidence of indebtedness or any contract, indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, loan, agreement, lease or other agreement or instrument to which City is a party or by which any of City's properties may be bound. 9.1.6. This Agreement is, and all documents required hereby to be executed by City, will be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against City in accordance with their terms. 9.1.7. City has all governmental licenses, authorizations, consents and approvals to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. 9.1.8. No City official has a financial interest in this Agreement within the meaning of Government Code Section 1090, nor does any City official who makes or participates in the making of a governmental decision on this Agreement have a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 73000, et seq.). No City official, consultant or advisor is being compensated with a fee that is contingent on or defined by the payment of any sums to City by Owner. 9.1.9. City shall promptly give Owner notice upon the occurrence of any event, or receipt of any notice, which might give rise to a breach by City of any of its representations, covenants or warranties set forth in this Section 9.1. 9.2. Owner's Representations and Warranties. Owner represents and warrants to City as of the Agreement Date as follows: 9.2.1. Owner is a corporation that has been duly formed and organized and is validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. 9.2.2. Owner has the corporate power, right and authority to enter into this Agreement and to undertake the actions contemplated hereby. 9.2.3. All requisite action has been taken by Owner in connection with entering into this Agreement. 9.2.4. The individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of Owner have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind Owner to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 9.2.5. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor the incurrence of the obligations herein set forth, nor compliance with the terms of this ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 23 Agreement will conflict with or result in a breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of, or constitute a default under, Owner's articles of incorporation, any bond, note or other evidence of indebtedness or any contract, indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, loan, agreement, lease or other agreement or instrument to which Owner is a party or by which any of Owner's properties may be bound. 9.2.6. This Agreement is, and all documents required hereby to be executed by Owner, will be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against Owner in accordance with their terms. 9.2.7. Owner has all governmental licenses, authorizations, consents and approvals to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. 9.2.8. Owner shall promptly give City notice upon the occurrence of any event, or receipt of any notice, which might give rise to a breach by Owner of any of its representations, covenants or warranties set forth in this Section 9.2. 10. COMPLIANCE REVIEW. 10.1. Annual Review. City and Owner shall review this Agreement at least once every 12-month period from the Agreement Date. City shall notify Owner in writing of the date for review at least thirty (30) Days prior thereto. Such periodic review shall be conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 65865.1 and on the following terms: 10.1.1. Good-Faith Compliance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1, Owner shall have the duty to demonstrate its good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement at each periodic review. Owner may satisfy this duty by presenting to City: (i) a written report identifying Owner's performance, along with any reasons for nonperformance or excused performance, or (ii) oral or written evidence submitted at the time of review. 10.1.2. Substantial Compliance. This Agreement and the documents incorporated herein could be deemed to contain thousands of requirements, such as construction and landscaping standards, Providing and reviewing evidence of each and every requirement would waste the Parties' resources. Accordingly, Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied its duty of demonstrating good faith compliance when it presents evidence of its good faith and substantial compliance with (i) any issues requested to be addressed by City in its notice of the review; (ii) the major provisions of a Development Plan; and (iii) restrictions on the uses, number and sizes of structures completed. Generalized evidence or statements shall be accepted in the absence of evidence that Owner's evidence and statements are untrue. 10.2. Failure to Conduct Annual Review. City's failure to conduct the annual review shall not constitute a default by any Party nor shall such failure waive, limit or otherwise affect City's right to conduct annual reviews in subsequent years. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 24 10.3. Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the annual review, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Agreement by giving written notice to Owner. City shall specify in the notice the specific issues it wishes Owner to address concerning Owner's compliance with this Agreement. Within thirty (30) Days following such notice, Owner shall submit evidence to the City Council of Owner's good faith compliance with this Agreement. The review and determination by the City Council shall proceed in the same manner as set forth in Section 10.1 for the annual review. The City Council shall initiate its review pursuant to this Section 10.3 only if it has probable cause to believe the health, safety or general welfare of residents of the City is at risk because of specific acts or failures to act by Owner. 10.4. Availability of Documents. Upon Owner's written request, City shall provide Owner copies of any documents, reports or other items reviewed, accumulated or prepared by or for City in connection with any compliance review by City. Owner shall reimburse City for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by City in providing such copies. City shall provide the copies within (10) Days from Owner's request. 11. DEFAULT. 11.1. Default by Owner. If City conducts a review under Section 10 and finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Owner has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of this Agreement, City shall give written notice to Owner stating the manner in which Owner has failed to comply and the steps Owner must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) Days after such notice, Owner does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then Owner shall be deemed to be in default hereunder and City may terminate or modify this Agreement as provided in Government Code Section 65865.1. City shall have the right to pursue any remedy at law or equity, including specific performance. 11.2. Default by City. If Owner determines that City has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of this Agreement, Owner shall give written notice to City stating the manner in which City has failed to comply and the steps City must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) Days after such notice, City does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring it into compliance and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then City shall be deemed to be in default and Owner may terminate this Agreement. Owner shall have the right to pursue any remedy available at law or equity, including specific performance. 11.3. Estoppel Certificates. A Party may make a written request for an Estoppel Certificate to another Party at any time. The Party to whom the request is made shall provide an Estoppel Certificate to the requesting party within thirty (30) Days after the request. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 25 11.3.1. Execution. The City Manager or any person designated by the City Manager may sign an Estoppel Certificate on behalf of City. Any officer of Owner may sign on behalf of Owner. 11.3.2. Costs; Reliance. The requesting Party shall reimburse the responding Party for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by the responding Party in providing the Estoppel Certificate. Any such certificate may and is intended to be relied upon by any person, including the other Party, potential purchasers of all or any part of the Property, Lenders, and potential Lenders. 12. JUDICIAL REVIEW. 12.1 Reference. City and Owner shall have the right to apply to a court to enjoin any breach of this Agreement. Excepting the right to seek such relief, all claims and matters in question arising out of this Agreement, whether sounding in contract, tort or otherwise, shall be resolved through a general reference in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 638 through 645.1. To initiate such a proceeding, a Party shall apply to the Riverside County Superior Court for the appointment of a referee to hear the dispute. The referee shall hear and determine any and all of the issues in the action or proceeding, whether of fact or of law, and shall report a statement of decision for a complete and final adjudication of the controversy. 12.1.1. Appointment. Owner and City shall agree upon a single referee. If Owner and City are unable to agree on a referee within fifteen (15) Days of a written request to do so, each Party shall submit to the Court up to three nominees for appointment. The Court shall appoint one or more referees, not exceeding three, from among the nominees against whom there is no legal objection. A legal objection shall consist of any of the grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure Sections 170.1 or 641. The cost of the reference proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the Parties. 12.1.2. Pretrial Matters. The Parties shall have all rights of discovery permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure in civil litigation, except that the time periods shall be shortened by agreement or by order of the referee, and the extent of discovery shall also be limited, with the goal of completing all discovery within ninety (90) Days. The referee shall hear all pretrial matters, including law and motion and discovery. 12.1.3. Trial. The referee shall try all issues, whether of fact or law. The referee shall follow the rules of evidence applicable in a Court trial. 12.1.4. Judgment. The referee shall render a reasoned statement of decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 632, citing both the law and the evidence relied on. The referee's decision shall stand as the decision of the Court, and judgment shall be entered on the statement of decision in the same manner as if the action had been tried by the Court. The judgment may include any provision or relief at law or in equity, including injunctive relief and specific performance, which could have ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 26 been made by the Court acting without a reference; provided, however, that the referee shall not have the power to punish disobedience of an order by contempt, that power being reserved to the Court ordering the reference in the first instance. The compensation of the referee and reporter as well as any other taxable costs shall be allocated between the respective Parties by the referee as a part of the judgment. 12.1.5. Post-Trial Proceedinqs. The referee shall hear all motions or proceedings that may be heard by a judge following entry of judgment, including motions for reconsideration, to stay execution, to tax costs including attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, to vacate judgment and for a new trial. 12.1.6. Appeal. The judgment entered on the referee's statement of decision shall be appealable in the same manner as a judgment entered by the Court, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 645. 12.2. Specific Performance. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, Owner may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. City and Owner have invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate either Party for such efforts. For the above reasons, City and Owner agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if a Party fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that each Party shall have the right to seek and obtain specific performance as a remedy for breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause Owner to proceed with the Development of the Project, or any other remedy in connection with Owner's decision whether or not to proceed with the Project. 12.3. Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies provided in this Agreement shall not be exclusive but shall, to the extent permitted by law, be cumulative and in addition to all other rights and remedies existing at law, in equity or otherwise, except those rights and remedies which have been waived. It is expressly agreed that neither City nor Owner shall be liable for punitive or exemplary damages, and each Party hereby waives its right, if any, to recover punitive or exemplary damages in connection with any breach or default by the other Party under this Agreement. 12.4. Applicability of Review. Any modification, suspension or termination of this Agreement by any Party shall be subject to judicial review unless all affected Parties have consented in writing thereto. 12.5. Attorney's Fees. In any Litigation by which one Party either seeks to enforce its rights under this Agreement or seeks a declaration of any rights or ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 27 obligations under this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees, together with any costs and expenses (including expert witness and referee costs), to resolve the dispute and to enforce the final judgment. 12.6. Third-party Challenqe. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect. The Parties shall cooperate in defending against any Litigation challenging the approval of this Agreement or any provision therein. 12.6.1. Defense of Litigation. In the event of Litigation brought by a third-party to the approval or implementation of this Agreement, or any aspect thereof, City and Owner shall jointly cooperate in the defense. The Parties may, but are not required to, develop an operating memorandum to further describe the details of their defense of the Litigation. Each Party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs in the trial court unless otherwise agreed. In the event the plaintiff or petitioner obtains a final judgment in its favor in the trial court, the Parties shall decide whether to pursue an appeal. If both Parties wish to appeal, then each shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal unless otherwise agreed. If one Party wishes to appeal, but the other does not, then the former Party shall be entitled to pursue the appeal at its sole cost and expense, and shall indemnify the other Party against any cost associated with the appeal. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while the third-party Litigation, including any appellate review, is pending. 12.6.2. Compliance with Judgment. No Party shall be in breach of this Agreement if it acts in conformance with a final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction entered because of a third-party challenge. 12.6.3. Review of Future Development Approval. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction determines by final judgment that City is required to conduct environmental review for any Future Development Approval, the City agrees that the benefits provided through this Agreement as described in the Recitals qualify as extraordinary benefits of the Project, for purposes of any Statement of Overriding Consideration, should feasible mitigation measures or alternatives not be available to mitigate project related impacts that are deemed significant. 12.7. Indemnification. Except to the extent of the negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Person, Owner shall indemnify, defend with legal counsel of City's reasonable approval, and hold harmless the Indemnified Persons from and against each and every claim, action, proceeding, cost, fee, legal cost, damage, award or liability of any nature arising from alleged damages caused to third parties and alleging that City is liable for such damages as a direct or indirect result of City's approval of this Agreement. Owner's obligation to indemnify is subject to and conditioned upon the Indemnified Person's timely written request to Owner to defend and/or indemnify. Any such request shall be made immediately upon such Person's becoming aware of a claim which could reasonably give rise to Owner's obligations under this Section. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 28 12.8. Validation. City shall initiate and pursue to final judgment a validation action confirming the validity and legality of this Agreement. Owner shall reimburse City for one-half of City's legal fees and costs in the validation action, not to exceed $10,000.00. To obtain reimbursement, City shall provide statements to Owner in care of Susan L. Walker, Senior Counsel, at her address as described in Section 15.2. 13. ENCUMBRANCES AND LENDERS. 13.1. Right to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit an Owner of any interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, at any time or from time to time in any manner, at its sole discretion, from Encumbering the Property, the improvements thereon, or any portion thereof with a lease, mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement or other security device. City acknowledges that any Lender may require certain interpretations of or modifications to the Agreement or the Project and City agrees, upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Owner or representatives of such Lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City further agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification to the extent such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement and does not impair the Development and construction of the public improvements identified herein. A default under this Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Lender. 13.2. Notice of Default to Lender. After providing a written request for notice to City, any Lender shall be'entitled to receive a copy of any notice of default to Owner under this Agreement. As a pre-condition to the institution of Litigation or termination proceedings, City shall deliver to Owner and all such Lenders written notification of any default by Owner in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement which is not cured within sixty (60) Days (the "Second Notice of Default") and shall allow the Lender an opportunity to cure such the defaults. The Second Notice of Default shall specify in detail the alleged default and the suggested means to cure it. After receipt of the Second Notice of Default, each Lender shall have the right, at its sole option, within ninety (90) Days to cure the default or, if the default cannot reasonably be cured within that ninety (90) Day period, to commence to cure the default, in which case no default shall exist and City shall take no further action. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the default can only be remedied by the Lender obtaining possession of the Property or any portion thereof, and the Lender seeks to obtain possession, the Lender shall have until ninety (90) Days after obtaining possession to cure or, if the default cannot reasonably be cured within that period, to commence to cure the default. A Lender shall not be required to cure any non-curable default of Owner, and any such default shall be deemed cured if any Lender obtains possession. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 29 14. WAIVERS AND DELAYS. 14.1. No Waiver. No waiver of a breach, failure of any condition, or any right or remedy contained in or granted by the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party waiving the breach, failure, right or remedy. No waiver of any breach, failure, right or remedy shall be deemed a waiver of any other breach, failure, right or remedy, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing so specifies. 14.2. Extension by A.qreement. The time for performance of any obligation under this Agreement may be extended by the mutual agreement of the Parties. The City Manager and any officer of Owner are authorized to execute any such agreement on behalf of their respective Parties. 14.3. Force Maieure. A Party shall not be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the Party's control, and (as to Owner) Laws (including voter initiative or referenda, moratoria, and judicial decisions) occurring within or affecting Development within the City of Temecula. 14.4. Extensions. The Term of this Agreement and the time for performance by a Party of any of its obligations hereunder shall be extended by the period of time that any of the events described in Section 14.3 exist or prevent performance of such obligations. In addition, the Term shall be extended for delays arising from the following events for a time equal to the duration of each delay which occurs during the Term: 14.4.1. Litigation. The period of time after the Agreement Date during which Litigation is pending that relates to this Agreement or to the Development contemplated thereby. This period shall include any time during which appeals may be filed or are pending. 14.4.2. Other Delays. Any delay resulting from an act or omission of City in breach of this Agreement; or the failure of any other governmental agency or public utility to act when the failure to act is beyond Owner's control. 14.5. Notice of Delay. A Party shall give notice to the other Party of any delay that it believes to have occurred because of an event described in Sections 14.3 and 14.4. To be effective, a notice of delay shall be given within thirty (30) Days after the end of the delay. No notice shall be allowed during the thirty (30) day period before the end of the Term. 15. NOTICES. 15.1. Manner of Givinq Notice. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, or sent by first-class mail, certified mail (return receipt requested), or overnight delivery. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 30 15.2. Address for Notices. Notices to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attn.: City Manager With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1469 Attn.: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Notices to Owner shall be addressed as follows: Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 26531 Ynez Road Temecula, Ca. 92591-4628 Attention: Vice President Customer Service and Site Operations With a copy to: Susan L. Walker, Esq. Senior Counsel Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 3200 Lakeside Drive Mail Stop No. S-314 Santa Clara, Ca. 94054 And with a copy to: Michael R. Woods, Esq. 465 1st Street West, Suite 200 Sonoma, Ca. 95476-6600 15.3. Effective Date of Notices. When personally delivered to the recipient, notice is effective on delivery. When mailed first class, postage prepaid, to the last address of the recipient known to the Party giving notice, notice is effective three mail delivery days after deposit in a United States Postal Service office or mailbox. When mailed certified mail, return receipt requested, notice is effective on receipt, if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt. When delivered by overnight delivery service, charges ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 31 prepaid or charged to the sender's account, notice is effective on delivery, if delivery is confirmed by the delivery service. 15.4. Undeliverable Notice. A correctly addressed notice that is refused, unclaimed, or undeliverable because of an act or omission of the Party to be notified shall be deemed effective as of the first date that such notice was refused, unclaimed or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities, messenger or overnight delivery service. 15.5. Chanqe of Address. A Party may change its address for notices by giving notice in writing to the other Party as required herein. Thereafter, notices shall be sent to the new address. 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 16.1. Opinions of Counsel. Within twenty (20) Days after this Agreement has become legally effective, counsel for City shall provide to Owner a legal opinion substantially in the form attached as Exhibit "K." Within twenty (20) Days after this Agreement has become legally effective, counsel for Owner shall provide to City a legal opinion substantially in the form attached as Exhibit "L." 16.2. Binding Covenants. To the extent permitted by law, the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants that shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors in interest. 16.3. Relationship of the Parties. Development of the Property is a private project in which neither City nor Owner will be acting as the agent of the other in any respect. City and Owner are independent entities with respect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties, nor shall it cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise. 16.4. Recordinq. The City Clerk shall record this Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof in the Official Records of Riverside County as required by Government Code Section 65868.5. Recordation shall be without fee as provided by Government Code Section 27383. 16.5. Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any circumstance, shall at any time or to any extent, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then the remainder of this Agreement, or the application thereof to circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall be valid and enforceable, to the fullest extent permitted by law, and interpreted in the manner most consistent with effectuating the Par[les' intent by the party benefited. 16.6. Interpretation and Governinq Law. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 32 meaning. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any choice of law rules thereof which may direct the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of City, and in particular, City's police powers. 16.7. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement nor affect any of the rights or obligations of the Parties. 16.8. Word Usage. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (i) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (ii) the masculine, feminine and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (iii) "shall," "will" or "agrees" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive; (iv) "or" is not exclusive; and (v) "include," "includes" and "including" are not limiting. 16.9. No Joint and Several Liability. At any time that there is more than one Owner, no breach hereof by an Owner shall constitute a breach by any other Owner. Any remedy, obligation, or liability, arising due to such breach shall be applicable solely to the Owner that committed the breach. However, City shall send a copy of any notice of default to all Owners, including those not in breach. 16.10. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 16.11. Counting Days. Days shall be counted by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday, and then it shall be excluded. Any act required by this Agreement to be performed by a certain day shall be timely performed if completed before 5:00 p.m. local time on that date. If the day for performance of any obligation under this Agreement is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday, then the time for performance of that obligation shall be extended to 5:00 p.m. local time on the first following day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. As used in this Section, "legal holiday" means those days observed as holidays by the City of Temecula (excluding floating and half-day holidays) pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 2.32.010 as of July 1, 2002, which holidays are listed in Exhibit "M." 16.12. Recitals. Each recital set forth at the beginning of this Agreement is incorporated here by reference, as though fully set forth herein, and agreed by the Parties to be true and correct. 16.13. Exhibits. Each exhibit attached to this Agreement is incorporated here by reference, as though fully set forth herein. 16.14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 33 supersedes all previous negotiations, discussion and agreements between the Parties, and no parole evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. No Party has been induced to enter into this Agreement by, nor is any Party relying on, any representation or warranty outside those expressly set forth in this Agreement. 16.15. Survival of Obliqations. It is understood and agreed by the Parties that whether or not it is specifically so provided herein any term or provision of this Agreement, which by its nature and effect is required to be kept, observed, or performed after termination or expiration of this Agreement, shall survive such expiration or termination, and shall be and remain binding upon and for the benefit of the Parties until fully observed, kept or performed. 16.16. Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly provided in this Section 16.16, this Agreement is not intended, nor shall it be construed, to create any third party beneficiary rights in any person. All provisions hereof are for the exclusive benefit of City and Owner. No provision hereof shall be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any third party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the owners of properties with frontage on Motor Car Parkway shall be express third party beneficiaries of City's obligations as set forth in Exhibits "H," "H-l," "H-2" and "H-3," with the right to enforce performance of such obligations. 16.17. Ambiguities. Each Party and its counsel have participated fully in the review and revision of this Agreement. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. 16.18. Counterparts; Duplicate Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. This Agreement may also be executed in duplicate originals for both Parties, and each such document shall constitute an original Agreement. 16.19. Necessary Acts. The Parties shall at their own cost and expense execute and deliver such further documents and instruments and shall take such other actions as may be reasonably required or appropriate to evidence or carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. // ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 34 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year dated below. Dated: ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation By: Name: John M. Capek, Ph.D. Title: President By: Name: Mark A. Murray Title: Vice President, Finance And Business Development Dated: CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Mayor A'I-I'EST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 35 Development Agreement Index to Exhibits Exhibit A A-1 B Title Legal Description (7 acre +/- portion) Legal Description (20 acre +/- portion) Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development C Project Design Guidelines D Setback Plane illustration 1 D-1 Setback Plane Illustration 2 D-2 Setback Plane Definitions and Restrictions E Approved Access Points F Off-site Public Improvements F-1 Margarita Road/Solana Way Striping Plan Page 1 On-site Public Improvements H Motor Car Parkway Engineering Standards H-1 to H-3 Motor Car Parkway - Upgrades to Public Street Standards Development Processing Fees Development Impact Fees K City's Legal Opinion L Owner's Legal Opinion M Legal Holidays Page 2 Exhibit "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPROXIMATE 7 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23354, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 152 PAGES 74 TO 76, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND AS AMENDED BY CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 1988 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 373108 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPT ALL MINERAL, OIL AND GAS RIGHTS BELOW THE DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED TO KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BY DEEDS RECORDED DECEMBER 16, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NOS. 354622 AND 354624 BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Exhibit "A-1" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPROXIMATE 20 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOT 9 OF TRACT NO. 3334, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGES 25 TO 30, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT C OF FINAL DECREE OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2000-059678, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Exhibit "B" RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT The City's rules, regulations and policies affecting development, as defined in Section 1.41, shall include the following: 1. The City's General Plan, as defined in Section 1.24. 2. The City's Development Code, as defined in Section 1.11. 3. City Ordinances that govern the Development of real property, in effect on the Agreement Date. 4. The City's written submittal requirements that govern the processing of Development applications, in effect on the Agreement Date. 5, The Tentative Parcel Map and conditions of approval, as defined in Section 1.42. 6. Future Development Approvals, as defined in Section 1.23. 7. The Project Design Guidelines, as set forth in Exhibit "C." The City Clerk has certified as true and correct copies, two complete sets of the documents described in items one through seven, above. Each Party acknowledges receipt of one set of the referenced documents. Exhibit B City Rules 082802 Exhibit "C" PROJECT DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTIONS: 3 4 5 6 Purpose and Intent Relationship to Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines Architectural Design Concept Supplemental Design Standards Architectural and Landscape Palette Addendum Minor Modification of the Project Design Guidelines Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of these Project Design Guidelines ("Project Design Guidelines" or "Guidelines") is to provide additional details concerning the design of the Project, including pre-approved colors, materials and landscaping palettes. The Guidelines are intended to provide supplemental design information on the buildings to be constructed as part of the Project. The overall scale of the Project is determined in the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. ("Agreement"). These Project Design Guidelines are attached as an exhibit to the Agreement. Capitalized terms in these Guidelines shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 1 of the Agreement. Section 2. Relationship to Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. These Project Design Guidelines supplement the general development standards and criteria in the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. When there is disagreement between the Guidelines and the Citywide Design Guidelines, the Project Design Guidelines shall control. If there is disagreement between the Agreement and the Project Design Guidelines or the Citywide Design Guidelines, the Agreement shall control. The following development standards in effect on the Agreement Date shall apply to the Project, except as otherwise provided in the Agreement and these Guidelines: a) The development and performance standards applicable to the Business Park Zone set forth in Chapters 17.08 and 17.24 of the Development Code; b) The landscape requirements and standards applicable to office Development set forth in Chapters 17.08, 17.24, and 17.32 of the Development Code; c) Chapters 6 and 8 of the Citywide Design Guidelines; and EXHIBIT Exhibit C Design Guidelines 090902 Page 1 d) The City's Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. Section 3. Architectural Design Concept. The Project is not intended to replicate or overshadow any portion of the City, but rather to complement the City and adjacent properties and to help accomplish the Project's objective of creating a "corporate campus." The Owner's objective is that the Project should be an asset to the City and region, as well as to the Owner. Scale, mass and orientation should be visually interesting and appealing from the perspective of neighboring inhabitants (both commercial and residential) and passers-by, while simultaneously being efficient and sensitive to the Owner's needs. Structures and amenities should be sensitive and responsive to the local climate. Colors, material and texture are to be varied and consistent with the surrounding region and evocative of its culture. The Project should link the Property to the Existing Facilities as needed to facilitate any shared uses and activities. Section 4. Supplemental Desiqn Standards. a) The following architectural and site design concepts shall be considered in the design of the Project: 1) Design should be complementary or consistent with desirable characteristics of the surrounding area in a way that contributes to the establishment of a positive character for the area. 2) While the principal buildings may be predominantly rectangular they shall be designed in such a manner to avoid the appearance of a box-like design and avoid excessive mass and bulk. 3) Roof top equipment and machinery (exclusive of communications antennas) will be screened from public view by parapet walls or other integrated architectural features. 4) The building design will incorporate varying architectural elements, such as materials, textures, colors, window sizes and fa(;ade composition, in order to create interest and a variety of scale. 5) Main building entrances will incorporate additional features to emphasize their location. 6) A variety of complementary colors should be used, not just one color. The base color and materials for principal office buildings in close proximity to one another should be complementary. For example, the color and materials utilized for the Existing Facilities are consistent with these Guidelines. EXHIBIT "C" Page 2 Exhibit C Design Guidelines 090902 7) Parking structures will be designed in a manner to complement the principal office buildings. Additional architectural design elements will be applied to highly visible surfaces. 8) Water features are encouraged to enhance outdoor spaces and create pleasant summer micro-climates. 9) Project signage shall be approved through the submittal of a Sign Program approved by the City's Director of Planning. b) The following landscape design concepts shall be considered in the design of Project landscaping: 1) Recognize and reflect existing landscape and streetscape qualities evidenced by established planting patterns along Solana Way and Margarita Road. 2) Continue and extend landscape qualities from the Existing Facilities, including careful attention to pedestrian amenities such as shaded and safe walkways, courtyards, open spaces and gardens. 3) Incorporate xeriscape and water conserving practices in the selection and use of plant materials and irrigation systems. 4) Incorporate native and drought tolerant vegetation to the maximum extent practical. Section 5. Architectural and Landscaping Palette Addendum. The architectural and landscape palettes for the Project are located in the Addendum to the Project Design Guidelines, further captioned, "Project Design Guidelines and Approved Architectural and Landscape Palettes" (the "Addendum"). The Addendum includes various colored exhibits. Copies of the Addendum shall be maintained by the City Clerk's Office and the City Planning Department. a) Part One of the Addendum sets forth the approved architectural palette for the Project. The Development may use any of the materials and colors in Part One of the Addendum; provided, however, that the darkest shade of sienna (page 5 of the Addendum) shall not be the predominant color of any building, but instead used only as an accent color, except as otherwise approved by the Planning Director. The architectural palette is intended to facilitate modern structures that reflect their place in time, aesthetically, environmentally and technologically. The palette complements its location, and is cognizant of and sensitive to the immediate neighbors and the City at large. The architectural palette includes the list of approved exterior treatments, including glass, metal, plaster, concrete and stone. The palette also includes color boards and photographs that show examples of color combinations and exterior treatments. Photographs of EXHIBIT ~C' Page 3 Exhibit C Design Guidelines 090902 particular structures are intended for illustrative purposes only, to show how other projects have made use of the approved colors and materials. b) Part Two of the Addendum sets forth the approved landscape palette for the Project. The Development may use any of plant materials identified for the characteristic landscape zones for the Project. This palette describes nine characteristic landscape zones, and identifies suitable plant materials for use in each zone. c) The architectural and landscape palette Addendum includes a site plan concept, to provide an example of a possible configuration of structures and landscape zones on the Property. While this configuration is consistent with the Agreement and the Project Design Guidelines, other configurations can also satisfy these requirements. Nothing in the Design Guidelines is intended to require that the Owner construct the exact project or utilize the configuration shown on the conceptual site plan. An application for Development Plan approval shall set forth the Owner's intended configuration of structures described in the application, and the use of approved materials, colors, landscape zones and plant materials. Section 6. Minor Modifications to the Project Design Guidelines. The Planning Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the architectural and landscape palettes set forth in the Addendum. All minor modifications shall be made in writing, and set forth in an operating memorandum as described in Section 6.2. A copy of the approved minor modifications shall be maintained by the City Clerk and Planning Department. The Planning Director shall have the discretion to determine whether a particular modification is minor and may be processed administratively, or whether the modification requires consideration by the Planning Commission. No public hearing shall be required for the Planning Commission to consider any proposed modifications. The Planning Commission's decision shall be subject to appeal to the City Council. EXHIBIT "C" Page 4 Exhibit C Design Guidelines 090902 .~35'-0" / ? / EXHIBIT "D-I": Setback Plane Illustration 2 Exhibit "D-2" SETBACK PLANE DEFINITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 1. Definitions. As used in Section 2.3.4 and Exhibits D and D-l, the following terms shall have the stated meanings. (a) "Solana Property Line" marks the southernmost extent of the Property at Solana Way, extending from the Margarita Property Line to the point where Owner's western property line meets Solana Way. (b) "Margarita Properly Line" marks the easternmost extent of the Property at Margarita Road, extending from the Solana Property Line to the point where Owner's northern property line meets Margarita Road. (c) "Midpoints": There are four midpoints. (1) Midpoint"A" is the point on the Margarita Property Line that is equidistant between Owner's northern property line and the middle of Street "B" as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map. (2) Midpoint "B" is the point on the Margarita Property Line that is equidistant between the middle of Street "B" and the Solana Property Line. (3) Midpoint "C" is the point on the Solana Way Property Line that is equidistant between the Margarita Property Line and the middle of the access from the Property to Solana Way as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map. (4) Midpoint "D" is the point on the Solana Property Line that is equidistant between the middle of the access from the Property to Solana Way as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map, and Owner's western property line where it meets Solana Way. (d) "Fifty Foot Points": There are four Fifty Foot Points, corresponding with each of the four Midpoints. Each Fifty Foot Point is established by extending a horizontal line from a Midpoint thirty-five (35) feet into the Property, and then going up vertically by fifty (50) feet. (e) "Setback Area" extends thirty-five (35) feet from the Margarita Property Line and the Solana Property Line, into the Property. No buildings shall be constructed above finished grade within the Setback Area. Underground structures are permissible within the Setback Area. Owner shall landscape the Setback Area consistent with an approved Development Plan. (f) "Setback Planes": There are four Setback Planes, corresponding with each of the four Midpoints (and the line Exhibit D-2 081502.doc segment from which each was created), and each of the four Fifty Foot Points. Each Setback Plane is established by extending a line from the Midpoint at an angle to intersect with its corresponding Fifty Foot Point. Each Setback Plane continues at that angle (up and westerly from Margarita Road; up and northerly from Solana Way). (See Exhibits "D" and D- 1.") Each Setback Plane may be referred to by the letter of its corresponding midpoint; e.g., Setback Plane "A" is the plane that relates to Midpoint "A." Section 2. Setback Plane Height Restriction. Notwithstanding the eighty (80) foot height limitation generally applicable to the Property, no structure shall be higher than a respective Setback Plane. Examples: (i) A building located west of Margarita Road and between Street "B" and Owner's northern property line shall not be higher than the level of Setback Plane "A." (ii) A building located west of Margarita Road and between Street "B" and Solana Way shall not be higher than the level of Setback Planes "B" and "C." (iii) A building located west of Margarita Road and north of Solana Way, between Margarita Road and the access from the Property to Solana Way as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map, shall not be higher than the level of Setback Planes "B" and "C." (iv) A building located north of Solana Way and west of the access to Solana Way as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall not be higher than the level of Setback Plane "D." Exhibit D-2 081502.doc EXHIBIT "E" APPROVED ACCESS POINTS J GUIDANT CORPOP, A~ION CAMPUS, Temecu~a, California - 00287:50 Exhibit "F" OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS I. Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 30107 Conditioned Public Improvements Improve Solana Way (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, raised landscaped median. The intent of this condition is that the improvements shall extend along the frontage of the Property, and that the median shall remain open at Motor Car Parkway. The final geometric configuration of this median, including other possible openings for existing driveways, shall be as directed by the City Engineer at the time of final design. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/VV) to include installation of a deceleration lane to access the private Street "A." Said lane is to be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and is to include a transitional distance of 120 feet. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/VV) to include median/striping modifications, etc. to provide for a full turning movement driveway (i.e., left turn in from Margarita Road onto private Street "B"). Note: Other property owners within the TPM other than the City and Guidant will be partially responsible for a portion of these improvements required by the TPM. II. Additional Public Improvements Reserve 12 feet of the Property along its frontage on Margarita Road for future City purchase to allow for an additional 12 foot wide southbound lane, as further described in Section 2.12 of the Agreement. The cost of constructing the additional lane shall be at the City's expense. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standard - 110' RNV) to include median/striping modifications to provide for double left turn lanes from southbound Margarita Road to eastbound Solana Way, as shown in Exhibit "F-I." The improvements shall include modification of the traffic signal and widening of the pavement on Solana Way east of Margarita Road to accept the double left turn traffic. The required widening shall be adequate to provide for two full eastbound lanes east of Margarita Road and a transitional distance, with a combined length of up to Exhibit F Offsites 081902.doc 600'. The City represents that it has sufficient RNV along the south side of Solana Way to accommodate this required widening. Improve Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to include installation of a deceleration lane to access Motor Car Parkway. The lane shall be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and shall include a transitional distance of 120 feet. The deceleration lane shall be included within existing public R/W through a combination of restriping of the northbound side of Ynez Road, along with modifications to the traffic signal at Motor Car Parkway. Improve Motor Car Parkway to acceptable City standards, as described in Exhibit "H." Improve and reconstruct the median in Margarita Road south of private Street "B" to accommodate a single northbound left turn into Street "B." Signalize the intersection of Margarita Road at Street "B" as a full function, four-way intersection. All improvements shall include installation of paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and raised landscaped median as reasonably determined by the City Engineer. Engineering specifications set forth in this Agreement shall be subject to modification by agreement of the City Engineer and Owner as set forth in an operating memorandum as described in Section 6.2. III. Pedestrian Bridge Construct the pedestrian bridge across Ynez Road in the vicinity of Motor Car Parkway that will connect the Existing Facilities with the Project as described in Section 2.13. Exhibit F Offsites 081902.doc Exhibit "F-I" MARGARITA ROAD/ ~OLANA WAY STRIPING PLAN Exhibit "G" ON-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 1. Traffic signal easement to support loop detectors on the westerly leg of the Margarita Road/Street "B" intersection. Note: On-site public improvements which may be required by public agencies other than City are not referenced here. Exhibit G On-Sites 081602.doc Exhibit "H" MOTOR CAR PARKVVAY ENGINEERING STANDARDS Improvements to Motor Car Parkway shall be subject to and include the following: Removal and replacement of broken or heaved concrete within the public right of way; Removal and replacement of all brick pavers, asphalt pavement and base materials with the replacement asphalt pavement structural section to be designed to support a Traffic Index of 7.0; Extend the storm drain system to the curbline to remove the cross gutter and median curb inlets in the street; Place sidewalk on both sides of the street, wherever sidewalk does not exist as of the Agreement Date; Replace substandard driveway approaches with commercial driveways with handicap access, or as an alternative, at Owner's election, seek and obtain an encroachment permit from City to allow individual property owners to continue to maintain non-standard driveways within the public right of way. Driveways may only remain under circumstances where the existing sidewalk meets or can be modified to meet ADA standards. Approval of a requested encroachment permit shall not be unreasonably withheld by City; Retain the landscaped median islands and modify as described in Exhibits H-l, H-2 and H-3. Modify the street light system to meet standards as described in Exhibits H-l, H-2 and H-3. Perform other improvements as necessary to meet the requirements described in Exhibits H-l, H-2 and H-3. A new City standard street dedication, 84' wide, shall be part of the grant of dedication to City as shown on Exhibits H-l, H-2 and H-3. The existing private street easement for Motor Car Parkway may be quitclaimed by the property owners. 10. The dedication of right of way for the street will create circumstances where existing buildings are within setback areas typically required by Exhibit H Motor Car Parkway 092602 11. City. City would not ordinarily allow structures or parking within such areas. City agrees that no existing structure, on-site parking or use shall be considered nonconforming as a result of the dedication of the street to City, and that all such structures, parking and uses shall be considered conforming as to setback requirements. City may require any new buildings, on-site parking or use to comply with its applicable setback requirements. Owner shall submit a set of improvement plans to City for its review and reasonable approval, showing existing conditions and proposed modifications, consistent with Exhibits H through H-3. Exhibit H Motor Car Parkway 092602 EXHIBIT 'H-1 ' MOTOR CAR PARKWAY - UPGRADES TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS (REFER TO EXHIBIT H-3 FOR DESCRIPTIONS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS) MOTOR CAR PARKWAY AL TERNA TEI LOCATION OF TRANSPORTER DROP-OFT ~ SEE DETAIL 'A' AT LEFT ~CA TE ~ SIDEWALK ~ ~'%'l,Z/Lr ~ A~TERNArE 2 I ~~ ] LOCATION OF TRAMS- ~ ~ ~ li~, ~ PORTER OROP-OFF. SCALE t" = 80' EXHBI[ ~-2 ALE I LOCATION OF ~ LECEND MA TCHLINE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS/ACCESS EASEMENT LINE Planning and Engi~ee~ng ~ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS/PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY LhV~ 4933 Paramount, Dr. 2nd Fir. ~ INDICATES REFERENCE TO SPECIRC TYPES OF San Diego, Ca. 92123 UPGRADES OR IMPROVEMENTS - SEE EXHIBIT H-5 Tel 858:75t-0633 Fax 858-751-0634 FOR 5PECIFIC~ DATE:9-4-02 JOB: 570,0 EXHIBIT 'H- 2 ' MOTOR CAR PARKWAY - UPGRADES TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS (REFER TO EXHIBIT H-3 FOR DESCRIPTIONS .OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS) MA TCHLINE AL TERNA TE 2 L OCA rlON OF TRANSPORTER DROP-OFF. SEE DETAIL '8' BELOW RIGHT 145 YELLOW 2- WA Y LEFt TURN MEDIAN A. C, PA VINO EXIS[ MEDIAN CURB AND LANDSCAPING SOLANA WAY ~ SCALE I" = 80' La i ttde 33 Pl~r~r~rrg av.d Ev. gineeT~ng 4933 Paramount Dr. 2nd Fir. San Diego, Ca. 92123 Tel 858-751-0633 Fax 858-751-0634 DALE:9-04-02 JO~ 570.0 INLETS STREET LIGHT MEDIAN CURB AL TERNA TE 2 tOGA T/ON OF TRANSPORTER DROP-OFF (SEE EXHIBIT H- 1 FOR PLAN LOCATION) NO SCALE EXHIBIT 'H- 3 ' MOTOR CAR PARKWAY - UPGRADES TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS (REFER ALSO TO EXHIBIT H-I & H-2 FOR PLAN LOCATIONS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS) I. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING PRIVATE ACCESS BASEMEN1: ALL PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS CAN BE QUITCLAIMEO BY OWNERS UPON ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICAtiON BY CITY: 2. PROPOSEO PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA DEDICATED BY THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OY~NERS. $. PROPOSEO SIDEWALK EASEMENT TO BE GRANTEO TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENCOMPASS EXISTING MEANDERING SIDEWALK. 4. EXISTING CURB AND SIDEWALK TO GENERALLY REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLAN. ALL BROKEN OR HEAVED ELEMENTS OF CURB, SIDEWALK, & CROSS GUTTERS TO BE REMOVEO& REPLACEO. 5. EXISTING A.C. ORIVEWAY TO BE REMOVEO-ORIVEWAY IS TOO STEEP TO MEET A.O.A. CROSSING STANDARO5 ANO 15 CURRENTLY FENCED OFF FROM USE BY PROPERTY OWNER. REPLACE WITH NEW CURB, GUTTER, ANO CONTIGUOUS SIOEWALK AND LANOSCAPING TO MATCH EXISTING. 6. EXISTING A.C. pAVING AND BRICK PAVERS TO BE ENTIRELY REMOVED BETWEEN LIMITS OF CURBS/CROSS GUTTERS/),CEDIAN CURBS AND REPLACED WITH CITY STANDARD ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER AGGREOATE BASE, STRUCTURAL SECTION TO MEET A TRAFFIC INDEX OF 7.0. 7. RECONSTRUCT EXIBTINO MEDIAN CURB INLETS AS STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT MANHOLES. 8. RAISE ELEVATION OF MEDIAN CURB Ill THIS AREA TO GENERATE I 1/2~ CROWN TO OUTER CURBS AND TO NEW CURB INLETS. 9. INSTALL NEW CURB INLETS TO CITY STANDARDS A T LOW POINT IN STREEI~ INSTALL STORM DRAIN CONNECTORS AS REQUIRED. 10. EXISTING STREET LIGHTS IN MEDIANS ALONG NORTH-SOUTH PORTION OF MOTOR CAR PARKWAY SHALL BE REPLACED WiTH DUAL OPPOSING LUMINARIES EOUIVALENT TO CITY STANDARO STREET LIOHTS MOUNTED ON THE EXISTING POLES FOR USE IN THE MEDIAN. IF EXIStiNG POLES, OR POLES AND FOUNDATIONS, CANNOT BE REUSED FOR REIROFITTING NEW LUMINAIRES, THEN THEY SHALL BE REPLACED WITH EOUIVALENT CITY STANDARD POLES, OR POLES AND FOUNDATIONS. EXISTINO CONDUIT RUNS MAY BE PRESERVED. NOTE THAT LOCATIONS OF EXISTINQ STREET LIGHTS ARE APPROXIMATE BUT I~E ACTUAL LOCATION AND NUMBER OF LIGHTS MAY NOT BE CORRECTLY DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT H-L II. EXISTING STREET LIOHTS IN MEDIANS ALONG THE EAST-WEST PORTION OF MOTOR CAR PARKWAY SHALL BE REPLACED AS PER NOTE 10 ABOVe. IF THE MEDIANS IN THIS SEGMENT OF ROAD ARE REMOVED, AT GUIDANT'S ELECTION, TO ACCOMMODATE NEW STREET STRIPINO, HOWEVER, THEN THE LIOHTS SHALL BE REPLACED WiTH STANDARD CITY STREET LIGHTS LOCATED IN THE PARKWA~ 12. MEDIANS IN THE NORTH-SOUTH PORTION OF MOTOR CAR PARKWAY MAY REMAIN BUT THE LANDSCAPING SHALL BE TRIMMED OR REMOVED WHERE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SIGHT DISTANCE SAFETY 5TANOARDS. THE TURF LANDSCAPING (GRASS) IN THE MEDIANS SHALL BE REMOVEO AND REPLACEO WITH A LOWER MAINTENANCE, LOWER WATER DEMAND MATERIAL. 15, MEOIANS IN THE EAST-WEST PORTION OF MOTOR CAR PARKWAY MAY ALSO REMAIN IN PLACE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIEO IN ITEM 12 ABOVE; OR, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AT GUIDANT'S ELECTION, MAY BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH ASPHALT PAVING AS DESCRIBEO IN NOTE 6 ABOVE IN THE EVENT THIS AREA IS REOUIREO FOR LANE STRIPING. 14. SEE NO TE 4 REGARDING REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE ALL BROKEN OR HEAVEO CONCRETE. MAIN TENANCE OF TURF IN THE PARK WA YS (S TRIP OF LAND BETWEEN CURB ANO RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE.) IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE P.O.A. OR ADJACENT OWNERS AND MAY REMAIN. 15. THESE DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A cIrY OF TEMECULA STANDARD CONCRETE COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY WITH STANOARD FLARES (CURRENTLY THE ORIVES ARE "RADIUSEO RETURN" DRIVES H'ITI-t ASPHALT OR BRICK PAVING). AS AN ALTERNATIVE. DRIVE MAY BE LEFT IN PLACE AND AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT OBTAINED BY THE ADJACENT OWNER ALLOWING THE EXIStiNG NON-STANOARO ORIVEWAY TO REMAIN. 16. THESE DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED TO FLARED, CONCRETE PAVEO STANDARD COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY. THE VERTICAL RAMP IN THE APRON SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RETAIN ALL STREET GUTTER FLOW WiTHIN THE STREET AND PREVENT STREET DRAINAGE FROM ENTERING THE PRI VA TE PROPER T Y .- _ IZ THE OWNERS OF THE FRONTING PROPERTY ALONG MOTOR CAR PARKWAY MAY ELECT TO ADB A TRANSPORTER TRUCK DROP OFF AREA. SAID OROP-OFF SHALL BE DESIGNED TO THE APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN ON DETAIL 'A' ON EXHIBIT 'H-I' OR EXHIBIT 'B' ON EXHIBIT H-2. THE PURPOSE OF THE DROP-OFF SHALL BE FOR THE TEMPORARY PARKING OF AUTO-TRANSPORTER TRUCKS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE UNLOADING OF VEHICLES WITHOUT OISRUPTION TO TRAFFIC OR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. TWO POSSIBLE LOCATIONS OF THIS DROP-OFF ARE IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBITS H-I & H-2; HOWEVER. THE FINAL LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF SAID DROP-OFF IS SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA. THE CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF THE FINAL DROP-OFF LOCATION AND ITS GEOMETRY 5HALL BE THE SUBJECT OF AN EVALUATION FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONED BY GUIDAN?~ Laiit zde 33 4933 Paramount Dr. 2nd Fir. San Diego. Ca. 9~123 Tel 858-751-0633 Fax 858-751-0634 18. EXISTING 24" DIAMETER PUBLIC STORM DRAIN PER COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DWG NO. 847-EE WiTHIN STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS GRANTED PER PARCEL MAP NO. 25.]54 (TWO LOCATIONS). STORM DRAINS TO REMAIN PUBLIC AND TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA. DATE:9-04-02 JOB: 570.0 Exhibit "I" DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEES Anticipated Fee Worksheet and Fee Amounts This preliminary fee worksheet is a guide to potential fees that may be assessed for the Guidant Expansion Project and is based upon information provided by the applicant. (The applicant is ultimately responsible for verifying the accuracy of the fee amounts.) In some cases, until detailed project plans have been submitted, the amounts for many of the expected fees cannot be determined. Project Location: Project Square Footage/Acreage: Project Description: Application Type: East of Ynez Road, north of Solana Way and West of Margarita Road Approximately 480,000 sq ft on 27.75 acres An office complex for the Guidant Corporation in a campus setting with parking, with accessory facilities such as a fitness center, childcare, and food services. Development Plan Prior to Approval Payable at Application Submittal to the Community Development Department Comprehensive Development Plan for the site and structures (excludes revisions) ........ $ 5,880.00 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Fee * ............................................................ 0.00 Development Review Committee (DRC) Landscape Plan Fee ............................................. 200.00 Traffic Study (if required, the cost would be $780) ............................................................... 0.00 City of Temecula Total Application Filing Fee ......................................................................... $ 6,080.00 UCR Regents Fee (Separate Check) ........................................................................................ 45.00 Department of Environmental Health (Separate Check) ........................................................ 136.00 Total Application Filing Fee ......................................................................................................... $6~261~.~0_ After Approval Planning Payable Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of Project Approval Notice of Determination ** ......................................................................................................... $ 64.00 Payable Prior to Grading Permit Issuance Stephens Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fees ($500.00/gross acre) *** ............................................... $ 3,500.00 Payable at Building Plan Submittal Consistency Check (for each separate construction phase) .......................................................... $ 370.00 Payable Prior to Building Permit Issuance Landscape Plan Check (assumes 30% site landscaping) ............................................................... $ 2,970.00 Landscape Inspection ..................................................................................................................... $ 225.00 Submit Prior to Certificate of Occupancy Landscape Maintenance Bond (Per DA: Corporate guarantee will be accepted) .......................... $ 0.00 Building and Safety (ASSUMES TYPE H 1-HOUR CONSTRUCTION) Payable at Building Plan Submittal Plan Check ..................................................................................................................................... $67,598.63 Payable Prior to Building Permit Issuance Permit Fee ..................................................................................................................................... $90,131.50 Strong Motion ............................................................................................................................... $ 9,301.99 Electrical, mechanical, plumbing (based on fixture count) .......................................................... $ 7,500.00 F:\Clients\Guidant\Exhibit I Dev Processing Fees 091802.doc Fire Department Payable at Building Plan Submittal Fire Plan Check (PER BUILDiNG) .............................................................................................. $ 582.00 Payable Prior to Building Permit Issuance Fire Plan Check Inspection ............................................................................................................ (included) Fire Sprinkler (PER RISER) ............................................................................................................ $ 582.00 Manual Fire Alarm (PER SYSTEM) ............................................................................................... $ 369.00 Other Fire Suppression Systems (i.e., hood duet, spray booths, etc.) (FEE FOR EACH ONE) ....$ 369.00 Public Works/Engineering Fees for plan check and inspection are estimated based on site and street improvements (flatwork) cost exclusive of building construction. The fee is based on engineer's cost estimate. Contact Public Works Staff for assistance in calculating your Public Works fees. Engineer's construction cost estimate (ESTIMATES ARE FOR PRECISE GRADING ONLY. ROUGH GRADING AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT INCLUDED) Payable Prior to Grading Plan Submittal Plan Check Fees On-site and off-site improvements (curb and gutter, concrete flatwork, storm drain, etc.) 4% of 1st $20,000.00 $ 3.5% of next $80,000.00 $ 3.25% over $100,000.00 $ Grading (0-5,000 cubic yards) $500.00 $__ (5,001-100,000 cubic yards) $750.00 $ (+ $50.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards over 100,000 cubic yards) $1,000.00 $__ Payable Prior to Grading Permit Issuance Engineer's cost estimate $ ?. Inspection Fees On-site and off-site improvements (curb and gutter, concrete flatwork, storm drain, etc.) 4%oflst $20,000.00 $ 3.5% of next $80,000.00 $ 3.25% over $100,000.00 $__ Grading (0-500 cubic yards) $350.00 $__ (501-10,000 cubic yards) $500.00 $ (10,001-100,000 cubic yards) $1,000.00 $__ (over 100,000 cubic yards) $1,300.00 + $50.00/10,000 over 100,001 cubic yards $__ Grading Deposit ? . $995.00 $ 7. $ $ ?. Payable Prior to Encroachment Permit Issuance Encroachment Permit (for each permit, $25)) Motor Car Parkway There will also be a fee for plan check and inspection for Motor Car Parkway; the fee is expected to be about 7% of the engineer's construction cost estimate. Conununity Services District CSD-Maintained Landscape Plan Review F:\Clients\Guidant\Exhibit I Der Processing Fees 091802.doc Landscape Plan consultation with the City landscape architect (if requested, $125)) $ .9.__ Landscape Inspection Fee ($2500 for the first 10 inspections) $ .9 __ Street Lighting - Advance Energy Fee (if applicable, ranges between $120 and $300 per light) Landscape Improvements for CSD-maintained areas (e.g. medians) Faithful Performance Bond (if necessary) 100% of construction cost estimate Labor and Materials Bond (if necessary) 50% of construction cost estimate Warranty Bond (if necessary) 10% of construction cost estimate Other Agencies that will ~tssess fees on the project include: School Fees: Temecula Valley Unified School District Water: Rancho California Water District (RCWD) Sewer: Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Riverside County Health Department Riverside County Flood - Area Drainage Plan Telephone: General Telephone and Electric (GTE) Electric: Southern California Edison (SCE) $ ?. $ ?. Footnotes: * No additional CEQA processing fees are anticipated because the environmental analysis and mitigation measures have been previously identified. ** Assumes that a Notice of Determination will be filed to document that a decision was made using a previously prepared environmental document. *** Assumes the SKR Fee has already been paid on the 20 acres at the corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road; and that the Fee is due only on the seven acre site on Motor Car Parkway, unless receipts can be provided indicating payment of fees in full, then no additional fees will be assessed. F:\Clients\Guidant\Exhibit I Dev Processing Fees 091802.doc 3 Exhibit "J" DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 1. City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF), calculated at $0.866 per square foot of gross floor area. Exhibit J DIF 091002.doc Exhibit "K" CITY'S LEGAL OPINION [Date] Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 26531 Ynez Road Temecula, California 92591-4628 Attention: Vice President Customer Service and Site Operations Re: Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am the City Attorney for the City of Temecula (the "City"), and in such capacity am familiar with the relevant facts and circumstances in connection with the adoption and execution of that certain Ordinance No. of the City (the "Ordinance"), adopted by the City Council of the City (the "City Council"). The Ordinance approves a Development Agreement (the "Agreement") between the City and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. ("ACS"), authorizing the Development of approximately 27.757 acres of land in the City. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings stated in the Agreement. I have examined and relied upon such records, documents, certificates, and other matters as are in my judgment necessary to enable me to render the opinions expressed herein. In such examination, I assumed the legal capacity of all natural persons and business organizations, the genuineness of all signatures and the authenticity of all documents submitted to me as originals and the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to me as photostatic or certified copies. I have also assumed the accuracy, completeness and authenticity of all public records made available to me by the City. I have also Exhibit K City Opinion 091002 Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. [Date] Page 2 assumed that all writings I have relied on which are dated as of an earlier date are still accurate as of the date of this opinion. Based on the foregoing, and with regard to California law, I am of the opinion that: 1. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California; The Ordinance authorizing execution of the Agreement was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City which was called and held pursuant to law with all public notice required by law and at which a quorum was present and acting throughout, and the Ordinance is in full force and effect and has not been amended, modified, supplemented or rescinded; The adoption of the Ordinance and the execution and delivery of the Agreement and compliance with the provisions of the Agreement under the circumstances contemplated by the Agreement do not and will not conflict with or constitute on the part of the City, a breach of or default under any agreement or other instrument applicable to or binding upon the City or any court order, administrative order, or consent decree to which the City is a party; and Except for the validation action pending to confirm the legality of the Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and ACS (Riverside Superior Court No. RIC 373693), there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, public board or body, pending or, to my knowledge, threatened against the City: (a) to restrain or enjoin the execution or delivery of the Agreement; (b) in any way contesting the existence or powers of the City with respect to the execution and delivery of the Agreement; or (c) which is likely to adversely affect enforceability of, or the authority or the ability of the City to perform its obligations under, the Agreement and the Ordinance. The opinions set forth above are as of the date hereof only, and I assume no obligation to update or supplement this opinion to reflect any facts or circumstances that may hereafter come to my attention or any changes in law that may hereafter occur or become effective. The opinions expressed herein relate solely to, are based solely upon and are limited exclusively to the laws of the state of California. This opinion is furnished in connection with the Agreement and may not be Exhibit K City Opinion 091002 Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. [Date] Page 3 relied upon in connection with any other transaction or by any person other than you. Very truly yours, RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Cc~ By: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney City of Temecula James B. O'Grady, Assistant City Manager Susan L. Walker, Esq. Michael R. Woods, Esq. Exhibit K City Opinion 091002 Exhibit "L" OWNER'S LEGAL OPINION [Date] City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: Shawn Nelson City Manager Re: Development Aqreement between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems1 Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am counsel for Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a California corporation ("ACS"), and in such capacity am familiar with the relevant facts and circumstances in connection with approval and execution by ACS of a Development Agreement between ACS and the City of Temecula (the "Agreement"). I am also familiar with the corporate status of ACS. The Agreement was approved by the City through adoption of that certain Ordinance No. ., and authorizes the Development of approximately 27.757 acres of land in the City. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings stated in the Agreement. I have examined and relied upon such records, documents, certificates, and other matters as are in my judgment necessary to enable me to render the opinions expressed herein. In such examination, I assumed the legal capacity of all natural persons, the genuineness of all signatures and the authenticity of all documents submitted to me as originals and the conformity to original documents of all documents Exhibit L Owner Opinion 090602 City of Temecula [Date] Page 2 submitted to me as photostatic or certified copies. I have also assumed the accuracy, completeness and authenticity of certificates and of all corporate records and information made available to me by ACS. I have also assumed that all certificates dated as of an earlier date are still accurate as of the date of this opinion. Based on the foregoing, and with regard to California law, I am of the opinion that: 1. ACS is a corporation duly formed and validly existing under the laws of the State of California; The execution, delivery and performance by ACS of the Agreement are within its corporate powers. The Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on the part of ACS and has been duly executed and delivered by ACS; The execution and delivery of the Agreement and compliance with the provisions of the Agreement under the circumstances contemplated by the Agreement do not and will not conflict with or constitute on the part of ACS a breach of or default under any agreement or other instrument applicable to or binding upon ACS or any court order or consent decree to which ACS is a party; and Except for the validation action pending to confirm the legality of the Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and ACS (Riverside Superior Court No. RIC 373693), there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, public board or body, pending or, to my knowledge, threatened against ACS: (a) to restrain or enjoin the execution or delivery of the Agreement; (b) in any way contesting the existence or powers of ACS with respect to the execution and delivery of the Agreement; or (c) which is likely to adversely affect the enforceability of, or the authority or the ability of ACS to perform its obligations under, the Agreement. For purposes of factual matters relevant to the opinion expressed herein, I have relied generally upon certificates and statements of an officer of or other counsel to ACS. I have acted as outside counsel to ACS in connection with the negotiation, preparation and execution of the Agreement, but am not familiar with all of the agreements and contracts of ACS. I have not undertaken any independent investigation to determine the accuracy of any such certificates or statements, and any limited inquiry undertaken by me during the preparation of this opinion should not be regarded as such an investigation. No inference as to my knowledge of Exhibit L Owner Opinion 091802 City of Temecula [Date] Page 3 any matters bearing on the accuracy of any such statements should be drawn from the fact of my representation of ACS. In rendering this opinion, I have assumed the following: 1. There are no agreements or understandings among the Parties, written or oral, and there is no usage of trade or course of prior dealing among the Parties that would, in either case, define, supplement or qualify the provisions of the Agreement; 2. There has not been any mutual mistake of fact or misunderstanding, fraud, duress or undue influence; and 3. The conduct of the Parties to the transaction has complied with any requirement of good faith, fair dealing and conscionability. I also call to your attention the fact that under the 1989 Report of the Committee on Corporations of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California, certain assumptions, qualifications and exceptions are implicit in opinions of lawyers. Although I have expressly set forth some assumptions, qualifications and exceptions herein, I am not limiting or omitting any others set forth in such report or otherwise deemed standard by practice for lawyers in California. The opinions set forth above are as of the date hereof only, and I assume no obligation to update or supplement this opinion to reflect any facts or circumstances that may hereafter come to my attention or any changes in law that may hereafter occur or become effective. The opinions expressed herein relate solely to, are based solely upon and are limited exclusively to the laws of the state of California. This opinion is furnished in connection with the Agreement and may not be relied upon in connection with any other transaction or by any person other than you. Very truly yours, MICHAEL R. WOODS A Professional Corporation By: Michael R. Woods Exhibit L Owner Opinion 091802 City of Temecula [Date] Page 4 Cc; Susan L. Walker, Esq. Peter M. Thorson, Esq. James B. O'Grady, Assistant City Manager Exhibit L Owner Opinion 091802 Exhibit "M" LEGAL HOLIDAYS 1. New Year's Day (January 1st); 2. Martin Luther King Day (third Monday in January); 3. President's Day (third Monday in February); 4. Memorial Day (last Monday in May); 5. Independence Day (July 4th); 6. Labor Day (first Monday in September); 7. Veterans Day (November 11th); 8. Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday of November); 9. Friday following Thanksgiving Day; 10. Christmas Day (December 25th). Holidays falling on Sunday shall be observed on the following Monday. Holidays falling on Saturday shall be observed on the preceding Friday. (Reference: Temecula Municipal Code Section 2.32.010 as of July 1, 2002.) ATrACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 11 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUIDANT CORPORATION" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0217) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation applied for development agreement with the City on April 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in City Resolution 91-52 and the Development Code, the City of Temecula has initiated said Development Agreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems; Planning Application No. 02-0217, (hereinafter "Development Agreement"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued this item at the September 18, 2000 and October 2, 2002 meetings and held a noticed public hearing on October 16, 2002 to consider this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That in recommending adoption by the City Council of an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: la) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable prevision for the use of certain real property for industrial, commercial and residential development; and, lb) The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed; and, lc) The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property consistent with the General Plan; and, (d) The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and; R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 12 (e) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and, (f) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, and police and fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; and, (g) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; (h) The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Development Agreement are expansion of an important local employer and could bring additional employment opportunities to local residents; and. (i) The potentially significant impacts to the environment from the project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance based upon the identified mitigation measures. Section 2. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt and approve the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement contained in Attachment "A", and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, Section 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution to be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings in accordance with State law. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October 2002. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the PC Resolution No, 2002- was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of October, 2002 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 INITIAL STUDY R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 15 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 TemecUla, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Titie Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Guidant Corporation Lead Agency Name and City of Temecula Address P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and David Hogan, Senior Planner Phone Number (909) 694-6400 Project Location Generally located north of Solana Way, west of Margarita Road, south of Overland Ddve, and east of Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. Project Sponsor's Name Guidant Corporation and Address 26531 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591-4628 General Plan Designation Business Park (BP) Zoning Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) Description of Project Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation ("Guidant"), is applying to the City of Temecula for a Development Agreement which would authorize the expansion of the existing Guidant Corporation Campus on an approximate 27.8-acre site located directly across Ynez Road from its existing facility in the City of Temecula. The project site is located northwest of the intersection of Solana Way and Margarita Road. It is bounded by Solana Way on the south, Margarita Road to the east, by undeveloped (commercial/office) property to the north, and Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway to the west. The project is located in an urbanized area surrounded by industrial, commemial and residential land uses. The proposed Development Agreement would guarantee the ability of Guidant Corporation to expand their operations onto this site, providing for the development of up to 481,260 square feet of building area in up to five main buildings in a campus setting. The Agreement would provide for a maximum building height of 80 feet above the finished grade of building pad, exclusive of rooftop mechanical enclosures and telecommunications equipment, and related screening. The total number of floors and square footage for each building is not known at this time. The proposed expansion is anticipated to be constructed in phases. The precise layout of the site and the appearance of the buildings and other facilities will be determined at a later date during the development review process. The Development' Agreement will authorize maximum parameters for overall development of the site, and site plans for individual phases will be subject to a City development review process. The term of the Development Agreement will extend from the Agreement's effective date until 15 fiscal years from the date a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building to be built on the site. Pdmary access to the proposed development would be provided via an entrance off of Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway, with secondary access provided via entrances off of Solana Way and/or Margarita Road. The future land uses at the site could include a combination of office, research, manufacturing, and educational/training functions. The project would include shared ancillary facilities for the employees such as a fitness center, childcare and food services. The project would further conform to the provisions of the Development Code. Parking to accommodate the proposed development would be provided at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area and would be accomplished within surface parking areas and up to two parking structures. The proposed project also includes construction of a pedestrian bddge over Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to link the existing Guidant facilities with the proposed expansion. The bddge is intended to be used by Guidant employees. See Attachment A for a detailed description of the proposed proiect. Surrounding Land Uses The project site is surrounded by: undeveloped property and commemial and Setting development to the north; multi-family and single-family residential development to the northeast and east; multi-family residential development to the southeast and south; commercial development to the west and southwest; and the existing Guidant facilities to the west. See Figure A-3 of Attachment A. Other public agencies None. whose approval is required Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one Impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. · " Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources v' Noise Air Quality Population and Housing v' Biological Resources Public Services v' Cultural Resources Recreation v' Geologic Problems ," Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials ," Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality ,/ Mandatory Findings of Significance Land Use Planning None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared · " I find that although the proposed project .could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the pro~ect proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed, project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Printed name Date 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ,/ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: la. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project could potentially affect a scenic vista. The project site is located within an urbanized area and approximately seven acres of the project site are currently developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscape areas. The remaining 20 acres of the project site are currently undeveloped land. Implementation of the proposed project would convert primarily vacant land to business park development with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. Depending on their location and height, the proposed project could potentially block long-range views of the Escarpment from portions Of an apartment complex located east of the site along Margarita Road. The proposed Development Agreement would also provide for a maximum building height of 80 feet (excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures). The City Development Code currently allows for a building height of 50 feet within the BP zone, and 40 feet within the LI zone. The City has the discretion to increase these limits through Development Agreements. The potential for maximum building heights along Solana Way of 80 feet, could result in development that is out of scale and character with adjacent residential uses to the east. The impacts of buildings 80 feet in height along Margarita Road is expected to be less because the apartments across Margarita Road are farther away and the apartment complex site is higher than the Guidant site. To address this concern, Section 17.08.070 of the City Development Code provides performance standards and criteria for the design of commemial/office/industrial buildings within the City, recognizing that the quality and compatibility of building design directly impacts the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the community. These performance standards include strategies for minimizing visual impacts of commemial/office/industrial development that is located adjacent to residential through a variety of means including' .building setbacks. In addition, the project will also be required to comply with the landscape standards in the Development Code that requires either 20% (in the LI Zone) or 25% (in the BP zone) of the site to be landscaped. Quality landscaping also has the potential to significantly reduce potential visual impacts from development. The following supplemental measure, to achieve the purposes of Section 17.08.070 (refer to visual depiction in Attachment B of the Initial Study), will be implemented to minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts from this project to a level of insignificance. MM1. To ensure that the scale and character of proposed development along Margarita Road and Solana Way are compatible with adjacent residential uses, the final Site Plan shall reflect the following: · A minimum 35-foot landscaped setback shall be provided along Margarita Road and Solana Way. · Heights of buildings located along Margarita Road and Solana Way at the 35-foot setback line shall be limited to 50 feet. The angle formed from Guidant's existing eastemmost property line along Margarita Road, and from Guidant's existing southernmost property line along Solana Way, to the 50-foot vertical building height at the setback line shall form the angular plane that establishes maximum building heights, not to exceed 80 feet (excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures). Setbacks on upper floors and building articulation to reduce the bulk and mass of the buildings shall be emphasized. · The visual mass of buildings along Margarita Road and Solana Way shall be reduced through breaks in the structure, tree plantings, articulation of the fac.,,ade, and other amhitectural devices. In addition, construction of the pedestrian walkway across Ynez Road would affect to some extent scenic vistas of the mountains for motorists traveling south on Ynez Road. As the majority of viewers would be motorists, view blockage would be temporary in nature. Views to the south for pedestrians on sidewalks along Ynez Road would be preserved. The bddge would be compatible in design with surrounding development through the use of complementarY materials, colors, form, and architectural detailing. The visual impact of the pedestrian bridge is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. lb. Less Than Significant Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. There is one eligible State Scenic Highway (I-15) and one eligible County Scenic Highway (R-79) in the vicinity of the project site. However, due to intervening urban development, views of the project site are not available from these highways. Implementation of the proposed project would provide for the. development of approximately 481,260 square feet of business park development with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. Such development would be consistent with existing uses in the project vicinity and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 1C. Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately seven acres of the project site have been previously graded and developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscape areas. The remaining 20 acres of the project site consist of undeveloped land disturbed by past land use activities including grading and agriculture. In its current undeveloped and unimproved state, the site has Iow visual quality. Implementation of the proposed proJect would alter the visual character of the site through development of approximately 481,260 square feet of business park uses with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. If not well designed, the development could degrade the. existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Section 17.08.070 of the City Development Code provides general performance standards to support variety and visual interest in development design while still creating a unified overall image within the City. Performance standards to achieve this image include but are not limited to: · use creative entry treatments with such features as canopies, awnings, comices or atriums; · use a variety of complementary colors and avoid the use of just one color and dark colors; · use various window shapes and sizes; · vary the building shapes by using curved or angled walls; separate buildings or accessory structures should be designed as an integral part of the primary building by using complementary materials, common architectural elements, and special landscape design techniques; · use a consistent design theme throughout the project. Employ complementary or consistent details, shapes, materials and colors. In addition, consistent signage should be provided with complementary colors, lettering, placement and materials; · the mass of the building should be divided to reduce the apparent scale and provide visual interest. Box-like designs should be avoided; · where the character or scale is identifiable, new development should be designed to maintain that character and to be compatible with that scale; · development should be designed to minimize detrimental impacts on surrounding properties, including, but not limited to, visual, noise, air quality and other environmental impacts. Strategies for minimizing the impacts include protecting residential areas adjacent to commercial development through screening of circulation areas, loading areas and trash collection points or other areas that could potentially be disruptive to the residential character of the adjacent area. Conformance with Section 17.08.070 Commercial/office/industrial performance standards would ensure that development is compatible in scale and character to surrounding land uses. The project would enhance the visual quality of the site through architectural treatment and landscaping consistent with City of Temecula standards. In addition, the Development Agreement contains design guidelines for future development that address color palette, materials, landscaping,, and lighting. Project compliance with the described performance standards and design guidelines would ensure a high level of design and visual quality for the 6 site that would be compatible with surrounding development. In addition, the mitigation measure listed under Item 1.a will also reduce future visual impacts. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. ld. Less Than Significant ImpacL Existing lighting sources on the project site include surface parking lot lighting on approximately seven acres of the overall 27.8-acra site. The remaining 20 acres of the project site are currently vacant and do not contain any soumes of light and glare. The project vicinity experiences existing light and glare as a result of lighting and structures in adjacent commercial and residential areas surrounding the project site. In addition, transient light sources and glare occur as a result of vehicles on Ynez Road, Solana Way, Margarita Road, and Motor Car Parkway. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new light sources and glare on the project site including streetlights, interior building lighting, exterior security lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicles. The proposed project would also contribute to the amount of transient lighting and glare as a result of increased vehicular use of the surrounding roadways by the project occupants. The business park lighting, and parking lot and street lighting would be typical of other development in the surrounding area and would not create unusual levels of light and glare. The proposed project would be developed consistent with the standards established in the City's Development Code, and the proposed lighting design and landscaping would assist in minimizing the effects of increased light and glare. Lighting on the site would be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent residential uses. Development associated with the proposed project would also be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution), which includes lighting standards to avoid impacts on astronomical research at Mount Palomar Observatory. Project consistency with City Ordinance No. 655 would reduce the potential for significant impacts on the Observatory to a less than significant level. (Sources 1 and 2) 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional mo~el to use in assessin~ imp~a~..ct., s on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ,,' of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Famfland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? JInvolve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: 2a-c. No Impact. The project site is not currently used for agriculture. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. The property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. in addition, the project would not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue. (Soume 1) ' 3. AIR QUALITY. WOuld the project: a. ~nfli~ ~th or obstm~ implemen~tion of the appli~ble air quali~ plan? b. ~olate any air quali~ stand~d or ~ntdbute subs~nfially to an existing or proje~ed air quali~ violation? c. Result in a cumulatively ~nsidemble net in.ease of any criteria pollutant for ~ich the proje~ r~ion is non- affainment under an appli~ble federal or s~te ambient air quali~ s~ndard (including releasing emissions whi~ ex.ed quanfi~tive ~msholds for ozone pm~mom? d. ~pose sensitive m~ptom to subs~ntial ~llutant ~n~ntrations? e. Croats obje~ionable ~om affe~ng a subs~ntial number of p~ple? Comments: .8, No Impact. The proposed project would be subject to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD is required, pursuant the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of cdteda pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is in non-attainment (ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM10). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the southern California region. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP, and are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Projects proposing a General Plan Amendment, new or amended General Plan Elements, or Specific Plans require consistency with AQMP review, since the RCPG and AQMP strategy is based on projections from local General Plans. Since the proposed project does not require a General Plan Amendment and is consistent with the land use designations of the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is considered consistent with the region's air quality plans. There are no roads or highways in the vicinity of the proposed project that have been established by the Riverside County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) as arterial or freeway monitoring locations. Furthermore, the proposed project would not add 50 or more trips dudng the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours at CMP monitoring intersection, nor would it add 150 or more tdps during the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours at CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations. No impacts associated with implementation of the AQMP or CMP would result, and no mitigation measures would be required. 3b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in most parts of the Basin. The proposed project would contribute to regional and local air emissions during construction and operation. The SCAQMD has established screening thresholds which address pollution sources associated with general construction activities, such as operation of on-site equipment, fugitive dust from demolition, and travel by construction workers. Site grading and construction activities would produce equipment and fugitive dust emissions. As indicated in Table C-1 included within Attachment C, a review of the proposed project emissions utilizing the SCAQMD screening thresholds indicates that under worst-case assumptions, construction activities would fall below SCAQMD's thresholds. Therefore, regional emissions associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant (please refer to Attachment C for air quality worksheets prepared by PCR Services Corporation, February 2002). In addition, all construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the control of fugitive dust and other specified dust control measures. Compliance with these regulations would further ensure that the short-term air quality impacts of the proposed project due to site preparation, grading, and construction activities would be less than significant. The SC^QMD has also established screening thresholds to evaluate potential impacts associated with operation of the proposed project. Project operations would increase vehicle 9 emissions generated by mobile sources as well as emissions generated by stationary sources through the use of natural gas and electricity. The project site is designated as Business Park (BP) in the City's General Plan Land Use Element and zoned Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) in the City's Development Code. Pursuant to the City's Development Code, the target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the BP Zone is 0.40 with a maximum FAR of 1.50. The target FAR. for the LI Zone is also 0.40. The LI Zone has a maximum FAR of 1.0. Assuming a 27.8-acre project site and a target FAR. of 0.40,.the site could ultimately be developed with 483,637 square feet of BP/LI uses. The proposed project's maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and evaluated in · the General Plan EIR Air Quality Analysis. Therefore, no impacts beyond those identified and addressed within the General Plan EIR would occur. It should also be noted that with regard to residential projects that were identified as part of the City buildout projections assumed in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR., evidence suggests that only one project in recent years, a Redevelopment Agency affordable housing project, has been approved either dose to or in excess of the applicable maximum density range. Based on this assessment, City staff estimates that at least 3,667 residential units originally assumed to be developed in the City have not, or will not, be constructed within the City of Temecula (refer to City of Temecula Community Development Memorandum to City Councilmembers, dated December 21, 2000). Accordingly, actual development within the City is less than buildout assumed within the General Plan EIR and therefore, the analysis, findings, and determinations made within the General Plan EIR continue to be valid. The General Plan EIR air quality analysis and mitigation measures are hereby incorporated by reference. These measures are further discussed under Response No. 3.c below. With incorporation of the analysis and mitigation measures identified in the City General Plan EIR, operational air quality impacts are considered less than significant. The proposed project's traffic analysis was reviewed to determine the potential for the presence or the creation of carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots. Local area CO concentrations were projected using the CALINE4 air quality model. Ambient CO concentrations were combined with CO concentrations generated by vehicle traffic at individual intersections to determine total intersection CO contributions from the proposed project'. The intersections with the highest potential for CO hot spot formation were selected for analysis based on Level of Service (LOS); high project-related traffic volumes, and the proximity of this traffic to sensitive receptors. Intersections functioning above capacity, which are characterized by a LOS of E or F, have the potential to yield a CO hot spot condition. Based on these criteria, the intersections of Motor Car Parkway and Solana Way and Margarita Road and the apartment driveway are the closest intersections to the project site with the potential for significant levels of CO concentration, and therefore, were selected for analysis. The one-hour and eight-hour local CO concentrations were found to be well below the State and federal air quality standards. Please refer to Table C-2 of Attachment C, which presents the results of this The analysis of CO impacts followed the methodology recommended by the California Department of Transportation and published in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California Davis, December 199Z 10 analysis (detailed calculations are also included within Attachment C). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact upon one-hour or eight-hour local CO concentrations due to mobile source emissions. oC. Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Basin is currently in non-attainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM~0. As demonstrated above in Response No. 3.b., project construction emissions are anticipated to fall below SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. As previously stated, buildout of the project site would not result in new impacts above those previously identified within the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR identifies the following mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project: Implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce motor vehicle tdps, including walking, biking, ddeshadng, local transit, staggered work schedules and telecommunications. 2. Maintain an orderly flow of traffic and improve mobility through the use of transportation systems management techniques. 3. Promote alternatives to motorized transportation by establishing a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian ways. 4. Promote the use of alternative work weeks and flextime among employers. Encourage the formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMA) for large companies and/or groups of companies. Provide potential TMA's with administrative guidelines and technical assistance, where feasible. 6. Attract and retain industry that complements Te.mecula's character and takes advantage of Temecula's Iocational advantage for goods movement and corporate mobility. Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways thai pass through subdivision boundary walls. Encourage developers to incorporate native drought-resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation on-site into the site and landscape design for proposed projects. 9, Promote the use of alternative clean fueled vehicles for personal and business use. 11 The proposed project would assist in meeting the above-listed mitigation measures of the General Plan EIR by implementing various design features and a Transportation Demand Management Program as project design features. The project would provide ancillary uses to existing and proposed Guidant business park and light .industrial uses such as a day care center, cafeteria, and fitness center for Guidant employees. These supporting uses would assist in reducing trips that might otherwise need to be traveled by existing and future Guidant employees. A pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway proposed to provide a pedestrian linkage between the existing and proposed Guidant development, also assists in further reducing motor vehicle trips and promoting altemative modes for transportation. In addition, existing employees currently utilize the crosswalk at Ynez Road to cross between the existing Guidant facilities and the off-site parking lot. The bridge would allow for travel across Ynez Road without requiring vehicles to stop for pedestrian traffic. Additionally, Guidant currently maintains a Transportation Demand Management Program for the existing campus that is monitored and certified annually by SCAQMD. The program includes Guidant- implemented methods for reducing motor vehicle trips such as ride share/carpool incentives including preferred parking and monthly cash drawings for carpool, em, opportunities to utilize aitemative methods for transportation, bus stops, bike room and bike racks, etc. The Transportation Demand Management Program would be expanded to address increased vehicle trips associated with the proposed project and ways to assist in the reduction of vehicle tdps. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3od, Less Than Significant Impac£ The area surrounding the project site contains residential and commercial uses. The closest residential uses are located approximately 100 feet east and south of the project site across Margarita Road and Solana Way, respectively. The closest school (Temecula Elementary School) is located at 41951 Moraga Road in Temecula, approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project does not contain any AQMD permitted stationary emissions sources. In general, the primary pollutant of concern with regard to harmful pollutant concentrations resulting from development projects is CO. As described in Response No. 3.b. above, construction and operation of the proposed uses would not result in any substantial local or regional air pollution impacts and, therefore, would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to severe air pollution conditions. Impacts. would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3.8. No impact, No construction activities, materials, or daily activities are proposed which would create objectionable odors. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Source 1) 12 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any ripadan habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native v resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ,/ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: 4a.d. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In the winter of 2000 and the spring of 2001, Dudek & Associates, Inc: conducted a biological resources survey of a 38-acre site then owned entirely by Eli-Lilly. The unimproved 20 acres of the project site were part of this SUrvey. During site visits, biologists characterized the site's habitat, mapped the vegetative communities, and characterized the on-site habitat. The biologists evaluated the potential for the Eli-Lilly site to support species considered sensitive by the City and State and/or federal agencies. The results of the surveys are documented in the technical report entitled Biological Resources Report for the Temecula Eli Lilly Project, prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc. May 2001 (Biological Resources Report). Refer to that document for a detailed discussion. 13 The Biological Resoumes Report did not address the remaining seven acres located in the northwestern portion of the project site which was previously graded and developed. According to a field survey conducted by PCR Services Corporation in January 2002, biological resoumes in this area are limited to a few immature ornamental trees. No impacts are anticipated to occur to the seven-acn developed portion of the site and no mitigation measures are required. No sensitive plant species were detected dudng focused surveys. In addition, the extensive soil disturbance and grass density provides little potential habitat for sensitive plant species. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct removal of many common native and non-native plants. As these plant species are not sensitive species, their removal is not'considered a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. One sensitive wildlife species was observed on the project site and a few others have the potential to occur on the project site and in the vicinity. While a total of three burrowing owls (Athene cuniculada) were observed on and adjacent to the overall Site surveyed as part of the Biological Resources Report, only one owl was observed on the southwest comer of the project site. It has not been determined whether or not these individuals were winter visitors or year-round residents. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of burrowing owl habitat. Two raptor nests (presumed nd-tailed hawk and barn owl, both non-sensitive species) were located within the stand of ornamental trees along the eastem edge of the project site. As there is the potential for nesting birds on the project site, the removal of existing vegetation has the potential to result in a significant impact consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Tentative Paroel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site, was conditioned 'to address the potential disturbance of burrowing owls and associated habitat, or other nesting birds prior to approval of grading permits. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval regarding burrowing owls or other nesting birds for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, potential impacts to burrowing owls or their habitat, or other nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. Sensitive species with moderate potential to occur on the project site and in the vicinity include: western spadefoot toad (Scaphiiopus hammond/l, San Diego ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus similes), California homed lark (Eremophila alpestrfs actia), loggerhead shdke (Lanius ludovicianus). Sensitive species with high foraging potential but with no nesting potential include: turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and white- tailed kite (E/anus leucurus). These species are not State-listed or federally-listed as threatened or endangered and it is anticipated that the loss of individuals, if any occur on the project site, would not threaten their regional populations. In addition, habitat on the project site would provide little or no value to sensitive species and therefore elimination or disruption 14 of habitat for these sensitive wildlife species on the project site and vicinity does not represent a regionally significant effect on the populations of these species. The project site is within the habitat area identified for the Ouino Checkerspot buttery. A focused survey conducted for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly was negative and habitat assessments conducted for the Califomia gnatcatcher also were negative. Versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahlO were not detected within the project site; however, they were detected within several ponded areas in the detention basins located directly north of the approximate seven-acre developed portion of the project site. This specie of fairy shdmp is not State-listed or federally-listed as threatened or endangered. These man-made basins where the shdmp were detected do not fit the classic definition of "vernal pools" which is the preferred habitat type of fairy shrimp. However, the presence of fairy shrimp in the ponded areas located off-site directly north of the project site indicates that there is some potential for these areas to support the federally-endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegoensis) and/or Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonO. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 was conditioned to address the potential presence of federally-endangered fairy shdmp. The condition requires that grading of an area designated in the Biological Resources Report as an intedm grading exclusion area (i.e., a 100-foot wide strip along the easterly side of the flood control channel on the Eli-Lilly property, which includes the ponding areas containing fairy shrimp), must be delayed until an agreement has been reached with US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the status of the Riverside fairy shrimp in the detention basins. This may entail coordination with the USFWS and/or additional focused surveys for the shdmp. Eli-Lilly is currently in COnsultation with USFWS and is in the process of completing additional fairy shdmp surveys to address the potential presence of federally-endangered fairy shdmp. Dependent upon the outcome of the surveys and Eli-Lilly consultation with USFWS, the proposed project could, due to proximity, result in indirect impacts to the fairy shrimp if their presence is established and if the off-site habitat is retained adjacent to the site. To address this potential cimumstance, implementation of the following mitigation measure is proposed. This measure .would ensure that impacts to potential fairy shdmp are reduced to a less than significant level. Miti.qation Measures: MM2. Prior to development or ground disturbance, the impacts to burrowing owls will be mitigated by a combination of pre-construction surveying, passive owl relocation, and burrow replacement. Two weeks before initiation of grading activities, a qualified biologist must survey the entire project area for extant burrowing owls. The biologist will look for burrowing owls while walking 20-meter transects. Every potential suitable burrow will be examined for burrowing owl sign (e.g. feathers, pellets, whitewash, bones, insect exoskeletons). All burrows found to house burrowing owls or sign will be flagged and mapped for removal. When surveying for burrowing owls, it should be noted that they frequently fly to alternative burrow(s) when disturbed. All burrows 15 found to be inhabited by burrowing owls will be titted with one-way doors for a period of three days. After the third day, the one-way doors will be removed and the burrow network excavated and closed so that re-occupation cannot occur. Before the one- way doors are titted to the burrows, replacement burrows must be installed in a combination of the channel easement onsite and offsite location to be determined. The offsite location must be considered suitable habitat and of sufficient size. Burrows will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 for each burrow found occupied by burrowing owls. A minimum of six burrows must be installed. Burrows should be installed so that entrances randomly face the cardinal directions and that they are randomly distributed throughout the open space area, however at least 20% should be installed within the existing flood control channel. The design of the artificial burrow should be consistent with the latest widely used design. MM3. General: In order to satisfy Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, vegetation removal should not occur between March and August. If vegetation removal must occur between March and August, then a nesting bird survey must be conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Trees and shrubs containing active nests may not be removed until the nesters have finished. Finishing is defined as having successfully raised a brood until they leave the nest or nest abandonment. Renesting by birds requires the process to begin again. Raptors may nest during most any time of the year.. Therefore, the barn owl nest and raptor nest must be surveyed prior to removal regardless of time of year. Removal of the tree may occur when it is determined that they are finished nesting or are not nesting. MM4. In the event federally endangered fairy shrimp are found off-site adjacent to the project site, the Applicant shall consult with the USFW$ prior to issuance of grading permits or any actionsinvolving ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the identified off- site habitat area so that to the extent feasible, project construction and/or operational activities will not have an adverse effect on federally endangered fairy shrimp. 4b. Less Than Significant Impac[ The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No dpafian habitat or other sensitive natural community was detected on the project site. 4C. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means. The 20-acre undeveloped portion of the project site, as addressed in the Biological Resoumes Report, consists primarily of ruderal or weedy vegetation, with patches of ornamental vegetation on the eastem portion of the project site, and patches of tamadsk and mule fat scrub on the southeast corner of the project site. 16 According to the Biological Resources Report, although mulefat scrub is sometimes considered a wetland community, conditions indicate that this vegetation would not be regulated as wetlands by CDFG, or by the Corps. The mulefat scrub is not physically connected to a stream channel and therefore, it would not be regulated by CDFG. The mulefat scrub is isolated and does not have hydric soils or wetland hydrology and therefore, it would' not be regulated by the Corps. In addition, according to the Biological Resources Report, because the tamarisk scrub patches on site were not associated with a stream channel, nor did they occur upon hydric soils or have wetland hydrology, they would not be regulated by the Corps or CDFG. The project site does not contain any wetlands communities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Re. No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan area; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since the project site is not located in Old Town Temecula and there are no locally designated species on site, no impacts are anticipated. 4f. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A habitat assessment for the federally-endangered Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) was conducted, and the survey results indicate that no evidence of the species was found and that. it is therefore, unlikely to occupy the site. The project site is located within the fee area for the SKR Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which included all but seven developed acres of the project site, was conditioned to 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. This project will be conditioned to comply with the following mitigation regarding payment of Habitat Conservation fees. As a result, the proposed project would be in compliance with local regulations governing the Habitat Conservation Plan requirements associated with construction and operation of the project. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measure listed below, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Miti,qation Measure: MM5. Prior to issuance of grading permits 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. (Sources 1, 3 and 4) 17 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ~ ~.~.~ ~ ....~ · ~ ~i. ~.,:~ ~ a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ,/ a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 ~ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5a.d. No Impac£ The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. Results of record seamhes conducted by the University of California, Riverside Eastern Information Center, background review, and a field survey indicate that no histodc archaeological sites are known to exist within the project site. The seven-acre portion of the project site has already been subject to disruption and any surficial archaeological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been removed or destroyed. 5b.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Results of record searches conducted by the University of California, Riverside Eastern Information Center, background review, and a field survey indicate that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known to exist within the project site. The seven-acre portion Of the project site has already been subject to disruption and any surficial archaeological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been removed or destroyed. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which included the remaining 20 acres of the project site, was conditioned to address 'Cultural resources prior to grading the site to ensure that development would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological or paleontological resources. This project will be conditioned to comply with the following mitigation to ensure that grading and development associated with the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse effect to potential archaeological or paleontological resources. Miti.qation Measures: MM6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, 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. A qualified archaeologist and a 18 qualified paleontologist shall be present on-site during grading to monitor the site for the presence of cultural or paleontological resources. A qualified paleontologist/amhaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of cultural resources or fossils. The developer shall submit to Planning Department staff a copy of a contract between the developer and a qualified amheologist and a paleontologist for monitoring services during grading of the site. (Sources 1, 4 and 5) 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the dsk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv)Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geolOgic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading~ subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?. Comments: 6.a.i. No Impact, Althou.gh the project site is located in the seismically active region of southem Califomia, it is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, nor does it contain any active faults. Therefore, no impacts associated with fault rupture are expected to occur with implementation of the proposed project. 19 6.a.ii. Less Than Significant ImpacL Faults within the region that are in proximity of the project site include the Wiidomar branch of the Elsinore Fault located approximately 0.12 miles to the west; the Murdeta Fault located approximately 3.4 miles to the north; and the Wolf Valley Fault located approximately 4.5 miles to the south. During a seismic event, the project site is subject to moderate to strong ground shaking typical of the general southern California area. The County of Riverside has established Groundshaking Zones, which indicate the level of risk from greundshaking. The City is located in Groundshaking Zone II, which is expected to vary from moderate to intense groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. Development cf the proposed project could result in the potential exposure of people and structures to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Any ground shaking that may occur would be similar throughout the City and no unusual or unique risk is posed by the proposed structures. With adherence to seismic standards as identified in the California Building Code as adopted in City Municipal Code No. 15.04.010, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. 6.a.iii.iv. and d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site and vicinity are predominately urbanized and consist of relatively fiat topography. As identified in the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within a subsidence, liquefaction, expansive soil, or landslide hazard area. The geotechnical investigation for the project site states that the secondary effects of seismic activity, including landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow-ground rupture, and liquefaction, are considered unlikely at the site. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site, was conditioned to address the potential risk associated with seismic activity. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval regarding geotechnical conditions for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. With implementation of the mitigation measure listed below, no impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, expansive soils, or landslides would occur. Mitigation Measures: MM7. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the recommendations contained in soils report(s) shall be implemented. 6b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. While the northwest portion of the project Site has been previously graded and developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscaped areas, the remainder of the site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils due to construction activities. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site, was conditioned to address erosion of soils. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval regarding geotechnical conditions for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. 2O With implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, impacts associated with potential soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Miti,qation Measures: MM8. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department an erosion control plan prepared in accordance with City requirements. MM9. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, landscape plans shall be prepared for all slopes created by the grading and fill of these sites consistent with "Slope Planting Guidelines" and the Development Code, and shall provide erosion control on undeveloped portions of the site. SC. Less Than Significant Impact. As the site is relatively fiat, implementation of the proposed project would not require significant alteration of the existing topography on the project site. According to the geotechnical investigation for the project site, the entire site is underlain by relatively horizontally bedded siltstone and sandstone of the Pauba Formation. Silty sands predominate; however, beds of silt, well-<jreded, and poorly graded sands were also encountered on the project site. Prior grading activities have resulted in desilting basins cut into the existing bedrock and areas of undocumented artificial fill. In accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation for the project site, all existing Iow-density and potentially collapsible soil materials such as loose manmade fill, alluvium and highly weathered bedrock, would be removed to underlying dense bedrock from each area to receive compacted fill. Mitigation Measure No. 6, provided above, would address the risk associated with unstable soil conditions. With implementation of this mitigation, impacts related to unstable soil conditions would be less than significant. Se. No ImpacL The project site is located in an urbanized area in which wastewater infrastructure is currently in place. Therefore, the capacity of the soils to support septic tanks or altemative waste water systems is not relevant to the proposed project. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7) 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: ' '" PotentiallY; M~flg~llon Less Than Significant . Inco~ted Signlfic~nt No Issues and Suppcxting Information Sources Impact ,, Impact ,Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 21 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ,,' hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ,/ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an! v' adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, inju~j or death involving wildland rites, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 7a.b. Less Than Significant Impac£ The proposed project would not use, store, transport, generate, or dispose of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Construction activities would involve the use of commonly used potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. Operation of the proposed uses would involve the use and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials in the form of pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturing materials, cleaning solvents and herbicides for landscaping. Guidant currently maintains a Business Emergency Plan which is updated and submitted to the County of Riverside Hazardous Materials Management Division annually for operations permit renewal. The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are contained, stored, used, and disposed of in compliance with applicable standards and regulations and that the appropriate personnel ara contacted in the event of a hazardous 22 materials-related emergency. In the event pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturing is undertaken on the project site, Guidant would expand the Business Emergency Plan to address the site and its related activities. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with the Business Emergency Plan and other applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 7C. Less Than Significant Impact. The closest school to the project site is Temecula Elementary · School located over one-half mile to the southeast. No new schools are proposed within one- quarter mile. of the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 7.d. No Impact. This project site is not nor is it located near a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e.f. No ImpacL The project site is not.located within an airport land use plan, nor is it located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport to the project site is French Valley Airport located approximately 5 miles to the northeast of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce people into an area where there is a safety hazard as a result of an airport. 7.g.h. Less Than Significant ImpacL Construction and operation of the proposed project would not inter[ere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans on-site and in the local area. The project site is within an urbanized area that is not considered to be a wildland fire risk area. In addition, Guidant currently maintains a Business Emergency Plan, which is updated and submitted to the .County of Riverside Hazardous Materials Management Division annually for operations permit renewal. The Plan identifies an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan for the existing Guidant facilities in the event of a hazardous materials-related emergency. This plan would be updated to include the uses on the project site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources 1 and 2) 23 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with grOundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a Iowedng of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ,/ or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or dver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ,/ or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result · in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ,/ capacity of existing or planned storm' water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water qbality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ,/ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or/Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Comments: 8.a.f. Less Than Significant Impact. Regulatory and permitting processes have been established to control the water quality of runoff from urban construction sites. In 1987, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States from storm water is effectively prohibited, unless, the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The 1987 amendments to the CWA added Section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating municipal, industrial and construction stormwater discharges under the NPDES program. In California, these permits are issued through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site is within the'jurisdiction of the RWQCB, San Diego Region 9. The SWRCB has adopted a statewide general construction permit that applies to most construction projects. This permit allows storm water discharge under certain conditions dudng the construction period but is intended to minimize the pollution of downstream receiving waters from construction activities. The conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 included requiring the developer to submit to the Public Works department an erosion control plan prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements pdor to the issuance of grading permits. As a result, the proposed project would be in compliance with state and local regulations governing water quality standards and waste discharge requirements associated with construction and operation of the project. Therefore, impacts related to violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Less Than Significant Impact. The Rancho California Water District provides water and reclaimed water services to the project area. Groundwater is located approximately 38 feet below ground surface. The proposed project does not include the injection into or extraction from groundwater and would not create substantial subsurface cuts, which might impede groundwater movement. No water wells would be used on the project site, as the District would provide domestic water supply. Implementation of the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. 8.c.d.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the alteration of existing drainage pattems and the amount and quality of surface runoff due to grading, and construction of business park structures and associated parking, resulting in the addition of impervious surfaces and irrigation of landscaped areas within the 20-acre undeveloped portion of the project site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff are expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. While absorption rates and surface' runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances, which are required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created, are anticipated to ultimately drain into the two existing storm drains located off of Motor Car Parkway. The proposed project will be required to accommodate the drainage created as a result of proposed development, and not impact surrounding properties. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 25 8.g.h.i.j. No Impact. As identified in the General 'Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in the 100 Year Flood Boundary or in any of the Dam Inundation Areas, nor is it near any large bodies of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not place any structure within a 100- year flood hazard area nor is the project site subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources I and 4) 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Ph~i~lly divide an es~blished ~mmuni~ ~ b. ~nfli~ with appli~ble land use plan, polio, or ~ regulation of an agen~ with judsdi~ion over the proje~ (induding~ but not limited to the general plan, spedfic plan, Io~1 ~as~l program, or zoning ordinan~) adopted for ~e pu~ose of avoiding or mitigating an en~ronmen~l effect? c. Conflict with any appli~ble habi~t ~nse~afion plan or v natural ~mmuni~ ~nse~ation plan? Comments: 9.ao No Impact. The project site is surrounded by: undeveloped property and commemial development to the north; .single-family and multi-family residential development to the east and northeast; multi-family residential development to the southeast and south; commemial development to the west and southwest. Although there are residential neighborhoods to the east and south of the project site, the single family neighborhoods are buffered by distance as well as the multi-family units adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would be compatible with the adjacent office park and commercial uses to the northwest and north, respectively, of the project site. A pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Auto Mall Parkway also is proposed as part of the project to provide a pedestrian linkage between the existing and proposed development. This improvement would connect the proposed project to the non- residential area located to the west and would not physically divide the established residential communities located to the east and south of the proposed project. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No Impact. The City's General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Business Park (BP), and it is zoned BP on the approximately 20-acre portion of the site and Light Industrial (LI) on the approximately seven-acre portion of the site. The General Plan BP 26 land use designation allows for the development of business and employment centers that offer attractive and distinctive, architectural design, innovative site planning, and substantial landscaping and visual quality. Typical uses may include: professional offices, research .and development, laboratories, light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply and wholesale businesses. The intent of the LI District, as defined by the Development Code, is to promote development of attractive comprehensively planned industrial uses that will help to provide the City with a sound and diverse industrial base. The Development Agreement provides that the development standards for the portion of the site zoned LI, shall.be the same as for the portion of the site that is zoned BP. The BP and LI Zoning Districts as defined by the Development Code allows for development consistent with the BP General Plan land use designation. The proposed Development Agreement for the project site, will allow for the vested right to develop the site with up to 481,260 square feet of development in up to five buildings, plus two parking structures. As identified within the Development Agreement, the permitted uses could include office, reseamh, medical device and/or pharmaceutical manufacturing, with employee day care facility, employee commissary or cafeteria, educational/training facility, employee gym, and other similar uses. The proposed project would be consistent with the land uses permitted under the General Plan BP land use designation and the BP/LI Zoning Districts, representing the logical extension of the existing uses to the west of the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use plans and policies, including the City of Temecula General Plan and the City's Development Code. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources 1 and 2) o0. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project site is within the Fee Area of the Riverside County Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat. Conservation Plan (HCP) but is not within a designated reserve area as defined by the Conservation Plan nor is it within a proposed reserve area for the County of Riverside Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project site is located within the Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. A Condition of Approval was required for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which required that the applicant 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 er by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. This condition has been placed upon the proposed project as mitigation (refer to Response No. 4f.) As a result, the proposed project would be in compliance with local regulations governing the Habitat Conservation Plan requirements associated with construction and operation of the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources 1 and 4) 27 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proJect: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resoumes or the loss of an available, locally important mineral resoume recovery site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact related to mineral resources and no · mitigation measures are required. (Source 1) 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. .Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of ,/ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ;n the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? . d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 28 Comments: 11.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The following analysis defines the existing noise environment within the project area and evaluates the future estimated noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses resulting from operation of the proposed project. The noise environment in the project area is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways. The heaviest traveled roadways in the vicinity of the project area include Margarita Road, Solana Way, .and Ynez Road, which are located east, south, and west of the project site, respectively. Secondary noise results from nearby Interstate 15, commemial activities (e.g., delivery and garbage trucks), and residential noise sources (e.g., passenger vehicles, pets, and landscape maintenance operations). Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are typical of noise levels experienced within urbanized areas throughout the City of Temecula. Ambient noise measurements were conducted with a Type I Sound Level Meter on February 26, 2002 to determine existing noise levels in the project vicinity. Four measurement sites were located along the property boundary approximately 10 feet from Margarita Road and Solana Way and north and south of the project site along Margarita Road. Measurement data is summarized in Table D-1 included as Attachment D to this report. Noise-sensitive land uses (sensitive receptors) in the project vicinity include multi-family residences east and south of the project site. The City of Temecula has adopted local guidelines based on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. These guidelines are the basis for guidelines contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element, which are expressed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).2 CNEL guidelines for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (1) acleariy acceptable"; (2) ~normally acceptable"; (3) "normally unacceptable"; and (4) 'cleady unacceptable." A CNEL value of 65 dBA' is COnsidered the dividing line between a "normally acceptable" and "normally unacceptable" noise environment for noise sensitive land uses, including single-family and multi-family residences, park~, schools, and playgrounds. For less sensitive office and industrial uses, the dividing line between "normally acceptable" and "normally unacceptable" is set at 75 and 80 dBA, respectively. The CNEL guideline was used to evaluate the impact of off-site vehicular noise associated with the proposed project. The CNEI. is the average of all~.'l-weighted dB levels for a 24-hour period, with a 5 dB upward adjustment added to those noise level~ occurring between 7.'00 P.M. and 10.'00 P.M. and a 10 dB upward adjustment for noise levels occurring between I0:00 P.M. and 7:00 ,I.M. 29 11.b. Section 8.32.10 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code provides provisions related to noise control. While the provisions of this Section do not provide a specific threshold, an increase in the ambient noise level of 3 dB is generally considered to be noticeable and an increase in noise level of 5 dB or more is considered clearly discemable.' Therefore, a project-related operational noise level increase of 5 dBA over the existing average ambient noise level at an adjacent property would be considered a significant impact. The noise levels associated with future operations subsequent to construction of the proposed project have been analyzed and compared to the applicable significance threshold which limits the equivalent sound level (Leq) for residential zones to a noise level increase of 5 dBA over the existing average ambient noise level at an adjacent property. The operation of mechanical equipment such as air conditionem, fans, blowem, compressom, and related equipment may generate audible noise levels. Mechanicel equipment would be located within buildings or shielded from nearby sensitive noise receptors to attenuate noise and avoid conflicts with adjacent residential uses. Therefore, operation of mechanical equipment within these areas would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed project would increase the number of daily trips 'on the roadway system surrounding the project site. The maximum increase in noise levels resulting from project traffic would be 0.3 dBA along Solana Way and Margarita Road. The FHWA traffic noise model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to model existing and all future traffic noise levels. Noise calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. This methodology allows for evaluation of the Average Daily Traffic Volumes provided in the Guidant Traffic Impact Analysis. These noise levels are well below the 5 dBA threshold of significance. An increase of less than 3 dBA is generally not discemible to most people and~ therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Less Than Significant !mpacL Excessive noise and vibration are not present in the project area. The primary source of noise and vibration in the area is associated with vehicular traffic along the various local transportation corridors within the area. As described in Response Nos. 11a. and d., construction and operation of the project would not result in the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels. Although vibration would occur as a result of construction activities, excessive groundbome vibration activities such as pile driving would not be required during construction and given the distance of the sensitive receptors from proposed activities, vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be less than .significant. No significant impacts associated with the exposure of persons to excessive ground.borne vibration or groundbome noise levels would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. · Bruel & Kjaer, Acoustic Noise Measurements Handbook, 5a Ed., Hassall, J.R. & Zaveri, K., June 1998, pages 34 and 62. 3O 11oC. Less Than Significant ImpacL Noise associated with the change in traffic VOlumes resulting from cumulative traffic was also evaluated and compared to guidelines set forth in the City of Temecula's General Plan to evaluate the impact of vehicular noise. The maximum increase in noise levels resulting from cumulative traffic would be 0.5 dBA along Solana Way and 0.4 dBA along Margarita Road. Noise calculation worksheets are included in Attachment D. These noise levels are well below the 5 dBA threshold of significance. An increase of less than 3 dBA is generally not discemible to most people and, therefore, no impacts associated with cumulative traffic noise would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 11.d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Noise impacts from construction activities occurring within the project site would be a .function of noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction activities would include five stages: (1) site preparation; (2) excavation/fill; (3) foundation construction; (4)building construction; and (5) finishing and cleanup. Each stage involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment and, therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. Clearing and excavation typically involve the use of earth moving equipment, such as heavy-duty trucks, graders~ backhoes, and front-end loaders. Foundation construction typically involves the use of concrete trucks, cranes and pneumatic tools. Building construction typically involves the use of hammers, generators, compressors, and light trucks, while noise sources associated with finishing and site cleanup generally include trucks, landscape rollers, and compactors. Section 8.32.020 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code prohibits construction activities within one-quarter mile of a residential zone during the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Saturday, and does not allow construction activities on Sunday. Table D-2 in Attachment D lists the highest noise levels associated with each stage of construction. These estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the high noise-producing pieces of equipment to be used and represent conservative worst-case conditions in which the maximum amount of construction equipment would be operating during a one-hour period. These estimated maximum noise levels would not be continuous nor would they be typical of noise levels throughout the construction period. As indicated in Table C-2, due to the type of construction equipment proposed, the highest level of construction noise would be expected to occur during the grading, excavation, and finishing phases, with an equivalent sound level (Leq) as high as 86 dBA at 50 feet from the center of construction activity. The estimated construction noise levels during the heaviest periods of activity at nearby sensitive receptors are provided in Attachment D. Residences near the project site would be approximately 400-500 feet from the center of the construction zone. To ascertain construction noise impacts, the construction-activity noise level was calculated by making a distance adjustment to the construction noise level at the receptor location based on a 6 dBA 31 for doubling of distance. Residences located to the east of the project site could occasionally experience construction noise levels of 68 dBA (hourly Leq) and residences to the south of the project site could occasionally experience construction noise levels of 66 dBA (hourly Leq) dudng the heaviest pedods of construction. A construction noise level of 68 dBA would be slightly above existing ambient noise levels. However, such noise levels would be experienced intermittently as only portions of the project site would be under construction at any one time. The majodty of the time, construction noise levels at adjacent sensitive locations would be much lower, due to reduced construction activity and the phasing of construction (i.e., construction noise levels at a given location would be reduced as construction activities conclude or move to another more distant location of the site). Nevertheless, it is possible that construction noise would pose a temporary and periodic nuisance to adjacent residential uses. Therefore, construction noise is considered significant. The mitigation measures provided below would address intermittently high construction noise levels. With their implementation and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance, noise impacts associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. Miti,qation Measures: MM10. Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Monday through Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Saturday. MM11. The project contractor shall use construction equipment with noise shielding and muffling devices. MM12. Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. MM13. The Applicant shall notify the communities in advance of construction activities. The construction manger's (or representative's) telephone number shall also be provided with notification so that community concerns can be expressed and addressed whenever feasible. Forms of notification shall include one or more of the following: signs posted on the site and/or distribution of leaflets to adjacent residents. 11.e. No Impact. There are no public airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. As such, project construction or operation would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels and no mitigation measures would be required. 11.f. No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. As such, project construction or operation would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels and no mitigation measures would .be required~ (Sources I and 9) 32 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: .... . ~.- ~ ...~ '"~*~ ~. ..... a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ,/ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ! businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 12.a. No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing infrastructure and roadways. Development of the project site would not result in the extension of roads or major infrastructure. While the proposed project may cause some people to relocate to; or within Temecula to be closer to their place of employment, it would not induce growth beyond what is projected in the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the proposed project is largely intended to implement the City General Plan by attracting additional quality employment for local residents and to the support the existing Guidant CorporatiOn Campus in that it provides for an additional 481,260 square feet of allowable building space to include supporting office space, a day care center, commissary, and fitness center for Guidant employees. 12.b.c. No Impact. No residential properties currently exist on the project site and none would be provided as part of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing housing, nor would it displace numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Significan Potentially M!tigaflon Less Than Significant Incorporated Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Impact Impact a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? ,/ 33 d. I Parks? e. Other public facilities? Comments: 13.a. 13.b. 13.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Temecula contracts with the County of Riverside for enhanced fire protection services, as a result there are four Stations that provide fire protection to the City. RCFD Station No. 73 would pdmadly serve the project site. RCFD Station No. 73, located at 27415 Enterprise Circle, is less than one mile from the project site. .Typical emergency response time for the RCFD is 5 minutes or less on the average. The development of approximately 481,260 square feet of business park uses on the prOject site would thereby increase the potential number of structures and persons who would need fire protection and paramedic services. The General Plan EIR states that additional fire facilities and personnel needs in the City of Temecula would be addressed during the contract'renewal process between the City and the RCFD. Development within the City would be subject to Fire Mitigation Fees established, by the RCFD. This fee covers the cost of building, staffing and operating additional 'tire facilities. Although it is anticipated that the project site can be adequately serviced by Station No. 73, any potential need for increased personnel or equipment would be adequately addressed through the payment by the applicant of the Fire Mitigation Fees which are included in the City's Development Impact Fees as provided in the Municipal Code Section 15.06.030. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Temecula contracts ,with the County of Riverside for enhanced police services, as a result, police protection for the project area is based out of the Southwest Justice Center located near the French Valley Airport. The City also has three store-front Shedff's Department office locations: Town Center Storefront at 27540 Ynez Road, Old Town Storefrent at 28410 Old Town Front Street, and Promenade Mall Storefront at Winchester Road and Ynez Road. The Town Center Storefront is located approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. The City has an established Level of Service Standard of one officer per 1,000 residents. While the increase in building space and the potential increase in new residents would generate additional demands on police protection services, it is anticipated that the Shedfrs Department can adequately service the project site. In addition, the Applicant would address any potehtial need for increased personnel or equipment through the payment by the Applicant of the City's Development Impact Fees as provided in the Municipal Code Section 15.06.030. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project site is within the Temecula Valley Unified School District. There are no school facilities on or immediately adjacent to the project site. As there are no residential land uses provided with the proposed project, school services would not be directly impacted. However, the proposed project includes the expansion of existing business park/light industrial facilities, and employment opportunities generated by the proposed project could have the potential to generate a demand for housing, which could in turn affect the existing schools in the area. Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) was signed into law on August 27, 1998. Under SB 50, the state, except where hardship assistance is provided, will fund 50 percent of the cost of future school facilities, assuming that local bonds will be approved, and that school fees will provide the remaining 50 percent. SB 50 states that the maximum fee amounts allowed by the bill are "deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation" for purposes of CEQA. Pursuant to the bill, the initial, or "Level 1" fees that can currently be charged by a school district are $2.05 per square foot for residential construction and $0.33 per square foot for commercial construction. Therefore, the school fees for the proposed project would be a commercial/industrial fee of $0.33 per square foot of new construction. In addition, the potential demand for housing and the associated increase for school services would be within regional levels accounted for by the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 13.d. Less Titan Significant Impact. The increase in employee population has the potential to affect existing recreational facilities or increase the demand for adult recreation programs in the City. The proposed project would provide a fitness center to be utilized by the project- generated employees, as well as Guidant employees located at the existing facility. Although it is anticipated that the proposed fitness center would adequately serve the Guidant employees regarding recreation, the Applicant would address any potential need for increased personnel or equipment through the payment by the Applicant of the City's Development Impact Fees as provided in the Municipal Code Section 15.06.030. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 13.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered public facilities. No significant impact would occur with respect to public facilities and no mitigation measures would be required. (Sources 1, 8 and 10) 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use .of existing neighbo~ood and regional pa~s or other re~eational fadlities such that substantial physi~l deterioration of the fadli~ would o~ur or be a~lemted? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ~nstmction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adveme physi~l effect on the environment? 35 Comments: 14.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The increase in the on-site population has the potential to increase the demand for adult recreation programs in the City. The proposed project would provide a fitness center, which would accommodate the new employees as well as existing employees at the Guidant facilities. Therefore, impacts related to increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated would be less than significant. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ,/ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ,/ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ,/ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted polities, plans, or programs ,,' supporting alternative transportation (e.g-, bus turnouts, bicycle racks? Comments: 15a.b. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan has established Level of Service (LOS) D as the lowest acceptable level of service for traffic circulation within the City of Temecula. The applicant prepared a traffic study, entitled Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis, dated February 12, 2002 by Urban Crossroads. The analysis reviewed the existing conditions, as well as the potential project impacts at the following eight intersections adjacent to the project site: 36 · Ynez Road (NS) at Overland Drive (EW) · Ynez Road (NS) at Motor Car Parkway (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at Solana Way (EW) · Promenade Way (NS) at Ovedand Ddve (EW) · Motor Car Parkway (NS) at Solana Way (EW) · Margarita Road (NS) at Overland Ddve (EW) · Margarita Road (NS) at the apartment driveway (EW) · Margarita Road (NS) at Solana Way (EW) All study area intersections currently operate at LOS D or better at peak hours with the exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway. The proposed project would generate approximately 5,089 daily vehicle trips with 737 vehicles per hour during the A.M. peak hour and 697 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of estimated proposed project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent development, all study area intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better at peak hours with the-exception-of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway and Motor Car Parkway at Solana Way. The following public improvements were required as conditions of approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107: · Improve Solana Way (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of half-width'street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, raised landscaped median. · Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of a deceleration lane to access the private Street "A". Said lane is to be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and is to include a transitional distance of 120 feet. · Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include median/striping modifications, etc. to provide for a full tuming movement driveway (i.e., left tum in from Margarita Road onto private Street "B". In addition, the Development Agreement identifies public road improvements that will be accomplished as part of the Owner Participation Agreement entered into by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and the applicant. These improvements include the following and have been taken into consideration in the analysis of potential significant impacts related to traffic/cimulation: · Improve Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to include installation of a deceleration lane to access Motor Car Parkway. Said lane is to be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and is to include a transitional distance of t20 feet. · Improve Motor Car Parl~vay to acceptable standards. · Improve and signalize Margarita Road at Private Street "B". 37 Taking into consideration the improvements that would occur as conditions of approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 and as part of the Owner Participation Agreement, incorporation of the mitigation measures provided below would reduce these potentially significant traffic impacts to a less than significant level. MitiRation Measures: MM14. Mar.qadta Way/Apartment Driveway: The proposed access should be located directly across from the existing Apartment Ddveway and form the fourth leg of this intersection. A traffic signal should be constructed with development to allow this access point full access along Margarita Road and additional median modifications and re-striping will be accomplished to maintain LOS D for existing plus project conditions. MM15. Project Driveway/Solana Way: This access point should be restricted to right-in/right- out only. A stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend should be provided to control vehicles exiting the site. 15.c 15.d Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's 'flight overiay district and therefore the proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. No ImpacL The project will not result in hazards to safety from design featuresl The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.e. No ImpacL The project will not result in inadequate'emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not interfere with access to nearby .uses. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.f Less Than Significant Impac£. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking requirements for business park/light industrial uses. The project exceeds the City's parking standards, providing 5. spaces per 1,000 square feet of development. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.g Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. To accommodate employees, the applicant has provided motorcycle and bicycle parking, vanpool and carpool spaces, all as preferential spaces at the main entry. As a consequence, the project supports altemative transportation, and no impact is anticipated. (Sources 1, 2 and 11) 38 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a. ~ed wastewater treatment mquimmen~ of the appli~ble Regional Water Quali~ Control Board? b. Require or result in the ~nstmction of new water or wastewater treatment fa~lities or e~ansion of existing fa~lities, ~e ~nstmction of which ~uld ~use signifl~nt environmen~l effect? c. Require or result in the ~nstmcfion of new Sto~ water d~inage fa~lifies or e~ansion ~ existing fa~lities, the ~nstm~on of whi~ ~uld ~use sign~nt en~ronmen~l effe~s? d. ~Have s~ent water supplies a~ilable to se~e ~e proje~ from existing enticements and msour~s, or am I new or e~anded entitlemen~ needed? e. = Result in a dete~ination .by the waste~ter treatment provider which se~es or may se~e the proje~ ~at it has adequate ~paci~ to se~e the proje~'s pmje~ed de.nd in addition to the providers existing ~mmitmen~? f. Be se~ed by a landfill with su~ent pe~i~ed ~pa~ to a~mmoda~e the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. =~mply ~th federal, state, and Io~1 s~tutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a., b. and e. 16.c. Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The proposed project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover~ the project will be conditioned to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public Works. Potential impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The development of the parcel will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities onsite that will 39 connect to the existing system currently in place. The design of the existing system that exists offsite is expected to be sufficient to handle this project and will not require the expansion of existing facilities. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site, was conditioned to address storm drainage flows that would result from proposed development. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which required submittal of a drainage study with the initial grading plan check. With implementation of the mitigation measure listed below, impacts associated with storm water drainage would be less than significant. Mitiqation Measure: MM16. 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 identity 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 pdvate property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of the project site. The basis for analysis ands design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 16.d. Less Than Significant Impac£ The proposed project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. While the proposed project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEll:{) for the City's General Plan states: "Both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEll:{ further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f.g. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by future development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. (Sources 1,4, 10, 11, 12, 13) 40 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. · * a. Does ~e proje~ have the potential to degrade ~e quali~ of ~e environment, substantially mdu~ the habi~t of a fish or wildlife s~des, ~use a fish or wildlife population to drop below seE-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ~mmuni~, mdu~ the number of mstH~ ~e range of a mm or endangered plant or animal or eliminate impo~nt e~mples of the major periods of ~l~omia histo~ or pmhisto~ b. D~s ~e' proje~ have impa~ that am indi~dually limited, b~ ~mulafively ~nsidemble? ('Cumulatively ~nsidemble" means that the in~emen~l effe~s of a pmje~ am ~nsidemble ~en ~ew~ in ~nne~ion ~ ~ effe~ of past pmje~, ~e effe~ of o~er ~ffent pmje~s, and the effe~ of probable futura pmje~? c. D~s ~e proje~ have en~mnmen~l effe~ ~i~ ~11 ~use subs~nfial adveme effe~ on human beings, either dimly or indim~ Comments: 17.a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. No dparian habitat or other sensitive natural community was detected on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of burrowing owl habitat and could indirectly impact the man-made basins found to the north of the project site, which could provide habitat for fairy shrimp. Implementation of mitigation measures as previously described within this Initial Study would ensure that impacts to burrowing owls and potential fairy shrimp are reduced to a less than significant level. 17.b. As described previously, no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known to exist within the Project site. In addition, mitigation would ensure that development would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological or paleontological resources. Development of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or Wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of Califomia history or prehistory. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site would be developed in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding 41 developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With cumulative traffic (estimated proposed project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent development) all study area intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels at peak hours with the exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway and Motor Car Parkway at Solana Way. Incorporation of mitigation measures as previously described within this Initial Study would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. All other cumulative resource issues were found to be consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. It should also be noted that with regard to residential projects that were identified as part of the City buildout projections assumed in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, evidence suggests that only one project in recent years, a Redevelopment Agency affordable housing project, has been approved either close to or in excess of the applicable maximum density range. Based on this assessment, City staff estimates that at least 3,667 residential units originally assumed to be developed in the City have not, or will not, be constructed within the City of Temecula (refer to City of Temecula Communih/ Development Memorandum to City Councilmembers, dated December 21, 2000). Accordingly, actual development within the City is less than buildout assumed within the General Plan EIR and therefore, the analysis, findings, and determinations made within the General Plan EIR continue to be valid. Given the project's consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the development of the proposed project will not have a significant impact. 17.c. No Impact. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The proposed project is designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should Identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific'conditions for the project.' Comments: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D), this Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study has referenced and incorporated information from the General Plan EiR in analyzing the project's potential significant environmental effects as further described below: 42 According to Section 21083.3(b) of the Public Resources Code, "lfa development project is consistent with the general p/an of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the pdor environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than descrfbed in the p/for environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prfor environmental impact report." Furthermore, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 1,5183, CEQA mandates that projects which are consisteht with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review,-except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Ultimate development of the project site has been addressed under the City of Temecula General Plan, adopted in 1993, and analyzed within the 1993 certified General Plan EIR (copies of these documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department). The proposed project,s maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR (0.40) for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Initial Study summarizes the findings of the General Plan EIR where appropriate and incorporates this document by reference. In addition, potentially significant impacts "peculiar to the project" are identified in the Initial Study, and 'mitigation measures are provided to reduce potential impacts to a lessthan significant level. The Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study identifies significant environmental effects related to air quality and traffic/cimulation that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened despite the project's incorporation of all feasible mitigationmeasures. These impacts associated with air quality and cumulative traffic, are fully addressed in the City's General Plan EIR, and are not peculiar to the project or its site. Furthermore, the project has provided mitigation measures that are feasible at the project-level and has also incorporated design features that contribute to implementation of the program-level mitigation measures set forth in the City General Plan EIR (refer to Section 4.2 Air Quality ofthe General Plan EIR). In accordance with Section 15152(f)(3)(C) of the CEQA Guidelines, the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another environmental impact report would be to put the agency in a position to adopt a Statement of .Overriding Considerations with respect to the effects. The City previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, acknowledging significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and traffic, and maximum buildout potential of the project site had been addressed in the General Plan EIR; therefore, significant environmental effects have been adequately addressed. 43 The following sources as listed below were utilized in preparation of the Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study: SOURCES o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. City of Temecula General Plan, November 1993. City of Temecula Development Code, Title 17 Zoning. Biological Resources Reporf for the Temecula Eli Lilly Project, prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc. May 2001. Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. Histo#caYArcheological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, December 15, 2000. California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazards Evaluation & Zoning For California, www. consrv, ca.qov/dm.q/shezp, September 2001. Geotechnical Investigation, 37-Acre Commercial Parcel, Located West of Margarita Road and South of Overland Drive, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc., January 26, 2001. City of Temecula Official Intemet Site, www.ci.temecula.ca.us Bruel & Kjaer, Acoustic Noise Measurement Handbook, 5th Ed., Hassal, J.R. & Zaveri, K., June 1998, pages 34 and 62. City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 1993. Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, February.12, 2002. Eastern Municipal Water District, EMWD Insights - Temecula Valley, June 2001. Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdiction Prefile for City of Temecula, October 4, 2001, www.ciwb.ca..qov/Profiles/Juds. Memorandum to City Councilmembers, Subject: Information on Actual Development Project Intensities, prepared by Community Development Department, December 21, 2000. ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. INTRODUCTION The Project Applicant, the Guidant Corporation, is applying to the City of Temecula for a Development Agreement, which .would authorize the expansion of the existing Guidant Corporation Campus on an approximate 27.8-acre site located directly across Ynez Road from the existing Guidant Corporation facility in the City of Temeeula (City), Riverside County (County). The proposed project would provide for the development of approximately 481,260 square feet of allowable building area to include supporting office space, a day care facility, commissary or cafeteria, an educational/training facility, and fitness center for Guidant employees. The project site is designated as Business Park (BP) in the City's General Plan Land Use Element and zoned BP and Light Industrial (LI) in the City's Development Code. The grading and development associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the provisions of the City's Development Code. B. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the northwestem portion of the City of Temecula, Riverside County, as shown in Figure A-1 on page A-2. Access to the project site is provided via Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway to the west, Margarita Road to the east, and Solana Way to the south as shown in Figure A-2 on page A-3. The project site is surrounded by: undeveloped property and commercial development to thee north; multi- and single-family residential development to the east and northeast; multi- family residential development to the southeast and south; commercial development to the west and southwest and the existing Guidant Corporation facility to the west. Figure A-3 on page A-4 provides an aerial view of the project site and adjacent vicinity. C. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The approximately 27.8-acre project site is located directly across Ynez Road from the existing Guidant Corporation Campus. The project site ranges in elevation from approximately Guldnnt Corporation City of Temeculn PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page A-I ~~/..'~h"",,i .... /--'~, ~ i"o~o L % __ o ~ ~ , o lon Pacific Beach:) ~ .~ ~ Figure A-1 G~d~t Corpo~on b 5 ~0 26 Milos C~pus ~sion ~: p~u s~ ~o~, ~, Region~ Map Single-family Residential The Promenade at Temecula Commercial/ Office Development Commercial Office Development Overland Drive PROJECT SITE Single-family Residential Multi-family Residential Multi-family Multi-famil Residential Residential Commercial/Office Development I/ Office Develo Figure A-2 ~ Guidant Corporation NO scale Cam. pHs Expansion s~,~: Pc~ s~c.~ co,w~., ~oo~ Vicinity Map Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Aerial Photograph Attachment A: Project Description 1,060 to 1,090 feet above mean sea level. Approximately seven acres of the project site located at the northwest comer of the project site immediately east of Ynez Road, are currently developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscaped areas. The remaining 20 acres consist of currently undeveloped land previously disturbed by past land use activities including grading and agriculture. Ruderai and non-native grassland occurs on this portion of the project site. In addition, several ornamental non-native trees are found on the eastern edge of the project site. D. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project would provide for the development of approximately 481,260 square feet of allowable building area to include supporting office space, a day care facility, a commissary or cafeteria, an educational/training facility, and fitness center for Guldant employees. A pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Auto Mall Parkway is proposed to provide a pedestrian linkage between the existing and proposed Guldant development. The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in phases with the ultimate timing of buildout to occur in response to market demand for the products manufactured within by Guidant. The proposed development concept includes the construction of up to five office buildings at a maximum of five stories. The maximum height of the buildings would be 80 feet above the ground level, excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures. Appropriate building setbaclm and landscaping would be utilized to address the proximity of the proposed development to the adjacent land uses. Primary access to the proposed project would be provided via an entrance off of Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway, with secondary access provided via entrances off of Solana Way and Margarita Road. Parking will be accommodated at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area within surface parking areas and potentially two parking structures at buildout of the proposed project. Guldant Corporation CRy of Temecula PCR Service~ Coqooration Match 28, 2002 Page A-5 Attachment A: Project Description E. DESCRIPTION OF DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Implementation of the proposed project would require the following approvals: City of Temecula Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration · DeVelopment Agreement · Grading Permits · Building Permits Guldant Corporation City of Temecula PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page A-6 ATTACHMENT B: BUILDING SETBACK DIAGRAM I ap~§ mo~l 3q~laq §u~pl~nq I ~ ~' ou~l 6U~Pl~nq pasodoJd ' ~ ~. __2~ · "~, eu~[ ~doJd J ~ q 1~ -- /? ATTACHMENT C: AIR QUALITY TABLES Atlachment C: Air Quality Tables Table C-1 ESTIMATED WORST CASE PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS" CO ROC Daily Emissions (lbs/day)~ 65 71 SCAQMD Daily Threshold (lbs/day) $50 75 Lbs/Day Over (Under) (485) (4) NOx SOx PM~ob 89 5 9 100 150 150 (11) (145) (141) Worst-case construction impacts are based upon the highest projected daily emiasions occurring during the site preparation and construction phases. Fugitive dust emissions based on .4P-42 assumptions. Daily estimate based on 22.5 working days per month. Source: PCR Services Corporation, February 2002. Construction emission calculation worksheets are included in Appendix A. Guldant Corporation City of Temecula PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page C-I Attachment C: Air Quality Tables Table C-2 ESTIMATED FUTURE MAXIMUM CO CONCENTRATIONS (200S)' Averaging Future Without Future With Project Project Modeled Intersection Pmod Project (2005) b Project (2005) c Increment Impact Motor Car Parkway and l-hr. 9.3 9.5 0.2 No Solaua Way 8-hr. d 3.9 4.4 0.5 No Margarita Road and l-hr. 10.8 11.8 1.0 No Apaxtment Driveway 8-hr. d 4.7 5.2 0.5 No Note: The 8tare 1-hour average CO standard is 20 ppm; the state and federal 8-hour average CO standard is 9.0 ppm. No exceedunces of applicable standards were estimated. These estimated concentrations are based on the traffic impact analysis. Modeled with the CALINE4 dispersion model using EMFAC7F composite emission factors and assuming worst-case meteorological conditions. Concentrations correspond to a location ten feet from the edge of the given intersection for t-hour concentrations and 23 feet from tho edge of the given intersection for 8-hour concentrations. These estimates refer to 2005 and include worst-case background concentrations of 6.1 ppm, I-hour average, and 5.77 ppm, 8-hour average. These projected backgrounds were based on future CO emission trends us described in the 1997,4QMP, $C.4QMD. This scenario presents conditions resulting from cumulative projects without the proposed project These estimates refer to 2005 and include worst-cuse background concentrations of 6.1 ppm, 1-hour average, and 5. 77 ppm, 8-hour average. These projected backgrounds were based on future CO emission trends as described in the 1997,4QMP, $C.4QMD. This scenario presents conditions resulting from cumulative projects, including the proposed project. The 8-hour average concentrations (calculated) are based on the local I-hour average concentrations and a O. 7 perststence factor. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2002. Guldant Corporation City efTemecula PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page C-2 ATTACHMENT D: NOISE TABLES Atmchmem D: Noise Tables Receptor Location Table D-1 NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Time Duration Margarita Road no~th of 8:11 15-mlnute 70.2 Overland Drive 10:53 68.7 Margarita Road south of 7:45 15-minute 70.8 Overland Drive 10:26 69.1 Margarita Road south of Solana 8:45 15-minute 72.1 Way 11:22 71.7 Solana Way west of Margarita 7:20 15-mlnute 67.7 Road 10:01 66.5 a Noise measurements were conducted 10 feet from the roadway segment along the project boundary. Source: PCR Services Corporation, Febntary 2002. Guldant Corporation City of Temecula PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page D-1 Attachment D: Noise Tables Table ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (Highest Noise Levels During One-HOUr Period) Construction Stage Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet Clearing (Site Preparation) 82 Grading 86 Excavation 86 Building Foundation 77 Building Constmction 83 Finishing 86 Source: EP~, Noise from construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home .4ppliances, PB 206717, 1971. Guldant Corporation PCR Services Coq~oration Page D-2 City of Temeeuln March 28, 2002 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 16 Mitigation Monitoring Program Project Description: Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Guidant Corporation Location: Generally located north of Solana Way, west of Margarita Road, south of Overland Drive, and east of Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. Applicant: Guidant Corporation 26531 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591-4628 Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (1). To ensure that the scale and character of proposed development along Margarita Road and Solana Way are compatible with adjacent residential uses, the final Site Plan shaft reflect the following: · A minimum 35-foot landscaped setback shaft be provided along Margarita Road and Solana Way. · Heights of buildings located along Margarita Road and Solana Way at the 35-foot setback line shall be limited to 50 feet. The angle formed from Guidant's existing easternmost property line along Margarita Road, and from Guidant's existing southernmost property line along Solana Way, to the 50-foot vertical building height at the setback line shall form the angular plane that establishes maximum building heights, not to exceed 80 feet (excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures). Setbacks on upper floors and building articulation to reduce the bulk and mass of the buildings shaft be emphasized. The visual mass of buildings along Margarita Road and Solana Way shaft be reduced through breaks in the structure, tree plantings, articulation of the facade, and other architectural devices. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the final Development Plan review process. Prior to approval of the final Development Plan. Community Development Department Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (2). Prior to development or ground disturbance, the impacts to burrowing owls will be mitigated by a combination of pre- construction surveying, passive owl relocation, and burrow replacement. Two weeks before initiation of grading activities, a qualified biologist must survey the entire project area for extant burrowing owls. The biologist will look for burrowing owls while walking 20-meter transects. Every potential suitable burrow will be examined for burrowing owl sign (e.g. feathers, pellets, whitewash, bones, insect exoskeletons). All burrows found to house burrowing owls or sign will be flagged and mapped for removal. When surveying for burrowing owls, it should be noted that they frequently fly to alternative burrow(s) when disturbed. All burrows found to be inhabited by burrowing owls will be fitted with one-way doors for a period of three days. After the third day, the one-way doors will be removed and the burrow network excavated and closed so that re-occupation cannot occur. Before the one- way doors are fitted to the burrows, replacement burrows must be installed in a combination of the channel easement onsite and offsite location to be determined. The offsite location must be considered suitable habitat and of sufficient size. Burrows will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 for each burrow found occupied by burrowing owls. A minimum of six burrows must be installed. Burrows should be installed so that entrances randomly face the cardinal directions and that they are randomly distributed throughout the open space area, however at least 20% should be installed within the existing flood control channel. The design of the artificial burrow should be consistent with the latest widely used design. (3). Generah In order to satisfy Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, vegetation removal should not occur between March and August. If vegetation removal must occur between March and August, then a nesting bird survey must be conducted by a qualified omithologist. Trees and shrubs containing active nests may not be removed until the nesters have finished. Finishing is defined as having successfully raised a brood until they leave the nest or nest abandonment. Renesting by birds requires the process to begin again. Raptors may nest during most any time of the year. Therefore, the barn ow/nest and raptor nest must be surveyed prior to removal regard/ess of time of year. Removal of the tree may occur when it is determined that they are finished nesting or are not nesting. Specific process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: (4). In the event federally endangered fairy shrimp are found off- site adjacent to the project site, the Applicant shall consult with the USFWS prior to issuance of grading permits or any actions involving ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the identified off-site habitat area so that to the extent feasible, project construction and/or operational activities will not have an adverse effect on federally endangered fairy shrimp. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the grading plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (5). Prior to issuance of grading permits 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. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure as pad of the grading plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department Cultural Resources General Impact: Mitigation r~easures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5; and Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleotological resource or site or unique geological feature. (6). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, 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. A qualified archaeologist and a qualified paleontologist shall be present on-site during grading to monitor the site for the presence of cultural or paleontological resources. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of cultural resources or fossils. The developer shall submit to Planning Department staff a copy of a contract between the developer and a qualified archeologist and a paleontologist for monitoring services during grading of the site. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of the grading plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Public Works Department Geoloqy and Soils General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: · Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; · Landslides; and/or Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or properly. (7). Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the recommendations contained in soils report(s) shall be implemented. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning staff will verify compliance With the above mitigation measure as part of the grading and building plan check review processes. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Public Works Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (8). Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department an erosion control plan prepared in accordance with City requirements. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the grading and building plan check review processes. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Public Works Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (9). P/for to the issuance of occupancy permits, landscape plans shall be prepared for all s/opes created by the grading and fi//of these sites consistent with "S/ope Planting Guidelines" and the Development Code, and shall provide erosion control on undeveloped portions of the site. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as pad of the certificate of occupancy review processes. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Public Works Department and Planning Department 5 Noise General Impact: Mitigation Measures: A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Ensure that the following measures are complied with during construction: (10). Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Monday through Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Saturday. (11). The project contractor shall use construction equipment with noise shielding and muffling devices. (12). Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: (13). The Applicant shall notify the communities in advance of construction activities. The construction manager's (or representative's) telephone number shall also be provided with notification so that community concerns can be expressed and addressed whenever feasible. Forms of notification shall include one or more of the following: signs posted on the site and/or distribution of leaflets to adjacent residents. Building and Safety staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the grading and building plan check review processes. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, and during grading and construction. Building and Safety Department Transportation/Traffic General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on reads, or congestion at intersections); and Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. (14). Marqarita Way/Apartment Driveway: The proposed access should be located directly across from the existing Apartment Driveway and form the fourth leg of this intersection. A traffic signal should be constructed with development to allow this access point full access along Margarita Road and additional median modifications and re-striping will be accomplished to maintain LOS D for existing plus project conditions. (15). Proiect Driveway/Solana Way: This access point should be restricted to right-in/right-out only. A stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend should be provided to control vehicles exiting the site. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning and public works staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the certificate of occupancy review process. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Public Works Department and Planning Department Utilities and Services Systems General Impact: Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation Measures: (16). A Drainage Study shaft be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shaft identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off- site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shaft be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage tO public or pdvate property. The study shaft include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of the project site. The basis for analysis ands design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Public Works staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the grading plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Public Works Department A'I-rACHMENT NO. 6 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 17 April 4, 200~ City of Temecula Planning Department P.O, Box 90.33 Temecula CA 92589-9033 Gas Co. Ret'. OM .¥ ~.--; Attention: David Hogan Re: Guldant Corporation, east Of Motorcar Pkwy and Yllez Rd, northwesterly of Margaita Road and Solana Way - City of Temecula Thank you for the opportunity t~ respond to the above-referenced project. Please note that Southern California Qas Company has facilities In the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service Would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangemenfs are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational sen/ice. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this leffer, Is baaed upon present conditions of gas Supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the Jurisdiction of the California Public Uttli§es Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agancles. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service Is available, gas servl0e will be provided tn accordance w~ revised conditions. Typical demand use for: Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 482 therms/Year dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelJing unit These averages am based on total gas consumption in residential Units served by Southern California Gas Company, and It should not be implied that any padicuiar home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of anally. GC-I GC-2 b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction vades so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) alld there is such a wide variation in types of materials and , a typical demand figure is not available for this type or cor~truction. Calculations woutd need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Management programs available to Commercial/iodu$~al custome[s to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy of Our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1-800-GA$-2000. GC-2 (cont.) GC-3 Technical Supervisor The Gas Company (GC) Response to GC Comment No. 1 This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Response to GC Comment No. 2 The comment is noted. The project site is located in an urbanized area in which natural gas infrastructure is currently in place. No significant impact would occur related to natural gas capacity or service capability. The applicant will coordinate with The Gas Company to ensure that the most appropriate and effective applications of energy conservation programs are implemented. Response to GC Comment No. 3 This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 18 Department of Toxic Substances Control ~..; ' , .... ~I i~, ~ iEdwln F. Lowry, Director ;-:!} r,~,.~ o ,) .... I~ 5796 Corporate Avenue WinstonH, Hickox i.:il '~'" ~''~ ::;~Z ~[~!~"ypmss, CalEomla90630 California Envlronment~:¥. Protection Agency April 19, 2002 Gray Davis Mr. David Hogan Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE GUIDANT CORP PROJECT (SCH #20020410~0) Dear Mr. Hogan: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative Declaration (ND) for the above-mentioned Project. Based on lhe review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: 1) DTSC-1 2) The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or hlstorlo uses at the I DTSC-2 Project site have resulted In any release of hazardous wa.3tes/subs~nces at the I PwJect area, 3) 4) The ND needs to Identify any known or potentially oontaminated elte within the proposed PmJeot area. For all Identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate wlle~er conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the envlrorlment. The draft ND should identify the mechanism to Initiate any required investigation and/or remedlatlon for any site that may require remedlatlon, and the government agency to provide appmpflata regulatory oversight. If the property had vegetation or agricultural use, onaite soils could contain pesticide residues, The site may have contributed to Soil. and groundwater contamination. Proper Investigation and remedial actions should be conducted at'the site prior to its new development, 5) If any of the adjacent properties are contaminated with hazardous ohemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet f~om a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall under the "Border Zone of a Co.Luminated F~r a ~ o .~e wey~ ~,ou can re~oe demand ar~ e~your energy~:~f.~. Printed on Reoyded Paper DTSC-3 DTSC-4 DTSC-5 DTSC-6 Mr, David Hogan April19,2002 Page 2 6) Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction ifthe proposed project is on a 'Border Zone Property." The project construction may require s~3il excavation and soil filling in certain areas, Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated sbil. If the sell is contaminated, property dispose of It rather than placing it in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project is planning to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 7) 8) If the project requires demolition, renovation and addition of building structures, investigate the presence of lead paints and asbestos containing materials (ACMe) in the currently existing buildings at the site. If the presence of lead or ACMs are suspected, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with the California environmental regulations. If during construction the project, sol] and/or groundwater contamination are suspected, construction In the area should cease and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it Is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediafion will be conducted, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and c~eanup oyersight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), For additional Information on the VCP, please visit DTSC'S web site at- if you have any questions regarding this leffer, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham, Project Manager at (714) 484-5476. Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office tDTSC-6 (cont.) DTSC-7 DTSC-8 DTSC-9 DTSC-IO Mr. David Hogan Apri119,2002 Page 3 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O, Box 3044 Sacramento, Califemla 95812-3044 Mr. Guerrther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Response to DTSC Comment No. 1 This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Response to DTSC Comment No. 2 Historic uses at the project site may have resulted in prior release of hazardous wastes/substances in the project area; however, appropriate remedial activities have been accomplished. Two dairies, consisting of four residential houses and two milking barns, were formerly located on an overall 41.6-acre site located at the northwestern corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road, of which the project site is a part. An Environmental Site Assessment was performed in April and May 1990 in order to evaluate the presence of environmental contamination on the 41.6-acre site. The site reconnaissance identified nine possible sources of environmental concern including the following: 1) manure; 2) wastewater collected in the ponds; 3) six aboveground gasoline and diesel storage tanks; 4) miscellaneous empty and partially filled containers of hydraulic oil, herbicide, motor oil, muriatic acid, detergent, and unlabeled or unidentified containers; 5) one diesel underground storage tank lUST); 6) one gasoline UST; 7) one hydraulic oil blow-down tank (muffler) for an air compressor formerly located in the northern milking barn; 8) a concrete-lined, subgrade, mechanic's pit in an equipment maintenance bay; and 9) apparent patches of oil-stained soil. During further investigation of the site, an additional compressor blow-down tank was discovered. In order to appropriately remediate the 41.6-acre site for eventual mass grading and future redevelopment, the following was accomplished in 1991: 1) disposal of manure; 2) removal of water accumulated in holding ponds; 3) inspection and remediation of residences and milking barns for asbestos; 4) packing and disposal of household hazardous materials; 5) demolition and disposal of all structures and site improvements; 6) removal of USTs; 7) removal of a mechanic's service pit; 8) abandonment of groundwater monitoring wells; 9) removal of septic tanks; and 10) disposal of hydrocarbon-affected soil. In January 1992, a Closure Report was prepared by Woodward Clyde and submitted to the County of Riverside Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division (DHS) in order to satisfy Riverside County requirements to document removal of the tanks and acknowledge that remedial activities were complete. In addition, according to the Closure Report, during April 1990, three groundwater monitoring wells were installed within the 41.6- acre property (which includes the project site) to assess possible impact to groundwater. Contaminants were not detected in water samples collected from the three wells, and upon approval from County DHS, the monitoring wells were appropriately abandoned. In February 1992, the County of Riverside DHS issued a letter to the applicant indicating that with the provision that the information contained in the Closure Report was accurate, no further remediation action was required. Based on this information, it is assumed that historic uses of the site no longer pose a hazard, as the site has been appropriately and effectively remediated. No mitigation would be necessary. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 19 Response to DTSC Comment No. 3 No known or potentially contaminated site exists within the project site. Refer to Response to DTSC Comment No. 2. In addition, as part of the Environmental Site Assessment that was performed in April and May 1990, a database search for hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 was performed on the 41.6-acre site, which includes the project site. According to the records review, there are no recorded State Superfund, National Priority List (NPL) sites, or landfills (active or inactive) within one-quarter mile of the 41.6-acre site, including the project site. In addition, there are no Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-permitted facilities, Cortese-listed sites or unauthorized tank release cases within the site vicinity. The Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners Office had no records of permits for restricted material use at the project site, and the Eastern Municipal Water District had no record of permits that would allow the site to discharge to the sewer system. Response to DTSC Comment No. 4 The comment is noted. As described in detail under Response to DTSC Comment No. 2, remedial actions took place on the project site in 1991. In February 1992, the County of Riverside Department of Health issued a letter indicating that no further remedial action was required. Response to DTSC Comment No. 5 As indicated previously under Response to DTSC Comment No. 3, the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners Office had no records of permits for restricted material use at 41.6- acre subject site, which includes the project site. For the time period that their records have been maintained, the site has not been involved in agricultural production. In addition, the project site has been investigated for potential soil and groundwater contamination, and appropriate remedial activities have occurred. Refer to Response to DTSC Comment No. 2 for a detaiJed discussion of potential soil and groundwater contamination. Response to DTSC Comment No. 6 The project site is not located on a "Border Zone Property," as it does not fall within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site. Refer to Response to DTSC Comment No. 3. No impacts are anticipated. Response to DTSC Comment No. 7 As described previously under Response to DTSC Comment No. 2, prior remedial activities have ensured that the soil currently on the site is free of contamination. The applicant proposes to balance soils onsJte in order to prepare for construction; therefore, soils will neither be imported onto the site nor will soils on the site be exported. No impacts are anticipated. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 20 Response to DTSC Comment No. 8 The project will not require demolition or renovation of building structures, as the site is currently vacant. While structures historically were located onsite, these structures have since been removed. Proper precautions were taken during demolition activities and the contaminants were remediated prior to their removal in accordance with California environmental regulations. Response to DTSC Comment No. 9 As indicated previously, the project site has been investigated for potential soil and groundwater contamination, and appropriate remedial activities took place in 1991 to prepare the project site for eventual mass grading and future redevelopment. Refer to Response to DTSC Comment No. 2 for a detailed discussion of potential soil and groundwater contamination. Response to DTSC Comment No. 10 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 21 Ap~ 4,2002 Mr. David Hogan Senior Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Subject: Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration for the Expansion of the Guidant Corporation Campus Dear Mr. Hogan: We received a copy of the Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration on April 1, 2002 for the Expansion of the Guidant Corporation Campus Project in the City of Temecula and are providing you with the following comments: I.RCTC-I l) z) 3) RCTC is participating in the development of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and the Community Environmental Acceptability Process (CET^P). As part of the RCIP and CETAP, RCTC requests that ~he Expansion of the Guidant Co~poration Campus Project' not only be Conditioned to study and mitigate for local impacts, but also regional impacts to the transportation system. Alternatives proposed in the Winchester/'l'emecula Corridor RClP/CETAP study indicate a major interchange at the Intemtate 15 (I-15) and State Route 79 (Winchester Read) location. Your traffic Information provides no indication what impact your 5,089 trips par day 'will have on ~eP, her the.. SR-79 interr, ha.']~ immediately north of the project nor the Rancho California Road interchange to the south. It Is suggested In your Notice Section 15 that all of the traffic impacts associated with "the Expansion of the Guldant Corpora'don Campus Project" will be mitigated to a level less than significant (Level of Service D). RCTC Is still concerned that existing and future year Levels of Service (LOS) will be significantly deteriorated to Level of Service 'F", especially at freeway interchanges, Potential cumulative Impacts are not mentioned. RCTC-2 RCTC-3 I Please ensure that you are coordinating dffecfly with Caitrans concerning I-t5 for ~ RCTC-4 this project. I April 4, 2002 Page -2- 4) RCTC would like to maintain a coordinated effort for all projects that affect transportation in western Riverside County, Please contact RCTC if you have any questions concerning this prooess, Should you have additional information, please contact Bechtel Measure "A" Project Coordinator, Gustavo Qulntem, at (g0g)787-7935. Thank you for giving RCTC the opportunity to comment on your proposed Negative Declaration, Sincerely, ;u§l , puty cutive D rector RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission Cc: Linda Grimes, Caitrans 08 Bill Hughes, Mike Davis, Gustevo Qulntero- Bechtel IRCTC-5 RCTC-6 Reviews Non-Pm..jec'A040402DNDN0tieeC~ofl.doc Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Response to RCTC Comment No. 1 This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Response to RCTC Comment No.2 The project site is being developed in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D), the Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study has referenced and incorporated information from the General Plan EIR in analyzing the project's potential significant environmental effects. According to Section 21083.3(b) of the Public Resources Code, "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Furthermore, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Ultimate development of the project site has been addressed under the City of Temecula General Plan, adopted in 1993, and analyzed within the 1993 certified General Plan EIR (copies of these documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department). The proposed project's maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR (0.40) for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Additionally, there is no substantial new information that would indicate that impacts would be more significant than previously described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, with the exception of potentially significant impacts "peculiar to the project" which are identified in the Initial Study and mitigation measures provided to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level, the Initial Study incorporates the General Plan EIR document by reference and does not re-address the impact that the proposed project, or the proposed project plus related projects, would have on the SR-79 interchange immediately north of the project site or the Rancho California Road interchange to the south, as potential impact to these intersections was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Response to RCTC Comment No. 3 The Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study identifies significant environmental effects related to traffic/circulation that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened despite the project's incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These impacts associated with cumulative traffic, including impacts to freeway interchanges, are fully addressed in the City's General Plan EIR, and are not peculiar to the project or its site. Furthermore, the project has provided mitigation measures that are feasible at the project-level and has also incorporated design features that contribute to implementation of the program- R;\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 22 level mitigation measures set forth in the City General Plan EIR. In accordance with Section 15152(f)(3)(C) of the CEQA Guidelines, the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another environmental impact report would be to put the agency in a position to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the effects. The City previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, acknowledging significant unavoidable impacts related to traffic, and maximum buildout potential of the project site was addressed in the General Plan EIR; therefore, significant environmental effects related to traffic/circulation have been adequately addressed. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the project site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With cumulative traffic (estimated proposed project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent development), all study area intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels at peak hours with the exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway and Motor Car Parkway at Solana Way. Incorporation of mitigation would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Response to RCTC Comment No. 4 As indicated previously under Response to RCTC Comment Nos. 2 and 3, impacts associated with cumulative traffic including impacts to 1-15, are fully addressed in the City's General Plan EIR, and are not peculiar to the project or its site. Ultimate development of the project site has been addressed under the City of Temecula General Plan, adopted in 1993, and analyzed within the 1993 certified General Plan EIR (copies of these documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department). The proposed project's maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR (0.40) for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Additionally, there is no substantial new information that would indicate that impacts to 1-15 would be more significant than previously described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, with the exception of potentially significant impacts "peculiar to the project" which are identified in the Initial Study and mitigation measures provided to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level, the Initial Study incorporates the General Plan EIR document by reference and does not re-address the impact that the proposed project, or the proposed project plus related projects, would have on I- 15. For that reason, direct coordination with Caltrans concerning 1-15 was not undedaken. It should be noted, however, that a copy of the Draft Initial Study was distributed to Caltrans, District 8 by the State Clearinghouse. Caltrans did not submit any comments. Response to RCTC Comment No. 5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision- makers. Response to RCTC Comment No. 6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 23 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 COLOR AND MATERIAL PALETFE (SEE SEPARATE HANDOUT) R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report CC.doc 24 ITEM 12 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManageflCity Council APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CiTY MANAGER /~,~. William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer October 22, 2002 Pedestrian Bridge over Winchester Road at Nicholas Road PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Approve the Recommendations of the Public Traffic Safety Commission to accept the no-build alternative and direct the Public Works Department to pursue intersection enhancements as recommended. BACKGROUND: At the July 10, 2001 meeting, the City Council directed the Public Works Department to process an application for the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Winchester Road at Nicolas Road. To initiate this process, staff met with Caltrans officials on August 21, 2001 to investigate the feasibility of constructing the pedestrian bridge. At Caltrans' request, a City letter dated September 11, 2001, formally requested the initiatibn of the pedestrian bridge project. In response to the City's request to initiate the process of constructing the pedestrian overcrossing, Caltrans issued a letter dated November 15, 2001. In the letter, Caltrans stated that they could not support the construction of this facility. Caltrans cited the presence of a traffic signal with a pedestrian crosswalk at the location of the proposed bridge as the primary reason for not supporting the construction of the overcrossing. The major criterion the proposed bridge does not meet is quoted below from Caltrans' letter: "The location must be on the "Suggested Route to School" at an uncontrolled intersection or mid-block location along an expressway or major arterial street where the width, traffic speed and volume make it undesirable for pedestrians to cross. There is an existing traffic signal with a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of State Route 79 and Nicolas Road, which is immediately adjacent to the high school. This provides a "controlled" environment for pedestrians to cross Winchester Road safely." In order to insure that all available options and all aspects of the proposed overcrossing were explored, the City retained the consulting firm of Imbsen & Associates, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study. The study identified four (4) alternatives as described below. Alternative No. 1 - "No Build": This alternative proposes no change to the existing conditions since the existing controlled intersection provides adequate and safe pedestrian crossing on Winchester Road at Nicolas Road. There will be no costs associated with this alternative. R:\agdrpt~agendaform/ajp 1 Alternative No. 2 - "Grade Separation": This option includes either Winchester Road going over Nicolas Road or Winchester Road going under Nicolas Road. This alternative will require a long transition to get back to the existing grade and will eliminate direct access to the businesses along Winchester Road and the RTA bus stop, which is used by the students. This alternative will also require several underground utility relocations, additional right-of-way and severely impact the adjacent developments including the Chaparral High School. This alternative would be the most costly alternative at approximately $3 million. Alternate No. 3 - "Pedestrian Overcrossin.q": This alternative will require a very long ramp in order to provide the minimum vertical clearance required by Caltrans. This alternative will also require additional right-of-way and relocation of existing high voltage power lines and other utilities. The overcrossing would also restrict the visibility of the existing traffic signal, therefore, creating a potential unsafe condition at the intersection of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road. The cost for this alternative is estimated at $2 million. The most important factor in considering this alternative is the utilization of the ovemrossing by students. Students, most likely, will choose to use the existing "at grade" intersection rather than using the long ramps or the stairs. Due to the existing conditions such as driveways, bus stops and utility company facilities, installation of a barrier or a fence to channel the students to the overcrossing would not be feasible. Alternative No. 4 - "Pedestrian Undercrossinq" (Tunnel): This alternative will pose similar challenges as Alternative No. 3. In addition, an undercrossing will require addressing other issues such as ground water and security of the hidden-from-view areas. The cost for this alternative is estimated at $1.5 million. Summary and Conclusions: As stated in this report and in the feasibility study, all available build alternatives will severely impact the surrounding private properties; will be costly; and above all else, the use of an overcrossing by students, and therefore, its effectiveness cannot be ,quaranteed. In addition, if an overcrossing is constructed at this location, the existing pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signal phase will have to be removed. The removal of pedestrian crossing at the signalized intersection of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road will result in students crossing Winchester Road without the signal protection, which will definitely compromise their safety. The four (4) alternatives along with the summary and conclusions were presented to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission at their meeting of September 26, 2002. The Commission approved (3-2) to recommend that the City Council implement Alternative 1, the "No Build" alternative. The Commission also recommended that staff install "countdown" pedestrian signals, install bollards for protection at the pedestrian ramps, work with the school district to educate the students on proper use of the pedestrian count down signals and work with Caltrans to implement signing and striping improvements on Winchester Road including electronic message boards advising motorists of the school zone. The full Imbsen & Associates, Inc. feasibility study is available in the Traffic Division for review. FISCAL IMPACT: At the July 10, 2001 meeting, the City Council approved a transfer of $400,000.00 in Capital Reserves to the pedestrian bridge project over State Route 79 North/Winchester Road at R:\agdrpt\agendafonm/ajp 2 Nicolas Road. The recommended intersection enhancements can be accomplished within the budget amount. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Minutes of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission - September 26, 2002 Exhibit "B" - Count Down Pedestrian Signal Exhibit"C"- Bollard Example R:\agdrpt\agenda fomVajp 3 EXHIBIT "A" DRAFT ections but for mid-block crossings, recommending that at this time the [y recommend the installation of stop signs along commendation to place the LED speed limit advisory signs on both ends of North Road. For Commissioner months or years Senior Engineer Moghadam confirmed that it would be either :D in-pavement crossing device was accepted by Caltrans. unanimous approval of the motion. Commissioner Connerton noted the advisory sign prior to the location of the ce of placing an LED advisory speed limit Commissioner Coe advised that discussion, as well as the fact that the petition su signatures of approximately 200 residents, aided in installation of these particular stop signs. comments during Commission ~ installation had the )inion to support the Apprising the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and the public, Lohman provided additional information regarding the fact that initially vehicles kely not stop at the stop signs due to unfamiliarity, urging the residents to ,rose of security when crossing at this location; and additionally noted that in the video presentation, every vehicle had run the existing stop sign in this area. For Commissioner Wedel, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed the City's procedure for installing new stop signs. 3. Pedestrian Brid,qe Over Winchester Road at Nicolas Road RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the feasibility study for a pedestrian bridge over Winchester Road at Nicolas Road, and make recommendations to the City Council. Director of Public Works Hughes provided a detailed overview of the staff report (of record), relaying the following: That since the School District determined to locate the high school on Winchester/Nicolas Roads in the early 90's there has been a heightened concern with the fact that some students would be crossing at Winchester Road to access the school, advising that this location has been reviewed in detail by various agencies, e.g., the City of Temecula, the Highway Patrol, the City's Police Department, Chaparral representatives, and Caltrans, noting that the results of these efforts was that there was one conflictive movement that was of concern, which was the situation whereupon all the students utilizing the student parking lot had to use Nicolas Road to exit, that a large number of these drivers would be making a right turn on Winchester Road while at the same time a large number of pedestrian students would be attempting to cross Winchester Road at Nicolas Road, advising that it was determined that a new driveway would be desirable westerly of Nicolas Road in order that the students westbound on Winchester Road could exit DRAFT the parking area without using the intersection of Winchester/Nicolas Roads, relaying that this (right-out only) driveway was installed; That approximately one-and-a-half years ago, the City Council directed staff to review the feasibility of installing a pedestrian overcrossing, relaying the heightened awareness brought to this location again, this time due to a fatal accident; specified staff's numerous meetings and discussions with Caltrans regarding the overcrossing project which ultimately resulted in Caltrans' determination that a signalized intersection with pedestrian crossings was the proper and adequate device to control the intersection, and that the overcrossing concept could not be supported; That Winchester Road was a State facility, not owned or operated by the City, clarifying that prior to any facility being constructed Caltrans' approval would be necessary; That subsequent to Caltrans' rejection of the pedestrian bridge concept, staff was diligently attempting to pursue all feasible options at the direction of the City Council, and a request was brought forward to the City Council to commission a study by an independent engineering firm to evaluate all possible methods of crossing at this location; noted that the study determined structural improvements which would be physically feasible, i.e., a pedestrian overcrossing, a tunnel, raising either Nicolas or Winchester Roads in order to separate the grade; clarified that the problem related to these options was that Caltrans' standards still had not been met which the study denoted as the major constraint in building these improvements; That an additional obstacle to the project would be the usage issue, specifically due to the existing intersection and the new bridge or tunnel facility requiring the students to go out of their way for access, advising that if Winchester Road was a freeway and there was no access from Nicolas Road, if there were fences, medians, and barriers up, a pedestrian crossing would be an easy installation with a guarantee of usage; For informational purposes, relayed that the vast majodty of students accessing the crosswalk at Nicolas Road and Winchester Road were being dropped off by their parents on the east side of Winchester Road, these parents introducing a larger percentage of the students to that crossing; Updating the Commission, relayed that the City was currently processing a Specific Plan in the Roripaugh Ranch area and that part of this project's mitigation measures would be to install improvements at this intersection; Relayed that this traffic situation was not unlike other intersections in the City; Noted the importance of pedestrians being responsible and cautious when crossing the street; Advised that staff would bring forward to the City Council the recommendation of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission regarding how to proceed with the project; and DRAFT For additional information, relayed that individuals who opted not to cross Winchester Road, there was an existing tunnel to the east of Nicolas Road at the creek crossing, advising that even though this was a safe crossing available to the students, it was not used due to the inconvenience of the students having to go out of their way. In response to Commissioner Katan's queries regarding staff's opinion, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that in light of all the information regarding this issue, it would be his opinion that the City should investigate implementing other types of improvements at this location that would be viable and aid in addressing the impacts; advised that a significant problem with the bridge or tunnel project would be how to get the students to utilize the facility; for Commissioner Conner/on, relayed that Roripaugh Road was approximately one-quarter mile from this area which had signalized intersections and pedestrian crossings; confirmed that pedestrians planning on crossing at Roripaugh Road could not be expected to go as far as Nicolas Road to make their crossing; and provided additional information regarding the Caltrans' guidelines. Commissioner Wedel noted that it was his understanding from reading the independent study's executive summary that each alternative had pros and cons and that the study did not state the lack of support for a pedestrian bridge or tunnel. For clarification, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the reference from the study that he referred to was that none of the build alternatives would be supported by the Caltrans' criteria. Offering additional comments, Commissioner Wedel noted that staff's verbal recommendation was a vaporous solution; advised that while personal responsibility with respect to safety was important for pedestrians while crossing a street, that society dictates that children are the responsibility of the parents and the adults in that society; and relayed that since this high school was located next to a major highway the obligation for provision of a safe crossing option should be considered. For Commissioner Wedel, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that he had offered his opinion due to it being requested, advising that he would further discuss the 5~h option in additional detail if that was the desire of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, clarifying that this option did not meet the direction given by the City Council, but was an alternative for in the event that a solution of building a pedestrian overcrossing was determined to be not feasible. The following individuals spoke in favor of the installation of a pedestrian bridge at Nicolas Road: Ms. Beverly A. Daniels Ms. Santanya Fahie [] Ms. Suzanne Cacanindin 30478 Sierra Madre Drive 30485 Sierra Madre Drive 40132 Villa Venecia The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the installation of a pedestrian bridge for the following reasons: Due to the large number of children crossing in this area and the heavy traffic present; DRAFT The pedestrian bridge constructed proximate to a school in the City of Oceanside was utilized by students; As development and growth continued, traffic congestion in this area would increase; Relayed hopes that more children would not be killed at this crossing prior to the City installing a pedestrian bridge; The parents dropping off students across the street from the school were trusting that this crossing was safe, advising that it was the responsibility of the City and the School to ensure that this school zone was safe; With respect to the concept that the students would not utilize the pedestrian bridge, relayed that campus Police Officers could stand out on Winchester Road to ensure that the children were not crossing illegally; The improvements made at this intersection thus far were not adequate; Noted alternate accidents in this area; and Requested that the Commission put the lives of children ahead of the numbers and the politics when making its determination. Reviewing the information included in the study, Commissioner Connerton noted the constraints related to installing a pedestrian bridge, in particular the ADA requirements, i.e., requirements for ramps and rest areas, or an elevator, that are associated with the project, advising that the study denoted the need for the project to meet ADA requirements which would create significant constraints. With respect to enforcement in this area, for Commissioner Connerton, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the Highway Patrol as well as the Temecula Police Department has enforcement capabilities; noted the potential impacts if this intersection was controlled by Police Officers in lieu of the signal; specified that the speed limit west of Nicolas Road was 45 MPH, and 65 MPH, east of Nicolas Road, and that during school hours the speed limit was 25 MPH in the school zone; and noted that if it was the desire of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and the City Council concurred, staff could begin discussions with the School District regarding provisions for a shuttle program to transport the students across the street. Commissioner Connerton specified alternate constraints associated with the alternatives in the study, e.g., location of the sewer line, and the water line; and noted various County projects, which would most likely improve traffic in this area. Commissioner Wedel recommended that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the City Council direct staff to investigate additional altematives, other than structural solutions, clarifying the desire for the study to be broader. With respect to the issue of politics, Commissioner Katan opined that this project would not be denied due to political issues (which was a concern expressed during the public DRAFT comment period); and noted that of the four alternatives denoted in the study, the underground tunnel appeared to have the least amount of constraints. Commissioner Coe expressed his deepest sympathy to Ms. Cacanindin due to the loss of her son at this intersection; advised that this intersection was similar to a plethora of intersections in the City, advising that to install a bridge or tunnel at all these locations where there could be a potential for danger would not be feasible; while clarifying his passionate desire to provide safety for children pedestrians, noted the constraints of the study's alternatives; queried whether it would be possible to install large electronic signs prior to the approach of the intersection, cautioning drivers in advance of the fact that this was a pedestrian crossing school zone; and concurred that the bridge project would not be feasible. Chairman Lanier commented on the usage issue associated with the bridge project, concurring that children would use the most convenient path and not the bridge; queried whether the improvements to this intersection with the Roripaugh Hills project could be implemented sooner. Recapitulating the situation, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that Caltrans did not support a structural improvement at this location; advised that even though the City did not have jurisdiction over the Highway, there was the option that efforts could continue to push Caltrans for a solution; relayed that while Caltrans viewed the existing controls as adequate, there were alternate solutions staff has investigated that would most likely be feasible and supported by Caltrans, listed as follows for the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration: To install a countdown pedestrian crossing device which provides the seconds remaining that the pedestrian has available to continue crossing the street, advising that favorable comments were received regarding this installation proximate to the Guidant use; To install a different type of striping for the crosswalks with a higher visibility; · To install the camera monitoring system in this area (if approved by the City Council) which would provide 24-hour surveillance of the area; To install raised concrete bollards (if approved by the City Council) on the corners at the intersection which would encourage the students to stand away from the street curbs, creating greater safety; and A bussing or shuttle program could be explored, as recommended by Commissioner Connerton, advising that this program would need to have the cooperation of the School District, recommending that a satellite location be developed in order that parents could drop their children off at a designated off-site location; Concluding his comments, Director of Public Works Hughes reiterated that the intersection improvements which would soon be coming forward would improve traffic congestion in this area; for informational purposes, noted that the speed limit east of Nicolas Road could be lowered in the near future, and that additional signals which would be placed north of the City would change the driving characteristics in the area; for Commissioner Coe, relayed that staff had proposed to Caltrans to install the lighted DRAFT pedestrian school zone facilities utilized at alternate schools in the City, which Caltrans would not allow; for informational purposes, provided additional information regarding building bridges to address traffic issues; for Commissioner Connedon, advised that if the countdown pedestrian signal was installed, the School District could be requested to provide education regarding the device, noting that this installation would not require City Council approval. Commissioner Katan noted concern with respect to installing the countdown pedestrian signal due to the competitive nature of the students, i.e., students competing to beat the time, Commissioner Connerton relaying that educating the students may aid in the use of this device. Chairman Lanier noted that the countdown pedestrian signals were effectively used on the strip in the City of Las Vegas. MOTION: Commissioner Connerton moved to recommend that the Public Works Department install the pedestrian countdown device at this location and that staff work with the School District to provide mandatory education to the students regarding use of the device. Commissioner Coe seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Katan and Wedel who voted n..9o. Commissioner Coe requested that if Caltrans was opposed to the installation of the recommended large electronic signs cautioning ddvers regarding the upcoming school crossing that information be provided so that private citizens could contact Caltrans regarding this recommendation. Commissioner Wedel disagreed with Commissioner Connerton, noting that Alternatives 2-4 were not deemed conclusively impossible projects, advising that a tunnel would not have the same ADA constraints as the bridge. After additional discussion and clarification was provided regarding Commissioner Connerton's recommendation, the following motion was offered: MOTION: Commissioner Connerton moved to recommend that the City Council approve Alternative No. 1 (the no-build alternative); directed staff to proceed with the options identified by staff, to pursue City Council and Caltrans approval, if necessary, for implementation of these alternatives inclusive of the following: the installation of bollards at the intersections, striping, electronic signs, and a shuttle/bus program; and requested that the installations be implemented expeditiously. Commissioner Coe seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Katan and Wedel who voted n_go. TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT For informational purposes, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the City Manager's office would be generating a report regarding Neighborhood Watch Programs and Neighborhood Patrols, which would be coming forward soon. R:'~afficminut es't092602 10 EXHIBIT "B" Traditional Pedestrian Signal Countdown Pedestrian Signal EXHIBIT "C" - BOLLARD EXAMPLE ITEM 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CiTY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council APPROVAL 11 CI ATTORNEY /I DIRECTOR OF FINAN/(~_E P/--II CITY MANAGER /'/~" I /J~' William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer October 22, 2002 All-Way Stop Sign Installation Nodh General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council reject the Public Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation to establish an ail-way stop at the intersection of North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND GOLDEN ROD ROAD BACKGROUND: A petition was received from Mr. Steve Chavez, on behalf of the residents of Golden Rod Road and North General Kearny Road, requesting the installation of Multi-Way Stop signs at the intersection of North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road. Additionally, Councilman Naggar and Commissioner Connerton met with the residents of Golden Rod Road to discuss the residents' concerns regarding vehicular volumes and pedestrian activities in the vicinity of this intersection. Golden Rod is a T-intersection at North General Kearney. Staff Evaluation An evaluation of traffic conditions was performed for the intersection of North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road and the minimum warrant criteria for the installation of multi-way stop were not satisfied. The City has adopted guidelines to evaluate stop sign requests based on guidelines established by Caltrans for the installation of multi-way stop signs. In absence of any unusual conditions or circumstances, and utilizing sound professional engineering judgment, staff has consistently applied these guidelines to make recommendations. Although this request specifically cited the need for safe pedestrian crossings in the area, staff's investigations did not reveal conditions or volumes of pedestrians that were measurably significant to justify the stops. Commission Recommendation At their meeting of September 26, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission considered the results of the Multi-Way Stop Warrant Analysis and unanimously (5-0) denied the staff recommendation to maintain the present le',el of control at the intersection and recommended that the City I r:~Agenda Repo~t'G.002\102202~stopbutterflelddepor[ola.reso Council adopt a resolution establishing an All-Way Stop control at the intersection of North General Kearny Road at Golden Rod Road. The Commission's recommendation to install an all-way stop was based on the residents' testimonythat the stop signs would provide a safer intersection, would slow vehicle speeds, would correct erratic turning movements, and provide a pedestrian crossing location. The traffic study and recent enforcement activities did not indicate a speed problem in the area and the conditions in this case are ~ery similar to many streets in the City. The Commissioner's comments and justi~cation for recommending the stop included comments that the street wes a long stretch without a stop, there were sidewalks missing along some sections of the street, and the area is gro,zing with a number of new developments in the area. The Commission was also encouraged by the petition submitted. Consequence of this stop s~qn installation Besides the technical evaluation not supporting the installation of the all-way stop, it should be noted that several operational precedence setting issues might arise rom this installation. This stop sign will create a staggering effect of cars along North General Kearny Road during busy times that will make it more difficult for drivers to back into the street or br pedestrians to find gaps to cross the street at other locations than e~st now (similar to Old Town Front Street); there may be a slight diversion of drivers to Sierra Madre Drive; several homes will lose on-street parking with the installation, and it is likelythat the City will receive complaints from those residents near the intersection due to the increase noise rom accelerating and decelerating vehicles. Also, as many as 2,000 vehicles a day will be required to stop at this location ~thout an apparent reason. It is our e~perience that this will become a roll-through stop, it ~ill promote a lack of respect for properly placed traffic control devices, and it will encourage reconsideration of other requests to install stop signs at other similar un~rranted locations. It is requested that the City Council hear a staff report, receive testimony, and deliberate to determine a course of action on this manner. If the City Council elects to move forward with the all- way stop, the appropriate resolutions are attached. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in Public Works Signing and Striping Account. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2002- Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Public/Traffic Safety Commission Agenda Report -September 26, 2002 2 r:~Agenda Repod~2002\102202~stopbuttedielddeportola.reso RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND GOLDEN ROD ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the facts justifying the need for the stop signs proposed for the location described in this resolution. The City Council herebyfinds and determines that installation of the stop signs pursuant to this resolution will enhance the public health and safety and general welfare at this location and the proposed stop signs will not create any adverse conditions in the area. SECTION2. PursuanttoSection 10.12.100, oftheTemecula MunicipalCode, the following Ali-Way Stop intersection is hereby established in the City of Temecula. North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk 3 r:~Agenda Repod~2002\102202~stopbutterflelddeportola.reso [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 the foregoing Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of October 2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk 4 r:~Agenda Repor~2002\102202~stopbutterflelddepodola.reso RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND GOLDEN ROD ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the facts justifying the need for the step signs proposed for the location described in this resolution. The City Council hereby finds and determines that installation of the stop signs pursuant to this resolution will enhance the public health and safety and general welfare at this location and the proposed stop signs will not create any adverse conditions in the area. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100, of the Temecula Municipal Code, the following Ali-Way Stop intersection is hereby established in the City of Temecula. North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 2002. ATTEST: Ron Robeds, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk 3 r:~,genda Report',2002\102202\stopbutterfielddeportola.reso [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 the foregoing Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22"d day of October 2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk 4 r:'~Agenda Repod~002\102202\stopbutter~elddepodola,reso AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission ~------~li Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic September 26, 2002 Item 2 Multi-Way Stop Signs - North General Keamy Road at Golden Rod Road RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend: 1. That the present level of traffic control be maintained at the intersection of North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road; and 2. That the LED speed limit advisory signs be installed on Noah General Kearny Road just east and west of Golden Rod Road in compliance with the City's policy. BACKGROUND: A petition was received l~om Mr. Steve Chavez, on behalf of the residents of Golden Rod Road and North General Kearny Road, requesting the installation of Multi-Way Stop signs at the intersection &North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road. A similar request was submitted to the County of Riverside for the installation of Multi-Way Stop signs at the intersection of Golden Rod Road and Franciscan Court. An evaluation of traffic conditions has been performed at the North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road intersection to determine if minimum warrant criteria for the installation of Multi-Way Stop signs is satisfied. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this matter through the agenda notification process and by letter. The Public/Traffic Safety Conmatssion has considered the issue of speeding on North General Kearny Road numerous times in the past and numerous studies have been performed for the area. The use of multi-way stop controls along North General Kearny Road has been evaluated at least five (5) times in the past five (5) years, not including the latest evaluation. During those evaluation periods, Golden ROd Road did not connect to the single-family residential developments located to the north in the County of Riverside. In response to the residents' petition, the LED speed limit advisory sign was installed on Golden Rod Road just east of North General Kearny Road on September 5, 2002, to raise the motorist's awareness of the posted speed limit and advise them of their speed. Pursuant to the sign's installation policy, the sign will remain on Golden Rod Road for a period of up to thirty (30) days. North General Kearny Road is a forty-four (44) foot wide residential street that functions as a collector street providing direct access to Nicolas Road for numerous single-family dwelling units. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on North General Kearny Road is approximately 2,200 west of Golden Rod Road. The speed limit is posted at 25 MPH on North General Kearny Road. Golden Rod Road between North General Kearny Road end the City limit is a forty-four (44) foot wide residential street that functions as a collector street. There are approximately ten (10) single-family dwelling units that front on Golden Rod Road. The speed limit is posted at 25 MPH on Golden Rod Road within the City limits. There is a stop sign for southbound traffic on Golden Rod Road. Beyond the city limits, in the County of Riverside, Golden Rod Road is a for~ty-four (44) foot wide residential collector street with no single- family dwelling units fronting the street. In the County's segment, Golden Rod Road provides access to Willows Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road for numerous single-family residential units. The County has posted the speed limit at 40 MPH on this segment of Golden Rod Road. In order to evaluate the need for multi-way stop signs, entering vehicular volume data was collected for a seventy-two (72) hour period from September 3 through 5, 2002. This data was used to perform a multi-way stop warrant enalysis. The Caltrens Traffic Manual indicates that the multi-way stop signs may be useful at locations where the volume of traffic on intersecting roads is approximately equal end/or where a combination of high speed, restricted sight distance and en accident history indicates that assignment of fight-of-way is necessary. Multi-Way Stop controls should not be used for controlling vehicular speed. There are three (3) criteria that Caltrens has established for the evaluation of multi-way stop signs. These criteria are as follows: Where signals are warrented end urgently needed, the multi-way stop may be an interim measure that cen be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installations. An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents within a twelve (12) month per/od of a type susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such accidents include right end left-tom collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum Traffic Volumes The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for eny eight (8) hours ofen average day, and The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight (8) hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but When the m ' ' ' 85 percent~leapproachspeedofthemajorstxeettmfficexceeds40n'ulesperhour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. The multi-way stop warrant analysis performed for the intersection indicates that the minimum traffic volume warrant is not satisfied end multi-way stop signs are not warranted at the intersection. Because the east leg of North General Kearny Road was closed when the original data was collected, a subsequent evaluation was performed using revised data collected during a forty-eight (48) hour period from September 11 through 13, 2002, after the opening of the east leg of North General Keamy Road. The subsequent analysis indicates that the minimum traffic volume warrant is not satisfied and multi-way stop signs are not warranted at the intersection. Our evaluation under both scenarios did not reveal any unusual cimumstances or conditions that would suggest that the intersection requires special consideration for the use of multi-way stop signs. Copies of both analyses are included as Exhibit "B". The vehicular volume data collected on September 11, through 13, 2002, indicates that following the opening of the east leg of North General Kearny Road there was a thirty-seven (37) percent reduction in vehicular volumes on Golden Rod Road end a similar percentage increase in vehicular volumes on the east leg of North 2 General Kearny Road. This confirms the residents' observations that Golden Rod Road was being used as the primary access to Nicolas Valley elementary School during the road construction closure. In addition to the multi-way stop warrant anaylsis, an evaluation of vehicular speeds was performed on North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road on September 10, 2002, after the opening of the road closure. The spot speed analysis indicates that the 85th percentile speed on North General Keamy Road and Golden Rod Road within the City limits is approximately 30 MPH. The 85t~ percentile speeds observed on North General Kearny Road are consistent with those observed in 1999. Copies of the spot speed analysis are included as Exhibit "C". The residents also expressed concems regarding the lack of adequate sight distance at the intersection due to obstructions (parked vehicles, utility boxes and vegetation) and the execution of improper tums by eastbound to northbound letLmm vehicles which effectively encroach into oncoming traffic traveling southbound on Golden Rod Road. An evaluation of the sight distance was performed and it was determined that if vehicles stop at the limit line (approximately 10 feet behind the extension of the curb line) on Golden Rod Road, the visibility of approaching westbound North General Kearny Road traffic is limited when a vehicle is parked at the northeast comer of the intersection. However, the line of sight does improve when a vehiete pulis out beyond the limit line to a point where parked vehicles do not restrict their line of sight. Using an approach speed of 25 MPH, the minimum stopping sight distance reqUired at this location is approximately one hundred eighty-five (185) feet. Our evaluation indicates that the stopping sight distance is becomes less restricted when a vehicle edges out beyond the limit line. The restriction of on street parking to improve the minimum sight distance will effectively remove the only available on stxeet parking in front of the two single family residences located on the northeast comer of North General Kearny Road and Golden Rod Road. The sight distance looking west was unobstructed. Considering that the 85th percentile speeds along North General Kearny Road are relatively low and the fact that ihere have been no reported traffic collisions at this intersection in the past twenty-four (24) months, it is staWs opinion that the current sight distance is adequate for conditions and the restriction of parking is not necessary at this time. For these reasons, staff recommends that the present level of traffic control be maintained at the intersection of North General Kearny Road and Golden ROd Road. Staff also recommends the installation of the LED speed limit advisory sign on North General Kearny Road just east and west of Golden Rod Road to raise the motorists' awareness of the posted speed limit and advise them of their speed. In addition to the recommended action, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission could consider other alternatives such as: the installation ofcenterline striping on North General Kearny Road and Golden ROd Road to produce a narrowing effect and guide vehicles at the intersection; the installation of a supplemental fine sign located · below the existing speed limit sign on Golden ROd Road; and request that the Police Department provide additional enforcement on North General Keamy Road and Golden Rod Road. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Routine Street Maintenance Account. Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" - Multi-Way Stop Warrant Analysis 3. Exhibit "C" - Spot Speed Analysis 4. Exhibit "D" - Sight Distance Visibility Analysis 5. Exhibit "E" - Letter and Petition from Steve Chavez received August 23, 2002 3 ITEM 14 DIRECTOR OF FIN./~/I~E~ CITY MANAGER ~/-- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manage~ October 22, 2002 Resolution Establishing A Municipal Utility PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE CREATION AND OPERATION OF A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING VARIOUS UTILITY SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF CERTAIN OTHER ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BACKGROUND: At your August 27, 2002 meeting, the CityCouncil considered information provided by the Electrical Subcommittee, composed ofCouncilmembers Naggar and Comerchero. At that time, the CityCouncil directed staff to prepare the necessary resolution that would allow the formation of a municipal electric utility. The attached resolution authori;~s the creation and operation of a municipal electric utility. The resolution does not require that the Cityproceed further, but does allow the City to take further steps to form and operate such a utility, if desired. The form and content of the resolution is similar to that enacted by a number of other cities as noted in the stall report for your August 27 meeting. The resolution also authorizes creation and operation of other utility services, including telecommunication, natural gas, and storm drainage. 'lhis broad drafting is also similar to resolutions adopted by other cities, and allows, but does not require the cityto take further steps toward establishing other utility operations. The Electrical Subcommittee has reviewed the attached resolution and recommends appro,,al. In addition, the Subcommittee has continued to research and discuss other steps related to formation ora municipal electrical utility, as discussed at your August 27 meeting. One possible step is retaining a utility consultant to conduct an independent assessment of the feasibility of forming and operating a "spot" municipal utilitythat would provide service to newly developing areas. The subcommittee is continuing to discuss the merits ofthis idea and expects to make a recommendation to the City Council in November. In addition, the Governor recently signed AB 117 which again allows cities to become electric power "aggregators". In summa~ cities may purchase bulk power and then re-sell it to businesses and residential customers. '[he Public Utilities Commission still needs to make some key decisions regarding fees that could affect the feasibility of this option, and these decisions are expected within the next few months. As such, aggregation of electricity could become an option in-lieu of, or in addition to, a spot municipal utility. Staff and the Electrical Subcommittee will continue to monitor this and make recommendations as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time Attachments: Resolution 02- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE CREATION AND OPERATION OF A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING VARIOUS UTILITY SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF CERTAIN OTHER ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Temecula (the "City"), a municipal corporation, is authorized pursuant to Article XI, Section 9(a) of the California Constitution and the laws of the State of California, to establish, purchase and operate public works to furnish its inhabitants with natural gas, electric, cable television, telephone and telecommunications utility system, where appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City is experiencing significant growth; and WHEREAS, the City desires to ensure that its citizens are provided with utilities that meet the current and future needs of the community, that utilize advanced technology, that provide utility services at rates and charges that are fair and reasonable, that provide high quality customer service, that provide alternatives to existing providers of utility services and that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City has studied, reviewed and analyzed the current status of deregulation of communications systems and electric and natural gas utilities in the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City has consulted with various experts to identify the prospective benefits of establishing a municipally owned utility; and WHEREAS, as a result of deregulation of the communications and electric and natural gas utility industries in California, the City has identified numerous potential benefits that would derive from providing a municipally owned utility, including but not limited to additional revenues for community improvements, the ability to offer competitive rates to citizens and businesses for utility services and high speed communications capability for residential, business and governmental use that support variable bandwidth and seamless communication, community wide; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found and determined that the creation of a municipally-owned utility could significantly enhance the quality of life and provide significant benefits to the citizens and businesses of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: 707941 Section 1. The City of Temecula does hereby establish a municipally owned electric, natural gas, cable television, telephone and telecommunications utility in the City of Temecula. Section 2. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to take all necessary steps to create and establish a municipally owned utility (the "Municipal Utility") with powers to provide various utility services, including, without limitation, electric, natural gas, storm drainage, cable television, telephone and telecommunications, to be determined from time to time by the City Council, to the residents and businesses of the City. The City Manager or his designee is further authorized to take all necessary actions to provide for the operation and maintenance of the municipal utility including but not limited to, determining the level of additional staffing required, if any, identifying outsourcing needs, negotiating agreements with consultants, special counsel, underwriter(s) and/or financial advisors in connection with regulatory, legal or financial matters for approval by the City Council. Section 3. The Mayor (or in the Mayor's absence, the Mayor Pro Tem), the City Manager, or their designee are hereby authorized to execute and deliver any and all documents and instruments and to do and cause to be done any and all acts and things necessary or proper for carrying out the transactions contemplated by this Resolution. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution which shall be in full force and effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22nd day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. 707941 2 CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk 707941 3 ITEM 15 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Shawn Nelson, City Manager October 22, 2002 Award of Contract for Open Space Survey of Voters PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a contract in the amount of $16,625 to Godbe Research & Analysis to perform an Open Space Survey of Voters 2. Appropriate $16,625 fi-om the General Fund Open Space Reserves to fund this contract BACKGROUND: The preservation of open space is an issue that can be important for Temecula's future therefore, a survey of Temecula voters and property owners to gauge their opinions and thresholds for an open space special tax would provide tremendous insight. Godbe Research & Analysis (GPA), has previously conducted public opinion polling for the City of Temecula library project as well as a Citizen Opinion Survey. GPA proposes developing a survey instrument based on input from the City Council Open Space Subcommittee and staff that would measure the willingness of Temecula voters and property owners to support a measure to fund open space acquisitions. This survey would provide the City with statistically reliable information to gauge the interest in supporting a revenue measure and, if so, how the City can best package the measure to meet the needs and priorities of Temecula residents. This will include information about the specific projects that voters are most interested in funding, the tax threshold they are willing to support, and the information they need to make well-educated decisions on the measure. It is anticipated that the above mentioned survey could be completed in approximately 6 weeks. Based on the findings of this survey, a special tax ballot measure requiring 2/3-majority approval could be added to the election schedule f~r June 3, 2003. FISCAL IMPACT: An appropriation of $16,625 from the General Fund Open Space Reserves is requested to payfor this project. Funds are a~ailable at this time. Attachment: Agreement Godbe Research & Analysis Proposal CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of October 22, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Godbe Research & Analysis ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on October 22, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than January 31, 2003, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. The City shall pay half of the fees for these services upon approval of the questionnaire in the amount of $8,312.50 and the remaining half ($8,312.50) upon receipt of the final report. This amount shall not exceed sixteen thousand six hundred twenty five and 00 cents ($16,625.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Because this project will be billed at a fixed fee, rather than on an hourly basis, two invoices will be submitted in accordance to the specifications outlined in section 4a above. 1 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at Feast ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant ~ill submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 3. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fled and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, togetherwith supporting documents, shall be maintained fora period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer liles. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's e~clusive direction and control. Neither Citynor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liabilitywhatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 9 LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 10. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, headng or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 3 11. NOTICES. Any notices which either pady may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: To City: To Consultant: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager Godbe Research & Analysis Attn: Brian Godbe 640 Grant Avenue Suite G Carlsbad, CA 92008-2365 4 12. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Godbe Research & Analysis. shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Godbe Research & Analysis may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of assistants from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave Consultant's employ, the city shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City agrees that Godbe Research & Analysis can assign all or part of this agreement, and delegate the performance of the same to True North Research. 13. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 14. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also go',~rn the interpretation ofthis Agreement. Anylitigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 16. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA By Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC CityClerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Godbe Research & Analysis. By 6 EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED SCOPE OF WORK Open Space Feasibility Study Scope of Project The City of Temecula is interested in assessing the feasibility of an open space tax measure. In addition, the Cityis interested in identifying the funding mechanism that may have the greatest success among voters. Scope of work to include: · In-person kick-off meeting to discuss the City's research interests in detail · Crafting a survey instrument · Revising the instrument based on staff and Council input · Pre-testing the survey · CATI (computer assisted telephone inte~ewing) programming the survey instrument- which assists the live interviewers in navigating the skip patterns in the survey · Developing a voter and property owner sample appropriate for the study · Conducting 15-minute interviews with 400 individuals drawn from the sample · Processing the data, which includes weighting to adjust for strategic oversampling · Analyzing the results and prepare a preliminarytopline report ofthe findings · Preparing a complete set ofcrosstabulations which will show how answers to the questions vary by different subgroups of voters · Producing a summary report which will present the key-findings of the survey and our recommendations for how the City should move forward · Deliver a PowerPoint presentation of the findings and consultant recommendations to the City ? EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE The City shall pay half of the fees for these services upon approval of the questionnaire in the amount of $8,312.50 and the remaining half ($8,312.50) upon receipt of the final report. This amount shall not exceed sixteen thousand six hundred twenty five and 00 cents ($'16,625.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 8 Aaron Adams - Temecula Cost Estimate 2.1T.doc Page October 7, 2002 To: Aaron Adams From: Timothy McLamey, Ph.D. Re: Survey of Voters Hi Aaron, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with the Open Space Subcommittee last week to discuss the City's interest in conducting a survey of voters and property owners regarding their willingness to support a revenue measure to fund open space acquisitions. As we discussed in the meeting, the survey will provide the City with stafisfically reliable information about whether voters are interested in supporting a revenue measure and, if so, how the City can best package the measure to meet the needs and priorities of Temecula residents. This includes information about the specific projects that voters are most interested in funding, the tax threshold they are willing to support, and the information they need to make well-educated decisions on the measure. The team members who will work with the City on this study (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) are that same individuals who designed and conducted the Temecula resident survey in 2000, the focus groups and surveys for the Temecula Library study in 2002, and are currently managing the study of Western Riverside residents and commuters for the 1-15 thterregional Partnership. As we have done on dozens of successful open space, parks and recreation measures in the past three years, Dr. McLarney and Richard Sarles will team with Gerard van Steyn - President of SCI - who will contribute his expertise in open space, parks and recreation revenue measures to the tasks of designing the sample, analyzing the results, and providing recommendations. Collectivety, our team has an unmatched record of success in California in crafting open space, parks and recreation measures that meet with voter approval - and we are excited to have this opportunity to put our ski[is and experience to work for the City of Temecula. We understand that the City has a limited budget for this study, so we have revised our original proposal to provide the maximum value to the City given the limited budget. Per our discussions, we have also lengthened the interview to 15 minutes to accommodate testing a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) as well as a measure to be paid for by residential, commercial and apartment property owners. The Scope of Work provides the basic parameters of the study, as well as the costs. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760.632.9900 or at mclamey@tn-research.com. Thanks Aaron, Timothy McLarney, Ph.D. Aaron Adams - Temecula Cost Estimate 2.1T.doc Page 2 1 Scope of Work The scope of work proposed includes ail tasks necessary to complete the open space survey. These include: t. In-person kick-off meeting to discuss the City's research interests in detail. 2. Crafting a survey instrument. 3. Revising the instrument based on staff and Council input. 4. Pre-testing the survey. 5. CATI (computer assisted telephone interviewing) programming the survey instrument- which assists the live interviewers in navigating the skip patterns in the survey. 6. Developing a voter and property owner sample appropriate for the study. 7. Conducting 15 minute interviews with 400 individuals drawn from the sample. 8. Processing the data, which includes weighting to adjust for strategic oversampling. 9. Analyzing the results and preparing a preliminary topline report of the findings. ~ 0. Preparing a complete set of crosstabulaflons which will show how answers to the questions vary by different subgroups of voters. ! ]. Producing a summary report which will present the key-findings of the survey and our recommendations for how the City should move forward.1 1 2. Delivering a PowerPoint presentation of the findings and our recommendations to the City. Total Cost $16,625 Aaron Adams - Temecu~a Cost Est mate 2.1T.doc Page Experience of the Finns In the past year alone CRA has conducted open space, park and recreation revenue measure surveys for the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, City of Palmdale, Bear Mountain Recreation and Park District, Fair Oaks Recreation and Park District, Sunrise Recreation and Park District, and was recently selected over a long list of competitors (including Fairbank, Maslin and Maullin) to conduct park, open space and recreation revenue measure research for the City of Glendale. GPA also designed and conducted similar open space and recreation survey projects for South Lake Tahoe, the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District, the cities of Encinitas, Davis, Malibu and San Leandro, as well as the County of Sacramento. GPA also just completed two surveys for a sales tax extension measure for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) that includes open space, park and habitat preservation components. The measure will raise billions of dollars in the County over the life of the tax. SCI has been providing consulting services and successfully creating new revenue sources for public agencies for over 15 years and has an unmatched record of success with assessment ballot proceedings. In providing planning and revenue measure services for public agencies, SCI has emerged as a reader in assisting public agencies with revenue measures to generate additional funding for capital improvements and maintenance services. SCI is a frequent presenter and columnist on revenue measures for the League of California Cities, California Parks and Recreation Society and other organizations, and SCI actively participated in the campaigns for Propositions 12 and 13. The firm's active client base includes over 40 park districts, cities, open space agencies, and other special districts that SCI has assisted with successful revenue measures. It is also worth mentioning that CRA and SCI have successfully teamed on more than two-dozen recreation, open space, and park related revenue measure projects. Below we have provided references from some of our recent open space and park and recreation studies. City of Palmdale Project: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey and Ballot Proceedings Ballot Status: Successful in 2002 Contact: Russ Bird Phone: (661) 267-5626 Address: 38260 10th St. East Palmdale, CA 93550 r Aaron Adams - Temecula Cost Estimate 2.1T.doc Page 4 ] Santa Clara County Open Space Authority Project: Open Space Survey and Ballot Proceedings Ballot Status: Successful in 2002 Contact: Lloyd Wagstaff Phone: (408) 224-7476 Address: 6146 Camino Verde Drive San Jose, CA 95119 Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Project: Revenue Measure Survey and Ballot Proceedings Ballot Status: Successful in 2000 Contact: Jeff Anderson Phone: (805) 584-4400 Address: 1692 Sycamore Dr. Simi Valley, CA 93065 Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District Project: Revenue Measure Survey and Ballot Proceedings Ballot Status: Successful in 2001 Contact: John Williamson Phone: (805) 482-1996 Address: 1605 East Bumley Street Camarillo, CA 93010 SANDAG Projects: Contact: Ballot Status: Phone: Address: Revenue Measure Survey Craig Scott Likely to go to Ballot in 2004 (619) 595-5326 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 City of Encinitas Project: Open Space, Parks and Recreation Revenue Measure Survey Contact: Kerry Miller Ballot Status: City chose to fund with Certificates of Participation Phone: (760) 633-2610 Address: 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 ITEM 16 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANG~E~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council Shawn Nelson, City Manager October 22, 2002 Combined Traffic and Public Transportation Mitigation Program Report (as requested by Councilman Pratt) PREPARED BY: Michaela A. Ballreich, Deputy City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND: Councilman Pratt requested, at the October 8, 2002, City Council meeting, that this item be placed on the agenda. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS APPROVAL ~ ...~.-~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI~:~N~CE_.~_.~_ CITY MANAGER ~')r() TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim Domenoe, Chief of Polic~L~ October 22, 2002 M~nthly Departmental Report The following report reflects special teams, trr. ffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occurring during September of 2002. The Police Department responded to 28 "priority one" calls for service during the month of September, with an average response time of approximately 7.2 minutes. A total of 3,862 calls for police service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month. During September, the Temecula Police Department's Town Center Storefront served a total of 165 customers. Sixty-three sets of fingerprints were taken, 23 people filed police reports and 10 people had citations signed off. Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene participated in a number of special events, neighborhood watch and community-oriented programs during the month. He also coordinated requests for patrol ride-alongs. Additionally, he continued to provide residential and business security surveys/visits and past crime follow-up. Officer Fanene also continued to process City Planning Department submissions of site plans/conditions. The POP Teams continued to work on the "Crime Free Multi-Housing" project during the month of September. The teams continued their Warrant Apprehension Program during the month, which resulted in four felony and 10 misdemeanor arrests. The POP Teams continued with their proactive patrol efforts and made nine additional felony arrests and 28 misdemeanor arrests. They also issued 33 citations for various traffic violatio'qs. POP Teams also continued with the homeless persons program, with the goal of assisting homeless in finding services and aid to help them. The Old Town Storefront serves as an office for the POP teams and a location to assist the public with police services. This has greatly increased their accessibility and their ability to serve the Old Town area. During September, the Old Town Storefront served 150 customers. Twenty-two sets of fingerprints were taken, 26 reports were written, and 32 citations were signed off. The traffic team reported that during the month of September there were 501 citations issued for hazardous violations, 142 citations were issued for non-hazardous violations and 115 parking citations were issued. During the month there were 19 injury traffic collisions, 66 non-injury collisions were reported and 34 drivers were arrested for DUI. The Neighborhood Enforcement Team (NET) program resulted in 33 citations being issued. This program addresses traffic concerns Monthly Departmental Report Page 2 in residential neighborhoods with a dedicated motor officer. The SLAP program (Stop Light Abuse Program) resulted in 159 citations being issued, with 33 additional SLAP citations issued on overtime. The total number of SLAP citations issued during the month of September was 192. During the month of September, the POP officers assigned to the Promenade Mall handled a total of 147 calls for service. The majority of these calls were for shopliffing investigations. During the month, calls and on-sight activity resulted in the criminal arrest and filings on two misdemeanor cases. Officers MoEIvain and Rupe continued to provide training to security staff during the month. The mall officers continued to work on vehicle theft and burglary programs. No vehicle burglaries or vehicle thefts occurred during the month of September. Our five school resource officers became very active again in September with the commencement of the school year. They conducted two school presentations. The topics of these presentations ranged from "Stranger Danger"to "Forensics." The school resource officers also conducted many counseling sessions with students. A total of 48 investigations/reports were conducted/written by the school resource officers during September. The school resource officers also made eight arrests for various misdemeanor and felony crimes during September. These crimes ranged from burglary to illegal possessions of weapons and drugs, to truancy and unlicensed drivers. The JOLT program (Juvenile Offender Law Enforcement Program) continues to be a success in part through its Youth Court program. Officer Michelle Medeiros conducted the 95th Youth Court session. The JOLT officer assisted at other schools when needed and conducted follow-ups with parents of juveniles in the JOLT program. Officer Medeiros worked with "at risk" juveniles throughout the month and also conducted counseling sessions with their parents. She also assisted the Riverside County District Attorney's Office and Probation Department by providing training during home visits with incorrigible/at risk juveniles during the month of September. The Special Enforcement Team (SET Team) of Officers John Wade and Michelle Larson handled 12 cases. These cases resulted in seven misdemeanor and seven felony arrests, primarily for narcotics violations. This team continues to work street level narcotics and specialty patrol within the city on a proactive basis. During this month, the team recovered quantities of marijuana, methamphetamine and cocaine. Volunteers from the community continue to be an integral part of the Temeoula Police Department's staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Officer Bob Ridley and assistant coordinator Gayle Gerrish, the Police Department's volunteer staff contributed 393 hours of service in September. Volunteer assignments include computer data input, logistics support, special event assistance and telephone answering duties. Community Action Patrol (CAP) Program volunteers have begun the'ir activities, patrolling the city for graffiti, conducting vacation residential checks and assisting patrol with special logistical needs and special events. Other duties these volunteers will attend to are business checks and abandoned vehicles and traffic control. The goal of the program is high visibility, which prevents crime from occurring. CAP Team members contributed 261 hours of service to the community during the month of September. The reserve officer program and mounted posse are additional valuable volunteer resources available to the police department. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention, off road vehicle enforcement and a variety of special functions. Reserve police officers worked a total of 195 hours specifically on patrol in Temecula during the month of September. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY t~"Z7~----~,~ C~ ~A~R ~ CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag~ October 22, 2002 Economic Development Monthly Departmental Report Prepared by: Gloda Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator The following are the recent highlights for the Economic Development Department for the month of September 2002. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Leads & Inquiries In the month of September, the City received 9 leads. The leads consisted of a hospital, venture capitalist, auto dealer, day spa, community musician workshop, and Musculeekeletal Pain Medicine facility. Rubbermaid Manufacturing has a manufacturing facility in Vista and is looking to expand their current facility or in Temecula. City staff assisted the Economic Alliance on an IEEP lead - Medical Devices Manufacturer. Staff met with GC Wallace on September 17t~ and provided them with City information, GIS map and listing of potential sites to consider. The company, which employs 300, is headquartered in Las Vegas and has 2 branch offices in Sacramento and Reno. They are looking to open a satellite office in Southwest Riverside County. GC Wallace handles private land development and also public works. In the month of August the Southwest Riverside County Alliance responded to 7 leads. The Alliance received 2 leads from the EDC of Southwest Riverside County, 2 leads from the City of Temecula, 1 lead from UCR Connect and 2 leads contacted the Alliance directly. Attached is a copy of their activity report. Retention Visit As an active participant of the EDC Business Relations Committee, staff met with Wayne Bainbridge of Engen Corp. on September 27th. Engen Corp. is a geotechnical engineering soils and materials testing firm, which offers a complete range of professional services from project analysis and consultation to detailed reporting and interaction with governmental agencies. Media/Outreach Materials Staff wrote the City article for the Chamber of Commerce Newsletter highlighting the City of Temecula's September 11 Remembrance and Dedication Ceremony. A highlight of the ceremony was the dedication of the bronze statue "Singing In The Rain" by artist Frans CITYMGR\WOLN1CKG~SEPT02DEPT.REPT.DOC 1 Kokshoorn of the Netherlands, which was unveiled and presented to the City of Temecula from Leidschendam-Voorburg. Approximately 500 attendees were present. Staff provided articles and calendar of event listings to Neighbor's Magazine. The publication provides the City of Temecula with a page of editorial. Dudng the month of September, staff provided information to Economist Dr. John Husing for the new Temecula Community Profile. It is estimated that the document will be completed by November 2002. Meetings On September 4th, staff made a presentation before the Temecula Planning Commission highlighting the City's economic development/marketing program, activities and marketing partners. Staff provided the Commissioners with Economic Development materials, as well as the Marketing and Strategic Plans to review. Staff attended the EDC of Southwest Riverside County Business Relations Committee Meeting on September 5th. Company contact reports included the following companies: Endar, Conative Systems, Muni Financial Services, Solid State Stamping and Kuebler, Prudhomme & Co. The follow-up meeting with Basics, Etc. was postponed due to the pending interchange project. Staff provided an update on the upcoming City newsletter, which features an article on the City's marketing partners. Staff also provided an update on the City's permit review process. Staff attended the UCR Connect Steering Committee Meeting on September 19th. Handouts of the 2002 Springboard and LINKS schedule of events were distributed to the committee. An update on the Achievements in Technology Innovation (ATI) Event was given. The ATI committees are staffed and plans are underway for the February 28th event. Staff attended the EDC of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting on September 19th. Discussion items included Proposition 47, SBA 7 (a) loan limits, vacant Director's seat, and a report on the Strategic Planning Program. Staff provided a city report including an update on John Husing's Community Profile, Macy's October 4th opening and the Riverside County/City litigation. Staff also reported on the Reverse 911 system. This "Communicator' system is available through a local vendor, Plant Equipment. The Communicator is a high-speed telephone based notification system that offers a very high calling capacity for large-scale notifications as required before, during and after such events as inclement weather, chemical releases, missing persons, and evacuations. The Temecula City Council directed staff to research the feasibility of forming a municipal utility. As part of this effort, staff held meetings in September with various consultants and contacted other cities to gain information and understanding about the electrical business. Staff attended the Lake Elsinore Valley Connections Economic Development Committee Luncheon on September 5th. Economist Dr. John Husing presented an Inland Empire Economic Address. Staff met several times in September with Guidant rspressntatives regarding their expansion plans and Development Agreement. Staff met on September 10th with the EDC Strategic Planning Committee to develop a draft plan for the Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County. CITYMGR\WOLNICKG\SEPT02DEPT.REPT.DOC 2 On September 27t~, staff attended the UCR Connect LINKS presentation luncheon. Mr. Tom Baird, of Indicator Point, spoke on the topic UMergers & Acquisitions - a Practical Guide." He spoke about the M & A process as well as highlighted some of the key areas where value can be sustained and enhanced during the M & A process. Staff met with Joe Jardine of California Business Condos on September 26t' to discuss an industrial condominium project. A meeting was held on September 10~ with staff and representatives of the Chamber, EDC and Coordinating Committee to discuss the development review process. TOURISM Special Events On September 18t~, staff attended the Film Festival Opening Night at the Movie Experience Tower Plaza. Councilmember Comerchero opened the ceremonies welcoming guests and Festival participants. The event consisted of entertainment, food and a screening of the movie Virginia's Run. Familiarization (FAM) Tours On September 25th, representatives of the City, Lake Elsinore Outlets, Sunrise Balloons and the Winegrowers Association met with Tiffany Reinold of Where Magazine Oran,~e County to discuss the Orange County Concierges FAM tour to be held on November 19 . As part of the City's advertising agreement with the publication, Temecula is given the opportunity to host a FAM tour highlighting our tourism venues to the concierges. Media/Outreach Materiels Staff provided Robert O'Connell of Fabulous Finds magazine with information and images on Temecula. The publication will publish a one-page review on things to do and see in the Temecula Valley. The publication is published and distributed at luxury hotels in Orange and Los Angeles counties. Staff provided travel writer Sandy Cain with information on Temecula for an article on San Diego\Temecula to appear on a travel destination website called Suitel01.com This is an online publishing community of wdters, readers, and educators who share ideas, interests and their expertise. At the core of this website are 510 dedicated writers (contributing editors) who publish over 700 articles each month. Staff provided information and photo discs to Morris Miller, a travel wdter for keyaccess.com (website for Affluent Living Publications). Temecula will be included in their travel directory. Affluent Living Publications issues 23 magazines to over two million affluent homeowners throughout the United States. The City advertised and received advertorial in the September issue of the Old California Gazette. Distribution includes over 1,000 retail and high-end hotel properties throughout Orange, San Diego, Riverside and Inland Empire counties. Additional distribution includes Old Town San Diego. (See attached.) Staff submitted special event information and photos to Mary Forgey of RV Journal. Major Temecula event listings including the Fall Rod Run, Komen Race for the Cure, Farmers' Market, CtTYMGR\WOLN1CKG\SEPT02DEPT.REPT.DOC 3 and Old Town Dicken's Christmas appeared in the Out and About section in their fall issue. (See attached.) Staff assisted in the development of the Inland Empire Tourism Council's ad for the California Visitor's Guide. Temecula participated in the co-op ad, which highlights our region as a prime tourism destination. Temecula receives an enhanced listing and will be linked to the State's website. The fall edition of Where - Orange County magazine has been published and contains Temecula's co-op ad and listings on Temecula's special events. The City's co-op partners for this new ad campaign are the Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association, Lake EIsinore Outlets, and Sunrise Balloons. (See attached.) The Ontario Convention & Visitors Bureau included the Temecula Valley Film & Music Festival and Fall Rod Run events in their direct mail newsletter that is sent to the media. Staff provided a press kit and photo disc to Castle Advertising in San Diego. There will be information and images on Temecula that will be included on the Pala Mesa Resort's wsbsite. Staff provided a press kit and video footage taken from our Toudsm CD Rom to William Watts. He is producing a show on the Southwest Riverside County for cable television and wanted to include tourist venues in the Temecula area. Staff provided Jenny Werth, a travel writer from Los Angeles, with information and photos on Temecula. She is writing an article on places to visit that are located between San Diego and Los Angeles for the La Jolla Light publication. Staff made arrangements for her stay in Temecula and prepared an itinerary for her tour. Staff provided Ann Shepphird of Association News with photos and information on the Pechanga Resort & Casino. Staff previously sent an updated press kit and information on Temecula and some of Temecula's hotel properties. An article on our region will be published in their December 2002 issue. Meetings Staff attended the Inland Empire Tourism Council Board of Director's Meeting on September 3~d. The IETC received 2001/2002 money from the State to update its web site. The menus within each sub-region will include items like film locations, museums, parks, theater venues, shopping, etc. IETC shares 50% of the funds with the Inland Empire International Business Association (IEIBA). IETC will look for other funding to carry out some of the same marketing efforts that have been done in the past. The Inland Empire Visitor Guide is wrapping up and arrangements have been made for distribution at the Ontario Airport. Staff attended the Temecula Chamber of Commerce Tourism Council Meeting on September 5t~ at Wilson Creek Winery. The Chamber reported that they have a task force to research having their own Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB). They have visited numerous CVBs and the committee voted to change the name from Temecula Valley Tourism & Visitors Council to Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau. The Chamber and Ron Bradley met with the City to discuss increasing the T.O.T. to increase the marketing dollars for tourism. The Chamber will present the City with a proposal for a Convention and Visitors Bureau at a later date. Staff reported on the City's marketing/advertising activities. CITYMGR\WOLNICKG~EPT02DEPT.REPT.DOC 4 Advertisin.q report: August issue of the Old California Gazette and Lake Elsinore Outlets Shopping Travel Planner Media report: Temecula coverage in the following publications - RV Journal (Out and About section - Temecula events), California Country (Farmers' Market article), Associated Press (Old Town article), free-lance travel writer from Disneyland Resorts (travel article), the Temecula/Murrieta Community Book and filming of the Goff Channel program in Temecula. Outreach materials report: Tourism CD Rom will be completed by the end of September. Misc.: Staff passed out flyers on the Old Town Summer Nights program, Quilt Show, and the Erie Stanley Gardner Murder Mystery Weekend. Staff announced and distributed flyers on the October 3rd Inland Empire Tourism Council Luncheon that will feature guest speaker Terry Selk from the State Division of Toudsm. On September 16th, staff and the marketing partners met with Group 1 Productions to view the final version of the tourism CD before going to production. The production of the CD was completed at the end of September. The packaging is underway at Maurice Printers. Staff met with graphic designer Sam Bowlby on September 9th to review his portfolio and discuss future projects. Mr. Bowlby has a wide array of experience including projects with the City of Long Beach, Forest City, and The New Yorker. ATTACHMENTS Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Activities Report Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Activities Report Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Activities Report Temecula Valley Film Council Activities Report Advertising/Media Coverage CITYMGR\WOLNICKGXSEPT02DEPT.REPT.DOC 5 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE October 8, 2002 Shawn Nelson, City Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Shawn, Attached please find the Monthly Activity Report as per our contract with the City of Temecula. Board of Directors Update: The Board of Directors held a special board meeting to discuss the Temecula Valley Unified School District "Resolution No. 2002-03/11, Support for Proposition 47 Kindergarten-University Public Education State Facilities Bond Act of 2002". TVCC Board has made a recommendation to support" Proposition 47 Kindergarten-University Public Education State Facilities Bond Act of 2002". A special task force committee has been organized and will work to get out the "Vote Smart" on Prop. 47 in November. The Chamber has produced a newly designed "Temecula Today Newsletter" and have placed it on the Chamber website. This is the month of September at a glance: Business Inquiry Highlights: In the month of September, 11 businesses requested information on starting or relocating their business to Temecula. They received a business packet, which includes a copy of the City of Temecula demographics, relocation, housing, rentals, maps, organizations, etc. Committee Highlights: Tourism & Visitors Council: The Tourism & Visitors Council recommendation to the TVCC Board was to develop into a Visitors & Convention Bureau in the newly designed Chamber building. The TVCC Board has approved the Visitors & Convention Bureau name and staff and volunteers will follow-up on the research of adding the name to the Chamber of Commerce. Los Willows will host the Tourism & Visitor Council meeting in the month of October. Thirty tourism related businesses where in attendance. We are in the final stages of production of the Chamber's Visitor Guide. Education Committee: The Education Committee will be attending the October 30, 2002 Temecula Valley Unified School Districts principal's meeting to distribute the gather donations. The committee received 42 separate donation items for each of the local teachers. The committee will also be meeting to coordinate the 3rd annual Youth Job Fair to be held on May 17, 2003 at the Promenade In Temecula. The Chamber has partnered with the SW Economic Development Corp., SW Manufacturer Council and the Murrieta - Temecuia Group to host a Luncheon for UCR Riverside newly appointed Chancellor Dr. France Cordova. The event will be held at Pechanga Resort & Casino on October 23, 2002 in the Eagle View banquet facility. 27450 Ynez Road, Suite 124 · Temecula, CA 92591 - Phone: (909) 676-5090 ~ Fax: (909) 694-0201 www.temecula.org · e-mail: info@temecula.org Ways & Means Committee: Monte Carlo Extravaganza was very successful with over 500 in attendance. The committee is planning the 11th Annual Business Showcase, which will take place in the Temecula Town Center on Wednesday, October 16th from 5:30-8:30pm. All local businesses are encouraged to participate. Exhibitors will be displaying their products and services also, sample tastes from local eateries. The showcase is free to attend and open to the public. Tuesday, November 12, 7:30am-9:00am at Temecula Creek Inn, the committee will be hosting a Legislative Update with Dan Bernstein, local columnist with the Press Enterprise. Bernstein will give a light-hearted look at the national, state and local election outcome. $20per person and includes a continental breakfast. Mark your calendar for Saturday, February 22, 2003 for the 37th Annual Installation and Awards Banquet. The committee is very excited with the new Pachanga Ballroom and plans to be the event of the year. Local Business Promotions Committee: The Local Business Promotion's will be hosting the November Kick Off Party to be held on October 29, 2002 at the Chamber. The Business Resource Task Force will be recruiting member businesses to form a panel to rehearse the selected topics and gather pertinent information. The Businesses of the Month for October selected by the Local Business Promotions Committee are Cutting Edge Staffing and Trebulent. Leather Plus Factory was awarded the Chamber Spotlight, and Stadium Pizza is the Mystery Shopper winner for the month of October. Government Action Committee: The Government Action committee made recommendations to the Board to support Prop. 47: Education Facilities; Support Prop. 48 Court Consolidation; Support Prop. 50 Water Quality; and oppose Prop. 51Transportation (Allocation of Sales and Use Taxes raised From Sale or Lease of Motor Vehicles Statue; and oppose Prop. 52 Election Day Voter Registration. The TVCC Board of Director accepted ail of the GAC recommendations. Membership Committee: The Membership committee will be hosting a New Member Reception to welcome new members. Members will have the opportunity to meet Board of Directors and will learn about the functions of all of the committee structures and the mission of the Chamber. They will also have an opportunity to network with other business owners. The Membership committee approved a new workshop to educate the membership on the many ways to network their business. Facilitator Ann Preston and Pete Keller were very excited with the success of the workshop. The workshops are held every first Tuesday of the month in the Chamber boardroom. Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distribution) Activity Report: · 25 Visitor Guides, 25 Pechanga Brochures and 25 Grapeline Brochures to Country Store, inc. for distribution to their customers. · 100 Winery Brochures and 100 Tourism Maps to Laura Patrick for guests visiting the area. · 100 Temecula Brochures and 100 Winery Brochures to Desert Hills Premium Outlets to distribute to customers. · 50 Temecula Brochures to William LaForge to distribute to wedding guests. Activity Report: Tourism calls for the month of August - 1,647 Phone calls for the month of August - 3,033 Walk-ins for the month of August - 2,335 Web Page User Sessions for the month of August - 2,669 Website Tourism Survey - "How did you hear about Temecula" - 276 responses were received: Article - 3% Friend - 36% · Link - 7% · Magazine - 4% · Other - 36% Radio - 1% · Search-8% · TV - 5% Also, attached are the meeting minutes for the Tourism and Visitors Council, Education, Local Business Promotions and Government Action committee. If you have any questions regarding this information, please call me at (909) 676-5090. Thank you. cc: Mayor Ron Roberts Mayor Pro Tern JRff Stone CouncJIman Jeff Comerchero Councilman Mike Na~igar Councilman Sam Pratt Shawn Nelson, City Manager Jim O'Gr~dy, As~isLant City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator TVCC Board of Directors 10-1~-202 2:01PM FROM P_2 October 14, 2002 Jim O'Grady City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Activity Summary - September 2002 Business Development Staffreceived four business development leads for the month of September: A phone inquiry from Tara Paige in Carisbad who was considering development of an apartment complex in Temecula. Ms. Page was seeking demographic information relative to population, age, schools, and wage/income levels. Ms. Page was mailed a copy of Tcmecula's 1999 Demographic Report and website information for the City of Tcmecula, (9/6) * An email inquiry from Brace Federici of Tunnel VS ! in Lake Elsinore. Tunnel VS 1 is a start-up company that plans to open the world's most-advanced design indoor skydiving facility. The Tunnel is a realistic skydiving simulation complex that will be the widest-diameter commercial facility of its kind and capable of producing wind speeds in excess of 150 mph. Mr, Fedefici requested ix~formation for state or federal economic development funding and contacts for venture capital funding sources. Staff provided contact information of various government websites for further research and numerous venture capital contavts, Assistance is ongoing. (9/1 O) · A phone inquL-y from a gentleman who was seeking information On housing values and employee relocation benefits. He was moving to Temecula from San Diego for employment purposes. Staff provided information on Tcmecula'$ First Time Homebuyer's Program, and contact and website information for the City of Temecula and SWRC Board of Realtors Association. (9/18) · An emall inquiry from Cheryl Ferrulli of CLF Financial who requested contact information on non-profit agencies in the region. Ms, Ferrulli is a certified financial planner who assists non-profit agencies with part-time employee retirement benefits. Ms. Ferrulli was sent a contact list of the Non-Profit Network of Riverside County. Assistance is ongoing. (9/20) 1ffi-14-202 2:02PH FROH P. 3 Jim O'Grady City of Temecula Activity S~ - September 2002 Page 2 of 3 Community OuWeach Staff attended the following meetings/evems to promote or assist economio development efforts: * City of Temecula Planning Committee Meeting (9/4) Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce Annual Member EDC Luncheon (9/5) - Guest spaaker was John Husing, Inland Empire economist, who provided an economic forecast for the region and for the City of Lake EIsinore. Mnrrieta-Temecula GronpMeeting (9/6) · United Way Pacesetters Kickoff Meeting (9/6) - Staff is Chair for the United Way Southwest County Campaign. City of Temecula Development Review Meeting (9/10) · SWRC Manufacturers' Council Board of Directors Meeting (9/11) · Southern California Association of Chamber Executives (9/12) - Staff was an invited guest of Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce, and a panel guest speaker for "Competitors and Allies". · Murrleta Today Show (9/18) - EDC President Dennis Frank and staffwere invited guests of local AT&T Broadband Cable show, "Murrieta Today", which airs in October on various days. · Riverside County Economic Forecast Luncheon (9/20) - Staffwas an invited guest of the City of Lake Elsinore at the annual economic forecast lunch in Riverside. · SWRC Manufacturers' Council Board of Directors Special Meeting (9/25) - Plans for the Council's kickoff event were discussed. · EDC Quarterly Luncheon (9/26) - Held at the Pechanga Resort & Casino, guest speakers included Dr. Sharron Lindsay, Superintendent of Lake Elsinore Unified School District; Dr. Chet Francisco, Superintendent of Murrieta Valley Unified School District; and David Allmen, Superintendent of Temecula Valley Unified School District. · UCR CONNECT Links Luncheon - Guest speaker Tom Baird of Indicator Point presented "Mergers & Acquisitions - A Practical Guide". United Way 2002 Southwest County Kickoff Campaign at Pechanga (9/30) - Staffis the Chair for the Southwest County Campaign and acted as the event emcee. Business Retention · Business Relations Committee Meeting (9/5) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion topics, Administration/Organization · EDC Board of Directors Meeting (9/19) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion topics. 10-14-2~2 2:~2PH FROH P. 4 Jim O'Crrady City of Temecula Activity Summary - September 2002 Page 3 of 3 EDC Strategic Planning Meeting (9/19) - Plans for a regional strategic planning session were finalized. Administration - Staff managed the daily operations of the EDC office; responded to seven prospective member requests; coordinated the EDC quarterly luncheon; and prepared and distributed various EDC/community email updates to members/businesses that included: Welcome Lunch for Dr. France A. Cordova, Chancellor, UC Riverside SBA 7(a) Loan Limits South Coast Ak Quality Management District - new programs & initiatives This concludes thc activity summary for Septembcr 2002. Should you have questions or need further detail, please call me at 600-6064. Respectfully, Diane Sessions Executive Director 10-1~-202 2:03PM FROM P. 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BUSINESS RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, September 5, 2002 - 9:00 a.m. Workforce Development Center, Executive Board Room :~7447 Enterprise Circle West, Temeculu, CA ~ommittee Members Present: Dick Kurtz, CDM Group Jim O'Grady, City of Temecula Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce David Rosenthai, SWRC Manufacture~:s' Council Diane Sessions, Economic Development Corporation Alice Sullivan, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Guests: Alva Diaz, Wells Fargo Sandy Lund, Coldwell Banker Liz Yuzer, Economic Development Corporation Call To Order · In the absence of Committee Chair Michael Lewin, Diane Sessions called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. She welcomed guests to the meeting and led introductions. Follow-up Action Reoorts · Basics Etc., Inc. - Dick Kurtz reported that Basics Etc. needed to expand and was unable to move forward at their location due to city plans to expand the off ramp at Cherry Street. Jim O'Grady reported that Temecula, Murrieta and Cai Trans were working together on this project and were waiting for Cai Trans to approve the plans. Mr. Kurtz added that Basics Etc. would probably leave the area in their search for a new location. Additional discussion continued on how this ramp expansion would impact other businesses in the Company Contact Reports · Conative Systems - Dick Kurtz reported on his visit with Gary Matthews at Conative Systems, Inc. in Temecula. They provide software for office management for small businesses. They have been in business in Temeeula for three years and would relocate to a new location on Ridge Park Drive on October 1. The new location would give them room to expand beyond their 4 employees. Their primary customers were small companies over southern California. Muni Financial - Dick Kurtz reported on his visit with Frank Trepani at Muni Financial Services in Temecula. They provide assessment district financing and financial consulting. They would move to larger offices at Inland Terrace Corporate Center at the end of this year. Solid State Stamping - David Rosenthal reported on his lunch meeting with Brad Adams of Solid State Stamping in Temecula. They were now doing business as Sunstone Systems International, with Solid State Stamping as one of the corporate subsidiaries. As a manufacturer of electronic contact points for the automotive and aerospace industries, they reported more than 100 employees at their two locations in Temecula. Mr. Adams reported that business was down by 12% in 2001 but had rebounded in 2002. They were satisfied with their business in Temecola and had no plans to relocate. Mr. Rosenthal also indicated that Sunstone Systems International was also considering a number of new ventures such as charter helicopter service from French Valley Airport. 18-14-282 2:04PM FROM P. 6 Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes - September 5, 2002 · Page 2 of 3 Robert Half International - Diane Sessions reported that Robert Half International would open a branch office in the Crystal Ridge Building on September 12. She would follow-up with the office manager about a future visit. · Edge Development - Alice Sullivan reported on a phone interview with Dayne Wagoner, CFO of EDGE Development, lnc. in Temecula. EDGE Development provides general contracting, construction management, and design building and engineering projects all over California. They specialize in building schools. In operation for 7 years with 400 employees, Mr. Wagoner ranked their business as large and indicated that sales in the past year were up due to the increased population. He indicated that their suppliers were located all over California and some might be interested in Southwest Riverside County. They planned to increase their employees by 100 and were building at a new site. Contingency plans for electrical outages included back-up generators. They were happy doing business in Southwest Riverside County. Mr. Wagoner indicated that he would be willing to 'be a contact person for other companies considering relocating to this area. * Outdoor Channel - lira O'Grady reported that The Outdoor Channel would offer Direct TV Programming on October 1. · Rancho Physical Therapy - Rex Oliver submitted the survey of Rancho Physical Therapy completed by Loft Moss. This report was also discussed at the May 2 meeting. Goal l'roere~.s Report · Diane Sessions announced that visits and phone interviews in the first month of the fiscal year were as follows: 27 visits ~ 3 points each + 33 phone interviews ~ 1 points each = 60 visits/calls G114 points YTD VIS~ PHO .NE POINTS Goal 27 33 114 Actual 1 4 7 Variance -26 -29 - 107 New Committee Assignments · Diane Sessions reviewed the list of outstanding calls. Jim O'Grady indicated that he was not able to complete his call to Electro Numerics. David Rosenthal agreed to make the call. Jim O'Grady would call on Engen Inc., David Rosenthal would call on Manning Engineering, Rex Oliver would call on Hydro Flow Filtration, Alice Sullivan would call on American Cabinet Company and Alva Diaz would call on American Contracting. EDC News and Other Information EDC Board Update - Diane Sessions reported that the next EDC Quarterly Luncheon would be held September 26 at Pechanga. School District Superintendents from Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temeeula would speak on their respective districts. SWRC Manufacturers' Council - David P. osenthal reported that the Manufacturers' Council would present their new mission and purpose at an event on October 10 at Callaway. 10-14-202 2:04PM F~OM P. 7 Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes - September 5 2002 Page 3 of 3 City, County & Chamber News - C/ty of Lake Elsinor~ - No report available. City of Murrieta -No report available. City of Temecula - ~im O'Grady reported that the lead story in the next City newsletter would highlight the econonfic development partners such as the EDC and Manufacturers' Council; the follow-up meeting on the development review process would be held September 10; the City would look at forming a municipal electric facility and would set up a framework to help move thc project forward. The City had signed a contract with Plant Equipment for reverse 911 services; and discussions continued with Guidant regarding their expansion. Lake Elsinofe Valley Chamber of Commerce - Diane Sessions reported the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber luncheon was scheduled for September 5 with John Husing as the guest speaker. Murrieta Ch,~mber of Commerce - Rex Oliver reported ).hat their Business Expo would be held the first week in November and the State of the City address would be the thud week in November; Asuza Pacific signed a three-year lease in the old Vons building while they continued to look for a permanent facility; the Chamber would support measure K, a $40M school bond; and the Relocation Committee would address issues relative to the Chamber's move to Towns Square. Ternecula Valley Chamber of Commerce - Alice Sullivan reported that the Chamber would expand their tourism focus when they open their new building; the reception for the new UCR chancellor sponsored by the Chamber, EDC, Manufacturers' Council and Murrieta-Temecula Group would be held October 23; and Chamber members were meeting with o~cials from Temecula Valley Unified School District regarding support for their bond issue. Ms. Sullivan also expressed concern regarding state budget cuts that would impact the agriculture industry. Economic Alliance Update - No report available. Adjo. urnment - The meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m. 18-14-282 2=OBPM FROM P. 8 DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL MEETING ThurSday, September 19, 2002 - 9:00 a.m. Workforce Development Center ~ 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA DRAFT BOARD MEMBERS Marlene'Best, City of Lake Elsinore Frank Casciafi, California Bank & Trust Stevie Field, SWRC Economic Alliance Dennis Frank, UCR Extension Darren Gill, D & D Commercial Construction Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank Dick Kurtz, CDM Group, Inc. Doug Misemer, Temecula Valley Dp/wall/ Timberlake Painting Susan Norton, Guidant Corporation Jim O'Grady, City of Temecula Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce David Phares, D L. Phares & Associates Paul Ramsey, Keeton Construction Nancy Randolph, Eastern Municipal Water Dist. Claude Reinke, The Californian David Rosenthal, SWRC Manufacturers' Council Al Sabsevitz, Verizon Roger Zeimer, The Gas Company EDC STAFF Diane Sessions Liz Yuzer MEMBERS AND GUESTS Michael Connor, Mt. San Jacinto Community College Ron Krimper, Mt. San Jacinto Community College Chris Masino, CDM Group, Inc. CALL TO ORDER * Board President Dennis Frank called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. MINUTES · The Board reviewed the minutes of the August 15, 2002 Board of Directors Meeting. Motion was made by Dick Kurtz, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 15, 2002 Board of Directors Meeting as presented. FINANCIAL REPORT · The Board reviewed the August 30, 2002 Financial Report that showed total monthly revenues of $11,665, total expenses of $9,958 and total cash-in-bank of $69,159. Motion was made by David Rosenthal, seconded by Nancy Randolph and carried unanimously to approve the August 30, 2002 Financial Report as presented. · Amend 2002-03 Operating Budget: The Board reviewed the draf~ amendments to the 2002-2003 Operating Budget. Diane Sessions reported that new expense line items for Accounting ($500) and Storage ($1,980) were created to reflect an offset amount of $2,480 in In-kind Membership revenues. She further reported that adjustments were made to the following categories to balance the budget in the amount of $2,480: 18-14-282 2:0BPM FROM P. 9 Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting -September 19, 2002 Minutes - Page 2 of 4 1) An increase in Membership-Cash of $500; 2) Decreases of $500 to each expense line items in Printing, Conferences/Training, Memberships, and Newsletters; 3) An increase of $120 to expense line item DueffSubscdptions. Motion was made by Rex Oliver, seconded by Darren Cr[ll and carded unanimously to amend the 2002-03 Operating Budget as presented in the amount of $2,480. NEW BUSINESS SBA 7(a) Loan Limits: Dennis Frank reported that funding limits on Small Business Administration 7(a) loans had been reduced from $1M to $500,000 per business loan. Keith Johnson and Frank Casciari each reported On the reduction from their respective commercial bank viewpoint. Mr. Casciari indicated that he did not see the reduction as a threat to lending practices of small business loans. He added that funding would be available through SBA 504 loans that had fixed rates, Mr. Johnson commented that SBA 7(a) loan reductions would limit options for small business owners. The Board discussed the negative impact on overall economic development that loan limits would cause to small business owners. Motion was made by David Rosenthal, seconded by Dick Kurtz and carried unanimously to oppose the SBA 7(a) loan reductions and adopt a letter writing campaign to legislators in opposition. Action Item: Diane Sessions to draft a letter of opposition fi~r signature and mail to legislators before October 1, 200, and to send an email request to EDC members to do the same. * Discussion on Proposition 47: David Phares suggested that discussion on Proposition 47 be tabled until the next board meeting and that someone from the Temecula Valley U~fified School Distri~ be invited to make a presentation on this issue. Vacant IDirecto~s Seat: Dermis Frank reported that Tony Renz had resigned from the Board of Directors. Mr. Frank indicated that the Nominating Committee would recommend an appointee to fill the vacated seat at the October 2002 board meeting. CONTINUING BUSINESS · Strategic Planning Committee Repurt - Regional Strategic Planning Session: Diane Sessions reported the Strategic Planning Committee had met and recommended that a strategic planning session be conducted to determine long-range plans for regional economic development. The workshop would be held on November 15 and facilitated by Joan Sparkman, Bob Larson, Chris Binkley and possibly Susan Norton. Participation in the planning sessions would be by invitation only and would include all board members and other business leaders. Ms. Sessions also provided an overview of the current mission statement and goals and objectives of the EDC as determined by the Strategic Planning Committee. Members of the Strategic Planning Committee included Stevie Field, Dermis Frank, Jan O'Grady, David Phares, Diane Sessions and Al Sabsevitz. · Quarterly Luncheon Update: Diane Sessions reported the next quarterly luncheon would be held at Pechanga Resort & Casino on Thursday, September 26 at 11:30 a.m. Guest speakers would be Dr. Shorten Lindsay, Superintendent of Lake Elsinor¢ Unified School District, Dr. Chet Francisco, Superintendent of Murrieta Valley Unified School District and David Allmen, Superintendent of Temecula Valley Unified School District. 10-14-202 2:06PM FROM P. 10 Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting - September 19, 200'2 Minutes - Page 3 of 4 Gas/Power/Water Issues: The Gas Company - Roger Ziemer reported that approximately 200 cities would be impacted by a 1987 policy regarding storm water mn-off and how it would be handled. Mr. Ziemer recommended the Board and CDC members become more familiar with the issue and how it might impact businesses. Action Item: Diane Sessions to follow up with Roger Zeimer regarding information on water run-off policies. Eastern Municipal Water District - Nancy Randolph described the 4.4 Plan's water allocation from the Colorado River. She reported the State of California had exceeded its water allocation in past years and was now required to use only its original allocation. Ms. Randolph also reported the Community Water Festival would be held May 3, 2003 at The Promenade mall. OPEN DISCUSSION EDC Administrative Update: The Board reviewed the August ?-002 Activity Summary submi~ed by Diane Sessions. * Economic Alliance Update: Stevie Field reported the Economic Alliance was working on a number of leads, and the GIS web page was near completion. · City, County and Chamber Updates: City of Lake Elsinore - Maflene Best reported the Lake Elsinore State of the City was scheduled for November 6 and the new fire station in Lake Elsinore would open November 14. C/ty ofMurrieta - Rex Oliver reported that issues regarding annexation of Wildomar and development adjacent to Murrieta city boundaries caused concern for city officials; a city planner was hired; and the City attended the International Conference of Shopping Centers (ICSC) in Palm Springs as part of their effort to recruit more restaurants to Murrieta. City of Temecula - Jim O'Grady reported that a contract with Plant Equipment was approved by the Council to provide reverse 911 services; the John Husing Demographic Report would be updated soon; the Council would consider forming a municipal power company, which would include plans for cable, telecommunications and natural gas; litigation with the County continued on issues related to development on Domenigoni Parkway; a dram of the development process review would be presented to the Council on October 8, which included new timelines to reduce the permit process from 13 weeks to 8 weeks. Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce - No report available. Murrieta Chamber of Commerce - Rex Oliver thanked Diane Sessions for her role as a panel speaker at the Southern California Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives conference held in Del Mar. Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce - Dennis Frank announced the Chamber, EDC, Manufacturers' Council and Murfieta-Temeeula Group would host a luncheon on October 23 at Pechanga Resort & Casino to welcome Dr. France Cordova, Chancellor of the University of California, Riverside. SWRC Manufacturers' Council: David Rosenthal reported the Manufacturers' Council would present its new focus on October 10 at Callaway with a social hour and presentation. Education Update: Ron Krimper reported that Mt. San Jacinto Community College predicted a 13.9% enrollment increase with funding for only 2%. Plans were considered for full build-out of the Menifee campus to accommodate 15,000 students and for land purchases to add 2 additional campuses. Mr. Krimper added that 80 acres were needed for a full college campus. They were pleased to be a partner with the proposed higher-education facility in Temeeula. Guidant Corporation Update: Susan Norton reported on the litigation of a recent court case relative to a Guidant pr0duet. She thanked Jim O'Grady and the City of Temecula for their assistance with the proposed Guidant expansion. 10-14-202 2:07PM FROM P. 11 Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting - September 19, 2002 Minutes - Page ,1 of 4 She indicated that a decision to the expansion location was not yet determined although Temecula continued to be their place of choice. Ms. Norton further reported that an additional 350 parking spaces would be built behind thek facility. ADJOURNMENT At 10:17 a.m., motion was made by Dennis Frank, seconded by David Rosenthal and carried unanimously to adjourn the board meeting. Respectively submitted by: Elizabeth Yuzer Recording Secretary Phil Oberhansley Board Secretary 284~2 BBd~ Ct. Mum~ta, ~ 92E6Z t9~6) 30~2489 ,,, ECONOMIC ALLIANCE TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Madene Best Assistant City Manager City of Lake Elsinore Jim O'Grady Assistant City Manager City of Temecula Lori Moss Assistant City Manager City of Murrieta Stevie Field Economic DevelopmentJMarketing Coordinator September 27, 2002 SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY MONTHLY MARKETING UPDATE Dear Partners: Please consider this an update on the marketing activities for the Alliance as required in the Southwest Riverside County Marketing for Business Attraction Agreement. Leads A total of seven leads were generated in the month of August. Two leads were referrals from the EDC, two leads were referrals from the City of Temecula, one lead was a referral from UCR Connect and two leads contacted the Alliance directly. I have had several meetings over the past few weeks with different leads. Most wanted specific information on Southwest Riverside County and were looking for site information. One meeting was a tour of the Temecula area, and one lead resulted in a tour of the Murrieta area, however, I was not on that tour. A meeting is also scheduled with a start-up medical device manufacturer looking at SWRC. I have asked Bob Larson, formerly of Guidant, to join me in this meeting, as his experience will be valuable in the process of generating capital and getting started. I continue to work with Coca-Cola, as well as approximately 15 other leads seriously looking at SWRC. I will provide a more detailed update as these projects develop. September has been a big month for leads. These leads are not reflected in this update, however, I will include them in your lead report given on October 3rd. Trade Shows On behalf of the Alliance, I have agreed to attend the following trade shows: Wescon, Anaheim, CA Sept.22-24, 2002 Corenet, San Diego, CA Nov. 16-20, 2002 "Taste of Southwest Riverside County" event 2003 As a new date for our event has not yet been decided, please let me know at your earliest convenience which dates work with your schedule. April 4-6 April 11-13 May 2-4 Ad A,qency Cutting Edge Marketing attended our regular Alliance meeting in August to discuss our goals as well as various marketing strategies. Among various projects, it was agreed that the "branding campaign" is the most cdt/cai at this time. Cuffing Edge ~ave each Partner a worksheet, which was to be filled out and faxed back by September 13t . The purpose of this worksheet was to get a better idea of each Partners perspective of the Alliance and what we do/market. For instance, do we market an agency or a region? Cuffing Edge will be at our September meeting (rescheduled to October 3rd), to discuss the worksheet results and provide suggestions on our direction and continued campaign. GIS Anatalio and Pablo forwarded me the link to the Economic Alliance GI$ site, which was then forwarded to each Partner. A few weeks was given to each Partner as well as his/her staff, to review and provide comments and recommended changes/additions. All comments forwarded to me were sent to GIS Planning. Pablo mentioned that in order to fulfill some of the requests made by the Alliance, he would need some additional information. As soon as this list is complete, I will forward it to each of you as well as your GIS representative. Anatalio has started training me on this site and I am looking forward to its launch. 1-15-1 As I was unable to attend the last 1-15-1 meeting, I was forwarded the information that was discussed. Godbe Research Company is discussing the results of the jobs to housing survey that was conducted earlier this year. I will provide copies of the available research to each Partner at our next meeting. The full report will not be available until later this year. Speaking En.qa.qements On behalf of the Alliance, I have made it a point to get out and speak at various meetings, discussing the Alliance, our goals, what we can do for businesses looking to relocate or expand to the regions, etc. On September 11, I spoke at the Lake Elsinore Rotary, discussing economic development (ED), the Alliance and how ED has changed since 9/11. Two leads have contacted my office as a result of this meeting. These numbers will be reflected in my October report. I have now been the guest speaker at all Rotary chapters in Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore. In October, I will be speaking at Supervisor Venable's Third District Workshop on Oct. 16t~. EDC Strate.qic Plannin,q Committee As I sit on the EDC Strategic Planning Committee, we have met approximately three times in September, putting together the components of a workshop geared at identifying the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (S.W.O.T.) of the Southwest Riverside County region. A workshop has been scheduled for November 15th, at which time the S.W.O.T. will be facilitated. The Planning Committee has identified various industries and key people to invite to this 5~hour event. The Alliance will be a co-sponsor as we have much to gain from the information. We will be able to incorporate portions of this information in our new marketing campaign. Consultants Three consultants have approached me from our region that are looking to assist the Alliance with our targeted business assistance. As each of these consultants is more than qualified in his field, it may be in the best interest of the Alliance to hire each consultant on an as needed basis. For example, if we have a meeting with a medical device company, we can retain Bob Larson for one hour (approx.) to assist us with that project or meeting. I think this adds to the value of services that the Alliance can provide in various components of relocation/expansion and start-up in our targeted industries. I have this item on the agenda so that we can discuss this further. On an ongoing basis, I attend the following meetings: SWRC Manufacturer's Council Temecula/Murrieta Group Business Relations Committee SWRC EDC LE EDC 1-15-1 Partnership Meetings Economic Development meetings concerning the Southwest Riverside County region UCR Connect meetings If you need any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (909) 600-6066. Sincerely, Stevie Field Manager, Business Development Copy: Brad Hudson Robin Zimpfer Belinda Graham Sarah Mundy Teresa Gallavan FROM : TOM AND PAT MARTINEZ FAX NO. : 909-303-1218 Oct. 09 2002 03:iiPM P3 Temecula Yalle¥ Film Council l,~,~aj q~o~) 699-62/;7 Fax (909) 693-2'748 TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL ACTIVITIES REPORT SEPTEMBER 2002 TItE BUSI~KSS OF TH~ Ir[LM COUNCII~ Priority items fc~ the Film Co~_~v~il will * M~nihl~ m~iling ofth~ four ~olor Post Card is to be cottlpl~ed in Oclober * Thc new Web Site was not put into opex~ion due to thc high acfivifie~ surrounding the [dm & Music F~fival. P~li~inmy work has be~n initialed and ius,~u~ion is eXl~d by the ~td of October. * New L~:erhead and 'Business Cards have ~n completed Tl~ Talent Showca~ bold on Sq)t~wabcr 1, 2002 was hishly ~;cce. ~sdul. Local lalcnt con- tinues to improve. Tweaty-sev~n cont~t,mts parQc/patcd, Two of the particip~ntq w~re selected to ix~'onn at the Film Festival's Gala mght As usual the large crowd thoroughly enjoyed all of~c pcdo~c~. SirPPORT FOR, TrtF, TEM'F-~Ji,A VAT.L~-Y INTERNATIONAL FILM & ~C ~ST~AL: * F~ ~ ~ ~nd vol~ ~ ~e f~ m ~ ~fi~ ~o~, ~ ~cl~ ~ ~d M~c ~ew, ~ ~, ~om ofHo~l~ Sd~ ~o~ ~ ~-~ ~, M~ ~t, ~g~ ~ ~ Cl~g~. F~ S~ SiE~, ~ct ~ F~ p~t~, Wo~ ~i.~*o~ ~ CI~ ~p. FROM : TOM ~ND P~T M~RTINEZ FAX NO. : 909-303-1218 Oct, 09 2002 03:10PM. P2 TEMECb~LA VAt.T.~ FILM COUI~C]I., ACTIVITn~S RY_,PORT ~.1 ~MBER. 2002 PAGE 2 FILM COUNCIL INQUUiIF~: * AS in tho previous month, almost all phone calls w~re Film & Music Feslival relat~- * (3) Film ~qui~i~ * (1) l~a~ine I]/q~'g Film C°uncil will collUn'oe to ~ppo~t ~cm n~uest and geaera~ a higher awareness of thc T~mCCUla ~ Pat IVla~inez Excculiv¢ Director Celebrating Cali~ornia'a Hiatory, Heritage ~ CultU~ '~/ ~ ~ '~'~' ~' 22 ° OLD CALIFORNIA GAZETI'E recreation and entertainment for the entire family. Centered between Los Angeles and San Diego, Temecula is the Escape To Recreation perfect place to escape, whether it's for just a day or an extended vacation. · Wine tasting at 15 wlaerles · Shopping & dining in h~toric Old Town · Hot air balloon adventures · Seven challenging golf courses . Superb outdoor recreation · Temecula Valley Museum Escape To Relaxation · Special events every month of the year For accommodations, attractions and special event information, call (90~) 6T6-~0~JO or visit us on the web at: www. l~j~t~? ~'8 · Which Olfl Town Temecula? By Rebecca Marshall Farnbach Tourists come from far and near to the quaint antique dis- trict called Old Town Temecula. Old buildings and new build- ings made to look historic grace each side of the Front Street segment marked by arches at its north and south ends. This area is actually the newest of the three old towns of Temecula. The oldest Temecula was on a strategic lookout on the hill near the south end of Front Street. The name Teraecula, given by natives, has the dis- puted interpretation of "where the sun shines first," or "sun- ~hine through the mist." Either name suits the location, which was settled about 1000 A.D. The second Temecula was located at the present junction .I of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway. From proximately 1845 to 1884, the Little Rancho Temecula at that looation dominated the are& Sig- nificantly, the Southern Emigrant Trail used by the Butterfield Stage passed through the site. A general store, post office and way station serviced travelers there. It wasn't until 1884 when the California Southern Railroad came into the area that people moved to what we call Old Town Temecula. It was a community planed by Fred Pen'is, an engi- , neer for the railroad. Creating a colorful history of its own, memories of the early days of Old Town Temeeula overshadow those much earlier settlements that lay shrouded in fife mists of time. Archaeological excavations indicate that Temecula - at the crossroads of the Southern Immigrant Trail - is the oldest town in California ~till known by ts abor gna name. Experience The Southern California Lifestyle Once again, TemecuhI will come alive with more than 10 festival events from film presentations, workshops, black Tie Gala to dialogues with producers, directors, writers, cinematographers, editors, actors and actresses during the four<lay film festival set to unspool in the beautiful burgeoning wine counlry of Temecula. As in the past, Opening Night, the Black Tie Gala and Closing Night Wrap promise to be exciting anchor events of the festival. In keeping with festival tradition, a Lifetime Achieve- ment Award will be presented to a film industry luminary at the Black Tie Awards Gala. Past recipients include legendary director Robert Wise, actor Karl Malden, comedian Carl Reiner, producer Howard W. Koch, actress Shirley Jones and actor Michael York. The Temecula Valley International Film Festival will showcase more than 70 films from all over the world. Most oftha films will be presented by filmmaker's in-person at the screenings. In addition to the films, the festival will present an exceptional series of film industry related workshops; panel discussions and seminars, all open to the public. Jury and viewer's Choice awards for Best Feature Film, Best Foreign Film, Best Documentary, Best Student Film, Best Animation, Best Short Film will be announced at the closing Night Wrap on Sunday, September 22"a. Tickets go on sale September 1, 2002. For more information regarding film entries, ticket packages, volunteering or sponsorship opportunities, please call (909) 699-6267 or check the festival Webster at www. tviff.com The Temecula Valley International Film Festival is a presentation of the Cinema Entertainment alliance in cooperation with the City of Temecula, The Temecula Valley Film Council and the Theater Foundation. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS: Sept. 18 ............................... : ..................... Film Opening Night Festivities Sept. 19 - 22 ...................................................... General Public Screenings Sept. 20 ................................................................ Musicpust Competition Sept. 20 & 21 .......................................................... Festival Market Place Sept. 21 .............................................................................. Black Tie Gala Sept. 21 & 22 .......................................... : .......... Festival Workshop Series Sept. 22 ......... Hot Air Balloon Ride & closing Night Awards Wrap Party LOCATION: Tower Plaza, Movie Experience, corner of Ynez & Rancho California Roads. Costs: $5.00 to $75.00 depending on event. , TEMECULA - Fall Events. Fall is a great time to take in Temecula's natural beauty, wineries, shopping and entertainment. Well known for its seven championship golf courses, picturesque wine country and hot-air ballooning, Temecula has several other fall events to entertain visitors. Temecula Fall Rod Run, Oct 11-12. A Friday night cruise IDYLLWILD/SAN JACINTO MOUNTAIN flURKEY CREEK COUNTY PARK 59 acres, 91 developed sites. Hiking, group camping. Reservations required. 800-234-7275. IdyRwild COU n~ Pa~kO'~D~,rY LLWILD IDYLLWILD COUNTY PARK 202 acres, camping, equestrian trail, hikingAnterpretive trail, picnic facilities. Reservations recemmended. 800-234-7275. MOUNT SAN JACINTO STATE PARK Idyllwild Campground ~ Stone Creek Campgr6und ~909-659-2607, Res: 800-444-7275 ROYAL PINES RV ,P~RK 26350 Oela~o Orive~ ~RO. Box 277, Idyllwild, CA 92549 909-659'2691 , · Fall 2002 and sock hop on Old Town Front Street start the Rod Run weekend. A cross section of classic cars, special interest vehicles, hot rods, custom cars, and Harley Davidson motorcycles are on display. A Show & Shine with spectator viewing, a Treasure Hunt for all registered vehicles and a pancake breakfast are planned. Event hours are 5pm-9pm on Friday, and 9am-4:30pm on Saturday. Admission is free. 909-699-1876 or 909-303-0691 Certified Farmer's Market, Wednesdays through January, 9am-lpm. The Promenade Mall is the place to come for fresh and exotic fruits and vegetables, cheese, eggs, honey, bakery goods and kettle corn. Arts and crafts are sold too. The Promenade Mall is at Winchester and Ynez Rd, Temecula. 760-728-7343 73 [] Certified Farmer's Market, Saturday mornings, 8am-noon in Old Town. 760-728-7343 The Susan G. Komen Inland Empire Race for the Cure, Oct 20 at Promenade Mall in Temecula. The goal of this charity is to eradicate breast cancer. The race features a Health & Fitness Expo, Kid's art contest, exhibits, Expo, celebrities, refreshments, live enter- LAKE ELSINORE Crane Lakeside Park Resort & Mad~a 15980 Grand Avenue, 909678-2112 LAKE ELSINORE RECREATION AREA 32040 Riverside Drive, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 800-416-6992 for roservations~ LAKE ELSINORE WEST MARINA & RV RESORT See ad in this section Lake Park Resort 32000 Riverside Drive, 909~74-7911 tainment and a very special tribute to the breast cancer survivors attending. Registration is held at 6:30am, and fees are $25 for adults ($30 on day of race), andS15 for youth (17 & under), seniors (60+) and survivors. 909-304-9500 or www. iekomen.com Harvest Wine Celebration, RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RANCHO JURUPA PARK 350 acres in a peasetul setting near downtown Rivemide. 70 sites w/electricity. Fishing, hiking, picnicking, eques~ri. an trails, group areas. Close to Jeosefl-ANarado Historic Ranch & Louis Roitideex Nature Center 909-684-7032.' Drop in or make reservations: 800-234-7275, Tho old BUTTEI FIELD I OU TBY I'AI K is buk( [] 74 Nov 16-17 at all 15 wineries in the Temecula region. Sample wines, cuisine and meet the winery owners and winemakers as you visit each winery. Tickets are $60 per person. 800-801-a9463 or www. temeculawines.org SAGE SAN BERNARDINO IGLEN HELEN REGIONAL PARK 44 RV sites. 2555 Devore Rd., San t90-880-2522. Bemardino, CA. SAN BERNARDINO KOA 1707 Cable Canyon Rd., San Bemardino, CA, 92407 800-562-4155 * www. SanBernardinoKOA.com TEMECULA/RANCHO CAUFORNIA LAKE SKINNER COUNI~ 909-926-15 VNL LAKE RESORT I See ad on th~ page I VICTORVILLE MOJAVE NARROWS REGIONAL PARK 112 RV sites, 38 lull hook-ups. 18000 Yates Road, V ctorville, CA. 76C-245-2226 YUCAIPA IYUCAIPA REGIONAL PARK 26 RV situs, 13 fully serviced. 33900 Oak Glen Road, Yucaipa, CA. 909-790-3127. l~V Journal Old Town Temecula's "Dicken's Christmas Celebration" begins Nov 23, then every week- end until Christmas. Children can visit Santa in Old Town. All of the stores and boutiques deck their windows and exteriors with thou- sands of lights and holiday scenes. Carolers as well as other entertain- ers are on hand to provide the sounds of a Merry Olde English Christmas. 909-694-6412 Rancho Temecula Holiday Home Tour, Dec 7-8 from 10am- 4pm. Beautifully decorated Temecula Valley homes are fea- tured. Call 909~302-1370 BIG BE/~ - Eagle Tours, Dec 27-31, then Saturdays January 4-March 8. The Discovery Center is the place to learn about our national symbol-the bald eagle. Enjoy tours, CHINO MORE POW"::R MORE M.P.G. FOR YOUR MOTORHOME OR TRUCK. MANDREL PIPE UP TO 5 INCHES GALE BANKG THORLEY HEADERB OVERDRIVES, UNDERDRIVES PAC BRAKE · 22 YEARS EXPERIENCE "WE'LL BEAT ANYBODY,S PRICESI" 5195 G STREET, CHINO, CA 91710 COLTON · ACACIA R.V. Performance Center-- RV PARTS · REPAIR · SERVICE All Chassis & Coach Electrical & Pl(imbing 909;824-9674 More fun at the Oiscover~ Canter- holiday crafts talks, exhibits and free information! As you explore with our naturalist, you'll learn fascinating facts about eagles and other Big Bear winter wildlife. Tours include the use of spotting scopes and binoculars. First, view a one-hour slide show, then join the naturalist for a 2-hour van tour to learn the history of the area and see the eagles. Reservations recommended. Special Holiday Tour Schedule, 10am-lpm, after January tours are from 9am-noon. Adult tickets $30, Youth (3-16) $20. Event is not suitable for children under three. 909-866-3437. VICTORVILLE - Cowboy Christmas Ball, Dec 15 at the Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Museum. Doors open at 6pm for social hour, and a delicious Mexican buffet meal follows at 7:30pm. After dinner, Roy Rogers, Jr. and his High Riders Band will provide music for entertainment and dancing. There is a live, silent ar3 ~li~[~[~q~ Towing Equipment ~~~ ~ Complete RV Supply ~ ~ ~ Accesso~ Store ~--~~ * Rep~ & ~st~atton ~ ~ ~ (~ M~es & Models) New ~d Consignment S~es ~[ll ~ 32645 Yucmpa Blvd., Yucmpa, CA 92399 II (909) 790-9598 FLEXSTEEL'S LARGEST DEALER IN THE WEST! UPHOLSTERY" FLOOR COVERINGS C.STOM.O.EOOEOSP.UOS CUSTOMS. ~ ~ Wide selection Other specialties available. ~ O~room is our only catalog. ~~ RECOVERY ROOM RV INTERIORS ~ ~ 6344 Industrial Ave., Rivemide, CA 92504 ~ ~' ~.~covory~om..com II~ Fall 2002 75 [] 44 strawberry farms golf club Description: Partly owned by former Cal- ifornia Angels third baseman Doug DeCinces, Strawberr~ Farms is set among a creek and reservoir. Five holes wrap around the reservoir on the back nine. The front nine features a flat, more open layout, prep- ping you for the more difficult back nine. Best tip on the course: There are sev- eral environmentally sensitive areas and there isn't much room for error offthe tee. If you hit a ball into one of them, you are pro- hibited from entering the area to retrieve it. Best tip off the course: The address to the course, Il Strawberry Farms Road, is the same number DeCinces wore when he played with the Angels. Greens Fees with cart: Mon.-Tues. $85; Wed.-Thurs. $95; Fri.~Sun. $135. 11 Straw- berry Farms Road, Irvine, (949) 551-1811, www. strawberryfarmsgol~com. cypress golf club Description: A 10t of golfers think the course is gimmicky, but in fact it features some of the best holes in the area. The 461- yard, par-4 18th is a great finishing hole, and all four of the par 3s play over water. The land may be small, but the course has some teeth. Best tip on the course: This is one of the courses that former resident Tiger Woods played as a youngster. He holds the course record with a 62. The scorecard, signed by Woods, is displayed near t~e pro shop. Best tip off the course: Are you a fan of horse racing? Los Alamitos Race Track, which features thoroughbreds and quarter horses, shares land with the golf course and is open year-round. Greens Fees with cart: Mon.-Thurs $55, Fri. $65, Sat.-Sun. and holidays $75. 4921 Katella Ave. Cypress, (714) 527-1800, ~.ocnow. com/recreation/guides/golf/cypre ss. html. coyote hills golf club Description: This is a relatively short course at 6,500 yards, but with the drastic elevation changes on some of the holes, the lack of length doesn't show too much. The course features some drjveable par 4s that should help the score, or at the very least negate some of the inevitable bogies caused by the narrow fairways. Best tip on the course: This is the one and only golf course designed by the late Payne Stewart. Stewart collaborated with local golf architect Cai Olson. WHERE / ORANGE COUNTY APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~P~ ,. ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~ CITY MANAGER /~I TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/C,~il Debbie UbnosE'e~'Director of Planning October 22, 2002 Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department in the month of September 2002. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 5_.~1 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations and 9_ applications for public hearings during the month of September. The new public hearing cases are as follows: Change of Zone Development Plan Extension of Time Lot Line Adjustment Massage Establishment Parcel Map Revised Tentative Tract Map 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Status of Maior Proiects Recently Approved Projects Rancho Community Church - Application to design, construct and operate a church and school campus on a 39-acre site. The overall proposal will include 292,745 square feet of religious and school facilities with two four level (two story) parking structure (162,600 square feet and 380,023 square feet). The site will be developed in a number of phases beginning with a 1,500 seat, 26,927 square foot interim sanctuary with assembly room and a nursery; a two story 226,777 square foot administration building, 17 modular classroom buildings, a 9,695 square foot preschool, a 300 seat, 5,856 square foot chapel, two field house buildings totaling 10,000 square feet and lighted athletic fields. Future phases include permanent first through twelfth grade classroom facilities, a gymnasium, a 3,500 seat, 43,727 square foot worship center and a parking structure. This project is located on the north side of State Highway 79 South east of Jedidiah Smith Road. The City Council approved this project on September 24, 2002. R:'~vlONTHLY.RPT~.002\Septernber 2002 Report.doc 1 Villages of Temecula - Development Plan proposal for a 160 unit multi-family apartment complex with a commeroial retail/office center located on the south side of Rancho California Road, west of Cosmic Drive and east of the Moraga Road and Rancho California Road intersection. This project also includes a General Plan Amendment, change of zone (with a PDO) and a parcel map. The State Clearinghouse has ciroulated the initial study, and no comments were received. A community meeting was held on January 14, 2002. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on February 20th. Staff has met with adjacent property owners on two separate occasions and identified their concerns. The City Council approved this project on October 8, 2002. T.R. Properties - A Development Plan application to construct, design, and establish a 15,489 sq. ft. multi-tenant industrial building on the southeast corner of Winchester Road and Bostik Court. The project was submitted on April 15, 2002. Planning had a number of design comments. The applicant incorporated staff's comments and was approved at Planning Commission on October 2, 2002. Cingular Wireless Antenna Facility - Minor Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate and establish an unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of installing (6) antennas in two 35' high metal poles, replacing the existing poles that are being utilized to hold up netting, which prevents golf balls from entering into the public street. The project proposed was located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road in the Temeku Hills Golf Course. The Hearing Officer, after hearing all the facts of the case made a decision to deny the project at the May 30th Director's Hearing meeting. An appeal was heard by the Planning Commission in which staff recommended denial of the appeal. A number of homeowners attended the Hearing, voicing opposition to the project. The Planning Commission decided to continue the item, requesting that the applicant provide a complete alternative Design Analysis and samples of the proposed steel poles. The applicant supplied all required items as requested by the Planning Commission and on October 2, 2002, the Planning Director's decision to deny the application was overturned. Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map - Tentative Tract Map No. 30264 for the southerly half of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan was submitted to Planning on June 26, 2002. The project was routed to all applicable departments and agencies for review. The application was approved at the October 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Crowne Hill Design Guidelines - is a Substantial Conformance request to modify the existing Design Guidelines for the Crowne Hill Subdivision submitted on July 5, 2002. These guidelines will establish the new design and development standards for the style of homes, fencing, entry monumentation, and landscaping for the remaining 803 lots. Crowne Hill is located on the southeast corner of Pauba and Butter[ield Stage Roads. This application was filed by Pacific Century Homes and K.B. Homes. The Planning Commission approved this project on September 18, 2002. Harveston Product Review - Four (4) Development Plan applications for subdivision home products for the Harveston SP, Planning Areas 3, 4 and 7. Each Development Plan Application requests a specific architect and each amhitect have provided a variety of arohitectural styles, colors, and materials. The product review was submitted on May 6, 2002. Staff met with the applicant, Lennar Homes, to discuss a number of arohitectural design issues. The applicant responded by revising the elevation drawings and resubmitted plans on July 19, 2002. The applications were reviewed at the September 4th Planning Commission meeting. Three of the applications were approved and one was continued to the September 18th Planning Commission R:'vMONTHLY.RPT~2.002~September 2002 Report.doc 2 meeting for design enhancement. On September 18th the Planning Commission approved the last of the four product reviews submitted by Lennar Homes. Projects Under Review Commemial Overland Self Storage Facility - Conditional Use Permit to construct a 124,496 square foot, one story, self-storage mini warehousing facility with beige stucco and beige metal siding exterior walls and olive green color metal roofing on a two lot, 3.65-acres site, located south of Overland Drive and east of Commerce Center Drive. Future phase to include construction of a one-story 3,000 square foot office and caretaker's dwelling unit located at front of site. Staff held a Development Review Committee meeting on May 8, 2002. As a result, a number of issues have been identified and have been communicated to the owner and applicant. As of October 8, 2002, no plans have been resubmitted. Hampton Inn Suites - Development Plan to construct and operate a 70-room 4-story hotel building at the northeast corner of Jefferson and Winchester. The project was continued to the November 6th Planning Commission hearing in order for the applicant to evaluate additional information submitted by another property owner. Applicant was also advised by Hampton that they are not an approved franchisee and to not reference the project as a Hampton Inn. Caf6 Kerr- PA01-0587 - Administrative Development Plan to allow outdoor dining. New owner is proposing Tenant Improvements to open a Chinese Restaurant. The TI permit will include the fencing. Edge Nightclub - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate an entertainment facility to include a type 48 liquor license, live music, dancing, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existing building, located at 28822 Old Town Front Street (APN 922-093-003); Submitted by Ronald Hannah. The application was submitted on July 5, 2002. An incomplete letter was mailed to the applicant on July 30, 2002. The application was closed on September 9, 2002, because the applicant did not pay the required fees. Stop Quick Mini-Mart - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to request an upgrade from a Type 20 to a Type 21 Off-Sale Alcohol License. The project was submitted on May 2, 2002. On June 3, 2002, Staff requested that the applicant first apply to ABC in order to determine concentration levels in this census tract. This direction was determined after numerous conversations with ABC. The applicant instead applied in the San Diego office. The project was subsequently transferred to the Riverside ABC office. On September 11,2002, ABC confirmed that there was an over-concentration of Off-Sale licenses in our census tract and was advised to apply for a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity. Although the project has been tentatively scheduled for the November 6, 2002, Planning Commission, staff cannot support this application. Industrial BBK Performance - is a Development Plan request to build a 22,260 square foot two-story industrial/warehouse building on a 1.4-acre site. The subject property is located on the east side of Bostik Court, 170 feet south of Winchester Road. A DRC meeting was held with the applicant on October 3, 2002. The plans are now being revised. R:'WIONTHLY.RPT~002\September 2002 Report.doc 3 The Slater Industrial Buildings - is a Development Plan request to build two 11,213 sq. ft. concrete tilt-up, office warehouse buildings on a 1.97 acre lot within the on the west side of Bostik Court south of Winchester Road. Growth Management Company filed this application. Revised plans were submitted September 27, 2002, for review and comments are due back to Planning by October 10th. Talon Sports Industrial Building - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 18,243 sq. ft. Industrial Building on .99 acres, located at 42044 Winchester Road, west of Diaz Road, submitted August 28, 2002, by McArdle & Associates Architects. A DRC Meeting was held on October 3, 2002, to discuss site and design issues. Staff is awaiting submittal of revised plans. Office Jefferson Avenue Office Building - A Development Plan to construct a 21,870 square foot two story office building on 1.67 acres of land, located at 27708 Jefferson Avenue (APN 921-400- 037-2); Submitted by Diamond Central Investors, LLC. The application was submitted on June 21,2002. A DRC meeting was held on August 8, 2002 and staff is awaiting re-submittal. Kevin Brown Executive Office Building - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 11,642 square foot executive office building on 0.95 acres, located at 27247 Madison Avenue, west of Madison Avenue, north of Sanborn Avenue, submitted on July 26, 2002, by Herron & Rumansoff Architects. The project was scheduled for DRC on September 5th. No plans have been resubmitted. Highland II Office Building - a Development Plan to construct a 30,000 sq. ff. office building. The subject property is located on the east side of County Center Drive, 740 ft. north of Ynez Road. The project has been tentatively scheduled for November 6, 2002, Planning Commission consideration. Mixed Use · Roripaugh Ranch Annexation - Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report and Development Agreement. The project is scheduled for the October 16, 2002, Planning Commission hearing. Villages of Old Town - Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report have been submitted. Staff has stopped reviewing the project until the applicant provides staff with more information on how they intend to proceed with their project. Linfield Christian School Master Plan - Submitted by Linfield Christian School; a Conditional Use Permit proposal to expand the existing facility with 154,397 square feet of additional classroom and accessory structures and a proposed 37,500 square feet of housing for a superintendent, caretaker and facility. This project is located on the north side of Pauba Road west of Margarita Road (behind Temecula Valley High School). Staff met with the applicant March 1, 2002, to discuss the need to process a PDO in order to establish development standards and uses desired. Staff is awaiting submittal of material. A community meeting for the project was held April 11,2002. This project is on hold pending the preparation of a Planned Development Overlay application. The applicant anticipates submittal in early November. R:~4ONTHLY.RPT~2.002\Septernber 2002 Report.doc 4 Residential Naron Pacific - A proposal for zone change from L-1 to L-2 on 31.93 Acres and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide into 33 residential lots and 2 open space lots. Staff has met with the applicant's representative to address several concerns. Staff is waiting for submittal of a constraints map and submittal of a proposed PDO. Coltrain Residence - A Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet and a request for a Minor Modification to the front yard setback of 2 feet located at the end of the cul- de-sac on Avenida de San Pasqual (945-110-019) submitted by Arthur Coltrain. The application was submitted on August 27, 2002 and departmental comments are due on September 17, 2002. The project will be scheduled for the November 6, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Miscellaneous Meadowview Golf Course - Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to design and construct a public golf course and driving range within the Meadowview Community. Staff has reviewed a third draft of Focused Environmental Impact Report. The developer is selecting a new environmental consultant to complete the draft EIR. Cingular Wireless Telecommunications & Sign Structure at Chaparral High School - Conditional Use Permit to construct a 26 foot high, 14 foot x14 foot rectangular structure to house six wireless telecommunication antennas and equipment, and structure will include three sides with signage to consist of an 84 square foot non-illuminated sign with green Fetters and blue background to read "Chaparral High School", a 42 square foot electronic message marquee, and a 56 square foot blue and beige colored "C" letter with a black and green puma mascot illustration. Staff is reviewing the most recently submitted materials for completeness. The project was approved at the August 7, 2002 Planning Commission. The Commission's decision has been appealed to the City Council, and review is expected in November. Antenna Tower at Temecula Creek - is a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 65 foot high cellular antenna, located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road (922-220-004); submitted by AT&T Wireless. The application was deemed incomplete on April 24, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on May 23, 2002. Applicant re-submitted plans on August 8, 2002. Staff reviewed the resubmittal and determined that the project is still incomplete. A letter was sent to the applicant on August 21, 2002, requesting items to make the application complete. Staff met with the th applicant on October 4 to discuss the application. The applicant will revise plans and resubmit by October 16, 2002. Wireless Telecommunication - is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to co-locate three sector antennas on an existing 57 foot high monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets, located at 41520 Margarita Road (954-020-005); submitted by AT&T Wireless. The project was deemed incomplete on May 7, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on May 23, 2002, and staff is awaiting re-submittal by applicant. Rainbow Canyon Retail Center Design Guidelines - Application for approval of architectural, landscaping and signage design guidelines for the Rainbow Canyon Retail Center. The subject property is located at the southeast and southwest corners of State Hwy. 79 South and Pala Road. Staff provided a comment letter to the applicant on October 2, 2002, and is awaiting document revisions. R:\MONTHLY.RPT~2002\September 2002 Report.doc 5 AT&T Wireless - A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a 60'-0" mono-pine and a 8'x12' equipment area, located at the Rancho California Water District Water Reservoir Complex, east of Meadow Parkway. The project was submitted on June 21,2002. Although the project was deemed complete on July 19, 2002, the applicant was advised that staff could not support the proposal. Additionally, since the project was submitted, staff has received numerous phone calls, letters and petitions in opposition to the project from the adjacent homeowners, however the applicant, Velocitel, Inc. resubmitted revised plans. The applicant indicated that they would notify staff whether or not they wished to continue their application. Grace Presbyterian Church - is a Conditional Use Permit to construct a church facility in two phases. The site is located at the southwest corner of Calle Medusa and Nicholas Road. A DRC meeting was conducted on August 29, 2002. Staff is awaiting revised plans. Harveston Welcome Home Center - A Development Plan to establish a 3,493 square foot housing sales facility. The site is located at the southwest corner of Landings Road and Village Road within the Harveston Specific Plan boundary. A DRC meeting has been scheduled for October 17, 2002. Nextel Wireless Monopine - Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate, and establish an unmanned wireless communication mono-structure 70 feet high, and a small equipment shelter at the Rancho California Water District Norma Marsha Reservoir site on the east side of Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road. Revised plans were submitted on October 8, 2002. Staff is reviewing revised plans and information requested before scheduling the application for a public hearing. Small Business Assistance The Hitching Post: Assisted sign contractor and building owner in developing a sign program for this Old Town Temecula shopping complex in preparation for presentation at the October Old Town Local Review Board meeting. Made an on-site visit to help applicant assess potential for improvements. The Barn (Formally Lighthouse Thrift): Staff aided the new owner of this Old Town building regarding the Old Town Specific Plan design guidelines relating to approved paint colors, signs and the construction of a new front parapet and handicap ramp. Met with owner several times and helped him with construction permit issues. · Mad Madeline's: Staff met with the owners of this Old Town restaurant to evaluate their building and how the City's Fa(;ade Improvement Program could help them with new paint and signs. The Sagebrush Center: Discussed options with Freedom Signs for a sign program at this Old Town building complex. Provided design guideline materials and Fagade Improvement applications. · The Firehouse Building: Met with representatives of this historical Old Town building to discuss options for new signs and paint. · Calico Coffee: At request of owner made an on-site visit to this Old Town business in order to help develop a new sign program and fa(;ade improvements. R:~MONTHLY.RPT~.002\September 2002 Repod,doc 6 Main Street Substation: Met with the owner of this new Old Town business several times in order to help her obtain approval of her sign at the September meeting of the Old Town Local Review Board. Lowe's: Staff continued to work with Operations Manager and developed a solution to his outside storage problems. They will be submitting an application for a substantial conformance in October. Also aiding this business in obtaining a release of their landscaping deposit. Special Event Permits Old Town Latin Fiesta: City staff met with organizer Paul Orozco several times in order to help him obtain approval for his temporary use permit. Designed a new site plan for this proposed event which took place in the Stampede parking lot on September 14th. · Boys and Girls Club: Continue assisting representatives of this group with a temporary use permit for the placement of a commercial coach on their Pujol Street property. The Great Tractor Race: City Staff met with the representatives of Southwest Events regarding their plan for the Great Tractor Race this October event at the Northwest Sports Complex. Provided a site plan for applicants and helped them obtain insurance for their vendors. · Summer Nights: Helped organizer, Melody Brunsting, finalize a temporary use permit for this City-sponsored event which ends in early October. Massage Establishment Permits Massage Professionals & Skin Care: A massage establishment application for this existing Old Town business has been submitted to the City. Staff is awaiting the results of a background check of applicant. Dubois Salon & Spa: A massage establishment permit application has been submitted to the City for this business located at The Commons at The Promenade Mall. Staff is awaiting the results of background checks of the applicants. Salon 29 Incorporated: An application for a massage establishment permit has been submitted to the City by this business, located in the Temecula Town Center. Staff is awaiting a background check of the applicant. Trevi Partners I1: A massage establishment permit application for this new salon, located in The Promenade Mall, has been submitted to the City. Staff is awaiting the results of background checks of the applicants. J. C. Penney Salon: An application for a massage establishment permit was submitted to the City by this salon located in The Promenade Mall. Staff is awaiting the results of a background check of the applicant. R:'~vlONTHLY.RPT~2002\September 2002 Report.doc 7 Special Proiects & Lonq Ranqe Plannin,q Activities The Division also commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities are as follows: Housing Element Update - The State Department of Housing and Community Development has approved the approach in the revised Housing Element. The draft was considered by the Planning Commission on September 18th and approved by the City Council on October 8, 2002. Comprehensive General Plan Update - The CAC has completed its review of the draft goals and policies, and is currently considering alternative land uses. A joint Council-Planning Commission workshop has been scheduled for October 29, 2002. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance - Final changes are being made prior to scheduling this item for a Planning Commission workshop. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. Surface Mining Ordinance - The staff and City Attorney had been making final changes based upon feedback from the State prior to submitting this item to the Council for their consideration. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. · Hillside Development Policy - The policies are being examined for integration into the draft- grading ordinance. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. Large Family Day Care Home Facility Ordinance The Planning Commission considered the revised ordinance on October 2, 2002, and recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance. Southside Specific Plan - Staff is reviewing the work that was previously done to possibly develop design guidelines for this area. Staff is looking at the possibility of developing design guidelines and/or a sign program for this area. PA02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship - Staff presented a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from VL to PO at the SWC of Margarita and De Portola Roads. The Negative Declaration was challenged and the Planning Commission continued this item to the November 20th meeting. PA00-0421 and PA00-0422 Butterfield Stage LLC - General Plan Amendment and Zone Change at SEC of Butterfield Stage Road and Hwy 79 South to change 20.33 acres from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and Open Space. The applicant has new party interested in purchasing the site. Procedures to Implement CEQA - Staff initiated project to develop local guidelines for processing CEQA documents, including the adoption of local exemptions. The process will also conform to the 2002 CEQA Guidelines, and will create new templates for standard CEQA forms. New procedural documents and forms should be ready for staff to use by the end of October. · City- Project environmental reviews and permitting: R:WiONTHLY. RP'F~2002\September 2002 Report.doc 8 Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting - Negative Declaration prepared, waiting for TCSD and TVUSD to reach an agreement regarding Use Before School to City Council. Project on hold until 2003 or 2004 when CIP funds become available. o Consultant List- The Consultant list is complete and available in R:\Planning. Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) Widening & Sound Wall - Staff has received and is reviewing Jurisdictional Delineation Studies (wetlands and blue line stream) and other regulatory materials for USACE, CDFG and RWQCB. Staff has not received feedback on previous comments concerning design and amhitectural treatment of the sound wall. o Rancho CA Road Bridge Widening - Approved by City Council on September 24, 2002. Overland Drive Extension - Staff has reviewed 2°d submittal of the draft initial study / Mitigated Negative Declaration and has provided comments to Public Works. General Plan Amendments A request to reduce the size of Via Industrial (Western Bypass Corridor) north of Avenida Alvarado has been submitted and has been on hold pending the approval of a revised Circulation Element. Eli Lilly General Plan Amendment and Zone Change - The applicant's proposal would involve changing the land use designations to Community Commercial. Staff has accepted applications to change all designations to Community Commemial, with restricted uses at the southwest corner of Overland Drive and Margarita Road. This item is tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission on November 6, 2002. Margarita Village Specific Plan -A General Plan Amendment for Parcel Map 22513, amending the land use from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 9.77 acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (954-030-001); Submitted by Venture Point. In addition to the General Plan Amendment the applicant has also submitted a Specific Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. The applications were submitted on May 23, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on August 8, 2002. The applicant resubmitted on September 20, 2002, and comments are due October 10, 2002. Geoqraphic Information System (GIS) Activities · The City's GIS based Fire Response Program is now fully operational in all units. · GIS and Fire Department staff made a presentation of the City's GIS based Fire Response Program for the monthly EMARC meeting at Station 84. Staff has received the complete set of Iow elevation digital ortho-photos (imagery) from the Project Design Consultant's contract for review. Staff anticipates delivery of the set of high elevation photographs and contours at 5-foot intervals for 150 square miles around the City within the month. · GIS staff completed a series maps for the City's Megan's Law link on the web page. · Staff continues to work with Public Works staff to map storm drain locations with the City's GPS unit. This is an ongoing project, which will take several months to complete. R:\MONTHLY.RPT~002\September 2002 Report.doc 9 · GIS staff updated the General Plan Land Use Map based on recent City Council actions. · Recent mapping products and data requests include: A series of maps identifying existing commercial centers and potential vacant sites for Economic Development A map of the commercial areas and land use statistics for the potential Redhawk annexation area for the Finance Department An Old Town Local Review Board delivery route map for the Planning Department Various aerial vicinity maps for Planning and Redevelopment and Community Services Location map of the Rancho Community Church site for City Council Proposed alternate transportation map for City Council Thomas Brothers/County Centerline data comparison map for Public Works Land Use by Census Tract statistics for the Planning Department French Valley airport influence map for the Planning Department Updated vacant land map for Planning Temeku Hills tracts map for Public Works Regional SDG&E potential routes map for the City Attorney's Office Updates to the maps in the CIP document for Finance Maps used in the planning and organization of the Rod Run event for Planning, Fire and Police Map of all developments and schools affected by French Valley Airport for the Planning Department Vicinity, zoning and land use exhibits prepared for Planning AdditionaJly Staff conducted updates to the street centerline data, provided updated data to IS and Fire staff for the Fire Response program and updated MapObjects data for Internet GIS Staff continues with ongoing data layer development and maintenance. R?WIONTHLY.RPT'~2002\September 2002 Report.doc 10 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Councit William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer October 22, 2002 Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of September, 2002. MOACTRPT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (/JT&C{~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent October 4, 2002 Monthly Activity Report - September, 2002 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of September, 2002: SIGNS A. Total signs replaced B. Total signs installed C. Total signs repaired 134 9 11 19 2~0'19 18 22 18 928 I1. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns Ill. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs B. Total Tons IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. Vii. STENCILING A. 426 New and repainted legends B. - 0 - L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping R:LMAINTAINNM OACTRPT~J U LY 2002- JUNE 2003~SEPTEMBER,O2.DOC Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 62 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 43 service order requests for the month of AuRust~ 2002. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 73 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of September~ 2002 was $15,054.00 compared to $23,846.00 for the month of August, 2002. Account No. 5402 $ 5,854.00 Account No. 5401 $ 9,200.00 Account No. 999-5402 $ -0 - CC; Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer (CIP/l'raffic) Greg Butler, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer (Land Development) R:kMAINTAIN~MOACTRPT~JULY 2002- JUNE 2003\SEPTEMBER.02.DO C 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 cO 0 & STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of September, 2002 DATE ACCOUNT CONTRACTOR: STREET/CHANNE~BRIDGE Date: 09/19/02 # 5402 BECKER ENGINEERING 29065 FRONT STREET DESCRIPTION I TOTAL COST OF WORK SIZE REMOVE AND REPLACE 34' OF CURB AND GUTTER TOTAL COST I $ 5,854.00 CONTRACTOR: :)ate: 9~02 ~ 5401 Date: Date: # Date: Date: Date: Date: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT CI'I"YSNIDE CHANNEL CLEANING WEED ABATE, TRASH & DEBRIS REMOVAL FROM 10 CHANNELS TOTAL COST I $ 9,200.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT ~39-5402 TOTAL COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COST I TOTAL COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COST $ 9,200.00 $ 5,854.00 LU,~ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 09/02/02 43384 VIA ANGELES DEBRIS PICK-UP 09/02/02 09/03/02 HONORS AT MARGARITA R-7 DOWN 09/03/02 09/03/02 29941 AVENIDA CIMA DEL SOL DEAD TREE 09/03/02 09/03/02 31016 CAM1NO ESTE STORM DRAIN CLEANING 09/06/02 09/04/02 40311 ATMORE DEBRIS PICK-UP 09/04/02 09/04/02 41358 YUBA CIRCLE TREE DOWN 09/04/02 09/05/02 41660 BIG SAGE COURT ROOT PRUNING 09/05/02 09/05/02 27086 WINCHESTER POTHOLE 09/05/02 09/06/02 41532 AVENIDA DE LA REINA ROOT PRUNING 09/06/02 09/06/02 44745 CALLE BANUELOS DISEASED TREE 09/06/02 09/06/02 39640 DIEGO DRIVE CURB GRINDING 09/06/02 09/06/02 30165 CORTE CAMINO DEBRIS REMOVAL 09/06/02 09/06/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MORAGA DEBRIS REMOVAL 09/06/02 09/06/02 30260 CABRILLO TREE REMOVAL 09/07/02 09/09/02 32820 WOLF STORE ROAD DEBRIS REMOVAL 09/09/02 09/09/02 WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA POTHOLES 09/09/02 09/09/02 41109 VIA ALCON P.C.C. REPAIRS 09/09/02 09/09/02 41950 6TM STREET DEBRIS REMOVAL 09/09/02 09/09/02 31052 CORTE ALAMAR TREE TRIMMING 0-9/09/02 09/10/02 30585 KO RIVER COURT P.C.C. REPAIRS 09/10/02 09/11/02 29981 LOS NOGALES ROAD POTHOLE 09/I 1/02 09/11/02 30260 SANTIAGO ROAD POTHOLES 09/11/02 09/12/02 30805 LOLITA ROAD ROAD GRADING 09/12/02 09/12/02 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE AT OVERLAND DEBRIS REMOVAL 09/12/02 09/12/02 28544 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET MAIL BOX DOWN 09/12/02 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 09/13/02 MARGARITA AT JEDEDIAH SMITH DEBRIS 09/13/02 09/16/02 40628 CALLE FIESTA STREET REPAIRS 09/16/02 09/16/02 40623 WINDSOR. DRIVE SIDEWALK REPAIR 09/16/02 09/16/02 41850 CALLE CEREZO POTHOLES 09/16/02 09/16/02 45530 CLUBHOUSE PAINT SPILL 09/16/02 09/16/02 30262 VILLA ALTURAS TREE TRIMMING 09/16/02 09/17/02 41513 AVENIDA DE LA RE1NA ROOT PRUNING 09/17/02 09/17/02 41031 PROMENADE CHARDONNAY DEAD TREE 09/17/02 09/17/02 27535 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST TREE TRIMMING 09/17/02 09/17/02 31249 HIAWATHA COURT RAISED SIDEWALK 09/17/02 09/18/02 29806 VIA PUESTA DEL SOL TREE TRIMMING 09/18/02 09/18/02 42195 ROANOAKE ROAD CATCH BASIN CLEANING 0918/092 09/18/02 39330 KIMBERLY LANE ROAD GRADING 09/18/02 09/I8/02 39310 KIMBERLY LANE ROAD GRADING 09/18/02 09/19/02 31959 CALLE BALLENTINE A.C. REPAIR 09/19/02 09/19/02 31703 CORTE CARDENAS STORM DRAIN CLEANING 09/19/02 09/20/02 29825 SANTIAGO ROAD TREE REMOVAL 09/20/02 09/20/02 30594 COILINA VERDE DUMPING 09/20/02 09/20/02 WOLF STORE AT REDHAWK PARKWAY SIGN DOWN 09/20/02 09/20/02 WOLF CREEK ROAD DEBRIS PICK-UP 09/20/02 09/23/02 31739 ASTEROID TREE REMOVAL 09/23/02 09/23/02 31420 CORTE MADERA STORM DRAIN CLEANING 09/23/02 09/24/02 43072 NOBLE COURT STANDING WATER 09/24/02 09/24/02 30486 IRON BARK TREE REMOVAL 09/24/02 09/24/02 45505 OLYMPIC WAY STORM DRAIN CLEANING 09/24/02 09/24/02 31031 SHABA WAY TREE REMOVAL 09/24/02 09/25/02 32997 BONITA WAY GRAVEL IN ROAD 09/25/02 09/25/02 31448 CORTE MONTIEL BROKEN GLASS 09/25/02 09/25/02 29799 WINDWOOD CIRCLE TREE TRIMMING 09/25/02 09/26/02 CAMINO DEL ESTE DEBRIS REMOVAL 09/26/02 09/26/02 43750 BUTTERNUT DRIVE RE-STAKING TREE 09/26/02 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 09/26/02 31500 BRITTON CIRCLE STREET NAME SIGN REPAIR 09/26/02 09/26/02 44745 CALLE BANUELOS STUMP REMOVAL 09/26/02 09/27/02 CALLE LANGARIA S.N.S. MISSPELLED 09/27/02 09/27/02 40169 ALEXANDRIA DRIVE S,N.S. MISSING 09/27/02 09/30/02 42867 CAMINO ALAGON DEAD TREE 09/30/02 09/30/02 41911 DRIVERS LANE KEYS IN CATCH BASIN 09/30/02 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 62 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 09/03/02 OVERLAND AT MARGARITA REMOVED 3 S.F, OF GRAFFITI 09/04/02 EMPIRE CREEK REMOVED 262 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/05/02 EMPIRE CREEK REMOVED 126 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/12/02 42101 MORAGA REMOVED 54 S.F, OF GRAFFITI 09/13/02 6TM STREET AT PUJOL REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/18/02 RAINBOW CREEK BRIDGE REMOVED 160 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/19/02 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/19/02 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/19/02 CANTER.FIELD CHANNEL REMOVED 124 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/23/02 RUSTIC GLEN AT STONEGATE REMOVED 6 S,F. OF GRAFFITI 09/25/02 BUTTEREIELD STAGE ROAD AT PAUBA REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/25/02 MICHAELS ON YNEZ REMOVED 136 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/26/02 VIA ANGELES AT CORTE FIGUEROA REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/27/02 28499 PUJOL STREET REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/30/02 MARGARITA AT AVENIDA SONOMA REMOVED 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/30/02 MARGARITA AT VIA LA VIDA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/30/02 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLEN REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 09/30/02 MARGARITA AT RAMSEY COURT REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 928 TOTAL LOCATIONS 18 Z CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 09/03/02 AREA #5 (VAIL RANCH) REPAINTED 25 LEGENDS 09/04/02 AREA #5 (VAIL RANCH) REPAINTED 65 LEGENDS 09/05/02 AREA #5 (VAIL RANCH) REPAINTED 52 LEGENDS 09/09/02 AREAS #5 AND #2 REPAINTED 32 LEGENDS 09/10/02 AREA #2 REPA1NTED 33 LEGENDS 09/11/02 AREA #2 REPAINTED 22 LEGENDS 09/12/02 AREA 2 REPAINTED 7 LEGENDS 09/16/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY REPAINTED 46 LEGENDS 09/17/02 AREAS #2 AND g4 REPA1NTED 53 LEGENDS 09/18/02 SOLANA WAY AT MARGAR/TA REPA1NTED 9 LEGENDS 09/19/02 SOLANA AT NICHOLAS REPA1NTED 20 LEGENDS I 09/23/02 AREA #4 REPA1NTED 40 LEGENDS 09/24/02 LA SERENA AT WALCOTT REPAINTED 22 LEGENDS TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 426 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. -0- CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 09/04/02 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 8 CHANNELS 09/06/02 31016 CAMINO DEL ESTE CLEANED & CHECKED 2 CATCH BASINS 09/11/02 31052 COP,.TE ALAMAP.. CLEANED & CHECKED 2 CATCH BASINS 09/18/02 RANCHO VISTA AT MARGARITA CLEANED & CHECKED 4 UNDER SIDEWALK DRAINS 09/19/02 42195 ROANOAKE CLEANED & CHECKED 2 CATCH BASINS 09/24/02 AKEA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 22 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 09/04/02 NICHOLAS / MARGARITA TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 09/05/02 WINCHESTER AT ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 09/05/02 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD N & S HWY 79 SO. TRIMMED 3 R.O.W. TREES 09/11/02 RANCHO VISTA EAST OF MIRA LOMA TRIMMED 3 R.O.W. TREES 09/16/02 ELINDA AT PAUBA TRIMMED 3 R.O.W. TREES 09/17/02 NICHOLAS AT NORTH GENEKAL KEARNY TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 09/18/02 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST TRIMMED 3 R.O.W. TREES 09/19/02 1st STREET AT PUJOL TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 19 R:LMA[N TAIN~WKC M p LT D\T RE ES~JU Ly 2002 TO JUNE 2~3~SEPT£MBER.02.DOC CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK S.F. TOTAL TONS 09/03/02 AVENIDA BUENA SUERTE AT AVENIDA CENTENARIO A.C. OVERLAY 340 1.5 09/04/02 CALLE TIARA / CALLE FIESTA A.C. OVERLAY 394 2.5 09/05/02 30581 DEL REY A.C. OVERLAY 70 1.0 09/10/02 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO AT DEL REY R & R A.C. 170 5.0 09/16/02 MEADOWVIEW (OVER-THE-SIDE-DRAINS) A.C. OVERLAY 185 1.5 09/17/02 MEADOWVIEW (4 LOCATIONS) A.C. OVERLAY 403 2.5 09/18/02 6TM AT MERCEDES A.C. OVERLAY 381 2.5 09/19/02 CALLE FUENTE / CALLE TIARA A.C. OVERLAY 76 1.5 TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 2~019 TOTAL TONS 18 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 09/03/02 RANCHO VISTA WEST OF MIRA LOMA INSTALLED W-75, R-63, 2 TYPE "N" 09/03/02 HWY 79 SO. AT FRONT STREET REPAIRED 3 DELINEATORS 09/04/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT LEENA REPLACED R-7, TYPE K 09/04/02 MARGARITA AT PAUBA REPLACED TYPE K 09/04/02 VIA RAMI AT AMARITA REPAIRED 2 R- 1 09/04/02 YNEZ AT QUIET MEADOW REPLACED R-26P, REPAIRED S.N.S. 09/04/02 AVE. CENTENARIO AT AVE. BUENA SUERTE INSTALLED W-57 2 TYPE N 09/05/02 HWY 79 SO. AT FRONT STKEET REPLACED DELINEATOR 09/09/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 18 S.N.S. 09/09/02 OAK CLIFF DRIVE AT RAINBOW CREEK DRIVE REPLACED R- 1 09/10/02 AREA #5 KEPLACED 8 S.N.S. 09/11/02 MEADOWVIEW AREA REPAIRED 5 SIGNS 09/11/02 RANCHO CALIF. ROAD AT BUTEREIELD STAGE REPLACED 2 DELINEATORS 09/12/02 STANFORD AT CAMINO CAMPOS INSTALLED R-1 09/12/02 WINCHESTER AT ZEVO REPLACED R-1 09/12/02 MARGARITA AT SOLANA REPLACED R-7, K MARKER 09/16/02 NICHOLAS ATFOX ROAD INSTALLED W-53 09/17/02 VAIL RANCH REPLACED 8 S.N.S. 09/19/02 RANCHO VISTA AT YNEZ REPLACED R-26, R-2 "50" 09/23/02 AREA g4 REPLACED 24 SNS 09/23/02 REDHAWK PARKWAY AT WOLF STORE REPLACED R-7, TYPE N 09/23/02 RUSTIC GLEN AT OAK CLIFF REPLACED R-1 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 09/23/02 CREATIVE AT STONEGATE REPLACED R-1 09/23/02 DE PORTOLA AT P~LRK REPLACED 2 TYPE N 09/23/02 WEST WOLF VALLEY REPLACED 2 TYPE N 09/23/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MORAGA REPLACED R-26~81 COMBO 09/24/02 3~ & MERCEDES REPLACED S,N.S. 09/24/02 AREA #5 REPLACED I4 S.N.S. 09/25/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 32 S.N.S. 09/25/02 JOHNSTON AT CALLE CANTU REPLACED R-1 09/25/02 CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO AT PAROWN REPLACED R- 1 09/25/02 CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO AT WELTON REPLACED R-1 09/25/02 CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO AT CALLE LANGARCIA REPLACED R~ 1 09/26/02 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT DE PORTOLA REPLACED 2 "K" MARKERS, R-7 09/26/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT CAMPANULA REPLACED "K' MARKER 09/27/02 REDHAWK PARKWAY SOUTH OF HWY 79 SO. REPLACED R-7, 2 "N" MARKERS TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 134 TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 9 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 11. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report September / October 2002 Prepared By: Amer Attar Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: October 22, 2002 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1. Margarita Road Widening, Phase I (Interim), Pauba Road to Plo Pico This project will widen Margarita Road on an interim bases between Pauba Road and Plo Pico. As a result, Margarita Road will have four lanes throughout City limits. The contractor, R.J. Noble, has completed the work. Notice of Completion was filed. Retention release is pending. 2. Chaparral High School Swimming Pool A 25-yard x 25-meter pool will be built at Chaparral High School. The facility will include a smaller · recreation pool component and a bathhouse with locker room facilities, restrooms and showers. Spray-type play equipment will be included as an element in the base construction bid. The contractor, California Commercial Pools has completed the work. Notice of Completion was filed. Retention release is pending. 3. Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) Improvements, Phase I - (Widening to accommodate four lanes from Pechanga Parkway Bridge to Wolf Valley) and Traffic Signals Modifications at Loma Linda, and at Wolf Valley Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) Improvements, Phase I, will give Pechanga Parkway two lanes in each direction (58 feet in width) from the Pechanga Parkway Bridge to the Pechanga Casino. It includes re-striping the entire length. In addition, the two traffic signals at Loma Linda and at Wolf Valley will be modified to accommodate the road interim widening. This project is complete. Notice of Completion was filed. Retention release is pending. 4. Slurry Seal Program - FY2001-02 This project will slurry seal and protect 79 various streets throughout the City. Work was completed on time and under budget. Notice of Completion was filed. Retention release is pending. 5. First Street Extension - Environmental Mitigation This project will create approximately 1.49 acres of wetlands along Murrieta Creek at First Street. It includes construction of landscaping and irrigation improvements, and maintenance of said improvements for a period of five (5) years in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements. Bids were opened June 6, 2002. Award is on hold pending RCFC/ACOE coordination with Murrieta Creek Improvement project. R:',IvlonthlyActivit yReporl\C IPX2002\S e ptem~r.doc 6. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2001/2002 This project will rehabilitate and reconstruct portions of Rancho California Road between Hope Way and Cosmic Drive. R.J. Noble Company is the contractor. The project is presently under construction. Currently, the project is ahead of schedule, and is anticipated to be complete by the first part of November. 7. Community Theatre - Mercantile Seismic Retrofit This project will create a community theatre at the old Mercantile building in downtown Temecula. 2H Construction began construction on Monday, September 16, 2002. Asbestos removal and demolition work are complete with foundation work underway. 8. Citywide A;C. Repairs - FY2001-02 This project will repair various road sections throughout the City. All American Asphalt is the lowest bidder, Currently, the contractor is ahead of schedule, and barring any unexpected issues will be complete with all construction work by the first part of November. 9. Children's Museum This project will construct a 7,500 square foot children's museum. Bids were opened on September 5th. Lowest bidder was RE Flemming with a bid of $347,881. Contract was awarded at the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting. The contractor has started the demolition work on the exterior of the building. 10. Rancho Vista Road Drainage Improvements This project will improve the maintenance of the storm drain system on Rancho Vista Road immediately adjacent to the MWD easement. The project was awarded at the September 24, 2002, City Council meeting. The contractor has begun cleaning out the storm drain pipe that is full of silt. PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS None PROJECTS IN DESIGN 1. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Improvements - Phase II (SR 79 South to Pechanga Road) This project will widen Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) to its ultimate width from the Pechanga Parkway Bridge to Pechanga mad. The Preliminary Environmental Document Classification (NEPA) of the project has been determined to be "Categorical Exclusion" with required technical studies (involving Federal action). The City is currently working with Caltrans' Local Assistance and City's Environmental Consultant to expedite the environmental approval process. The consultant submitted 90% drainage design plans to RCFC & WCD for review and 2 R:XMonthlyActivityReport\ClPX2002\September.doc comments on September 20, 2002. Comments from RCFC & WCD are expected within two weeks. Work is proceeding with the remainder of the design. 2. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Sound Wall Improvements Under this project, sound walls will be designed and constructed on the southwest side of Pechanga Parkway, from Rainbow Canyon Road to the Pechanga casino and on the northeast side along the residences just north of Loma Linda. The City sent plan check comments (60%) to the design consultant for their review and incorporation into the plans. The 60% design plans were sent to all utilities and affected HOA's for review. Environmental issues have been identified and documents are being prepared. Work is being coordinated with the Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase I1. 3. Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek This project will widen Rancho California Road Bridge over Murrieta Creek to provide four additional traffic lanes. The design consultant is currently making final revisions to the drawings and specifications. Processing for environmental requirements is schedule for completion by early November 2002. We anticipate bidding this project by mid November 2002. 4. Temecula Library A full service library, approximately 34,000 square feet in area, will be designed and built on Pauba Road, just west of Fire Station #84. This project will provide the community with library resources and services. A separate parcel has been created for the library for bond purposes. The application to the State was submitted on June 13, 2002. Utility services construction will be coordinated with Pauba Road, Phase II Street.improvements. 5. Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II (Margarita Road to Showalter Road) This project will widen Pauba Road from Showalter to just west of Margarita Road to its ultimate width. The City has reviewed the 100% Design Plans submitted by the consultant. Specifications are being prepared. Plans were sent to all utilities and all utility issues are being addressed. Environmental issues were identified and the City Planning Dept. is preparing the environmental documents. Work is being coordinated with the library project. 6. John Warner/Santiago Road Assessment District - Hydrology Study Under this project a drainage study will be done to compliment the improvement plans being done by the property owners. Eventually the City will be the oversight agency for a property owners sponsored assessment district. The City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. to do a hydrology study and storm drain design at the June 11,2002 meeting. Draft Hydrology Study was received on 8/6/02. The scope of ERSCs work is being expanded due to the Hydrology Study findings. An agreement amendment was approved by City Council on October 8, 2002. The Storm Drain Design and Engineer's Cost Estimate preparation will continue during the next reporting period. 7. Landscaping and Sidewalk On SR 79 South (Front Street to Pechanga Parkway) The project consists of the design and construction of new sidewalk, landscaping, and irrigation along State Route 79 South between Pechanga Parkway and Old Town Front Street. Review of 1 st plan submittal is complete. However, the project scope was modified, the modifications were incorporated into 60% submittal, and the plans were re-submitted to Caltrans. Caltrans tentatively 3 R:WlonthlyActivityReport\Cl]~2002~September.doc approved the plans, and final revisions are being made. An agreement between the City and the California Sunset HOA is being drafted. 8. Temecula Sports Complex A new 40+ Acres sports complex will be built at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow Way. Preliminary design is underway, with council approval for the site layout scheduled for 2nd meeting in October. Utility companies have been notified to provide information on existing facilities in Pala Road and Deer Hollow Way. 9. Bridge Barrier Rail Upgrade, Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road over Empire Creek This project will replace the existing barrier mils of the Rainbow Canyon Bridge over Pechanga Creek and the Del Rio Road Bridge over Empire Creek. Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) delivered the 100% Plans and Engineer's Cost Estimate in early October. Specifications are being finalized. The construction-funding request is being prepared and will be submitted to Caltrans as soon as possible. 10. Fire Station - Wolf Creek Site A fire station will be built at the Wolf Creek Site. Building & Safety has reviewed second submittal and provided plan check comments. Building and Safety has reviewed second submittal and provided plan check comments. The architect is to complete final plan revisions and re-submit the plans for approval by the end of this month. Wolf Creek development plans have revised roadway elevations. The precise grading plan must be revised accordingly. We are waiting for the final elevation from the Developer. 11. Pavement Management System Update The project will establish a pavement management program that will provide an ongoing schedule of needed repairs and provide data that will be used to prepare budget estimates required to complete the scheduled work. GIS links, AutoCAD review, and updates to MicroPAVER are included in the total program. The consultant submitted the final draft pavement study for City's review and comments. The design consultant will conduct three MicroPAVER training sessions for Public Works staff. 12. Vail Ranch Park (Near Pauba Valley School) - Add Amenities This project will add amenities, incIuding play equipment to the recently annexed Vail Ranch Park. The Community Services Commission approved the Vail Ranch Park Site "C" Master Plan on February 11,2002. The Master. Plan was approved by City Council at the March 26, 2002 meeting. RHA Landscape Architects/Planners Inc. is the design firm and the first submittal was made on May 3rd. The City reviewed these documents and returned them to the consultant for revisions. The City and RHA met on 7/31/02 to discuss these comments and revisions are being made. Soil samples were taken and results were provided to TCSD on 8/28/02. TCSD is having a grading plan prepared. 13. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail This project will build portions of the equestrian and bike trails along Murrieta Creek within City limits. The City has received a federal grant of $1,214,000. Caltrans has given the City the "Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering." Request For Proposals (RFP) #111 was 4 R:~4onthlyActivit~Report\Cll~2002\September.doc issued and proposals are to be submitted by Thursday, October 17, 2002, 14. Diaz Road Realignment Under this project, Diaz Road will be realigned to Vincent Moraga Road at Rancho California Road. Business Park Drive will be a T-intersection at Diaz. City staff is currently designing the project. Anticipated street and landscapin'g design completion is scheduled for October 2002. Right of Way and environmental processing are anticipated to be complete by November of 2002. 15. Rancho California Road Median Modifications at Town Center The project will include the closing of the two median openings on Rancho California Road in front of the Town Center, while lengthening the left turn lanes at Ynez Road, Town Center Drive, and Via Los Colinas to improve traffic circulation. The design is 100% complete. To avoid construction during the holiday period, bidding will not begin until October with construction starting in January 2003. This project will be combined with PW00-20. 16. Rancho California Road Widening at Ynez Road (Add right turn lane to westbound lanes) This project will add a right turn lane on westbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road. Right of way acquisition at the northeast corner of Rancho California and Ynez is in process with Claim Jumper Restaurant and Swedish American Corporation signing the acquisition agreements. In- house design is 90% complete. To avoid construction during the holiday period, bidding will not begin until October with construction starting in January 2003. This project will be combined with PWO0-02. 17. Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson This project will widen Winchester road between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson Avenue. It will also add a right turn lane from Eastbound Winchester to Southbound Jefferson, starting at Enterprise Cimle. Project layout was plotted and discussed with Traffic and the Director of Public Works. In- house design continues, with recent modifications to the design being implemented. 18. Rancho California Sports Park ADA Access and Shade Structure This project entails the design and construction of ADA compliant concrete walkways to the remaining ball fields, 3,4,5,7 & 8. It will also include the installation of two shade picnic/seating areas adjacent to the snack bar building. Design work is 60% complete and presently in the plan check phase. Currently the second plan submittal is being reviewed. Specifications are being drafted and they will be submitted for review by end of October. PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE 1. 1-15/SR 79 South Interchange - Project Study Report (PSR) This project will modify the 1-15/SR 79 South Interchange to accommodate projected future traffic. The City received the final Value Engineering Analysis Report from Caltrans on May 8, 2002. All the proposed alignments presented bythe value analysis team were rejected. A meeting between Cibj and Caltrans staff occurred on 9/11/02 to discuss the project. The City's consultant provided an 5 R:XMonthlyActivityRepon\ClP~2002~September.doc alignment modification with supporting traffic data to Caltrans on 10/02/02, for comments and review. 2. French Valley Parkway Overcrossing and Interchange, Project Report (PR), Plans Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Preparation This project will construct an intemhange between Winchester Road Interchange and the I-15/I-215 split. On October 3, 2002 five consultants were interview by a seven-member panel consisting of Caltrans, City of Murrieta, and City of Temecula personnel. The interview process included a presentation by each consultant and a questions/answers period. The panel has recommended the most qualified consultant. The consultant will be providing the City a Project Report (PR), and Environmental Documents (ED) for this first phase of the design process. Once the City completes the negotiations with the consultant, staff will bring a recommendation to the City Council. 3. Murrieta Creek Bridge - Overland Drive Extension to Diaz Road This project will entail alignment studies and the design of an extension of Overland Drive, westerly to Diaz Road, which includes a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project includes the widening of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Drive, and the extension of Overland Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road. PDC has completed the alignment study and staff has reviewed copies of the preliminary plans. Staff has reviewed design costs for next year's fiscal funding. No funding until FY03-04 4. Alignment Study for Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Road and Temecula City Limits and Diaz Road Extension This study will determine the alignment and location of the Murrieta Creek crossing between Winchester Road and the northern City Limits. in addition, the study will be combined with the Diaz Road Extension alignment study and design. Coordination with the City of Murrieta, Riverside County Flood Control and Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. The Consultant and Staff met with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss possible alignments. The consultant is currently awaiting data from Riverside County Flood Control in order to complete the work on the first draft of the alignment study. Staff was informed this data could take up to a year to receive (from May 2002). 5. Pedestrian Crossing- SR 79 North at Nicolas Road City met with Caltrans and sent a letter at their request to initiate this project. Caltrans responded in a letter that the bridge does not meet their warrents and that they will not support nor will they allow its construction. The final feasibility report was received from the consultant. Staff is currently reviewing the options on the report and awaiting direction. PROJECTS THAT ARE SUSPENDED OR ON-HOLD 1. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15 This is Phase II of the Southbound Auxiliary Lane project at the southbound exit ramp for Winchester Road. This project will widen the 1-15 southbound exit-ramp at the Santa Gertrudis 6 R:WI onthlyAcfi viiyRepon\Cll~2002~September.dcc Creek Bridge to provide an additional lane on the exit ramp just north of Winchester Road. Staff is revisiting the merits of this project in light of the Project Study Report for French Valley Parkway Intemhange. The study shows that this bridge may have to be removed in the future to accommodate the new Intemhange. This project is suspended indefinitely. 2. Margarita Road/Winchester Road Intersection Improvements Project is on hold. Under this project, an additional left turn from eastbound Winchester to northbound Margarita will be added in order to accommodate increasing traffic volumes. Design is 50% complete. A developer will be doing this project. 3. Pujol Street Sidewalk Improvements - Phase II Project is on hold. This project will complete the knuckle at the intersection of Sixth Street and Felix Valdez. The developer of a nearby property may be designing and constructing this project. 4. School Site ADA Improvements Project has been removed from this year's ClP. Design and construct ADA concrete walkways and hand railing to athletic facilities at Temecula Middle School, James L. Day Middle School and Margarita Middle School. TCSD re-allocated the funds. 5. City Hall Parking Lot Modifications Project is on-hold. Funding has been postponed until FY 2004/2005. Under this project, a security fence will be installed between the existing maintenance facility and the western side of City Hall to secure the parking lot west of the main building. The design of a security fence between the existing maintenance facility and the western side of City Hall will be performed in-house. A scoping meeting was held on November 12, 2001. Reseamh on existing base maps for the proposed area and as-builts for the existing security fence near the maintenance facility is complete. Design and review of the proposed layout is complete. The project is currently on hold waiting for further direction 7 R:~vlonthlyAcfivilyReport\CIP~2002~September,doc ILl I'- Ll. o LLI APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council I../ Howard Windsor, City Fire Chief'-~~ September 30, 2002 Monthly Departmental Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Fire Department's Monthly Activity Report for the month of August, 2002. Month: August Year: 2002 10 Me~c ,+ 2 o 0 0 9 21 328 16 0 28 232 0.30 16 8.43 16.73 28.18 School Programs Fairs and D'mplays Company Inspections LE-38 Dooryard Inspections Burning Permits Issued Pre plang 125 2 79 45 3 15 0 0 0 Total 254 0 4 o o 0 8 o 152 o o o 2 o 166 131 151 3 28 lO2 641 197 622 3 143 2 ~ 35 438 ~ 1620 Month: August Year: 2002 Medical Aids 77 114 191 1618 Traffic Collisions ' 23 22 45 382 Public Service Assists 3 5 8 31 Fire Menace Standby's, 0 0 0 3 Structure Fires 1 6 7 57 Rin~g Alarm 0 0 0 48 Vegetation Fire 0 0 0 6 Vehicle Fire 0 0 0 2 Refuse Fire ! 0 I 4 Hazmat o 0 o 1 Total 105 147 252 2152 Average Response Time 3.79 4.6 4.20 4.67 Longest Response Time I0 I1 N/A N/A Medic Squad Cancelled Prior to Patient Contact 9 21 30 535 Average Wait Time for AMR 4.25 16.6 10.43 7.64 Medic Squad on Scene prior to AMR- Medical Aids and Traffic Collisions 57 93 150 979 Performed *ALS prior to AMR's Arrival 32 53 85 530 *ALS - Advanced Life Support Year: 2002 Buildin[ TI 45 251 NCOM Buildin~ 15 86 UG Water 16 157 Over/Under Ground Tanks 0 1 NCOM Sprinkler 22 92 Sprinkler TI 10 ,78 Hood, Duct 1 16 Spray Booths 1 5 Special Suppression Systems 1 7 Alarms 12 103 ' Plannin~ Ca'es 17 116 Special Code Permits I 1 Miscellaneous 7 131 Yotal 148 1044 Fire C of O I 1 210 Shell Final 11 118 UG Hydro 10 71 Yhrust Blocks 8 58 ~3vcr Head H~dro 14 149 Fire Flow 0 1 'lush 27 84 -- '-SPrinkler Final 1! 88 ~Veld Inspection 3 28 Hood Duet Final I 20 !Alarm Pre-wire 4 48 Alarm Final 20 156 !Spray Booth Final 0 6 iFire Safety Inspection 7 60 State Mandated Inspection 2 14 Special Events Inspection 1 16 Pipin[ Hydro ,, 0 2 Shear Valves 0 2 Over/Under Tank Final 0 3 Special Suppression System 0 Special Project Investij~atioo 0 7 Engine Company Follow-up 0 3 Miscellaneous I 32 rolal 131 1177