HomeMy WebLinkAbout061796 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 17, 1996, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water Dtstria's
Board Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CAIJ-:
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not
~ on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Commission Secretary.
When .~,u ale call"d to .~p~'a.k, .e'!c:l~:? .?;~;l~J ;,?: '~.;.: .! :.l.J .-'-;.'~,.'.~.~t.~.~.~.~,~ea[~P~..~;.:'~'~'''~'''':'~ ....
f ......... ~,, ..... :~J,~' ."' ~...:...~.~.~?.....:.,....'. ....
] ,r all od~er agen~ilems a "Requ"~.~; Io Siw-'tk" :,:: m ::;;::: he {i~ed'~i~',~| Ihe..5~ni~.~ 'S,!,:rula:'~, ~,r~'r~
COM.IIISSI:)N BL'SI.%'~S ........... ' ............... """"""':""""" "~ '''/'y'~'% ............
., .;' % ...,...~...../.%~'~;.Y'." ......
· , i P val~lg;.A,gend|a .............. ;:~",-:"" ':'}:" ...............
2. * ,~pt4r.!~-tl or Ihe .Mix,,lt(.,.q"bated Ma,.cla '4, .19~ Ur-,'l"~ee cms"6~jfilmd ~'o,n Jr,pc .1. 19r)6
Pl~..,'U'~ C-.,.~;~i'..~'h~,~=in. . ' *"..
o t.~ ~ ~..~ ~..'... ";';:' "'/: '~ ':}/
/?:. ", :',..,'c, .' ~./. ,,.: ......::/..../r.:;.,
.,/; i,..:"" ':i'.":'.:'~"i ';. :':.::'..:::. ":': '. · '~'
............ ;".::-: ...... : Asia 'S6. Ib d'~f. al ;~;rE~E~ M~.~,;~m/f-,~-' 2:9 1~"3L v, i:hin Sp,!;illc Pla:: N,:.
.... I'):) ........ :-
,.::,i,,,.:..:.,..:: ~:,:.,,,: x:~:.:..,, r;':.':i::;;;:=,',';i~ ........ '...:.....: .....j'/'
Phnner: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
Reconunendation: Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Acdon:
Planner:
Recommendadon:
Planning Application No. PA96-0092 (Variance)
Layton-Belling & Associates
Tower Plaza - west side of Ynez Road, north of the intersection of Ynez and
Rancho California Roads
Variance from Ordinance No. 348 pertaining to fi~e size of three (3) on-site
directional signs and the addition of one (I) freestanding monument sign on
Ynez Road
Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines
Matthew Fagan, Associate Phnner
Approval of on-site directional signs, denial of freesrending monument sign
2
:x~v~xv~c°
ITEM #2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM THE MEETING OF
MARCH 4, 1996
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 4, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to
order on Monday, March 4, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water
District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Co-
Chairman Linda Fahey called the meeting to order.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Webster, Miller, Fahey, Slaven
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Planning
Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer, and Principal Engineer
Steve Cresswell.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
1. ApDroval of Agenda
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske requested an additional item be
placed on the agenda. Add (b) to item #8 Approval of Alcohol
License for: The Shell Station.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Webster, Slaven, Fahey
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Co-Chairman Fahey stated that since this is a large agenda and there
are several requests to speak, modifications to the agenda would be:
Item #14 would be heard as Item #1; Item #15 would be heard by
7:30 PM.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to
approve the agenda as modified.
The motion carried as follows:
pc.minutes\030496 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 4. 1996
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Webster, Slaven, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Oath of Office - Rich Soltysiak
Co-Chairman Fahey welcomed Rich Soltysiak to the Commission. She
stated the Oath of Office would be delayed pending the arrival of City
Clerk June Greek.
Appointment of a New Chairperson
Commissioner Slaven nominated Commissioner Fahey to serve as Chairman
seconded by Commissioner Miller, the vote was taken for appointment.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Webster, Slaven,
Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Appointment of a New Co-Chairperson
Commissioner Fahey nominated Commissioner Slaven as Co-Chairman seconded
by Commissioner Webster, the vote was taken for appointment.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
Miller, Webster, Slaven,
Fahey
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
pc.minutes\030496 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 4. 1996
Approval of Minutes from the November 6.1995 Planning
Commission Meeting
The motion was made by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Slaven
to approve the minutes of November 6, 1995, with the following modifications:
Item #5 and Item #6 - add Commissioner Slaven to an AYE vote and delete her as
absent; On page 3, Item 4 Change to exit locations to West Drive in and East drive
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Plant/Tree Species List
Miller, Webster, Slaven,
Fahey
None
None
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the list of approved plants and
trees for the Temecula area.
Appointment of a Representative to Serve on the Sign Ordinance Committee
It was duly moved and seconded to appoint Commissioner Miller as
the representative to the Sign Ordinance Committee.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Slaven, Fahey,
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Miller
Appointment of a Representative to Serve on the Joint
Temecula/Murrieta Traffic Committee
Chairperson Fahey requested that this appointment be acted on later
on the agenda.
A. Director's Hearing Case Update Report
None given.
pc.minutes\030496 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 4. 1996
2. Oath of Office - Rich Soltysiak
City Clerk, June Greek, administered the oath of office to newly
appointed Commissioner Rich Soltysiak.
7. Appointment of a Representative to Serve on the Joint
Temecula/Murrieta Traffic Committee
Rich Soltysiak was appointed to serve as the representative to the
Joint Temecula/Murrieta Traffic Committee by unanimous consensus.
8. B. Approval of Alcohol License For;
1. Hog Wild (PA96-0001)
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report.
Chairperson Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:00 PM.
Elliot Urlich, 37671 Van Gale Lane, Murrieta, represented the
applicant and stated that the allowable hours for the sale of alcohol is
6:00 AM to 2:00 AM, 7 days per week. He also stated that the name
Hog Wild would be changed to either the Long Branch or the Long
Horn Saloon. No games or game boards.
Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz informed the Commission of the
criteria used to determine the request for the sale of alcohol.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the Alcohol License for the Hog Wild Saloon.
Commissioner Fahey expressed opposition to this project as it does
not meet a convenience for the community.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster, Soltysiak
NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Sports Grill (PA95-0123)
pc.minutes\030496
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 4. 1996
The applicant was not in attendance to answer questions.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to
continue this request to March 18, 1996.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
3. Shell Station
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak,
Webster, Fahey
None
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant,
stated the requested hours for alcohol sales are 6:00 AM. to 2:00
AM.
Commissioner Sottysiak asked how critical is approval for the alcohol
license to the project.
Larry Markham responded this was a necessary component of the
application.
Commissioner Slaven expressed opposition to the concept that
service stations could not sell gas without selling alcohol.
Commissioner Miller spoke in support of this application stating he feels it is
monumentally unfair not to give Shell the competitive edge and have an
equal footing with the other service stations.
Commissioner Fahey expressed opposition to the concept that there is not a
need for public necessity and/or convince and can not make a finding.
Commissioner Webster spoke in support of this application stating he
feels this meets criteria for public convenience for the one-stop
shopping for alcohol and gas.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern on the tentative hours of
sale and commented that other service stations have restricted hours.
Commissioner Fahey recommended that the hours be conditioned
when the Conditional Use Permit is heard by the Commission.
pc.minutes\030496 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS:
MARCH 4. 1996
Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
Slaven, Fahey
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
14. Planning AI;)plication No. PA96-0019 IZoning Amendment. SI;)ecific
Plan) and Planning A0plication No. PA96-0020 IGeneral Plan
Amendment) "Temeku"
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Webster requested clarification of the five-year cycle
for the housing element.
Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz responded that the cycle had been
delayed from 1993 due to lack of funds. Although the State can mandate
cities compliance with certification of housing entitlements even without
providing funds.
Commissioner Slaven recommended the accounting for this
certification be kept in-house.
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske responded that this was a good idea and
staff could start doing so the process.
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed concern for the congestion impact
on parks and schools due to this project. Planner Fagan responded
that park provisions are included in the project and also Quimby fees
will be required.
Community Development Director Thornhill stated that the Temecula
School District has an internal agreement providing mitigation on this
project. He also stated that a subsequent application will be heard by
the Commission.
Chairman Fahey opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 PM
Barry Burnell, 3242 Halladay Street Santa Ana, T & B Planning
Consultants, representing McMillin Project Services, Inc., urged
approval of this project.
Dennis O'Neil, 19900 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, spoke as legal counsel
for the applicant, and stated he would answer any questions.
pc,minutes\030496 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 4. 1996
Samuel C. Alhadeff, 27555 Ynez Road, spoke in opposition to the
project and presented correspondence from the seller to indicate the
litigation now taking place.
Joseph R. Shekoski, Jr., 31999 Vineyard Avenue, spoke in opposition
to a change in zoning. He is against the construction of apartment
buildings.
James H. Hunter, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, representative
for the applicant, spoke in support of this project and stated that this
approval is needed to close escrow. He also stated that he was
available to answer any questions.
Dennis O'Neil, 19900 MacArthur Bivd, Irvine, explained the deed
restriction for senior housing and stated that the court ordered
responsibility would be upheld and worked out before it is heard by
the City Council.
The Public Comments were closed at 7:25 PM.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to
approve Planning Application No. 96-0019 and Planning Amendment No. PA96-
0020.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3
COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Siaven, Soltysiak,
Webster, Fahey
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
15.
Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master
Conditional Use Permit: PA94-0061 ). Planning Application No. PA96-
0025 (Revised Permit-Westside S!Oecific Plan: PA95-0003). Planning
Application No, PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No.
28011: PA95-0004) - Old Town Redevelopment Project
Principle Engineer Steve Cresswell, presented the staff report. He
stated that approval could reduce costs for the city as well as the
applicant..
Commissioner Slaven asked why Rancho California Road, Winchester
Road and Overland Crossing would all be under construction at the
same time.
pc.minutes\030496 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 4, 1996
Community Director Thornhill responded that because of changes on
the Council, priorities were being considered. The Council ordered a
study on the construction priority and timeline. He also stated that
the Rancho California Road construction completion date is 12-13
months; Highway 79 interim improvements, including the Western-By-
Pass beginning in 5-6 months; and the connection to Front Street will
be completed in 12-13 months.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the condition in Issue #2 included
the requirement to pay the fair share. Engineer Cresswell responded
that CIP fees are to be used and also development fees.
Chairman Fahey opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 PM
Mike Scofield, 28601 Front Street, expressed concern with the
probable excessive traffic during the Rancho California Road
construction. He stated Front Street needs to be widened and when
the Buffman Project is completed the traffic will be worse.
Karl Henning, 28713 Pujol Street, spoke as the owner of the property
on Pujol north of Main Street. He expressed concern with the grading
elevations for the Entertainment Center. He stated that he did not
intend to have the construction go down Pujol and encouraged the
Council and the Planning Department to confer with him as he could
stop this project.
Kay Cassaro, 31616 Paseo Goleta, spoke in opposition to deleting the
condition on the Rancho California Road completion prior to the
Entertainment Center. She stated our first priority should be traffic
issues, not the Entertainment Center.
Albert S. Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, representative of TOTAL, spoke
in opposition to the Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit
because it is not consistent with Old Town Environmental impacts. He
requested copies of all engineer drawings, cost estimates, proposals
between the applicant and the City of Temecula. He stated the
spending by the City for one project was not right. He read from
correspondence he distributed to the Commission.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:10 PM.
Community Director Thornhill stated that he is confident the Highway
79 issues would work themselves out.
Commissioner Fahey asked if more thought was given to the traffic
on Rancho California Road and expressed concern about making a
decision without more information.
pc.minutes\030496 8
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 4. 1996
Commissioner Soltysiak spoke in support of these requests while
recommending an amendment to include "Prior to issuance of building
permits". He also expressed confusion on Issue #2 due to the timing
of the Overchange improvements.
Planner Dave Hogan responded with clarification on the project
issues.
Commissioner Miller spoke in support of Issue #1 and in opposition to
Issue #2, he recommended grading be permitted, with the condition
the map be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve Planning Application No.96o0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use
Permit: PA94-0061 ), Item 2, Issue #1.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3
COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Webster,
Soltysiak, Slaven, Fahey
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Planner Dave Hogan informed the Commission of the original proposal
where traffic from the Entertainment Center would travel Front Street
to HWY 79 and Rancho California Road would not be involved, and
therefore mitigation would not be necessary.
Principal Engineer Cresswell stated that the original timing of the
construction is the responsibility of the Public Works Department,
which had been changed. He recommended this responsibility could
be returned to the Public Works Director and the timing for
construction would be given by the Council.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with Condition #83 - which
states "the following improvements completed prior to occupancy".
There will be considerable impact to the citizens of Temecula because
of the construction on Rancho California Road. She stated that there
comes a time to say no when it is in one project's interest and we
need to take care of the citizenry of Temecula.
Commissioner Fahey agreed with Commissioner Slaven.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the confusion between
the Commission and the staff.
pc.minutes\030496 9
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 4. 1996
Commissioner Soltysiak supported the issue that the Entertainment
Center pay their fair share of the improvements.
Commissioner Miller spoke in support of the concept and
recommended improvements be completed prior to occupancy.
Development Director Thornhill recommended this item be continued
to March 18, in order to clarify all conditions for the Commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven to deny PA96-0024, PA96-0025, PA96-
0026 Issue//2, seconded by Commissioner Fahey.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven
NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Miller, Soltysiak
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to
continue PA96-0024, PA96-0025, PA96-0026 Issue//2 to March 18, 1996.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: I COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Chairperson Fahey called a recess at 8:45 PM.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 PM.
Miller, Fahey, Webster,
Soltysiak
Slaven
None
Chairperson Fahey requested that due to limited time Item 9 - Planning Application
No. 95-0125 and Item 13 - Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract
No. 28309) be continued to March 18, 1996.
A consensus of the Commission was taken and the amended agenda and
continuance of these items were approved.
12. Planning Application No. 96-0027 {Zoning Amendment. Specific Plan)
A request to speak was filed on Item 12. The Commission will hear this comment
but will not act due to the lateness of the hour.
pc. minutes\030496 10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 4. 1996
Public Comment opened to the floor at 8:55 PM.
Robert House, 32175 Plaza Bel Air, spoke in opposition to the project
as proposed. He stated originally 600 homes were planned when this
project was abandoned. This builder could also abandon the project
leaving the east and west perimeters vacant. He recommended that
common areas be complete prior to the issuance of permits.
10. Planning Application No. PA95-0140, (Rancho Baptist Church)
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report.
Public Comment opened to the floor at 9:10 PM.
Mike, pastor of the Rancho Baptist Church, spoke to request approval
of the temporary buildings being deemed permanent.
Commissioner Webster requested the specific requirements the wall.
Commissioner Miller asked about the location of restrooms and if the
air-conditioning units could be made less conspicuous.
Pastor Mike, responded that the wall is 530' and is painted grey. He
also responded that the air-conditioning units were similar to other
temporary buildings in the area and restrooms are located in building
A.
Victor Jones, 44255 Cabo Street, shared photos of the view from his
home of the temporary buildings at the church. He spoke in
opposition to the request to make these buildings permanent because
they are not compatible with the area.
Commissioner Webster asked if additional landscaping would solve
this problem. Mr. Jones responded that it would not.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to
deny the reversal of conditions of approval to allow temporary modular buildings
to become permanent and directed the applicant to return with landscape plans
and permanent building plans.
The motion failed as follows:
pc.minutes\030496 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 4. 1996
AYES:
2 COMMISSIONERS:
Slaven, Miller
NOES: 3
COMMISSIONERS:
Webster, Fahey,
Soltysiak
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Miller to
continue this item off calendar. Community Development Director Thornhill
requested a maximum timeframe. The Commission agreed on a two month
timeline.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Webster, Fahey,
Soltysiak, Slaven, Miller
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
11. Planning application No. PA95-0138. Conditional Use Permit. (Shell
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report. He stated that
additional landscaping had been added to the plan.
Chairperson Fahey called for public comments at 10:02 PM.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant,
requested the following modifications to the use permit: deletion of
parking space//10; deletion of Condition//14, the tile roof; and if the
hours of sale of alcohol are to be conditioned, he requested 12:00AM
as the earliest limit hour.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comments at 10:20 PM.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to
approve PA95-0138, Conditional Use Permit (Shell Station) with the following
modifications: Delete Condition//14, the tile roof is not required; Delete parking
space//10; additional landscape plan approved; and the time limit on alcohol sales
is 12:00 AM.
The motion carried as follows:
pc.minutes\030496 12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MARC'l] 4. 1996
Miller, Slaven, Webster,
Fahey, Soltysiak
None
None
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to
continue Items 9, 10, 12, and 13 to March 18, 1996.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Miller, Fahey, Webster,
Slaven, Soltysiak
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reminded the Commission of the
League of California Cities Workshop.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Miller expressed concern on the time limit for speakers
addressing the Commission. He reiterated it should be enforced at
the three minute limit.
The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission is scheduled for
March 18, 1996 6:00 P.M. at Rancho California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to
adjourn the meeting at 10:30 PM.
CHAIRMAN
SECRETARY
pc .minutes\030496 13
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM THE MEETING OF
MAY 6, 1996
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, May 6, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairperson Fahey presiding.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
None
Also present were Planning Manger Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D.
Weiner, Senior Planner John Meyer, and Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairperson Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:05 P.M. There
were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Apl)roval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster
Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Director's Hearing Uodate
Commissioner Webster asked how the driveway for the new Arby's
Restaurant had been planned. Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske responded
that they will have joint access with the In and Out Burger.
Planning Apl21ication No. PA 96-0041
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report.
P:LA..',~TING COb~,{ISSION Lv~y 6. 1996
Chairperson Fahey opened the floor for Public Comments at 6:18 P.M.
Mike Reeves, 674 Via Del Via Solona, spoke for the applicant and said he
would answer any questions from the Commission,
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adopt
PA96-0041 (Development Plan}.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster
Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Planning Application No, PA996-0035 (Conditional Use Permit - Kids World}
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report. He informed the
Commission that staff had identified some concerns on this project, but the
applicant has complied with their concerns regarding, aligning the driveway
across from Quiet Meadow Road. The design will need additional work and
an agreement has been reached with the applicant, Staff like a Commission
direction to proceed with the project and any modifications needing to be
made.
Commissioner Webster noted that Condition #6 was missing from the
documents. Senior Planner Meyer responded that this will be added,
Commissioner Webster asked what had been considered to resolve the large
box building. Senior Planner Meyer responded that staff looked at different
ways to break this up but the Multi-Purpose room needs the clearance. The
applicant has added cornice treatment with staff's direction in order to create
an extended entrance. Staff is also recommending a modification to the
window treatments and is confident that this can be accomplished.
Chairperson Fahey recommended landscaping to screen the buildings.
Commissioner Solytiask asked if the project area is considered residential and
how development standards would apply. He commented that County
Ordinance 348 has no self-contained guidelines and the specific plan does not
give adequate direction.
PT.ANNING COb~4ISSION
MAY6,
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern for the elevation of the buildings and
if the roof could be seen from Santiago Road. Senior Planner Meyer
responded that the top of the roof will be seen from Santiago Road.
Commissioner Solytiask requested how elevation conditions would be met.
Senior Planner Meyer listed three directions to be considered: 1 ) The
Commission could authorized staff to approve the elevations as is, if the
Commission feels it is suitable, 2) The Commission can give direction to staff
on the elevation restrictions with final approval to be granted at staff level
and 3) The elevations are directed to come back to the Commission prior to
the issuance of building permit.
Commissioner Solytiask asked if it is feasible to pitch the roof. Senior Planner
Meyer responded that the applicant can not pitch the roof due to the space
needed for sports.
Chairperson Fahey called for Public Comments at 6:40 P.M.
Chris and John McCusker, owners of Kids World, answered questions about
the project and requested Commission support. They explained that they
would shield the buildings with tall trees and they have met with
Homeowners' Associations adjacent to the school to resolve any concerns
they may have.
Commissioner Slaven asked how the parents will enter the school. The
McCuskers responded that the parents driving to the pre-school will enter the
parking lot and go left, parents driving to the elementary school will go right.
The driveway is double wide at 24'. John McCusker stated that signs will be
posted directing traffic around the parking lot and the school.
Commissioner Webster cited the following:
A fixed number of allowable special events should be
established. The applicant stated they would have no problem
limiting this to ten (10).
Recommended 24" box trees be planted. Applicant stated they
have ordered 24" box trees.
Requested the outcome of the Highlands Homeowners' meeting
in May. Applicant responded that the homeowners were
concerned that Quiet Meadow Road will be used as a short-cut.
The applicant assured the HOA this will not be a problem as the
parents have been notified this cannot be permitted.
1996
PLANNING CO~4ISSION
MAY 6, 1996
Commissioner Miller asked what the hours of operation would be and also
what tree species will be planted. The applicant responded hours - 8:30 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m. and the majority of trees will be Sycamore.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if Evergreen trees could be used as a acreen.
The applicants agreed to plant evergreen trees.
Chairperson Fahey called for Public Comments at 7:06 PM.
David Ferron, Pauba Road, spoke on behalf of the parents and in support of
the school.
Donna AIberts, 44089 Northgate, spoke in opposition to the project due to
noise and traffic. She expressed concern with parents dropping off students
and recommended that parents be restricted to a sign*in procedure.
Tom Nelson, Director of the Summit Homeowners' Association, stated that he
was impressed with the applicant's response to the concerns of the residents,
however, he expressed concern with the potential traffic problems and he
recommended the speed limit be no more than 45 MPH.
Commissioner Slaven asked if Mr. Nelson actually had witnessed drivers cut
through Quiet Meadows.
Chairperson Fahey called for a recess at 7:20 PM.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:25 PM.
Barbara Hughes, expressed concern with additional traffic, school bells
ringing, students climbing over her fence to secure balls, and recommended
that no outside night time lighting be allowed.
Mike Brewer, expressed concern with the traffic and recommended a turn
lane be installed on Santiago and a right turn only from the school drive-way.
He also recommended the maximum number of students enrolled be added as
a condition.
Kathryn AIm, spoke in support of this project and said she felt it would not be
a problem to the neighboring residents.
Pedro Queros, 44088 Quiet Meadow Road, spoke in opposition and stated
that presently traffic is difficult to exit his driveway and warned it will be
worse due to the school. He recommends additional signals on Santiago Road
be approved.
PLANNING COb~4ISSION MAY 6, 1996
Rocky and Maryann Kishan, residents in the Summit Homes, spoke in support
of this project.
Chris and John McCuster, owners of Kids World, made the following
responses to the voiced concerns:
A turning lane will be installed after the re-stripping is
completed making it impossible to drive across and through
Quiet Meadow Road.
There will be no lighting installed, no bells, no Saturday or
Sunday usage, no busses to congest the roads and ball games
will be held inside.
Chairperson Fahey asked about the number of children per acre. Chris
McCusker responded they have 280 students on one acre presently and that
this site has three and one-half acres. She agreed to a condition to limit total
enrollment of students to 350.
Commissioner Slaven recommended planting vines over the back fence
between Kids World and La Petite Academy.
Chairperson Fahey closed the Public Comments at 7:50 PM.
Commissioner Miller recommended a Condition of Approval be added
restricting a heft or right turn only to discourage parents from using Quiet
Meadow as a short cut.
Chairperson Fahey asked if it is possible to re-configure the driveway so it
was not directly across from the Rancho Highlands tract. Principal Engineer
Cresswell responded that this is not possible.
Commissioner Slaven recommended that staff continue working with the
applicant on the multipurpose room and the extended entrance design and
that the window treatments be expanded upon.
Chairperson Fahey called for a consensus from the Commission on the
following items:
Staff level approval accepted for the extended exterior on the
multipurpose room.
· Window treatment to be re-designed.
· Staff to review the fencing around the perimeter.
PT.~qNING CO~4ISSION
Limit enrollment to 350 students.
Limit off time activities to 10 per year.
Install signage for left and right turns only.
Parents to be educated not to cross to Quiet Meadow.
24" box trees to be planted and final approval authorized to
staff.
MAY 6, 1996
Add a condition restricting outside lighting in the play area.
Internal traffic will go one way in and one-way out and will
circulate around the buildings.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt
Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit - Kid's World) with the above
listed directions by the Commission and final approval authorized to staff.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Slaven, Fahey, Webster
Soltysiak
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Director Debbie Ubonske reported the following:
The third meeting of the sign ordinance committee has occurred
and the ordinance should be in draft form by the end of
The City Attorney is working with staff to develop beer and
wine licensing policies for the City of Temecula.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Commissioner Miller expressed concern about the landscaping at the Unocal
Station on Front Street and if it will be returned to its original state, prior to
construction.
PT,ANNING COE~MISSION MAY 6. 1996
Commissioner Webster expressed concern for the dirt that has been tracked
on Rancho California Road, due to the Texaco Station construction. Senior
Planner Meyer will discuss this with the public works inspector.
Commissioner Slaven recommended staff look into restricting school bells
from ringing during holidays and weekends on the schools off Santiago Road.
She also asked staff to find out why school buses go through Santiago Road.
Chairperson Fahey recommended the Traffic Commission review the speed
limits on Santiago.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by to adjourn the
meeting at 8:25 P.M. This was carried unanimously.
The next meeting will be held May 20, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho California Water
District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
ITEM #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Prepared By:
RECOMMENDATION:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commis, SionJ'
Debbie Ubnosk~lanning Manager
June 17, 1996
Preliminary Site Plan and Elevations for the Old Town Entertainment Project
David W. Hogan, Senior Planner
Review the attached proposed site plans and elevations and
provide comments, concerns and direction to Staff.
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved the Old Town Entertainment Project on June 13, 1995. Since that
time, the applicant has been refining their designs and working with the City on the necessary
public infrastructure. The applicant is in the process of revising the designs of the proposed
facilities and is interested in the Planning Commission's comments and concerns.
Please review the attached conceptual site plans and elevations and provide your direction to
the applicant and Staff. The following items are attached to this Agenda Staff Report:
1. Conceptual Master Plan
2. Conceptual Site Plan for the Old Town Core Area
3. Conceptual Floor Plan for the Old Town Core Area
4. Elevations of the Opera House and Cabaret Theater
5. Elevations of the Little Theater and Restaurant
6. Elevations of the Other Facilities
7. Conceptual Drawing of Festival Square
8. Conceptual Drawing of Opera House
9. Conceptual Drawing of Themed Restaurant
10. Conceptual Site Plan for the Arena and Hotel Area
11. Conceptual Floor Plan for the Arena and Hotel Area
12. Elevation of the Arena
13. Elevation of the Hotel
14. Conceptual Drawing of the Arena Courtyard
C
Z
,,,,
[--.
Z
Z
Z
._
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 17, 1996
Planning Application No. PA94-0107
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 for Planning Area No. 16
(Final Tract Maps 22916 and 22916-3) within Specific Plan No. 199
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA94-0107; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA94-0107 to the City Council,
subject to the attached conditions of approval and based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Costain Homes, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sanford Edward
PROPOSAL:
A Request for Approval of an Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement No. 5 for Planning Area No. 16 (Final
Tract Maps 22916 and 22916-3), within Specific Plan No. 199.
LOCATION:
Located northwest of Rancho Vista and Butterfield Stage Roads
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP (Specific Plan)
SP (Specific Ran)
R-A (Residential Agricultural)
SP (Specific Plan)
PROPOSED ZONING:
N/A
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Low Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre)
EXISTING LAND USE:
VBcBnt
R:\STAFFRPT~107PA94.PC 6/7/96 klb
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Dwellings
Vacant
Single Family Dwelling
Single Family Dwellings
PROJECT STATISTICS
Number of Lots:
Existing Development Agreement Fee (1995):
Proposed Development Agreement Fee:
39
95,271.00/Unit
93,200.O0/Unit
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 1988 Development Agreement No. 5 was approved by the County of Riverside
for the Margarita Village Specific Plan (S.P. 199) which includes Tracts 22916 and 22916-3.
Costain Homes has approached the City to execute an Amendment and Restatement of this
Development Agreement in order to receive a reduction in the Development Agreement fees.
As a first step in the process, the City and the developer entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on January 10, 1995. This MOU authorizes the collection of 93,200.00
per unit Interim Public Facility Fee when the owners obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the
first production home built in the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Development Agreement Fee includes only an Interim Public Facilities Fee and has
eliminated other fees associated with County approved Development Agreements such as the
Regional Parkland Fee, Habitat Conservation Fee, and Public Services Offset Fee.
Interim Public Facilities Fee
The Amended and Re-Stated Development Agreement has a duration period of ten (10) years
and applies to Tracts 22916 and 22916-3. These tracts currently contain 39 single-family tots
(sixty-eight lots were included at the time the MOU was executed; however this number has
decreased over time). The terms of the MOU allow for the Interim Public Facilities Fee to be
93,200.00 per unit and paid for the first five (5) years of the term of the Agreement. After this
period, the developer will either continue to pay the Interim Public Facility Fee of 93,200,00
or such other Public Facilities Fee adopted by the City and applied to other residential projects.
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6f7/96 klb 2
ANALYSIS
The existing approved Development Agreement No. 5 fee (1995) includes the following fees:
Public Facilities Fee
Regional Parkland Fee
Habitat Conservation Fee
Public Services Offset Fee
92,331,00
~431.00
9320.00
~2,189.00
Total Development Agreement Fee $5,271.00
According to the County, all County approved Development Agreements have a section which
purports to require the split of certain fees between the County and a city should any portion
of the property covering .the agreement become part of a city. That section provides that the
Regional Parkland Fee, and the Habitat Conservation and the Open Space Land Fee would
continue to be fully payable to the County. Additionally, two-thirds (2/3) of the Public Services
Offset Fee and 5.3% of the Public Facilities Fee would be payable to the County. Therefore,
according to the County, a total of 92,319.28 is payable to the County from the 95,271.00
Development Agreement Fee, leaving 92,951.72 as the City's portion of this fee. The proposed
93,200.00 Interim Public Facilities Fee is greater than 92,951.72, City's portion of the existing
Development Agreement Fee, should the County's interpretation of the fees be used.
However, the City Attorney contends that the County's interpretation of the Development
Agreement is not in accordance with State law which provides that the benefits of a
Development Agreement as well as its burdens transfer to a City upon incorporation. As the
property which is the subject of this Development Agreement is now within the City
boundaries, it is the City Attorney's opinion that the County is no longer entitled to any fees
under the Development Agreement.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
This project is consistent with the General Plan since the General Plan currently designates the
site as Low Medium Density Residential and the approved development project which is
implemented by this Development Agreement is consistent with this designation. This project
is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199, since the development project which is implemented
by this Development Agreement meets all the requirements of this Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Initial Study was prepared for this project and it revealed no significant impacts. Therefore,
Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff supports approval of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\107PA94.PC 6/7/96 klb 3
FINDINGS
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is consistent with
the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of
Temecula's General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision
for the use of certain real property for residential development and is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density Residential.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is compatible with
the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which
the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located as the Development
Agreement provides for single family homes. This Development Agreement is consistent
with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property
consistent with the General Plan.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is in conformity
with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it
makes reasonable provision for a balance of housing opportunities compatible with the
remainder of the City.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate
assurances for the protection thereof.
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, schools, police
protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600')
of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.
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 by diagram of the
location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to
exhaust administrative remedies.
The Amendment and ReStatement of Development Agreement No. 5 complies with the
goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 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.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 complies with
requirements of the zoning district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that
the Specific Plan zoning of Medium Density Residential is consistent with the Low
Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
9. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation
and this Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 are as follows:
City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in:
a. Generation of municipal revenue;
b. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
Enhancement of the quality of life; including residential opportunities for present
and future residents of the City;
The opportunity for an adjacent residential-commercial project creating
significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorera tax revenues for the City;
e. Payment of Public Facilities Fees (fire and traffic signal mitigation); and,
Participation in special assessment districts to finance City and regional
infrastructure improvements.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Ordinance No. 96- - Blue Page 12
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 17
City Council Staff Reports for the Memorandum of Understanding - Blue Page 27
City Council Minutes - Blue Page 28
Executed Memorandum of Understanding - Blue Page 29
Proposed Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 - Blue Page
30
Exhibits - Blue Page 31
A. Vicinity Map
R:\STAFFRPT~I0?pA94,pC 6/ll/96klb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\STAFFRPT~I07PA94,PC 6/7/96 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-__
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO1VINIISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
AMEND1VIENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 5 BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND COSTAIN HOMES,
INC. FOR FINAL TRACT MAPS NO. 22916 AND 22916-3, WITHIN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0107)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has received an
application from Costain Homes, Inc. for an Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement No. 5, Specific Plan No. 199, "Margarita Village," Planning Application No. PA94-
0107, (hereinafter "Development Agreement"); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on June 17, 1996,
on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt and
approve the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, Attachments "A" and "B",
respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the Conditions
of Approval attached hereto as Attachment "C " and incorporated herein by this reference as set
forth in full herein.
Section 2. That in recommending the adoption by the City of the Ordinance approving
the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
(a) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that the
Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for
residential development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of low-
medium density residential; and,
R:~STAFFRPTX107PA94.PC 6,rT/96klb 7
(b) The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for. the Specific Plan Zone 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,
(c) 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,
(d) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health. safety,
or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof: and,
(e) 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
heating, 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, schools, police protection, and fire
protection, and to all property owners within three hundred feet (600') of the property as shown
on the latest equalized assessment roll; and,
(f) 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,
(g) 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,
(h) The Development Agreement complies with requirements of the zoning
district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that the Medium Density Residential is
consistent with the Low Medium Residential General Plan Land Use Designation; and,
(I) The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this
legislation and this Development Agreement are as follows:
City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the
1. Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6/7/96 klb 8
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well as
the payment of municipal revenue;
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots;
5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fire, libraN, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA); and,
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 ADOFrED this 17th of June, 1996.
LINDA FAHEY
CHAIR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June,
1996, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPTH07PA94.PC 6/7/96klb ~
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:XSTAFFRPT~107PA94.}~C 6RI96 k}b 10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0107 (Development Agreement)
Project Description: An Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No.
5 for Planning Area No. 16 (Final Tract Maps 22916 and 22916-3), within Specific Plan
No. 199
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328,00) which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Dollar (91,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable
the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA94-0107 (Development Agreement) which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter
4 (Section 21000 et sea., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and
21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
R:\STAFFRPT\107PA94.PC 6/7/96klb 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6/7/96 klb 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 96- _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND
RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TEblECULA AND COSTAIN HO1VIES, INC. FOR FLNAL
TRACT MAPS NO. 22916 AND 229163, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0107)
WHEREAS, Section 65864 et seq. of the Govemment 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 said Resolution, Costain
Homes, Inc. has filed with the City of Temecula an application for a Development Agreement
which reflects an amendment and restatement of existing County Development Agreement No.
5 (hereinafter "this Agreement"), of a residential housing subdivision on its property for Tracts
22916 and 22916-3 (39 lots), hereina~er the "Subject Property" which application has been
reviewed and accepted for ~ing by the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the City' s intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with
Costain Homes, Inc. 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 June
17, 1996 (Planning Commission), and (City Council) 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 Costain Homes, Inc. that it:
A. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified
in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that this Agreement makes reasonable provision for the
use of certain real property for residential development consistent with the General Plan 's land use
designation of low-medium density residential;
B. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the
land use district in which the Subject Property referred to herein is located as this Agreement
provides for residential development pursuant to a Specific Plan;
R:\STAFFRPT~I07pA94.PC 6fT/96klb 13
C. Is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land rise
practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the
remainder of the City:
D. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides
adequate assurances for the protection thereof;
E. 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, schools, police protection, and fire
protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on
the latest equalized assessment roll;
F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date,
time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the heating body, a general explanation of
the matter to be considered, a general description in 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;
G. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in a new spaper
of general cixculation at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council public hearing, mailed at least
ten (10) days prior to the heating to the project applicant, to each agency expected to provide
water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within
six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll;
H. Notice of the City Council hearing included the date, the time, and place of the
public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, the general explanation of the matter to be
considered, a general description in text or by diagram of the location of the Property that is the
subject of the hearing, and the notice of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
I. City Council approved this Agreement by Ordinance based upon evidence and
findings of the Planning Commission and new evidence presented at its heating on this
Agreement, giving its reasons therefor and setting their relationship between this Agreement and
the General Plan;
K. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this
legislation and this Agreement are as follows:
1. Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well as
the payment of municipal revenue;
R:\STAFFRPT\107PA94.PC 6/7/96 klb '~ 4
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots; and
5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA).
Section 2. APPROVAl .. This Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference as Attachment "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. SEVI~.P,.ARII ITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 4. 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.
Section 5. 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 shah 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.
R:~STAFFRI:T\107pA94,PC 6/7/96 klb '15
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __. day of ~, 1996.
Karel Lindemans, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, 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 day of , 199_, and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
199_, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\STAFFRPTH07PA94.PC 6F//96 klb ] 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6FT/96klb 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Prqiect Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Description of Project:
10.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose approval
is required:
Planning Application No. PA94-0107 (Development
Agreement)
Ci_ty of Temecula. 43174 Business Park Drive. Temecula.
CA 92590
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400
Noahwest comer of Butterfield Stage and Pauba Roads
(Parcels 1-13 and 62-76 of TM 22916-3 and Parcels 55-
66 of TM 22916)
Costain Homes, Inc.
620 Newport Center Drive. Suite 400
Newport Beach. CA 92660
LM (Low-Medium Density. Residential - 3-6 dwelling
units per acre)
SP (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement
for SP 199 (Margarita Village Specific Plan) - Planning
Area No. 16
Single family residences to the north and west. Vacant to
the south, with a single-family residence (large lot) to the
east
R:XSTAFFRPT\107PA94.PC 6/7/96 klb l 8
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this prc~iect, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages
Land Use and Planning I ] Hazards
Population and Housing [ ] Noise
Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
Air QualiBi [ ] Aesthetics
Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory_ Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment. and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
R:\STAFFRPT\107pA94.PC 6/7/96 Idb 19
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOLIRCES
Potentjail}
Signi~canl
Potentialix Unless
SIgnificant Mitiganon
hopact Incorporated
Signi~canl
Impacl
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning'?
b Conflict with applicable envn'onmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdictinn over the prqiect?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d Afikct agricuhural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or thnnlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses?
e Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
conununity (including low-income or minority communi[y)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would he proposal:
a CumulativeIv exceed official regional or local population
prqlects?
b Induce substantial grovah in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major int?astructure)?
c Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture?
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c, Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction'?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading or fill?
g, Subsidence of the land'?
h, Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features'?
[] l
[1 ]
[] ]
[] I1
[1 []
]
]
l
[1
Ix1
fxl
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
[] []
[] l] [1
ix]
[xl
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ I [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
[ ] [ ] t ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [xl
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6F//96klb 20
ISSUES AND SLIPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Si[mificam
Impacl
Potentjail>
Unless
Mitigation
]ncorporaled
Less Than
Impacl
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or the
~ ale and mount of surface runoff'?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature. dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in cun-ents, or the course or directiou of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquili:r by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g Altered direction or rate of flow ofgroundwater?
h Impacts to groundwater qualib,'?
i. Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater
othem'ise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or prqiected air quality violation?
b Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d, Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion'?
b Hazards to safety ffom design features (e.g sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6/7/96 klb
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
11
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
I]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[xl
ix]
Ix]
[x]
ix]
Ixl
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ISSUES .&NI) SLIPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Signi~canl
Impact
Signi~canl
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Impact
c Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d Insufficient parking capacibI on-site or off:site?
c Hazards or barriers lbr pedestrians or bicvclists?
Coiffiicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportanon (e.g bus turnouts, bicycle racks)'?
g Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts'?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)'?
b. Locally designated species (e.g heritage trees)7
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d Wetland habitat (e g. marsh, nparian and vernal pool)7
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors7
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a, Conffict with adopted energy. conservation plans'?
b Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner7
c. Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State7
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health heard or potential health
heard?
R:\STAFFRPT\107PA94.PC 6/'7/96klb 22
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
l]
[I
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[xl
[xl
fxT
[xl
ix]
{x]
ix]
ix]
ix]
[x]
[x]
ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potenlial[>
Significant
hnpacl
d Exposurc ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health
hazards'?
e Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
gn'ass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a increase in existing noise levels'?
b Exposureofpeopletoseverenoiselevels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b, Police protection'?
Schools?
d. Maintenanceofpublicfacililies, including roads?
e Other governmental se~wices?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b Communications systems'?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
11t. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
[ ] [ I [ 1 [xI
[ I I I I I Ixl
[1
[]
] [1
[ ] [ ]
[ 1 [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ I [ ] ix]
[ ] [ I [ ] ix]
[ ] I ] [ ] [xl
[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[ ] ix]
[ ] ix]
[ ] ix]
[ ] ix]
[ I Ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
R:',STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6F//96klb 23
[Sat 'ES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
hnpact
No
14.
15.
16.
b Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [ ]
c Create light or glare'? [ ]
CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal:
a Disturb paleontological resources'? [ ]
b Disturb archaeological resources? [ ]
c Affect historical resources'? [ ]
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ]
e Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? [ ]
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? [ ]
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ]
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualit>'
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehisto~? [ ]
b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantageof long-term, environmental goals'? [ ]
c. Does the prqject have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
prqject are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable ~ture projects). [ ]
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly7 [ ]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
t
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
I]
[]
ix]
Ix1
[xl
Ix]
ix]
[x]
[xl
ix]
ix]
Ix]
[x]
R:\STAFFRPT\l(T/pA94.PC 6/7~96 klb 24
17.
EARLIER ANALYSES.
a Earlier analyses used: Enviromnenlal hnpacl Rcpolq No 202, m~pacls wcrc adcquatelv addressed.
SOURCES
Cit~' of Temecula General Plan.
Ci~' of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA~4.PC 6/7/96 klb 25
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No 5 for Planning
Area No 16 (Final Tract Maps 22916 and 22916-3), within Specific Plan No 199 The main
amendment to the Development Agreement is the shifting of the payment of Public Facility Fees
from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula. The Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement No. 5 will not create any impacts upon the environment. The overall
project (Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village) was analyzed in Environmental Impact Report
No 202. Any mitigation measures recommended in EIR No. 202 will remain applicable to the
project. Further, mitigation measures are contained in the conditions of approval for TM22916
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6/ll/96klb 26
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
FOR THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
DECEMBER 13, 1995
R:~STAFFRPTH07PA94.PC 6/ll/96klb 27
APPRO
CITY A'I'~'ORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
December 13, 1994
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Specific Plan #199,
Cosrain Homes
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding
concerning Specific Plan No. 199 for Cosrain Homes, authorizing the payment of
development fees at a specified level and directing the Mayor to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
BACKGROUND: The attached Memorandum of Understanding will authorize Cosrain
Homes to pull building permits and occupancy permits for homes in their development,
without payment of the Public Facilities Fees until such time as the first production home
obtains its Certificate of Occupancy. This provision is consistent with previous approvals
granted to similar projects in the City. The City is currently negotiating a new
Development Agreement between the City and Cosrain for this project. Approval of this
Agreement will not mandate that the City Council approve the draft Development
Agreement. In the event the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement, the
Memorandum of Understanding provides that Cosrain will then pay the Public Facilities
Fees as provided in the existing Development Agreement No. 5.
This Memorandum of Understanding will allow the development of homes in the
Cosrain project to move forward in an expeditious fashion. Cosrain is agreeing to pay an
Interim Public Facility Fee in the amount of $3,200.00 per unit. As construction and
substantial work on the homes has already begun, there should be relatively little delay in
the City's receipt of the Interim Public Facilities Fee.
The indemnity provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding are slightly
different than the executed Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Coscan
for the Roripaugh Droject. However, the existing develoDment agreement (Riverside
County Development Agreement No. 5) contains very broad indemnity language sufficient
to protect the City's interests. This Memorandum of Understanding contains adequate
language protecting the City against any challenges to the fee issue.
The Planning Commission and City Council will be presented in the near f, ,ture with
the draft DeveloDment Agreement. The terms of the draf~ Development Agreement will be
subject to extensive negotiations between the City and the develoDer.
FISCAL IMPACT: Slight delay in initial receipt of Interim Public Facilities Fees as they
are delayed until the first Certificate of Occupancy for the production units, but would be
paid in the event the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement within thirty
days of the City's demand.
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding.
1WEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
PLANNING AREA NO. OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, (the "Memorandum") is made and
entered into as of , 1994 by and between the City of Temecula (the "City")
and Costain Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Owner").
RECITAL~
A. The City Council of the City of Temecuh is reviewing and considering, as
provided by hw, an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between City
and Owner, (the "Draft Agreement").
B. Owner is developing a residential project in what is known as Planning Area
No. of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract No. 22916 and 22916-3 (the 'Project'). The
Project is currently subject to Development Agreement No. 5 between the County of
Riverside (the *County") and Kaiser Development Company, a California corporation; Mesa
Homes, a California corporation; Margarita Village Development Company, a California
joint venture comprised of Buie-Rancho ,C~!ifornia, Ltd., a California limited partnership and
Nevada-Rancho California, Ltd., a California limit~l partnership; and Tayco, a California
general partnership comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
others (the "Development AgnR~ment No. 5"), which requires Owner to pay textdin
development fees (the *Development Fee").
C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes
public facilities and sexyices impact fees for residential development with City ('RSA Fees").
City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees
from development of the Project in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact
of the development.
D. As the resuli of meetings between representatives of the City and
representatives of the Owner, the City has agreed that the Project would be eligible for a
Development Fee reduction due to: (i) the excessive level at which the County originally
calculated the Development Fee; (ii) the high level of assessment district tax existing on the
Project; and Ctii) the entry level nature of the homes to be built in the Project.
E. The Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and services
impact fees ("County Impact Fees') higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees,
particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and
thereby prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to
reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development in the Project to a level
comparable to the RSA Fees.
F. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of Three- Thousand,
Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) for each residential unit as the Interim Public Facilities
Fee. The Draft Agreement provides for the collection of any Interim Public Facilities Fee to
be deferred until such time as Owner obtained a certificate of occupancy for the first
production home built in the Project.
G. Owner contemplates commencing construction of the homes for the Project (68
units) prior w acceptance by the City Council of City of the Draft Agreement.
H. City desires, as an acconunodation to Owner, to permit Owner to pay the
Interim Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the Dmf't Agreement for all the homes in the
Project, despite the fact that the Draft Agreement providing for payment of the Interim
Public Facilities Fee has not yet been appwved by City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, City
and Owner agree as follows:
1. In lieu of any fee required by Development Agreement No. 5, RSA Fee
or City Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee in the amount
of Three-Thousand, Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit. If City fails to
approve or adopt the Draft Agreement or if the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established
by City, is some number other than Three-Thousand, Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per
dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner to City shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall
pay any increase or City shall pay to Owner any decrease within thirty (30) days from the
effective date of City Council's action on the Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement.
2. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all units shall be deferred until
such time as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home built
in the Project. Thereafter, the Intefim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at the time of
issuance of building permits for each residential unit consumcted in the Project.
3. Indemnity and Cost of Litigation.
3.1 County Litigation Concerning A~reement. In the event the County
seeks to challenge the right of City and Owner w enter into this Memorandum, and institutes
an action, suit or proceeding to challenge this Memorandum or invalidate and/or enjoin the
enforcement of this Memorandum, City and Owner agree to cooperate and participate in a
joint defense in any action against the parties, their officers, agents, and employees, from
and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment or lien,
resulting from such action(s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis
pendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys, fee.~ and costs that the parties may
incur as the result of any such action or lawsnit to challenge City and/or Owner's legal
authority to enter into this Memorandum. Owner's defense costs herein shall be its pro rata
r:Xalenda'zPt~os~in-mou
share among all impacted landowners based on a ratio of contribution of total units owned by
Owner which ar~ subject to this Memorandum 'compared to the total number of units within
the City in which the City has lowered the County fees. Damages (including the diff~c~
in the amount of any Intexim Public Facilities Fee and the amount of the County
Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to City pursuant to the terms of this
Memorandum) shall be the responsibility of Owner. To the extent Owner has paid Interim
Public Facilities Fees and/or County Development Agreement Fees to City of which it is
adjudicated are lawfully the funds of County, City shall pay such sums to County and Owner
shall have such liability for the payment of the difference between such fees reduced by the
amount paid by the City. City and Owner shall muvT~lly agree on legal counsel to be
retained'to defend any such action(s) bwught by the County as herein provided. City and
Owner each reserve the fight to withdraw from the defense of the County litigation in the
event the County prevails at the trial level and there is an appeal. If either party withdraws
after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all the costs and fees
associated with said appeal.
3.2 Public Facilities Fees Shortf~ll. In the event the County prevails
in any legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of
this Memorandum and a trial court determines that Owner and/or the City is liable to make
up any shortfall between the amount of the Intofire Public Facilities Fee or the City Public
Facilities Fee, as the case amy be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would
otherwise have been imposed pursuant to Development Agreement No. 5, then Owner shall
be responsible for paying any such shortfall subject to City's payment to County of any
amounts collected and held by City under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5. Such
payment by City to County shall reduce Owner's !iahility to County for payment of such fees
by a like amount paid by City.
3.3 County Prew{ls in Litigation - Severability. In the event the
County prevails at the uial court level against the City or the Owner as described in Section
3.1 of this Memorandum, the mount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public
Facilities Fee, as the case may be, shall revert to the amount of the County Development
Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor of the County (or
such lesser amount as determined by the Court). In the event this Memorandum is held to be
invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competent jurisdiction, Owner shall thereafter pay
the County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development
Agreement No. 5 (or such lesser amount as determined by the Court). All other provisions
of this Memorandum or any subsequent agreements relating to the Project shall remain valid
and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity.
3.4 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall
defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Memorandum
or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Memorandum bwught by a third party
other than the County. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or
proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner
of any such claim, action, or proceeding or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner
shall not thereaft~ be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in
its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding.
3.5 T~zmination of Memorandum of Understanding. If the Draft
Agreement is approved by the City Council, thLs Memorandum shall terminate upon the
effective date of the Draft Agreement. If the DraI't Agreement is disapproved by the City
Council, then the obligations of Owner under this Memorandum shall terminate and Owner
thereafter shall be subject to the terms of Development Agreement No. 5.
IN W1TNESS WHEREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum as of this
day of , 1994.
CITY OF TEM~CULA
ATYF.~T:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
PROPERTY OWNER
COSTAIN HOMES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
,its
lv~MORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
PLANNING AREA NO. OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
TItIS Mk'~IORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, (the "Memorandum') is made and
entered inW as of , 1994 by and between the City of Tcmecula (the "City')
and Cc-~c-~ ~ostain Homes California, Inc., a C^~:,,-,.fcrr,:_-'- Delaware corporation dbn Coscan
Davidson Homcs("Owner").
RECITALS
A. The City Council of the City of Temecula is reviewing and considering, as
provided by law, an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between City
and Owner, (the 'Draft Agreement').
B. Owner is developing a residential project in what is known as Planning Area
No. of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract No. 27.nlt,, 21916 and 22916-3 (the 'Project"). The
Project is currently subject to Development Agreement No. 5 between the County of
Riverside (the ~County') and .Kaiser Develovment Comvanv, a California
corvoration: Mesa Homes. a California corporation: Mar~arita Villa~e Develovment
Comvanv, a California joint venture comvrised of Buie-Rancho California. Ltd.. a California
limited vartnershiv and Nevada-Rancho California. Ltd., a California limited vannershiv: and
Tavco. a California seneral varmershiv comvrised of Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., a
Delaware corvora~on. and others (the 'Development Agreement No. 5'), which requires
Owner to pay certain development fees (the 'Development Fee').
C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes
public facilities and services impact fees for residential development with City ("RSA Fees").
City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees
from development of the Project in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact
of the development.
D. As the result of meetings between representatives of the City and
representatives of the Owner, the City has ag_reed__ that the Project would be eligible for a
Development Fee reduction due to: (i) the excessive level at which the County originally
calculated the Development Fee; (il) the high level of assessment district tax existing on the
Project; and C~i) the ent~ level nature of the homes to be built in the Project.
E. The Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and services
impact fees {*County Impact Fees') higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees,
particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and
thereby prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to
reduce the County Impact Fees for residential developme~: in the Project to a level
comparable to the RSA Fees.
F. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of T~ree- Thousand,
Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) for each residential unit as the Interim Public Facilities
Fee. The Draft Agreement pwvides for the collection of any Interim Public Facilities Fee to
be deferred until such time as Owner obtained a certificate of occupancy for the first
production home built in the Project.
G. Owner contemplates commencing construction of the homes for the Project (68
units) prior to acceptance by the City Council of City of the Draft Agreement.
H. City desires, as an accommodation to Owner, to permit Owner to pay the
Interim Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the Draft Agreement for all the homes in the
Project, despite the fact that the Draft Agreement providing for payment of the Interim
Public Facilities Fee has not yet been approved by City.
NOW TWFJ~ggORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, City
and Owner agree as follows:
I. In lieu of any fee r~luired by Development Agreement No. 5, RSA Fee
or City Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee in the amount
of Three-Thousand, Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit. ff City fails to
approve or adopt the Draft Agreement or if the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established
by City, is some number other than Three-Thousand, Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per
dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner to City shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall
pay any increase or City shall pay to Owner any decrease within thirty (30) days from the
effective date of City Couneil's action on the Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement.
2. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all units shall be deferred until
such time as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home built
in the Project. Thereafter, the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at the time of
issuance of bullfling permits for each residential unit constructeft in the Project.
3. Indemnity and Cost of Litigation.
3.1 tlold Hnr;alcs~. O%vncrs agr~cs to and shall hold City. its of-ricers.
a~nts. c,-r4~lovecs and representatives hm,'rnlcsa from liability for dampc or claims for
damage for personal injury includin; dtmth and claims for proporty damage which may arise
from the direct or indirect operations of the Owner or those of its contractor. subcontractor.
agent. employee or other person acting on its behalf which retatc to the Project. O~vner
agrees to and shall indc~,nify. defend, and hold hn.,..lcss the City and its officers. a~ent~J
craDleyeas trod rcprc3c, ftntivcs from actions for dama;cs ~cd or nllcg~ to hnvc bcc,
suffctod by re~son of the operations rcfcrred to in this pnnlinlph. refnrdlcss of %vhether or
not thc City prcoo. red. suot>lied. or approv<xt plans or specifications for thc l'~roicct.
3.2 County Litigalion Concerning Agreement. In the event the County seeks to challenge the
right of City and Owner to enter into th~ Memorandum, or enter into any subsequent
agrecmcnLs rciating to the Project including but not li;;.ited to the tcrw,~nation of
Development Agreement !~1o. 5, and institutes an action, suit or proceeding to chalienge this
Memorzndum or any subsequent agreements or invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of
this Memorandum or any subscqucrtt agreements relating to thc Projec~ or thc amendmcnt of
Dcvclopmc, nt Agrccc:.cf~t No. 5 or tnlrc suoh other action(s) wb.~ch result in tinreasonable
delay in the dcvdopmcnt of the Px, opcrty, City and Owner agree w cooperate and participate
in a joint defense in any action gainst the parties, their officers, agents, and employees,
from and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment or lien,
resulting from such action(s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis
pendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys, fees and costs that the parties may
incur as the resuit of any such action or lawsuit to challenge City and/or Owner's legal
authority W enter inw tl~ Memorandum or any subsequent agrccmcnts relating to the Project
rand/or tcrr;.inatc Dcvc. lop:-;.cat Agrcerncnt }70.5. Owner's defense costs herein shall be its
pro ram share among all impacted landowners based on a ratio of contribution of total units
owned by Owner which axe subject to this Memorandum or any subsequent agreements
relating to the Project compared to the wtal number of uhits within the City in which the
City has lowered the County fees. Damages (including the difference in the mount of any
Interim Public Facilities Fee and the mount of the County Development Agreement Fee paid
by Owner to City pursuant to the terms of this Memorandum or any subsequent agrecmcnts
relating to the Projecq shall be the responsibility of Owner. To the exumt Owner has paid
Interim Public FaciLities Fees and/or County Development Agreement Fees to City of which
it is adjudicated are lawfully the funds of County, City shall pay such sums to County and
Owner shail have such liability for the payment of the difference between such fees reduced
by the mount paid by the City. City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal counsel to be
retained to defend any such action(s) brought by the County as hr..in pwvided. City and
Owner each reserve the right to withdraw from ~e defense of the County litigation in the
event the County prevails at the trial level and there is an appeal. If either party withdraws
after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all the costs and fees
associated with said appeal.
~ 3.2 Public Facilities Fees Shortfall. In the event the County
prevails in any legal action or other proc_~',"~___ing to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the
enforcement of this Memorandum or any sut~equ~t agreements relating to the Project and a
tzial eoun determines that Owner and/or the City is liable to make up any shortfaLl between
the mount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case
may be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise have been
imposed pursuant to Development Agreement No. 5, then Owner shall be responsible for
paying any such shortfall subject to City's payment to County of any mounts collected and
held by City under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5. Such payment by City
to County shall reduc~ Owner's liability to CoUnty for payment of such fees by a l~le~ mount
paid by City.
~ 3.3 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability. In the event the
County prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as described in Section
~ 3.1 of this Memorandum, the mount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City
Public Facilities Fee, as the ca~e may be, shall revert to the mount of the County
Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor of
the County (or such lesser mount as determined by the Court). In the event this
Memorandum or any suly~r..qucnt a~rccmcnts rcluting W the Project is held to be invalid or
un~nforc~able by a trial court of competent jurisdiction?., Owner shall thereafter pay the
County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement
No. 5 (or such lesser amount as determined bv the Court). All other provisions of this
Memorandum or any subsequent agreements relating w the Project shall remain valid and
enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity.
~ 3.~ Third Party Litigation Concerning ~,reement. Owner shall
defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Memorandum
or any subsequent ugrocmcnts relating to the Project or the appwval of any permit granted
pursuant to this Memorandum or any subsequent agreements relating to the Project brought
by a third party other than the County. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim,
action, or proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly
notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding or if City fails to cooperate in the
defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
City. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or
proceeding.
~ 3.5 Termination of Memorandum of Understanding. ff the Draf~
Agreement is approved by the City Council, this Memorandum shall terminate upon the
effective date of the Draft Agreement. If the Draft Agreement is disappwved by the City
Council, then the obligations of Owner under this Memorandum shall terminate and Owner
thereafter shall be subject to the terms of Development Agreement No. 5.
IN WITNESS WB'KREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum as of this
day of , 1994.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
ATTEST:
PROPERTY OWNER
June S. Greek, City Clerk
""~"~ CQSTAIN HOMES
CALIFORNIA, INC.,
a C:llfc, F~r, De]aware corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
, its
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
By:
, its
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROV,
CITY ATTORNEyROV,~
FINANCE OFFICE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~r
January 10, 1995
Memorandum of Understanding concerning Specific Plan No. 199, Cosrain
Homes
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Specific Plan
No. 199 for Costain Homes, authorizing the payment of the development fees at a specified
level and directing the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City and the City
Clerk to attest thereto.
BACKGROUND
The City Council considered this matter at its meeting of December 13, 1994. However,
because of Council concerns relating to indemnity and cost of litigation, it was continued to
January 10, 1995. In addition to the concerns, Council desired to have copies of the
previously approved Development Agreements for Roripaugh Hills and Kemper (Paloma del
Sol). Staff has attached copies of both agreements for Council review. As to the matters of
indemnity and litigation, because of the short lead time to prepare the staff report for the
meeting of January 10, staff will provide an oral report on these items at the meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
Slight delay in initial receipt of interim Public Facilities Fees as they are delayed until the first
Certificate of Occupancy for the production units, but would be paid in the event the City
Council denies the draft Development Agreement within thirty days of the City's demand.
Attachments:
Kernper Development Agreement - Page 2
Roripaugh Development Agreement - Page 3
Staff Report and Memorandum of Understanding, December 13, 1994 ~ Page 4
R:\STAFFRPT\199SPoCC 1//e/95 kLb 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
KEMPER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
R:\STAFFRPT\I~$P.CC 17,/2~/~ ktb 2
1L
Indemnity ~ud Cost of L~dsador~
62043
1L1 Hold H.~rntess. Owner agrees to and shall hold City, in officers. agents.
employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or clai.~ for damage for penona]
injury including death and c3,1m~ for property damage which ~-,y arise from the direc~ or indirec~
' operations of the Owner or those of his contractor. subcontractor. agent employee or other person
acting on his beha/f which relate to the Project Owner agrees co and shall indemnify. defend, and
hold harmless the City and its officers. agenu. employees and representatives from actions for
a~v.~es caused or alleged to have been ~-~ed by reason of Owner's activities in connection with the
Project
This hold harmless =~ement applies to all d~m~g..s and a=~m~ for a~m=g..s suffered or
alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations re£erred to in t~{¢ paragrapl~ regardless of
whether or not City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications for the Projec~ and
gardless of whether or not the insunn~ policies referred to herein are applicable.
11.2 Coumy I iti;Rtion Concerniz~ Aereement. In the event the County seeks
to challenge the right of City and Owner to enter into t~i~ Agreement or to termi.~te the
Development Agreement, =.a institutes an action, suit or procee~-g to ~*n~nge ~{~ Agreement or
invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of ~t~ Agreement or the l:lmendnJelJJ: of the Development
Agreement or take such other action(s) which result in unreasonable delays in the clevelopment of the
Property, City and Owner agree to cooperate and participate in a joint defense in any action ag~-~t
the parties, their offic~n, age~zs and enzployees. from and against any and all such obligations,
liability, suit, a loss, ~uclSn~nt or lien, resttiring from such action(s) broughz by Cotmty, (b~
excluding ~ctions to extrariSe any lis pendens) and to ,~-,~ equally the costs sssocis~d with attorneys,
fees, costs and d~r~-~eS (inChsAi-g th~ Aii~erenc~ in the mount of any Interim Public Fac~ities Fees
and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to City purs---t to th~
o~ ~tm~B
F:~oC~'kg'7"~N~Z.'J~ 15
62043
tern~ of th~ Agr~--mem) that the pm-ti_~s may incur as a result of any such action or lawsuit to
chall,-nge City and/or C)wnefs legal authority to ~nter into this Agreeme.nt and/or term~n~. the
Development Agreement. City and Owner flail mutually agree on legal counsel to be retained to
defend any su,ch action(s) brought by the County as herein provided. City and Owner each reserve
the ri~J:~t to withdraw f:rom the defense of the Cou,n~ litigation in the event the County prevails at the
trial level and there .is an appeal. If either party withdrav~s after the ~rial and there is an appeal, the
rem,l,i,~ party shall pay all of the costs and fees associated with said appeal.
11.3 Public FalSities Fees ~hortfslL In the event the County prev~ik in any
legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of the, Agreement
and a trial court determines that Owner and/or the City is liable to make up any shortfall between
the nrnount of the Interilll Public Facility Fee or the City Public Facflitiu Fee, as the case my be,
and the County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise have been imposed pursuam to
the Development A~reement, then City and Owner shall each ~h,re equally in paying said shortfall
11.4 County Prevails in I iri~tion - Severability. In the event the County
prevails at the trial court level a~t the City or the Owner as descn'bed in Section 112 of ,~i~
Aircement, the mount of the Interim Public Facility Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case
my be, shall revert to the mount of the County Development Agreement Fee in effea at the time
of enu'y of the final judgment in favor of the County. In the event t~i~ Agreement is held to be
invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competem jurisdiction, the provisions set forth in Section
12.3(a), Co) ~nd (c) of ,hq, Agreement shall no longer be enforceable and from the date of said final
judgn~nt or ruling of invalidity, Owner ~h=ll there. alter pay the County Development AgreemenI Fee
as provided in Section 4.?. of the Development AEreement. All other provisions of this Agreemelxt
shall remain v~d and enforcuble notw/thstandi~ said r~dlnE of invalidity.
.1-08--~ I~,:a -eXW.
F:~152%yb.ta~Q12.12S
62043
11.5 Third P,?Cv T id~gtion Conccrrdr~ A~reement C)w~cr shall de[end, az iu
rise. indv~ing attorneys' fee. s. inden,~, ,nd hold h~'mless Ci~, ils a~em~, officers and
employees f~om ~y ~t,~rn. ~'tion or proceeding ~,{nct City, ils agen~ oi~cez~ or employees to
attack, set aside, void, or .nn,,1 the approval of tl~i~ Agreement or the approval of any permit granted
. ptn"suant to th{~ Agreement brought by a third party other than the Comlty. City shall promptly notify
Owner of any such e~vrt. action, or proceeding. and City ~h~TI cooperaxe in the defense. If City f~,t~
w promptly notify Owner of any such d~{m; action, or proceeH{~; or if CAW fn,l~ to cooperate in the
defense, Owner ~h~TI llot there2ier be responm'ble to defend, indernn{~. or hold harmless City. City
my in its discretion participate in the defense of any such el~{rn. action, or proceeding.
1L6 Th{rd Pan), ~ {tigation Concerning ~he C-eneral Plan. City is a newly
incorporated city f~11{n5 witbln the scope of SectiOn 6F360 and thus not subject w the requirement
that a General plmn be adopted or the, development decisions be ¢onsincnt therewith so long as the
City mak~ c=r~{- ~nrl~n~. which the CiZ7 has made az Seaion J of the Recitals w th~ A~reemea:IL
~withs?--rli-~- these finciin~s Cit7 shah have no Iiabi]il7 in clam~es under this .s4recmcm for any
~:,nur¢ of City w perfarm under ~hi~ AEreemem or the {--~ili~7 of Owner to develop the Prope4-L7 as
contemplated by the Development Plan of this A6reement if such ~ or {--i~ility is the resuk of a
judicial detez-m{-,Hon th.t on the F_.~cclive' Date. or at any 6me thema_-"ter, the finai,.~ v,,a¢ under
Sectjan 65360 or the future Genera/1~,-. are invalidated or ismdequa~ or not in compliant= with
law.
1L7 ~n~irom-nent,1 .AsTu~nCes. Chvncr ~h,TI indem-{~ ,ha hold City, ks
ofScers, agentt, and e,.~ployees free and IaarmIe~_t from any tlability. based or asserted, upon any an
or orn(~on of Owner, its o~icen, agents, em.n|oyees, subeoniracton, predetx-ssors-in-intexest,
successors, assigns and independent contractors for any violation d tny federal, state., or local hw,
oretln.ne~- or regulation relating to indthu;al hygiene, solid or ~=,-~rdous waste or to envizonmental
renditions on~ trader or ~bout the Property.. S~id violations shall include, ~Ut not l{r~{~ed to, soil and
~oundwater conditions, and Owner ~11 defend, at its apen~e, including attorneys re-.s, City. ks
~fiScen, agents and employees in any action based or anened upon any such a]leged act or omi~ion.
City rn~y, in iU discretion, par~c~pate in the defense of any such actio~
12. Public Benefits. Public Imprvvernents and Fac~']i~es.
12.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that development of the
Property wftl re.ralt in subsra~t{~! public needs which will not be fully met by developmeat of the
Projea and ftu'ther acknowledge and aE?ee thax this Agreement confers snbs~-ti~l private benefits on
the Owner which should be bahneed by co,'nm~n'ate public benefin. Accordingly, the parties
intend to provide con.~ideration W the public to b~$~-c~ the private benefits conferred on the Owner
by providing more fttlly for the s~t{~Fae'd0n of the public needs resuJtln5 fxom development of the
Project.
~? ~ Public Facz'Iifi~s Fee (Norl-Residential~. The developer(s) of the l~ropert?
~h~n pay a capital or inxpaa fee for mad improvements ~,d public facftities in an mount the City
rnny adopt for non-residentinl developmenL The term 'developer(s) of the Property or Project" as
used in thi~ Section ~hMl n2eall the pex~on(s) who seeks a btti]din~ permit to conslnla mcmres on
the Property. These iztdividv~ or ~l~ties ~h~ll be triP. fred to as the 'Developer". If an interim or
~,nl public facilky mitigaxion fee or benefit district for non-residential coz~t~tctlon has not been
6~11y established by the dale on which Developer requests bufid~-5 permits for commercial
construction in the Project or any pha~ thered; the Dewloper, if required by Oty. ~,n entexnxte an
ASrcemcnt For Payment of Non-Rc~de~1 l~ublic Fadlixy Fees sub~,~=~, in the form a~nched
r~[rked Exh~it D and m~e a part hereln by ~;, refcrencc.
A'i'X'ACHMENT NO. 2
RORIPAUGH DEVEZ. OPMENT AGREEMENT
I~:\STAF~:RPT~j,~.Cg IZ/ZS/9~ ktb 3
7. Bindine Et,_~. of Agreement. Tae burdcns of rJu, Agrecmcnt bind and ~c
benefits of the Agreement inux~ m the successon-in-inmz~st to the parti~ to it in accordance
with the provisions of and subject w'the limitations of this Agreement.
8. Relationship of P~rdes. It is understood tim the contractual relationskip between
City and Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of City.
9, Changes in Project. No change, modification, revision or aimration of Existing
Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval by those agencies of the City
equivalent to the County agencies that appwved the Existing Development Approvals in the fh-'st
instance (if the County had granted the appwvals) or by the same City agency that granted the
Existing Development Approvals, (if the City granted the appwvai in connection with the
adoption of this Agreement).
10. TiminR of Development. The parties acknowledge that Owner cannot at this time
predict when, or the ram at which the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon
numerous factors-which are not within the controb~of Owner, such as rn~rket orientation and
demand, interest ram, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California
Supreme Court held L'~ Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984),
that the failure of the parties therm to pwvide for the timing of development result~ in a ht~
adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties, it is the
parties, intent to core that deficiency by acknowledging and pwviding that the Owner shall have
the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as the Owner
deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any
timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan.
11. Indemnity and Cost of Litigation.
11.1 Hold Harmless. Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its officers, agents,
employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for
pe~nai injury including ~- .~ and claims for property damage wh~,... may arise from the direct
or indirect operations of the Owner or those of its contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee
or other person acting on its beha~which relate' to the Project. Own~ agrees to and shall
indenmify, defend, and hold l~rmless the City and its officers, agents, employees and
representatives f'mm actions for damages cau__ted~ or alleged to ~ave been cau~d by reason of
Own~r's activities in conn,-ction with the Project. This hold harmless agreement applies to all
damages and claim for damages suffem~ or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the
operations referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not City prepared, supplied,
or approved plans or specifications for the Project
11.2 County Litigation Concernin_~ Agreement. In the event the County seeks
to challenge the fight of City and Owner to enter into this Agreement or to terminate
Development Agreement No. 37, and institutes an action, suit or proceeding to challenge this
Agreement or invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of this Agreement or the amendment of
Development Agreement No. 37 or tak~ such other~:tion(s) which result in unreasonable delays
in the development of the Property, City and Owner agree to cooperate and participate in a joint
defense in any action against the parries, their office~, agents and amployees, from and against
any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment or lien, resulting from such
action(s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis pendens) and to share the
costs associated with attorneys, fees and costs that the paxties may incur as the result of any such
action or lawsuit to challenge Ci~ and/or Owner's legal authority to enter into this Agreement
and/or terminate Development Ag~ement No. 37. Owner's defense costs h~rein shall be its pro
rata share among all impacted landownen based on a ratio of contribution of the total units
owned by Owner which are subject to this Agreement compared to th~ total number of units
within the City in which City has lowered the County fees. Damages (including the clifferenc~
in the amount of any ht~im Public Facilities Fee and the amount of the County Development
13
.~=~r~ment F~ paid by C, ...,a to City pursuant m the td,.~ of u,,., Agr~ment) shall be the
rt~onsibility of Owner. To the ~xmt Owner has paid Into-ira Public Facilities Fees and/or
Count~ Development Agreement Fer. s to City of which it is adjudicated a~e lawfully the funds
of County, City shaft pay such sums to County and Owner shai/have such llabiiity for the
payment of the differenc~ between such fees reduced by the mount paid by th= City. City and
Owner shall muv,~lly agree on legs/counsel to be x~tained to defend any such action(s) brought
by the County as he.r~ pwvided. City and Owner each ~e the fight to withdraw from the
defense of the County litig~ion in the event the County preva/h at the tris/level and there is
an appeal If either party withdraws after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party
shall pay all of the costs and fees associa~ with said appeal
11.3 Public Facilities l:ees Shot~f~TI. In the event the County prevails in any
legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of this
Agreement and a trla/court determines that Owner and/or the City is liable to make up any
shorefall between. the amount of the Interim PubliCFacilities Fee or the City Public Facilities
Fee, as the case may be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise
have been impos_e~_ pmuant to Development Agreement No. 37, then Owner shall be
re~onsible for paying any such ihoxtfall subject to City's payment to County of any mounts
collected and held by City under the terms of Development Agretment No. 37. Such payment
by City and County shall reduce Owner's liability to County for payment of such fees by a like
mount paid by City.
11.4 County Prew;is in Liftration - Sever~bili~y. In the event the ,County
prrvaiis at the trial court level agains~ the City or the Owner as described in Section 11.2 of this
Agreement, the mount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as
the case may be, shall revert to the mount of the County Development Agreement Fee in dfea
at the time of entry of the firm/judgment in favor of the County. In the event this Agreement
is held to bc invalid or un,._.-,rcesblc by a ~ cotln of cornperch, ~unsdiction, the provisions
set forth in Section 12.3(a), (b) and (c) of this AZz~mcnt shall no lonl~er bc enforccablc and
from the dat~ of said final judgme~ or rulinl~ of invalidity, Owner shall ther~aher pay the
County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development Agre=ment No.
37. All other pwvisions of this Agz~=ment shall r~main valid and enforceable notwithstanding
said ruling of invalidity.
11.5 Third Par~ Litigation ConccrninE A~reemcnt. Owner shall defend, at its
expense, including ~-nmeys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its ag~nts, officers and
employees from any claim, action or proc_-:_dinl] against City, its agcnts, officers, or cmploy~s
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or thc approval of any permit
gnnted pursuant W this Agreement brought by a third pan'y other than the County. City shall
promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and City shall coopera~ in the
defense. If City faiLi to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceiling or if
City fails to cooperate in the ddense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any
such claim, action, or proce~ing.
11.6 Environrachel Assurances. Owner shall indemnify, defend with oounsel
approved by City, protect, and hold harmless City, its officers, employ*e_~_, agents, assigns, and
any successor or successors to City's interest from and against all claims, actual damages
(including but not limited W special and conse~tuential damages), natural resources damage,
punitive damages, injuries, costs, xesponse xernedialion and removal costs, losses, demands,
debts, liens, liabilities, causes of action, suits, legal or administntive proceedings, interP. st,
fines, charges, penalties and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' and expert wimess
fees and costs incurred in connection with defending against any of the foregoing or in enforcing
this indemnity) of any kind whatsoever paid, incurred, or suffered by, or asserted against, City
15
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
DECEMBER 13, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\199SP.CC 1Z/2~/9~. kLb 4
APPRO
CITY ATTORNEY ..
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
December 13, 1994
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Specific Plan #199,
Costain Homes
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding
concerning Specific Plan No. 199 for Cosrain Homes, authorizing the payment of
development fees at a specified level and directing the Mayor to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
BACKGROUND: The attached Memorandum of Understanding will authorize Costain
Homes to pull building permits and occupancy permits for homes in their development,
without payment of the Public Facilities Fees until such time as the first production home
obtains its Certificate of Occupancy. This provision is consistent with previous approvals
granted to similar projects in the City. The City is currently negotiating a new
Development Agreement between the City and Cosrain for this project. Approval of this
Agreement will not mandate that the City Council approve the draft Development
Agreement. In the event the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement, the
Memorandum of Understanding provides that Costain will then pay the Public Facilities
Fees as provided in the existing Development Agreement No. 5.
This Memorandum of Understanding will allow the development of homes in the
Cosrain project to move forward in an expeditious fashion. Cosrain is agreeing to pay an
Interim Public Facility Fee in the amount of $3,200.00 per unit. As construction and
substantial work on the homes has already begun, there should be relatively little delay in
the City°s receipt of the Interim Public Facilities Fee.
The indemnity provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding are slightly
different than the executed Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Coscan
for the Roripaugh 13roject. How~'~er, the existing development agreement (Riverside
County Develol~ment Agreement No. 5) contains very broad indemnity language sufficient
to protect the City's interests. This Memorandum of Understanding contains adequate
language protecting the City against any challenges to the fee issue.
The Planning Commission and City Council will be presented in the near future with
the draft Develol~ment Agreement, The terms of the draft Development Agreement wilt be
subject to extensive negotiations between the City and the develoDer.
FISCAL IMPACT: Slight delay in initial receipt of Interim Public Facilities Fees as they
are delayed until the first Certificate of Occul~ancy for the production units, but would be
paid in the ~vent the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement within thirty
days of the City's demand.
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
PLANNING ARE~_ NO. __ .OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO, 199
'prig MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, (the "Memorandum") is made and
entered into as of , 1994 by and between the City of Temccula (the "City")
and Cosmln Homes, Inc., a Delaware corpontion ("Owner").
RECITALS
A. The City Council of the City of Temecula is r~iewing and considering, as
provided by law, an Amendment and R~mt~ment of Development Agreement between City
and Owner, (the 'Draft Agreement").
B. Owner is developing a x~idential project in whal is Iraown as Planning Area
No. of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract No. 22916 and 22916-3 (the "Project'). The
Project is curr~tly subject to Development AgEen',ent No. 5 between the County of
Riverside (the "County") and ]e~i~e~ Development Company, a c'~lifomia corporation;
Homes, a California corpox'ation; Margafita VillaEe Development Company, a California
joint ventul~ comprised of Buie-!~nnehn California, Ltd., a c'~llfornh ILmited parme1',~Mp and
Nevada-R~ncho California, Ltd., a r'~llfomia limit~i pannership; and Tayco, a California
general partnership comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
others (the "Development Agr~ment No. 5"), which requix~ Owner to pay
development fees (the 'Development
C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes
public facilities and servi_,3~__ impact fees for x~sidential development with City ("RSA Fees").
City requires these revenues to mitigaxe the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees
from development of the Project in order to complete capital F, ujec~ to mitigate the impact
of the development.
D. As the x~sult of meetings between ~tatives of the City and
representatives of the Owner, the City has agr~d that the Project would be eligible for a
Development Fee reduction due to: (i) tile ext~edve level at which the County o~gln~lly
calculated the Development Fee; Ci) the high ~ of ~,,-~rn,.nt di~hL't tax existing on the
Project; and Cfii) the entry level natu~ of the homes to be built in the Project.
E. The Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and servic~
impact f~*, ("County Impact F~'e) higher than the RSA Fces. Thc~c higher
particularly during the present rece-~ion, unduly discourage and delay development and
thereby prevent City from ever n~celving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to
reduce the County Impact F~es for x'r. Mdential detelopment in the Project to a level
companbl~ to the RSA Fees.
F. The Dr'aft A~Teemen~ provides for Owner to pay the sum of Thr~- Thousand,
Two-Hundred Dollan ($3,200.00) for each residen6al uni~ as the Intm'im l~ublic Fafakies
Fee. The Draft A.~re~ment provides for the cdllection of any lmt~-im Public Facilities Fee to
be deferred until such time as Owner obtained a c~rfificate of occupancy for the lust
production home built in the Project.
O. Owner contemphtes commencing construction of the homes for the l~rojeet (68
units) prior to acccptanc~ by the City Council of City of the Draft Agreement.
H. City daix-.s, as an accommodation to Owner, to permit Owner to pay the
Interim Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the Draft Ag'r~=ment for all the homes in the
Project, despite the ~ that the Draft Alls~ernemt providm'g for payment of the Interim
Public Facilities Fee has not yet been approved by City.
NOW TI:ri~v-I~]RE, in consideration of the mutual covehahn hereinafi~ contained, City
and Owner agree as follows:
1. In lieu of any fee required by Development AEr~ment No. 5, P~A Fee
or City Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall pay an Intorim Public Facilities F~" in the mount
of Three-Thousand, Two-Hundred Dollar~ ($3,200.00) per dwellln~ unit If City fails to
approve or adopt the Draft Agreement or if the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established
by City, is some number other than ~Thoumd, Two-Hundred Don~?~ ($3,200.00) per
dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner to City shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall '-
pay any incr=ase or City shall pay to Owner any decr~se within thirty (30) days from the !
effective clam of City Council's action on the Amendment and P, esmr=ment of Development
Agreement.
2. The Inn Public Facilities Fee for all units shall be deferred until
such time as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home built
in the Project. There2f-,er, the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at the time of
issuance of buildin~ perrnits for each residential unit conslzucted in the Project.
3. Indemnity and Cost of Litintion.
3.1 County Litigation ConcerTfinE Agreement. In the event the County
seeks to challenge the tight of City and Owner to enter inW this Memorandum, and institutes
an action, suit or proceeding to challenge this Memorandum or invalidate and/or enjoin the
enforcement of this Memorandum, City and Owner agree to cooperate and paricipate in a
joint defense in any action against tile parries, their officeIs, agents, and employees, from
and against any and all such obli~dlons, liability, suit, alahn, Ion, judgment or lien,
resulting from such action(s) brought by County, (but exaluding actions to expunge any lis
pendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys, fees and costs that the parties my
incur as the result of any such action or hwsuit to challenge City and/or C)wner's legal
authority to enter into this Memorandum. Owner's defense costs herein shall be its pro rata
-2- ~
shar~ among all impacted hndownen based on a ratio of contribution of wtai units owned by
Owner which are subject to this M_emonndum compared to the total number of units within
the City in which the City has lowemi the County fees. Damages/including the difference
in the amount of any Interim Public Facilities Fe= and the amount of the County
Development Ag~ement Fee paid by Owner to City p~t to the t~us of this
Memorandum) ~ be the responsibility of Owner. To the n-tent Owner h~ paid Int~im
Public Facilities Fens andJar County Developmen~ Agrv, ment Fees to City of which it is
adjudicated are lawfully the funds of County, City shall pay such s-m~ to County and Owner
shall h~ve such liability far the paylnellt of the dhef~'e~lCe between stlch fees l'~duc~d by the
amount paid by the City. City and Owner shall muv,-11y agree on legal couns~ to be
retained w defend any such action(s) bwught by the County as ~ provided. City and
Owner each re_~rve the right w withdraw f'mm the defense of the County litigation in the
event the County prevails at the tzial level and tha~ is an appeal If either party withdraws
after the l:vial and there is an appeal, the re~n=inlng party shall pay all the costs and fees
associated with said appeal.
3.2 Public Facilities Fees Shottf~ll. In the event the County prev'ail~
in any legal action or other F,,c, ceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of
this Memorandum and a trial court demes that Owner and/or the City is liable to w~lcp_
up any shortfall between the amount of the Intezirn Public Facilities Fee or the City Public
Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would
otherwise have been imposed pu~uant w Development Ag'reement No. 5, then Owner shall
be responsible for paying any such shornfall subject to City's payment to County of any
amounts collect~d and held by City under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5. Such
payment by City to County shall reduce Owner's li=hility to County for payment of such fets
by a }ik~ amount paid by City.
3.3 County Prevsfls in Litigation - Severability. In the event the
County prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as described in Section
3.1 of this Memorandum, the amount of the Inn Public Facilities Fee or the City Public
Facilities Fee, as the case may be, shall revert to the amount of the County Development
Agreement Fee in effect at the lime of enlz]t of the final judgment in favor of the County (ar
such lesser amount as determined by the Court). In the event this Memorandum is held to be
invalid or unenforceable by a tzial court of competent jurisdiction, Owner shall there~a.f'ter pay
the County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development
Agr~e;ment No. 5 (or such lesser amount as detn'mined by the Court). All other provisions
of this Memorandum or any subsequent agreements rpl~ti~g to the Pzoject shall remain valid
and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity.
3.4 Third Psrty Litigation Concerning Aereement. Owner shall
defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
agents, officen and employees from any elnim, action or p_rotx~___ing against City, its agents,
officers, or employe~s to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Memorandum
or the approval of any permit granted punuant to this Memorandum brought by a third party
other than th~ County. City shall prompfiy notify Owner of any such ~l=!m, action, or
proc~__~tin~, and City shall cooporto in th~ d~fensc. If City fails to pmmp~y notify Owner
of any such ~}~im~ action, or p'jceding or if'City f~ih to ~ in the ddcnsc, 0wncr
Sh~ll not thcl'~a_ft~ be r~ponsibl~ to de. fend, indemnify, or hold han-ntcss City. City may in
its discretion participa~ in the tt~_f~.se of any such claim, action, or proceeding.
3.5 T~-mination of Mcmonndum of Undersunding. If the Draft
Agx~,'ment is airproved by the City Council, rifts Memorandum shall terrainare upon the
effectiv~ da~ of the Draft Agr~emenL If the Draft AEr~ement is diupproved by the City.
Council, then the obligations of Owner under this Memorandum shall ta-minau: and Owner
the_rP. af-mr shall be subject to the terms of Development A~r~cmcnt No. 5,
IN WITNESS WI:rk'REOF, the parties executed this Memorandum as of this _
.. day of , 1994.
crrY OF TEMECULA
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ron Robere, Mayor
PROPERTY OWNER
COS'fAIN HOM'~-~, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
Peter M. Thorson, City Auomey
By:
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
R:\STAFFRPT\I07PA94.PC 6/11/96 klb 28
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
11.1
Approve contract Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Contract with
Leighton and Associates to provide additional concrete and soils testing services for
the Liefar Road Bridge and Street Improvements Project (PW93-02) in the amount of
$4,964.62.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
ABSENT: 0
COUNCIL BUSINESS
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks
Stone, Roberts
None
19. Memorandum of Understandine Concernine Soecific Plan #199, Costain Homes
Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tern Stone asked how many homes are potentially involved and if the City has
pursued an agreement requiring the developer to bear all legal costs should litigation occur.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill reported this agreement covers 68 homes and indicated
this type of agreement has been negotiated in past agreements and represents a shared
responsibility for legal fees.
Councilmember Lindemans asked how many vested units exist in the City where this type
agreement was used. Mr. Thornhill responded approximately 10,000 units are vested in
the City at this time.
Councilmember Parks stated the Memorandum of Understanding in question is a small
percentage of the total number of units and a delay may hold up building permits.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked if building permits could be issued, based on an agreement
with the developer that the terms of the MOU, if and when approved, would establish the
fees.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks to approve staff recommendation, The motion
failed for lack of a second.
Sanford Edward, representing Costain, stated that this MOU represents a small number of
lots and Costain could not afford to bear the entire legal responsibility.
City Manager Bradley suggested allowing staff time to research the Kemper agreement and
do an analysis.
R:~ende1122094 7
Mayor Pro Tern Stone suggested allowing building permits to be pulled at the $5,000 fee,
to be reimbursed when agreement is reached.
Sanford Edwards representing Contain, asked that Contain pay $3,200 and pay additional
fees at a later time if necessary.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to refer this
matter to staff to address Council's expressed concerns regarding the provisions for
payment of legal fees. It was further directed that staff allow permits to be pulled by the
developer at the $5,000 per D.U. County fee, with the understanding the City will rebate
any difference to the developer, should a lower fee be negotiated, when the MOU is
approved.
AYES:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mu~oz, Stone Roberrs
NOES:
2 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Parks
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None given.
CIT~ATTORNEY'S REPORT
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at
3:25 PM to a meeting on January 1 O, 1995, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA. The motion was unanimously carried.
Mayor Ron Roberrs
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
COUNCIL BUSINESS
14 Memorandum of Understanding Concernina Specific Plan #199, Costain Homes
Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
City Attorney Peter Thorson reported the agreement provides that the developer will pay a pro-
rata share based on units if all the affected developments are sued by the County. He
explained that if only this developer is sued, he would bear full legal responsibility.
Susan Lindquist, 620 Newport Center Drive, No. 400, Newport Beach, representing Costain
Homes, asked if the City of Temecula is named in a suit by the County, would the City
participate in defense. City Attorney Thorson answered the agreements provide that the City
will not bear any legal expenses. If all effected developments are sued, they would pay their
pro-rata share, however if Cosrain is sued individually, Costain would pay 100% of defense,
even if City is named.
Sanford Edwards, Box 2, Temecula, representing Costain Homes, stated he feels the City
needs to be consistent with its agreements and asked that this development not be committed
to more liability than other developments in a similar situation.
Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans stated he feels the Council should meet with the Board of
Supervisors to find out their intentions regarding this matter.
It was moved by Councilmember Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
14.1 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Specific Plan No. 199 for
Costain Homes, authorizing the payment of development fees at a specified level and
directing the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and the City Clerk
to attest thereto.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Roberrs, Stone
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans
15
Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance
Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
minutes~011095 -8- 1/12/95
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
EXECUTED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
R:\STAFFRPTHO7pA94.PC 6/ll/96klb 29
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
PLANNING AREA NO. 16 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
THI.~ lVlEMORANDUlVl OF UNDERSTANDING, (the "Memorandum") is made and
entered into as of January 10, 1995 by and between the City of Temecula (the "City") and
Costain Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Owner").
A. The City Council of the City of Temecula is reviewing and considering, as
provided by law, an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between City
and Owner, {the "Draft Agreement").
B. Owner is developing a residential project in what is known as PIning Area
No. 16 of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract No. 22916 and 22916-3 (the 'Project'). The Project
is currently subject to Development Agreement No. 5 between the County of Riverside (the
'County") and Kaiser Development Company, a California cozporation; Mesa Homes, a
California corporation; Margarita Vffiage Development Company, a California joint venture
comprised of Buie-Rancho California, Ltd., a California limited partnership and Nevada-
Rancho California, Ltd., a California limited partnership; and Tayco, a California general
parmership comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and others
(the 'Development Agreement No. 5'), which requires Owner to pay certain development
fees (the 'Development Fee').
C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes
public facilities and services impact fees for residential development with City CRSA Fees').
City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees
from development of the Project in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact
of the development.
D. As the result of meetings between representatives of the City and
representatives of the Owner, the City has agreed that the Project would be eligible for a
Development Fee reduction due W: (i) the excessive level at which the County originally
calculated the Development Fee; (ii) the high level of assessment district tax existing on the
Project; and Cfii) the entry level natore of the homes to be built in the Project.
E. The Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and services
impact fees (*County Impact Fees*) higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees,
particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and
thereby prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to
reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development in the Project to a level
comparable to the RSA Fees.
F. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of Three- Thousand,
Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) for each residential unit as the Interim Public Facilities
Fee. The Draft Agreement provides for the collection of any Interim Public Facilities Fee to
be deferred until such time as Owner obtained a certificate of occupancy for the first
production home built in the Project.
G. Owner contemplates commencing construction of the homes for the Project (68
units) prior to acceptance by the City Council of City of the Draft Agreement.
H. City desires, as an accommodation to Owner, to pannit Owner to pay the
Interim Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the Draft Agreement for all the homes in the
Project, despite the fact that the Draft Agreement providing for payment of the Interim
Public Facilities Fee has not yet been approved by City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, City
and Owner agree as follows:
1. In lieu of any fee required by Development Agreement No. 5, RSA Fee
or City Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee in the mount
of Three-Thousand, Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit. If City fails to
approve or adopt the Draft Agreement or if the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established
by City, is some number other than Three-Thousand, Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per
dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner to City shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall
pay any increase or City shall pay to Owner any decrease within thirty (30) days from the
effective date of City Council's action on the Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement.
2. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all units shall be deferred until
such time as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home built
in the Project. Thereafter, the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at the time of
issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed in the Project.
3. Indemnity and Cost of Litigation.
3.1 County Litigation Concerning Agreement. In the event the County
seeks to challenge the fight of City and Owner to enter into this Memorandum, and institutes
an action, suit or proceeding to challenge this Memorandum or invalidate and/or enjoin the
enforcement of this Memorandum, City and Owner agree to cooperate and participate in a
joint defense in any action against the parties, their officers, agents, and employees, from
and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment or lien,
resulting from such action(s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis
pendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys, fees and costs that the parties may
incur as the result of any such action or lawsuit to challenge City and/or Owner's legal
authority to enter into this Memorandum. If the County action is against all impacted
r:~gcndl.l!afi~o~aln.mou -2-
developments for which the City has lowered the county fees, the Owner's defense costs
herein shall be its pro rata share among all impacted landowners based on a ratio of
contribution of total units owned by Owner which are subject to this Memorandum compared
to the total number of units within the City in which the City has lowered the County fees.
If the County action is only against owner with respect to this memorandum, and not against
other impacted landowners for which the City has lowered the County fees, then Owner's
defense costs shall be 100% of the attorneys fees and costs for defense of the litigation.
Damages (including the difference in the amount of any Interim Public Facilities Fee and the
amount of the County Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to City pursuant to the
terms of this Memorandum) shall be the responsibility of Owner. To the extent Owner has
paid Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or County Development Agreement Fees to City of
which it is adjudicated are lawfully the funds of County, City shall pay such sums to County
and Owner shall have such Liability for the payment of the difference between such fees
reduced by the amount paid by the City. City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal
counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s) brought by the County as herein
provided. City and Owner each reserve the right to withdraw from the defense of the
County litigation in the event the County prevails at the trial level and there is an appeal. If
either party withdraws after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all
the costs and fees associated with said appeal.
3.2 Public Facilities Fees Shortfall. In the event the County prevails
in any legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enfor~cement of
this Memorandum and a trial court determines that Owner and/or the City is liable to make
up any shortfall between the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public
Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would
otherwise have been imposed pursuant to Development Agreement No. 5, then Owner shall
be responsible for paying any such shortfail subject to City's payment to County of any
amounts collected and held by City under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5. Such
payment by City to County shall reduce Owner's liability to County for payment of such fees
by a like amount paid by City.
3.3 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability. In the event the
County prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as described in Section
3.1 of this Memorandum, the mount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public
Facilities Fee, as the case may be, shall revert to the amount of the County Development
Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor of the County (or
such lesser mount as determined by the Court). In the event this Memorandum is held to be
invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competent jurisdiction, Owner shall thereafter pay
the County Development Agreement Fee as pwvided in Section 4.2 of Development
Agreement No. 5 (or such lesser amount as determined by the Court). All other provisions
of this Memorandum or any subsequent agreements relating to the Project shall remain valid
and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity.
r:~gcnds.rptXcostain.mou -3-
3.4 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall
defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Memorandum
or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Memorandum brought by a third party
other than the County. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or
proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner
of any such claim, action, or proceeding or if City falls to cooperate in the defense, Owner
shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in
its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding.
3.5 Termination of Memorandum of Understanding. If the Draft
Agreement is approved by the City Council, this Memorandum shall terminate upon the
effective date of the Draft Agreement. If the Draft Agreement is disapproved by the City
Council, then the obligations of Owner under this Memorandum shall terminate and Owner
thereafter shall be subject to the terms of Development Agreement No. 5.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum as of this 10th
day of January, 1995.
ATI"~T:
APPROVED AS TO FOR1VI:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CITY OF TEMECULA
pRO~~Zy°r
COSTAIN HOMES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
r:~agcnda.~tXcosulin.mms '4-
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5
R:\STAFFRPTH07PA94.PC 6/ll/96klb 30
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
City Clerk
City of Temecula
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO
City Clerk
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92590
(Space Above Line For Recorder's Use)
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
PLANNING AREA NO. 16
PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
"Margarita Village"
Cosrain Homes Inc.
LWOCIxA6466.7
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NOTICE FROM MORTGAGEE
LWOC1\46466.7 i
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA
and
COSTAIN HOMES INC.,
a Delaware corporation
This Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreemere ("Agreement") is entered
into to be effective on the date set forth in Recital N and Paragraph 1.7 by and among the City
of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and Costain Homes Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Owner"):
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864 et sen. ("Development
Agreement Statutes"), Tayco, a California general partnership, and others and the County of
Riverside, California ("County") entered into Development Agreement No. 5 recorded in the
Official Records of Riverside County, California on November 7, 1988, as Instrument No.
325515 ("Development Agreement No. 5").
B. Development Agreement No. 5 encompasses a project formerly located within
County approved Specific Plan No. 199 known as "Margarita Village", a mixed use subdivision
(the "Original Project") to be developed on property which came within the municipal
boundaries of City when City incorporated on December 1, 1989. This Agreement encompasses
only a portion of the Original Project, located in Planning Area No. 16 and consisting of Tract
Nos. 22916 and 22916-3, a residential development (the "Project"). The balance of the Original
Project covered by Development Agreement No. 5 is not included within Planning Area No. 16
and is not mended or impacted by this Agreement. Owner is the successor-in-interest of Tayco
with respect to the Project.
C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Agreement Statutes, City became
the successor-in-interest to the County under Development Agreement No. 5 upon incorporation
of City.
D. Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statutes, City and
Owner propose to restate and amend Development Agreement No. 5 to substitute this Agreement
for the portion of Development Agreement No. 5 pertaining to the Project.
E. Pursuant and subject to the Development Agreement Statutes, City's police powers
and City Resolution No. 91-52, City is authorized to enter into binding agreements with persons
having legal or equitable interests in real property located within City's municipal boundaries
or sphere of influence thereby establishing the conditions under which such property may be
developed in City.
F. By electing to enter into this Agreement, City shall bind future Members of the
City Council of City by the obligations specified herein and further limit the future exercise of
certain governmental and proprietary powers of Members of the City Council. Likewise, Owner
shall bind its successors in interest to the obligations specified in this Agreement.
G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by
the staff of City, the Planning Commission of City and the City Council of City and have been
found to be fair, just and reasonable.
H. City finds and determines that it will be in the best interests of its citizens and the
public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
I. All of the procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act have been met with respect to this Agreement.
LWOCIX46466,7 2
J. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by City, establishes public
facilities impact fees for residential development within City CRSA Fees"). City requires these
revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires the RSA Fees from development
of Property in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the development.
K. Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and services impact
fees ("County Impact Fees") higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly during
the present economic situation, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent
City from ever receiving the County Impact Fees or the RSA Fees. Consequently, City desires
to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development in the Project to a level
comparable to the RSA Fees.
L. City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the
generation of municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities and the enhancement of the
quality of life for present and future residents of City. The benefits to City and Owner
contemplated by development of the Project include:
(1) completion of vacant lots in the Project;
(2) payment of traffic signal mitigation fees, fire mitigation fees, drainage
fees, school impact fees and library fees; and
(3) participation in special assessment districts to finance City and regional
infrastructure improvements.
M. City and Owner acknowledge that due to the present economic situation, none of
these benefits to City are possible unless the Project proceeds with development.
N. The City Council of City has approved this Agreement by Ordinance No.
adopted on , and effective on ("Effective
Lwoc~,,~.7 3
Date"). On the Effective Date, Development Agreement No. 5 shall be terminated as to the
Project only and of no further force and effect with respect to the Project, having been replaced
by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the above Recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged and incorporated herein, the parties agree:
1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the
following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below:
1.1 "City" is the City of Temecula.
1.2 "City Public Facility Fee" is an amount to be established by Ordinance of
City.
1.3 "County" is the County of Riverside.
1.4 "County Development Agreement Fee" means the County Development
Agreement public facilities and services mitigation fee as set forth in Section 4.2 of Development
Agreement No. 5.
1.5 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City in connection with
or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Existing Development Approval for the dedication
of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order
to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or
other public interests.
1.6 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals defined
in Section 1.8 below which are applicable to development of the Project.
Lwoclx4~4~.7 4
1.7 "Effective Date" means the date upon which the Ordinance approving this
Agreement becomes effective, which date is thirty (30) days following the date the City Council
adopted such Ordinance absent a referendum challenge.
1.8 "Existing Development Approval(s)" means those certain development
approvals in effect as of the Effective Date with respect to the Property, including, without
limitation, the "Existing Development Approvals" listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, which were approved by the County or City.
1.9 "Financing District" means a Community Facilities District formed
pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (California Government Code
Sections 53311 et seq., as mended); an assessment district formed pursuant to the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et seq., as
amended); a special assessment district formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911
(California Streets and Highways Code Section 10102, as amended); or any other special
assessment district existing pursuant to State law formed for the purposes of financing the cost
of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a specific
geographical area of City.
1.10 "Interim Public Facilities Fee" means an amount of Three Thousand Two
Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per each residential unit developed in the Project.
1.11 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, cedes, rules,
regulations and official policies of City, governing the development and use of land including
without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision
requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation
or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction
standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, including without
limitation, those listed on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date of this Agreemere. "Land Use
Regulations" does not include any County or City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation,
or official policy, governing:
(a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
(b) Taxes and assessments (as opposed to exactions);
(c) The control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights
and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; or
(e) The exercise of the power of eminent domain.
"Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the
1.12
Project.
1.13
1.14
"Project" is defined in Recital B above.
"Property" is the real property described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
1.15 "RSA Fee" means the fee established by County Ordinance No. ~ as
adopted by City.
1.16 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all development approvals
required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property.
1.17 "Subsequent Land Use Regulation" means any Land Use Regulation
adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement.
LWOC1\464/~.7 6
2. Interest of Owner. Owner represents that it has the fee title interest in the
Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to be
bound by this Agreement.
3. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement attached
hereto and made a part hereof by this reference:
Exhibit
Designation
A
B
C
D
4. Term.
4.1
Description
Existing Development Approvals
Existing Land Use Regulations
Legal Description of the Property
Notice From Mortgagee
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and
shall extend for a period of ten (10) years thereafter, unless this Agreement is terminated,
modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the
parties hereto.
4.2 This Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the
occurrence of the entry of a final judgement or issuance of a final order after exhaustion of any
appeals directed against City as a result of any lawsuit filed against City to set aside, withdraw,
or abrogate the approval by the City Council of City of this Agreement.
5. Assignment.
5.1 Right to Assign. Owner shall have the right to sell, transfer, or assign the
Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision
Map Act, Government Code Sections 66410, et seq., or Riverside County Ordinance No. 460,
Lwoc~4s~.7 7
as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No.
90-04) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm, or corporation at any time during the term
of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer, or assignment shall include
the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties, and obligations arising under or from this
Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this
Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or assignment of
all or a part of the Property. Owner agrees to provide specific notice of this Agreement,
including the record or document number where a true and correct copy of this
Agreement may be obtained from the Riverside County Recorder, in any grant deed or
other documents purporting to transfer the title or any interest in the Property during the
term of this Agreement.
(b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within
fifteen (15) business days thereafter, Owner shall notify City, in writing, of such sale,
transfer, or assignment and shall provide City with an executed agreement, in a form
reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, by the purchaser, transferee, or assignee and
providing therein that the pumhaser, transferee, or assignee expressly and unconditionally
assumes all the duties and obligations of Owner under this Agreement to the extent
applicable to the portion of the Property being acquired by the pumhaser, transferee or
assignee.
Any sale, transfer, or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions
shall constitute a default by Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of any
purchaser, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this
LWOCr~46466.7 8
Subsection, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee, or
assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee, or
assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.
5.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or
assignment, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless
such transferring Owner is given a release in writing by City, which release shall be provided
by City upon the full satisfaction by such transferring Owner of all of the following conditions:
(a) Such Owner no longer has a legal interest in all or any pan of the
Property except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust.
(b) Such Owner is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) Such Owner or pumhaser has provided City with the notice and
executed agreement required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 5.1 above.
(d) The purchaser, transferee, or assignee provides City with security
equivalent to any security previously provided by such Owner to secure performance of
its obligations hereunder.
(e) Such Owner has reimbursed City for any and all City costs
associated with such Owner's transfer or all or a portion of the Properly.
5.3 Termination of A~reement with Respect to Individual Lots upon Sale to
Public and Completion of Construction. The provisions of Subsection 5.1 shall not apply to the
sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which has been finally subdivided and
is individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate
user. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement except for the immediately
succeeding sentence, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot and such lot shall
~.woc~x4r,4~.7 9
be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of
any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions: (a) the lot has been
finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased (for a period longer than
one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and (b) a Certificate of Occupancy
has been issued for a building on a lot, and the fees set forth in this Agreement have been paid.
Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provisions in Development Agreement No. 5 or this
Agreement to the contrary, City agrees that Owner's previous payment of the fees set forth in
this Agreement with respect to those portions of the Project which have been previously released
from Development Agreement No. 5 shall be deemed to satisfy the provisions of Development
Agreement No. 5 and this Agreement with respect to such portions of the Project as if such
portions of the Project were a part of the Property.
5.4 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment after
an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the
terms and conditions of this Section.
6. Mortgagee Protection. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not
prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the
Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust, or
other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that
the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and
modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Owner and
representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or
modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested
interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the
Lwoc~o~.7 10
intent and purposes of this Agreement. Owner shall reimburse City for any and all of City's
reasonable costs associated with said negotiations. interpretations, and modifications and shall
make reimbursement payments to City within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from City.
Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall
defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good
faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law.
(b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the
Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing, in the form
as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit D, to City in the manner
specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of
any default by Owner in the performance of Owner's obligations under this Agreement.
(c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee, in the form set forth
on Exhibit D, requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall endeavor to provide a copy of that notice of default to the Mortgagee
within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the
right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such
party under this Agreement. City shall have no liability for damages or otherwise to Owner,
Owner's successor or to any Mortgagee or successor thereof for the failure to provide such
notice.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part
thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such
foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement.
LW0C1\4~466.? 11
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have
an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of Owner's obligations or other
affirmative covenants of Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, provided however,
that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Owner is a condition precedent to the
performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition
precedent to City's performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or
assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.1 of
this Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall not be extended based on the fact that a
Mortgagee holds title to the Property for all or any pan of the term of this Agreement.
(e) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any portion
thereof, pursuant to subsection (d) above and who elects not to assume the obligations of Owner
set forth herein shall not be entitled to any rights to develop which have or may have vested
solely as a result of this Agreement.
7. Binding Effect of A~reement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the
benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors-in-interest to the parties to it in accordance
with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of this Agreement.
8. Proiect As A Private Undertaking/Relationship of Parties. It is specifically
understood and agreed between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private
development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and
that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and
conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of
any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that
~woc~4~.v 12
of a governmental entity regulating the developmere of private property and the owner of such
property.
9. Chan~es in Project. No change, modification, revision or alteration of Existing
Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval by those agencies of City
equivalent to the County agencies that approved the Existing Development Approvals in the first
instance (if the County had granted the approvals) or by the same City agency that granted the
Existing Development Approvals (if City granted the approval in connection with the adoption
of this Agreement). City may expand the permitted uses for the Property without mending this
Agreement so long as Owner or Owner's successor retains his/her/their existing entitlements and
approves such expansion in writing.
10. Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that Owner cannot at this time
predict when, or the rate at which, the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon
numerous factors which are not within the control of Owner, such as market orientation and
demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California
Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984),
that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later
adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties, it is the
parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Owner shall have the
right to develop the Property in such order, at such rate, and at such times as Owner deems
appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any timing
or phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan.
~.woc~,~,4r,6.7 13
11. Indemnity and Cost of Litigation.
11.1 Hold Harmless. Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its officers, agents,
employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for
personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct
or indirect operations of Owner or those of its contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or
other person acting on its behalf which relate to the Project. Owner agrees to and shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees and
representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of
Owner's activities in connection with the Project. This hold harmless agreement applies to all
of the damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of
the operations referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not City prepared,
supplied, or approved plans or specifications for the Project.
11.2 County Litigation Concerning Agreement. In the event the County seeks
to challenge the right of City and Owner to enter into this Agreement or to terminate the
applicable portion of Development Agreement No. 5, and institutes an action, suit or proceeding
to challenge this Agreement or invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of this Agreement or
the termination of the applicable portion of Development Agreement No. 5, City and Owner
agree to cooperate and participate in a joint defense in any action against the parties, their
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit,
claim, loss, judgment or lien, resulting from such action(s) brought by County (but excluding
actions to expunge any lis pendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys' fees and
costs that the parties may incur as the result of any such action or lawsuit to challenge City
and/or Owner's legal authority to enter into this Agreement and/or terminate the applicable
LW0C1~46466,7 14
portion of Development Agreement No. 5. If the County action is against more than one
impacted development for which City has lowered the otherwise applicable County fees, then
Owner's defense costs herein shall be its pro rata share among all impacted landowners based
on a ratio of contribution of the total units owned by Owner which are subject to this Agreement
compared to the total number of units within City in which City has lowered the County fees
included in such challenge. If the County action is only against Owner with respect to this
Agreement or the termination of the applicable portion of County Development Agreement No.
5, then Owner's defense costs shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the attorneys' fees and
costs for defense of the litigation. Damages (including the difference in the amount of the
County Development Agreement Fee and any Interim Public Facilities Fee paid by Owner to
City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement) shall be the responsibility of Owner. To the
extent Owner has paid Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or County Development Agreement
Fees to City of which it is adjudicated are lawfully the funds of County, City shall pay such
sums to County and Owner shall have such liability for the payment of the difference between
the total amount of such fees and the amount paid by Owner to City. City and Owner shall
mutually agree on legal counsel to be retained to defend any such actinn(s) brought by the
County as herein provided. City and Owner each reserve the right to withdraw from the defense
of the County litigation in the event the County prevails at the trial level and there is an appeal.
If either party withdraws after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all
of the costs and fees associated with said appeal.
11.3 Public Facilities Fees Shortfall. In the event the County prevails in any
legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of this
Agreement and the termination of the applicable portion of Development Agreement No. 5, and
Lwocx~.7 15
a trial court determines that Owner and/or City is liable to make up any shortfall between the
amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee and the County Development Agreement Fee which
would otherwise have been imposed pursuant to Development Agreement No. 5, then Owner
shall be responsible for paying any such shortfall subject to City's payment to County of any
amounts collected and held by City under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5. Such
payment by City to County shall reduce Owner's liability to County for payment of such fees
by a like amount paid by City.
11.4 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability. In the event the County
prevails at the trial court level against City or Owner as described in Section 11.2 of this
Agreement, the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall revert to the amount of the
County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor
of the County (or such lesser amounts as determined by the Court). In the event this Agreement
is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competent jurisdiction, the provisions
set forth in Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of this Agreement shall no longer be enforceable and from
the date of said final judgment or ruling of invalidity, Owner shall thereafter pay the County
Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement No. 5 (or
such lesser amounts as determined by the Court). All other provisions of this Agreement shall
remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity.
11.5 Third Party Litigation Concerning A~,reement. Owner shall indemnify,
protect, defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, and hold harmless City, its agents,
officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, officers,
or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval
of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement brought by a third party other than the County.
t.woc~,4~.7 16
City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and City shall
cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible
to defend, protect, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in its discretion participate in
the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding.
11.6 Environmental Assurances. Owner shall indemnify, defend with counsel
approved by City, protect, and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, agents, assigns, and
any successor or successors m City's interest from and against all claims, actual damages
(including but not limited to special and consequential damages), natural resources damage,
punitive damages, injuries, costs, response remedialion and removal costs, losses, demands,
debts, liens, liabilities, causes of action, suits, legal or administrative proceedings, interest,
fines, charges, penalties and expenses (including but not limited m attorneys' and expert wimess
fees and costs incurred in connection with defending against any of the foregoing or in enforcing
this indemnity) of any kind whatsoever paid, incurred, or suffered by, or asserted against, City
or its officers, employees or agents arising from or attributable to any repair, cleanup, or
detoxification, or preparation and implementation of any removal, remedial, response, closure,
or other plan (regardless of whether undertaken due to governmental action) concerning any
Hazardous Substance or hazardous wastes at any place within the Property which is the subject
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the foregoing
indemnity shall not apply to any Hazardous Substance or hazardous waste which becomes located
on any portion of the Property after Owner has conveyed such portion of the Property to a
governmental or quasi-governmental entity or to a purchaser of a legal lot improved with a
house. The foregoing indemnity is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to Section
Lwocx~64~.7 17
107(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
"CERCLA", 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(e) and California Health and Safety Code Section 25364,
and their successor statues, to insure, protect, hold hamless, and indemnify City from liability.
12. Public Benefits. Public Improvements and Facilities.
12.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers
private benefits on Owner which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits.
Accordingly, the parties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private
benefits conferred on Owner by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs
resulting from development of the Project.
12.2 Public Facilities Fees (Residential).
(a) In lieu of the County Development Agreement Fee, any other fee
required by Development Agreement No. 5, the RSA Fee or City Public Facility Fee (or any
fee which replaces, supplements or is for the same general purpose as any of the foregoing), for
a period of five (5) years commencing on the Effective Date, Owner shall pay an Interim Public
Facilities Fee of Three Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit. The
Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid as provided in Section 12.3 below. At the conclusion
of the five (5) year period, Owner shall either continue to pay the Interim Public Facilities Fee
of Three Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit or such other public
facilities fee as City has then enacted and applied to residential development projects in City.
Owner expressly acknowledges the existence and holding in the case of Kaufman and Broad
Central Valley. Inc. v. City of Modesto, (1994), 25 Cal. App.4th 1577, as it applies to later
adopted fees. Owner hereby waives for itself, and for any successor thereto, the right to
challenge, pursuant to this Agreement, the validity or amount of any such other public facilities
~.woc~,~w~.7 18
fees which are enacted and applied to residential development projects in City; provided that
such waiver only applies to the Project after the first five (5) years of this Agreement. Owner
acknowledges and agrees that City would not have entered into this Agreement if its application
or operation would limit in any way City's ability to develop and apply a Comprehensive Public
Facilities Fee Program to this Project following the first five (5) years of the term of this
Agreement. Finally, Owner agrees that the institution of any legal action by Owner, or any
successor thereof, relying on this Agreement to challenge the validity, amount, or application
of any public facilities fee after the f~st five (5) years of this Agreement, including paying such
fees "under protest" pursuant to Government Code Sections 66020 et seq., shall constitute a
material breach and default under this Agreement entitling City to summary termination thereof.
(b) Owner shall also pay all other customary and typical development
exactions, for a Project of this size and nature, in existence as of the Effective Date and
throughout the term of this Agreement, including but not limited to, Traffic Signal Mitigation
Fees, fire mitigation fees, drainage fees, school impact fees and library fees pursuant to the
provisions of City ordinances and resolutions in existence when paid.
12.3 Timing. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities Fees required
to be paid by Owner pursuant to this Agreement shall be deferred until such time as a certificate
of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home built on the Property. Thereafter,
the Interim Public Facilities Fees shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for
each residential unit constructed on the Property.
12.4 Public Works. If Owner is required by this Agreement, or any other
obligation, to construct any public works facilities which will be dedicated to City or any other
public agency upon completion, and if required by applicable laws to do so, Owner shall
~woc~,~t~.v 19
perform such work in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as would be
applicable to City or such other public agency should it have undertaken such construction.
13. Reservations of Authority.
13.1 Limitations. Reservations. and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreemere, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the
development of the Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges imposed by City to cover the estimated
actual costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent Development Approvals.
(b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions,
applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and
any other matter of procedure.
(c) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however,
that no such subsequently adopted Development Exactions shall be applicable to
development of the Property unless such Development Exactions are applied uniformly
to development throughout City. No such subsequently adopted Development Exaction
would apply if its application to the Property would physically prevent development of
the Property for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the
Development Plan. If any such subsequently adopted Development Exaction fulfills the
same purposes, in whole or in part, as the fees paid by Owner pursuant to this
Agreement, City shall allow a credit against such subsequently adopted Development
Exaction for such fees paid to the extent such fees fulfill the same purpose.
~,woc~x4e,4~.7 20
(d) Regulations governing construction standards and specifications
including without limitation, City's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code,
Electrical Code and Fire Code.
(e) Regulations which are not in conflict with the Development Plan.
Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing
of development of the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan
and shall therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property.
(f) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan
provided Owner has given written consent to the application of such regulations to
development of the Property.
13.2 Subseauent Development Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent
City, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying the Subsequent Land Use
Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent
City from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the
basis of the Existing or Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the Development
Plan.
13.3 Modification or Suspension bv State or Federal Law. In the event that
State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent
or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions
of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State
or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such
laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce.
13.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties
that other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of
the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City and this Agreement does
not limit the authority of such other public agencies.
13.5 Tentative Tract Map Extension. Pursuant to the provisions of Section
66452.6 of the Government Code, the tentative subdivision map(s) or tentative parcel map(s)
(vested or regular) approved as part of implementing the Development Plan shall be extended
to expire at the end of the term of this Agreement.
13.6 Vestinlz Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or
tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development
of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections
66410, et seq). and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by
reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-04, and if this Agreement is
determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right
to develop to Owner, then and to that extent the fights, obligations, and protections afforded
Owner and City respectively, under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall
supersede the provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above,
development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions
in this Agreement shall be controlling over conflicting provisions of law or ordinances
concerning vesting maps.
Lwoc~x~64~.7 22
13.7 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its
authority to limit its police power by coreract and that the foregoing limitations, reservations and
exceptions are intended to reserve to City all of its police power which cannot be so limited.
This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to City
all such power and authority which cannot be restricted by contact.
14. Development of the Proveny. Vesting. Termination of Development Agreement
No. 5.
14.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to terms of this Agreement, including payment
of the Interim Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall have a vested right to develop the Property in
accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Plan. The Project shall remain subject
to all Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by
the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of
the Property, the density and intensity of use. the maximum height and size of proposed
buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be
those set forth in the Development Plan. In exchange for the vested right to develop pursuant
to this Agreement, Owner expressly waives for itself and for any successor thereto, the right to
challenge or contest the validity of any condition of approval attached to any entitlement which
is a part of/he Development Plan.
14.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise
provided under the terms of this Agreement, including the payment of the Interim Public
Facilities Fee, the rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications
x.woci,As~.7 23
applicable to development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations. City
shall exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in connection with Subsequent Development
Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan, and as provided by this Agreement
including, but not limited to, payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee. City shall accept for
processing, review, and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such
applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters. City may,
at the request of Owner, contract for planning and engineering consultant services to expedite
the review and processing of Subsequent Development Approvals, the cost of which shall be
borne by Owner.
14.3 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement and
further development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may
demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing Development
Approvals. In the event Owner finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is
necessary or appropriate, Owner shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to
effectuate such change. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals
shall be incorporated herein as an addendure to this Agreement and may be funher changed from
time to time as provided in this Section. Owner, shall, within thirty (30) days of written demand
by City, reimburse City for any and all reasonable costs associated with any amendment or
change to this Agreement that is initiated by Owner or Owner's successor without regard to the
outcome of the request for amendment or change to this Agreement. Unless otherwise required
by law, as determined in City's reasonable discretion, a change to the Existing Development
Approvals shall be deemed "minor" and not require an amendment to this Agreement provided
such change does not:
~,woc~x46466.7 24
(a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole. except as permitted
in Section 9 hereof; or,
(b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or,
(c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or,
(d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes within the Property as a whole; or,
(e) Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or a supplemental
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.
14.4 Termination of Development Agreemere No. 5. Both City and Owner
agree that on the Effective Date of this Agreemere, Development Agreement No. 5 shall
be terminated and of no further force or effect as to this Project only, having been
replaced by this Agreement.
15. Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement.
15.1 Review. Pursuant to City Resolution No. 91-52, as it may be subsequently
amended, City shall review this Agreement at least once during every twelve (12) month period
from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Owner or its successor shall reimburse City for the
reasonable and necessary costs of this review, within thirty (30) days of written demand from
City.
15.2 Compliance. During each periodic review by City, Owner is required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Owner agrees to furnish
such evidence of good faith compliance as City in the exercise of its discretion may require.
16. Financing District. Upon the request of Owner, the parties shall cooperate in
exploring the use of special assessment districts, community facilities districts and other similar
Lwoc~64~6.7 25
financing districts for the financing of the construction, improvement, or acquisition of public
infrastructure, facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether
located within or outside the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this
Agreement shall be construed as requiring City or the City Council to form such a district or
to issue or sell bonds.
17. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or
canceled in whole or in pan only by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided
for in Government Code Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. If an Amendment is requested
by Owner or its successor, Owner or its successor agrees to pay City any Development
Agreement Amendment fee then in existence as established by City Council Resolution, or if no
such fee is established, to reimburse City for the actual and reasonably necessary costs of
reviewing and processing said Amendment within thirty (30) days of written demand from City
without regard to City's action on such amendment.
18. Enfomement. Unless amended or canceled as herein provided, this Agreement
is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific
plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the
rules, regulations, or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design,
improvement, and construction standards and specifications.
19. Events of Default. Owner is in default under this Agreement upon the happening
of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(a) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to
City in this Agreement is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was
made;
~,woc~x464~6.7 26
(b) More than thirty (30) days have passed since City's making of a written
request to Owner for payment or reimbursement for a fee or service authorized or agreed to
pursuant to this Agreement, with Owner not having made such payment;
(c) A finding and determination by City at a hearing at which Owner is
provided an opportunity to present oral and written testimony that upon the basis of substantial
evidence Owner has not complied in good faith with one or more of the terms or conditions of
this Agreement; provided, however, where the default may be cured, Owner shall be given at
least thirty (30) days or such additional time as the City Council determines to be reasonable to
cure such default. If the actions required to cure such default will reasonably take more than
thirty (30) days to cure, then the City Council shall give Owner such additional time as is
reasonably necessary to effect a cure, provided that Owner is making reasonable progress
towards completing such cure. Such progress on effectuating such cure shall be reviewed by
the City Council every thirty (30) days thereafter until any and all defaults are cured. If at any
such review, the City Council determines that the Owner is not making good faith efforts to cure
any and all defaults, the City Council shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement. If
at the end of such cure period, Owner fails to cure any and all defaults, then the City Council
may terminate this Agreement, extend the cure period if Owner is making good faith efforts to
cure any and all defaults, or with the concurrence of Owner, modify this Agreement.
20. Procedure Upon Default.
(a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may terminate or modify
this Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by City.
(b) City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Owner implied
ff on periodic review City does not propose to modify or terminate this Agreement.
z,wocax4~,4~.7 27
person.
(c) Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third
(d) Non-performance shall be excused only when it is prevented or delayed
by acts of God or an emergency declared by the Governor.
(e) All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided
for in this Agreement or in City 's regulations governing development agreements are available
to the parties to pursue in the event there is a breach.
21. Damages Uvon Termination. It is acknowledged by the panics that City would
not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with respect to
this Agreement or the application thereof. Owner, for itself or any successor thereto, expressly
waives the right to seek damages against City or any officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any
default or breach of this Agreement.
In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity
available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that City, and its officers,
employees and agents, shall not be liable in damages to Owner or to any assignee or transferee
of Owner, or any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue for or claim any damages for
breach of this Agreement by City.
22. Specific Performance. The parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies
at law generally are inadequate and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are
particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available
to all parties for the following reasons:
(a) Money damages are unavailable against City as provided in Section 21
above.
LWOC1~66.7 28
(b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may 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 or portions thereof. Owner has 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 Owner for such efforts.
23. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of
breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is
entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and court costs.
24. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in
writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid and presumed
delivered upon actual receipt by personal delivery or within three (3) days following deposit
thereof in United States Mail. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
To City:
With a copy to:
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: City Attorney
Peter M. Thorson, Esq.
City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
611 W. Sixth Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
~,wocn,~g~.7 29
Notices required to be given to Owner shall be addressed as follows:
To Owner: Coslain Homes Inc.
620 Newport Center Drive
Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Attn: Julic Hill
With a copy to: Latham & Watkins
650 Town Center Drive
Twentieth Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92656
Attn: Kenneth A. Wolfson, Esq.
A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter
notices shall bc addressed and transmitted to the new address.
25. Cooperation. City agrees that it shall accept for processing and promptly take
action on all applications, provided they arc in a proper form and acceptable for required
processing, for discretionary permits, tract or parcel maps, or other land use cmitlemcnt for
development of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. City shall
cooperate with Owner in providing expeditious review of any such applications, permits, or land
use cnti~cmcnt and, upon request and payment of any costs and/or extra fees associated
therewith by Owner, City shall assign to the Project planner(s), building inspector(s), and/or
other staff personnel as required to insure the timely processing and completion of the Project.
26. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms.
(a) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the
feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive.
(b) If there is more than one signer of this Agreement their obligatiom arc
joint and several.
t, woc~x464~6.7 30
(c) The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual
written consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of this
Agreement.
(d) This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and
benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person, including but
not limited to third party beneficiaries, shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
27. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto contain the complete,
final, entire, and exclusive expression of the agreement between the parties hereto, and is
intended by the parties to completely state the agreement in full. Any agreement or
representation respecting the matters dealt with herein or the duties of any party in relation
thereto not expressly set forth in this Agreement shall be null and void.
28. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each
of which so fully executed counterpart shall be deemed an original. No counterpart shall be
deemed to be an original or presumed delivered unless and until the counterpart executed by the
other party to this Agreement is in the physical possession of the party seeking enforcement
thereof.
29. Authority to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and represents that
he/she/they has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/her/their
corporation, partnership, business entity, or governmental entity and warrants and represents that
he/she/they has/have the authority to bind his/her/their entity to the performance of its
obligations hereunder.
~.woc~wo4~.7 31
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the authorized
representatives of the parties hereto.
"City"
City of Temecula
By:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Attest:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
"Owner"
Costain Homes Inc., a
(typed name)
Its President, CEO
By:~~
Brent C. Anderson (typed name)
Is: CFO, Vice President (title)
Lwoc~.7 32
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
On C~ 'C ~ tqq~ before ,ne,~,~'>6~,~.,~, ,a
nom~ public in and ~o~ State,
~rsomlly appeared
wi~in im~ment and acknowledged to me
......
n hich
the person(s) acted, executed ~e instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
notary public in and'fo sa~id State, i;ersonally appeared _t~e~.~ (~ ~-.,---~:k..~'r~,'r'-,'
,a
~he/they executed the same in~her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
hCis/~er/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which ,
Signatur~,,,(L~;~'xcJc, ~c~),~,_ ' (Sea])
Lwoc~.7 33
Exhibit A: Existing Development Approvals
General Plan:
Specific Plan:
Development
Agreement:
Land Divisions:
Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling
units/acre)
Ordinance No. 460, Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita
Village), City of Temecula Development Code (as of
2/9/96)
Development Agreement No. 5
Final Map No. 22916 and Final Map No. 22916-3
EXHIBIT B: EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS
Ordinance No. 348.2922
Ordinance No. 460.93
Riverside County General Plan
R:\STAFFRPTXI07PA94.PC 6/7/96 klb
EXHIBIT C - LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 1 through 13, inclusive, and 66 through 76, inclusive, of Tract 22916-3, recorded in
Book 225, Pages 57 - 64, Riverside County Records.
Lots 56 through 66, inclusive, of Tract 22916, recorded in Book 225, Pages 65-72,
Riverside Cotrely Records.
EXHIBIT D
REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement:
Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement
Specific Plan No. . ['Name of Develovmentl
Planning Application No.
Date:
To: City Clerk and Community Development Director, City of Temecula
Pursuant to Section 6Co) and (e) of the above-referenced Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement, request is hereby made by
as Mortgagee for the property (or pertion thereef) to receive
copies of any Notice of Default issued by City against Owner in accordance with the terms
and conditions of such Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement. Copies of
any such Notices should be mailed to the following address:
(Mortgagee)
(Person/Department)
(Address)
(City/State/Zip)
(Telephone No. )
A copy of this Notice should be fled with the project file to insure proper and timely
notice is given. Under the terms of said Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement, ~.s Mo~gage~ is entitled to receive copies of any Notice of
Default within ten (10) days of sending any such Notice to Owner. Failure to send any
such Notice may have serious legal consequences for the City.
This request is to remain in effect until revoked by as
Mortgagee or the Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement is terminated.
The person executing this document on behalf of said Mortgagee warrants and
represents that the entity he/she represents is a bonafide Mortgagee of said property and is
entitled to receive copies of Notices of Default under said Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement.
The undersigned declares the above information is true and correct under the penalty
of perjury under the laws of the State of California.
Dated: _, 1995.
MORTGAGEE
By:
[Nota~ required]
(signature)
(printed name)
(titie)
This Notice is to be sent to both the City Clerk and Community Development Director for
the City of Temecula at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 or such other
location as Temecula City Hall may be located in the future.
o~o~:4~76.x -2-
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPTH07PA94.PC 6/11/96 klb 3]-
CITY OF TEMECULA
PA94-0107 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TM 22916 & 22916-3
EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 17, 1996
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 17, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0092 (Variance)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- conditionally approving a
variance for three (3) seven foot high on-site directional
signs and denying a five (5) foot high monument sign on
Ynez Road.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Layton-Belling & Associates
REPRESENTATIVE:
Ssme
PROPOSAL:
A Variance from Ordinance No. 348 to allow three (3) seven foot
high on-site directional signs and one (1) five foot high monument
sign on Ynez Road
LOCATION:
Tower Plaza (west side of Ynez Road, north of Rancho California
Road)
EXISTING ZONING:
CC (Community Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
We st:
CC (Community Commercial)
HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial)/PO Professional
Office)
CC (Community Commercial)
OS (Open Space)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Shopping Center
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6112196 klb 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Embassy Suites Hotel
Interstate 15
Temecula Town Center Shopping Center
PROJECT STATISTICS
Directional Signs
Height: Seven (7) feet
Area: Twenty-eight (28) square feet
Monument Sign
Height: Five (5) feet
Area: Twenty-five (25) square feet
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted to the Planning Department on May 28, 1996. Staff has met
with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the Tower Plaza project and the associated
signage.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal for a variance from Section 19.4.c. of Ordinance No. 348 for the
maximum height and maximum surface area for directional signs and from Section 19.4.a.4 for
the overall number of free-standing signs permitted for a shopping center. Both requests have
been filed with one application.
ANALYSIS
Directional Signs
The applicant is proposing three (3) seven (7) foot high directional signs to be located within
the parking area for Tower Plaza (reference Attachment No. 3.E.), The proposed directional
signage area is approximately nine (9) square feet. Currently, several directional signs exist on
the site. These are slated for removal to be replaced with the proposed directional signs. There
is no limit to the number of directional signs under Ordinance No. 348. The maximum height
permitted is three (3) feet and the maximum area permitted is six (6) square feet. The proposal
exceeds both the height and area permitted. Tower Plaza is a multi-tenant development and
it is necessary to increase the size of the directional signs to allow identification for the tenants.
Free-standing Sign
The applicant is also proposing an additional free-standing sign for Tower Plaza along Ynez
Road (reference Attachment No. 3.F.). Under Ordinance No. 348, a shopping center is
permitted one (1) freestanding sign per street frontage. Two (2) free-standing signs currently
exist along Ynez Road and will be replaced with two new signs (reference Attachment No.
3.G.). This will allow adequate identification for the major tenants within the center. It is
R:\STAFFRPTX92PA96.PC 6/12/96 klb 2
common/typical for the major tenants t,o have identification at the street and smaller tenants
not to have the same identification opportunities.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The current zoning for the site is Community Commercial. This zoning is consistent with the
General Plan designation of Community Commercial.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the
project is a Class 11 Categorical Exemption from CEQA, Class 11 consists of the construction,
or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to ) existing commercial, industrial,
or institutional facilities, including but not limited to on-premise signs.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal for a variance from Section 19.4.c. for the maximum height and
maximum surface area for directional signs and a variance from Section 19.4.a.4 of Ordinance
No. 348 for the overall number of free-standing signs permitted for a shopping center. Staff
supports the variance for the directional signs; however, Staff does not support the request for
an additional monument sign on Ynez Road.
FINDINGS
Directional Signs
There are unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the Code due to
physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared by other
properties in the zone. Under the current regulations, the maximum height for a
directional sign is three (3) feet. The maximum area for a directional sign is six (6)
square feet. Unlike other commercial properties in the zone with a single tenant, Tower
Plaza is a multi-tenant development and therefore requires an increase in the size of the
directional signs to allow sufficient identification for the tenants.
The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by the
applicant. The applicant has recently acquired the property and has "inherited" the
current situation. The shopping center was built several decades ago and marketing
trends have changed over the years.
The Variance does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to
surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the
property of other persons located in the vicinity. The placement of three directional
signs will enhance circulation throughout the site. This will create a safer situation for
motorists and pedestrians. Under similar circumstances, Staff would be willing to
support similar requests from similar types of development in order to facilitate
circulation and public safety.
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/I2/96 klb 3
The Variance places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding
properties. Conditions of approval have been placed on the I~roject to insure that the
public health, safety and welfare are maintained. The project will not have an impact
on surrounding properties.
The Variance does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone. Signs
are a permitted use in the Community Commercial zone.
Freestanding Sign
There are no unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the Code due to
physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared by other
properties in the zone. Two free-standing signs currently exist along Ynez Road and will
be replaced with two new signs. This will allow adequate identification for the major
tenants within the center. It is common/typical in the case of multi-tenant properties
for the major tenants to have identification at the street and smaller tenants not to have
the same identification opportunities. In addition, two (2) freeway oriented signs
currently exist on site.
The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by the
applicant, The applicant has recently acquired the property and has 'inherited" the
current situation. The shopping center was built several decades ago and marketing
trends have changed over the years; however, two free-standing signs currently exist
along Ynez Road and will be replaced with two new signs. This will allow adequate
identification for the major tenants within the center. It is common/typical in the case
of multi-tenant properties for the major tenants to have identification at the street and
smaller tenants not to have the same identification opportunities.
The Variance would grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to
surrounding properties and will be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property
of other persons located in the vicinity. To allow additional signage on Ynez Road
would establish a precedent that would open up opportunities for similar requests. This
would provide opportunities for additional signage in excess of the maximum regulations
established to protect the public health, safety and welfare in terms of aesthetics.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 12
B.
C
D.
E.
F.
G.
Vicinity Map
General Plan Map
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Directional Sign Elevations
Monument Sign Elevations
Proposed "Replacement" Monument Signs
R:~1'Al~P,F~92PA96.1~C 6/13/96klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TI~IECULA CONDITIONALLY GRANTING
A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 19.4.C. OF ORDINANCE
NO. 348 FOR IltREE (3) SEVEN (7) FOOT HIGH
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND DENYING A VARIANCE FROM
SECTION 19.4.A.4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 348 FOR ONE (1)
FIVE (5) FOOT HIGH MONUMENT SIGN LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD (TOWER PLAZA) AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-270-011
WHEREAS, Layton-Belling and Associates filed Planning Application No. 96-0092
(Variance) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and
Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0092 (Variance) was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WIW~REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0092
(Variance) on June 17, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any. of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0092 (Variance);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Ejll.ajl~: That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving the Variance
for three (3) seven (7) foot high directional signs, hereby makes the following findings, to wit:
1. There are unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the Code
due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared by other
properties in the zone. Under the current regulations, the maximum height for a directional sign
is three (3) feet. The maximum area for a directional sign is six (6) square feet. Unlike other
commercial properdes in the zone with a single tenant, Tower Plaza is a multi-tenant development
and therefore requires an increase in the size of the directional signs to allow sufficient
identification for the tenants.
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/12/96 klb 6
2. The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by
the applicant. The applicant has recently acquired the property and has "inherited" the current
situation. The shopping center was built several decades ago and marketing trends have changed
over the years.
3. The Variance does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise
available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the
property of other persons located in the vicinity. The placement of three directional signs will
enhance circulation throughout the site. This will create a safer situation for motorists and
pedestrians. Under similar circumstances, Staff would be willing to support similar requests from
similar types of development in order to facilitate circulation and public safety.
4. The Variance places suitable conditions on the property to protect
surrounding properties. Conditions of approval have been placed on the project to insure that the
public health, safety and welfare are maintained. The project will not have an impact on
surrounding properties.
5. The Variance does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the
zone. Signs are a permitted use in the Community Commercial zone.
6. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, the placement of three (3) seven (7)
foot high directional signs, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Section 3. FirtailS. That the Temecula Planning Commission in denying the Variance
for one (1) five (5) foot high monument sign, hereby makes the following findings, to wit:
1. There are no unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the Code
due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared by other
properties in the zone. Two free-standing signs currently exist along Ynez Road and will be
replaced with two new signs. This will allow adequate identification for the major tenants within
the center. It is common/typical in the case of multi-tenant properties for the major tenants to
have identification at the street and smaller tenants not to have the same identification
opportunities. In addition, two (2) freeway oriented signs currently exist on site.
2. The Circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by
the applicant. The applicant has recently acquired the property and has "inherited" the current
situation. The shopp'mg center was built several decades ago and marketing trends have changed
over the years; however, two free-standing signs currently exist along Ynez Road and will be
replaced with two new signs. This will allow adequate identification for the major tenants within
the center. It is common/typical in the case of multi-tenant properties for the major tenants to
have identification at the street and smaller tenants not to have the same identification
opportunities.
3. The Variance would grant special privileges which are not otherwise
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/12/96 klb 7
available to surrounding properties and will be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property
of other persons located in the vicinity. To allow additional signage on Ynez Road would
establish a precedent that would open up opportunities for similar requests. This would provide
opportunities for additional signage in excess of the maximum regulations established to protect
the public health, safety and welfare in terms of aesthetics.
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is a Class 11 Categorical Exemption
from CEQA. Class 11 consists of the construction, or placement of minor structures accessory
to (appurtenant to ) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not
limited to on-premise signs.
Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies
a variance from Section 19.4.a. of Ordinance No. 348 for one (1) five (5) foot high monument
sign and hereby grants a variance from Section 19.4.c. of Ordinance No. 348 for three (3) seven
(7) foot high directional signs located on the west side of Ynez Road (Tower Plaza) and known
as Assessor' s Parcel No. 921-270-011, subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/12/96klb 8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96,PC 6/12/96klb 9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0092 (Variance)
Project Description: Variance from Section 19.4.c. of Ordinance No. 348 for three (3)
seven (7) foot high directional signs
Assessor's Parcel No,: 921-270-011
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
(-~78.00), to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public
Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062,
If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to
the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure to meet this condition.
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application No. PA96-0092 (Variance). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is
sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
The location of the directional signs shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, as
approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0092, or as amended by these conditions.
Directional Sign elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by
these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by
these conditions (color elevations).
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/I2/96klb l0
An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
The applicant shall receive clearance from the Department of Public Works and the
Building and Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/12/96 klb [ 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/12/96 klb ~2
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0092 (VARIANCE)
Ex~mrr A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 17, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/11/96 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - CC (COMMUNITY CO1VIIV~RCIAL)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0092 (VARIANCE)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 17, 1996
R:\STAFFRFr\92PA96.PC 6/11/96 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY
............... :.:.!~:Z:Z~:L-.- ............:::.:~,_.::...~,_.:,_.,. ......:.-::_.~-:.-..;:.:..;.-_~, ,..._..:.~:~:::::
". "i.E: ( "': i..,.-:~:~,!~;;; _ ..:.-..% i~~i.~::"""*'~i;~ ,;" ~, i
., '~-:-L'ZL:Z TZL-.--Z~ZZZZZ:;:ZZZEZZZ::.ZZZZZ::~7--L Z LZ,','L~
®
DIRECTIONAL SIGN LOCATIONS
MONUMENT SIGN LOCATION
PL.anNNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0092 WARlANCE)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 17, 1996
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\92PA96.PC 6/11/96 mf
EXHIBIT
CASE #
ITEM #6
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 17, 1996
Planning Application No. PA 96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track}
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the
Commission:
1.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
Planning
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA96-0075;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA96-0075;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96-__ approving Planning
Application No. PA96-0075 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0075 subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
McMahon-Oliphant Properties
John Potocki
The design, construction and operation of a two-story industrial
building for Plant Equipment.
Parcels 38, 39 and 59 of PM 21382 (Rio Nedo, south of Calle
Empleado)
LI (Light Industrial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
Not requested
R:~STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/ll/96klb
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BP (Business Park)
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Industrial/Manufacturing/Office
(BW/IP)
Vacant
building
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 2.99 net acres
Total Site Area:
Building Footprint Area: 30,240 square feet (gross)
Landscape Area: 28,331 square feet
Paved Area: 73,673 square feet
Parking Required: 139 spaces
Parking Provided: 171 spaces
Building Height: Twenty-eight (28) feet
BACKGROUND
This project was authorized as a Fast Track project on April 17, 1996 and a preliminary meeting
was held on April 29, 1996. The application was formally submitted to the Planning
Department on May 7, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on
May 16, 1996. The project was deemed complete on May 22, 1996.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Ran
The site plan meets the performance standards outlined in the Development Code (i.e,
circulation, architectural design, site planning and design and compatibility). Parking for the
project will be on the eastern and southern portion of the site. An employee lunch area has
been provided at the southeastern portion of the site. Loading will be at the rear of the site.
The applicant has done a good job addressing all of Staff concerns.
Development in Phases
The applicant will develop the interior of the building in phases. Phase I includes 30,176 square
feet of development on the first floor and 5,877 square feet of development on the second
floor. Phase II and Phase III of development each propose 8,064 square feet of
development/improvement on the second floor. They are anticipating developing portions of
the second floor of the building and have provided additional parking for the project.
R:\STAFI:RPT~75PA96.~C 6/I 1/96 klb 2
Elevations
The architecture is consistent with other buildings in the area. The building will be tilt-up
concrete, with reveals to break up the massing. The office portion of the building will be glass,
and the warehouse/manufacturing portion will be concrete. The entrance to the building has
been well defined. The applicant has done a good job articulating all facades of the building,
The building contains "knock-outs" which are concrete and are to be removed and replaced with
glass for offices at a future time.
Parcel Merger and Covenant for Easement
The project is being developed on three (3) parcels (Parcels 38, 39 and 59 of PM 21382). The
building is proposed to cross Parcels 38 and 39. The applicant will be required to record a
Certificate of Parcel Merger prior to the issuance of a building permit. Further, the applicant
will be required to record a Covenant for Easement pursuant to Chapter 17.26 of the
Development Code prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for reciprocal access
between the merged Parcels (38 and 39) and Parcel 59 (a parking lot and entrance/exit on to
Avenida Alvarado).
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are
permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the
Development Code. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park).
The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. The applicant
has done a good job in terms of design of the project and has been responsive to issues and
concerns raised by Staff.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance
No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 3
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has
determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation
measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the
project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Initial Study - Blue Page 17
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 36
Exhibits - Blue Page 43
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Color Elevations
G. Color and Material Board
H. Landscape Plans
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\STAFFRPTX75PA96.PC 6/11/96 I~lb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0075 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
FAST TRACK) TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY
INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON
THREE (3) PARCELS CONTAINING 2.99 ACRES LOCATED
BETWEEN RIO NEDO AND AVENIDA ALVARADO,
IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
CALLE EMPLEADO AND RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 909-290-038, 909-290-039
AND 909-280-059
WHE. REAS, McMahon-Oliphant Properties filed Planning Application No. PA96-0075
(Development Plan, Fast Track) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WtW. REAS, Banning Application No. PA96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0075
(Development Plan, Fast Track) on June 17, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in
opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Eiaaiag~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track) makes the following findings:
1. The prepesed use is in confonnance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City' s Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11196 klb 6
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health. safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
3. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are
not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
4. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0075
(Development Plan, Fast Track) as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed
site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. F. nvironmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track) to construct a two-story
industrial/office/manufacturing building on three (3) parcels containing 2.99 acres located between
Rio Nedo and Avenida Alvaredo, immediately south of the intersection of Calle Empleado and
Rio Nedo and known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 909-290-038,909-290-039 and 909-280-059
subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
R:\STAFFRPT~75pA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 7
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chair
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT~75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0075, (Development Plan, Fast Track)
Project Description: To construct a two-story industrial/office/manufacturing building
on three {3) parcels containing 2.99 acres
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 909-290-038, 909-290-039 and 909-280-059
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application No. PA96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track) which action is brought
within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division
13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., including but not by the way of limitations
Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any
claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or
cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any
of its officers, employees, or agents.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96,pC 6/11/96 klb 10
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, and
approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0075, or as amended by these conditions.
a. A minimum of one hundred seventy-one (171 ) parking spaces shall be provided.
b. A minimum of six (6) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided
c. Seven (7) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (elevations) and Exhibit F
(color elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by
these conditions (color and material board).
Materials
Color
Glass (storefront and windows)
Concrete (building)
Metal (roll-up and man door)
Concrete Knockout
Concrete Obelisk
Tile
Solar Grey
White
Light Grey
Medium Grey
Dark Grey
Brick Red
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these
conditions.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No, 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required
by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11. A Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be recorded for Parcels 38 and 39 of TM21382.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.lPC 6/11/96 klb 11
12.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
13.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing
fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover
page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
16.
A Covenant for Easement between all parcels shall be recorded between the merged
Parcels (38 and 39) and Parcel 59 pursuant to Chapter 17.26 of the Development Code.
17. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
18.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
19.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
20.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to ~he off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb I 2
21. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Planning Manager.
22. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
23. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
25. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in comptiance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
26. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
27. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
28. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
29. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
30. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
31. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
32. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
R:\STAFFRPTWSPA96.PC 6/ll/96klb 13
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
33.
A Gradin9 Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
34.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
35.
All grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency
with adjoining projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. Precise
Grading plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
36.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
37.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
38.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall
include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent
public and private property.
39.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
40.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
41.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing that the
grading and erosion control improvements are in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96,PC 6/11/96 klb 1 ar
42.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, or verification that such a fee has been previous paid for this lot,
prior to issuance of any permit.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
43.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City Standards subject to approval by
the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work
performed within the City right-of-way. The following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Commercial driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard
No. 207A.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Onsite curb and gutter shall be constructed per City of Temecula Standards Nos.
201 and 204.
Street outlets for onsite drainage shall be constructed per City of Temecula
Standard No. 301.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
44.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
45.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
46.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof,
the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving his/her right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 15
47.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
48.
The Developer shall construct all public and private improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
49.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
50.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
51.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance
No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated June 6, 1996, a copy of which
is attached.
52.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated May 22, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/ll/96klb 16
ht r
John F. Henni{ar
Linda M. Fregoso
May 22, 1996
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Planning Case No. PA96-0075
Water Availability, Parcels 38, 39, and 59
Parcel Map No. 21382
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Laurie Williams.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
wp96\SB:ebO60/FOI2/FEF
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Manager
ss r 90
(909) 694~444 · Fax (909) 694-t999
June 6, 1996
TO:
A'I'fN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMI~-NT
MATTHEW FAGAN
PLANT EQUIPM'F-NT
PA96-0075
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fn'e protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fu'e flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance
546. A fn'e flow of 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fife hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be
located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available
from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Depaflment for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
Dopanment approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company,
the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including f'u'e hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being phced on the
job site.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
TIlE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MIIST BE ~ PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete rue sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and rue
department connection shall be located to the from of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically rue sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans,
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted
to the Fire Depaxtment for appwval prior to installation.
Knox Key bck boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/snites are protected by a f'ue or
burgla~ alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Depmtment for approval prior to installation.
10. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
11.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum mting of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
12.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
13.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the buffcling with a contrasting background.
14.
Final conditions wffi be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
All questions regaxding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Plaxming and enginee (909)694-6439.
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
lo.
Project Title: Planning Application No. PA96-0075 (Development Plan)
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive. Temecula. CA 92590
Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400
Prqiect Location: Parcels 38.39 and 59 of PM 21382 (Rio Nedo, south ofCalle Empleado)
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: McMahon-Oliphant Properties, 9245 'C ' Brown Deer Road, San
Diego, CA 92121
General Plan Designation: BP (Business Park)
Zoning: LI (Light Industrial)
DescriptionofProject: To constructatwo-story, 36,000 square foot industrial/office/manufacturing
building on three (3) parcels containing 2.99 acres.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is located in a area that has been previously graded.
street improvements have been made and water and sewer have are within vicini~/of the project.
Other public agencies ~vhose approval is required: Riverside Connt3_l Fire Department, Riverside
County Health Department. Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District. Rancho
Califomia Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southem California Edison Company,
General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:\STAFFRPTX75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb ] 8
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages
Land Use and Planning [ 1 Hazards
Population and Housing [ ] Noise
Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
Water [ ] Utilities and Sere'ice Systems
Air Qualit3' [X] Aesthetics
Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
Energy_ and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
R:\STAFFRPT'xTSPA96.PC 6/ll/96klb 19
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
|rapact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incomerated
L~ss Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a Conflict with general plan designation or zoning'?
iSource l, Figure 2-1, Page 2-171
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Affect ag~cultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source l, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e Disrapt or divide the physical an'angement of an established
community (including low-income or minority' co~mnunity)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
prqjects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastracture)?
c. Displace existing housing~ especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rapture? (Source 1~ Figure 7-1, Page 7-6 )
b Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunarni, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
g Subsidence of the land?
h. Expansive soils?
1] 11 [l
[ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
[] [ ] [] [x]
l]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[] ix]
I [x]
] ix]
] [x]
[ ] ix]
[] [] [] ix]
[ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
[ ] Ix] [ I [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
[ ] [ ] [ I Ix]
[ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
[ ] Ix] [ ] [ ]
[ ] Ix] [ ] [ I
R:\STAFFRPTX75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 20
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
PotentialLy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
lncorporat~:l
Less Than
Signi~canl
Impact
Impact
1. Uinque geologic or physical features*?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems~ or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
b. Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards
such as flooding'? (Source 2, Figure 13. Page 95 and
,Source 21 Figure 30, Page 190 )
c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quali.t.t.ty (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body'?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either thzough
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aqutt~r by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h, Impacts to groundwater quality?
I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality. standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quali_ty violation'?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traff'~c congestion?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[1
l]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[xl
[I
[]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[x]
ix]
[xl
II
[xI
[I
[1
[]
ix]
ix]
Ix]
[x]
[1
[]
R:\STAFFRPTWSPA96.1~C 6/I1/96 klb 21
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
b Hazards to safety fi-om design features (,e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c ]nadequale emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d Insufficient parking capacity on-site or oil-site?
c Hazards or barnas IBr pedestrians or bicyclists?
f Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation {e.g bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)?
b Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak Ibrest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d Wetland habitat (e.g marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES,
Would the proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewal resources in a wastelhl and inefficient
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
] [I [XI
t [ ]
] [ ]
] [x] [ ]
] [1 [xl
[ ] [ ] Ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
[ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[] [] [1 IX]
[ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] [] [] Ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Signi~csnt
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant No
Impact impact
c The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard'?
d Exposure of people to existing sources ofpolential health
hazards?
c Increase fire heard in areas with llammable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a Increase in existing noise levels'?
b Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
sen'ices in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b Police protection7
c Schools'?
d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads?
e Other governmental services?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or suhstantial alterations to the following utilities:
a, Power or natural gas?
b Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water tieatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
g, Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
[ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
I I l1 [ l
[ ] [ I { ] {x1
l I [] Ix] [ ]
I ] [ ] [x] [ 1
I 1 [ ] [x] l 1
[ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
I ] [] [x] [1
I ] [ ] [x] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
[1 [] [] [xl
11 [] [] [x]
11 [] [] [xl
[ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
[1 [] [1 [x]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
R:\STAFFRPTX75PA96.PC 6/llt96klb 23
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impact
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic efl~ect?
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a Disturb paleontological resources?
b. Disturb archaeological resources'?
(Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283 )
c Affect historical resources?
d Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique elluric cultural values?
e, Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potentiaI
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities'?
b Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California histoD'
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
prc~jects, and the effects of probable future projects).
[1 []
[] []
I Ix]
[1
] []
[1 []
[] []
[] [1
]
I1
1]
[l
11
ix]
II
[xl
[x]
ix]
[ ] [ ] [x] I ]
[] [1 [1 Ix]
[ ] [ ] [ I Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 24
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potemially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significam
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
Impact
17.
d Does the prqlect have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly'?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
None
I]
[]
[l
R:\STAFFRPT~75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 25
SOURCES
City ofTemccula G-cneral Flan
Cit)' of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Repot~
South Coast Air Qualit)' Management Dislrict CEQA Air Qualit)' Handbook.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/ll/96klb 26
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent
with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park).
Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with
jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained
in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency,
Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project.
Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the
opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make
the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific
environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and
services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any
environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies
with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a
result of this project.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is currently
planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential
community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Population and Housing
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections. The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent
with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the
project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor
area ratio for Business Park, it will not be a significant contributor to population
growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or
indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation
of Business Park. The project will cause people to relocate to or within
Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth
in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project
site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFI~PT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 kll~ 27
Geoloaic Problems
3.b,
c,g,h.
The project will have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic
ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from
seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project
is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any
potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction
which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary
soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application
submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to
determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any
potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures
are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The
project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final
Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified
any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.f.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in
topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project
does not propose significant grading beyond that which has already occurred.
Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during
the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a
condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping
will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of
grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project,
modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be
considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper
compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique
geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
4,8.
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the
rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less
than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways, While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be
R:\STAFFRPT~75PA96.pC 6/II/96 klb 28
mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the
project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation
measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface
waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be
permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown
to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential
impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d,e.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of
surface water in any waterbody or impact currents, or to the course or direction
of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously
permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying hardscape and driveways. Surface drainage will be channeled to
Rio Nedo. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of
drainage into the Murrieta Creek will not considered significant. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f-h.
The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality
of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and
quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will
not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at
depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can
accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the
immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by
Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon
completion Of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Quality
5.8.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation. The project (52,180 square feet of
industrial/office/warehouse at buildout) is below the threshold for potentially
significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast
Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air
Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/ll/96klb 2(:)
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no
significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any
change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any
significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered
significant.
Transportation/Circulation
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however
it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute
less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak
hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Diaz Road and Rio
Nedo and Avenida Atvarado and Diaz Road. This is based upon analysis
conducted for similar type and scale projects in the vicinity of the project. The
applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility
fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are
performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project
is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety
from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with existing
and planned similar uses. The project is designed to current City standards and
has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to
nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has
completed a parking needs analysis based upon the uses proposed by this
project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces
provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
6.e.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.f.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA) and their response states: "The proposed project does not impact
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6111196
RTA facilities or services." No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
6.g.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none
exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Biological Resources
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no
native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of
plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no
indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not
reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or
deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to
mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally
designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan;
however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not
located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities.
Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.d.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland
habitat on-site or within proximity to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors.
The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Enerav and Mineral Resources
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws
pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will
be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-
renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an
increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of
nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural
R:~STAFFRI~T~75PA96.PC 6/ll/96klb 31
resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not
seen as significant.
8.c.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No
known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the
residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Hazards
The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous
substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are
proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or
disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of
substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of
Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive
their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use
of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact
an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained
street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency
evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health
laws during the plan check stage, No permits will be issued unless the project
is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health
hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse development
in an area of existing and future similar uses. The project is not located within
or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Noise
10.a.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels.
The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in
increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise
in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would
be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 32
lO.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable
of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered
very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8~hour exposure. This
source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered
significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for
new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase
the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share
to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers
of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not
result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the
Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of
California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a
result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be
considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the
proposed expenses.
11.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered
in I~roximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of mrs project.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have
an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have
indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas
(p. 39)," The FEIR further states: "'implementation of the proposed General Plan
would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the
site, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will
need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems, The drainage system
will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the
existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations
to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created
by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source
Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not
located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have
any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project
is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar
uses. The building is consistent with other high quality design in the area and
proposed landscaping will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The
project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature
results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the
Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent
with Ordinance No. 655 {Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
Cultural Resources
14.a,c.
The project will not have an impact on paleontological and historical resources.
The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity. Because of the previous
grading activity on the site and the limited scale of the project, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPTWSPA96.PC 6111196 klb 34
14.d.
14.e.
Recreation
15,a,b.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the
site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will
not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of
Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in
demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The
same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFRPT\?5PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 35
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA~6.PC 6/ll/96klb 3(~
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA96-0075 (Development Plan)
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Geologic Problems
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads
shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building
Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 37
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department
for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads
shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building
Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 38
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the
rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from ~ite so that it will not negatively impact
adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances. have been incorporated into
site design and will be included on the grading plans.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements
and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in
accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts.
Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00 and execute
agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works.
R:~STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6111196 klb 39
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee.
Pay pro-rata share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site.
Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use.
Install on-site parking spaces.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works, Planning Department and Building &
Safety Department.
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited
to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Interim Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $1,950.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/11/96 ldb 40
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services
regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for
fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of
service provision.
Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including
roads.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public
facilities.
Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00, and execute
agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Party: Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\7SpA96.FC 6/11/96 klb 41
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could
affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
R:x, STAFFRPT'x75PA96.PC 6/11/96 klb 42
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\75PA96.PC 6/ll/96klb 43
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
CASE NO. PA96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXIffRIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 17, 1996
VICINITY MAP
R:XSTAFFRPTX7SpA96.P~ 6/4/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI CLIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
OS
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
CASE NO. PA96-0075 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 17, 1996
R:\STAFFRFr\75PA96.1*C 6/4/96
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. PA96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT - D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 17, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. PA96-0075 (Development phin, Fast Track)
EX/IIRIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 17, 1996
ELEVATIONS
R:XSTAFFRlrF~75PA96.PC 614196 k~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. PA96-0075 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 17, 1996
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:\STAFFRFI'X75pA96.PC 614196 lab
ITEM #7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
All Planning Commission Members
John Meyer, Senior Planner ~
June 13, 1996
PA 96-0008, Development Plan for Hydro-scape, Inc.
Please refer to the blue line exhibits for Hydro-scape that were transmitted to you for the
Commission meeting of May 20, 1996. Please contact us if you need an additional set of
plans.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 17, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA96-0008;
2. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0008;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
PA96-0008 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0008 subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Robert Tiglio, Hydro-Scape Products, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Russell Rumansoff, Herron + Rumansoff, Architects, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
Design and construction of a 9,994 square foot
office/warehouse building and 28,200 square foot outdoor
storage area.
LOCATION:
South side of Enterprise Circle North, west of Jefferson
Avenue.
EXISTING ZONING:
Business Park (BP) [Manufacturing Service Commercial
(M-SC) at the time of project submittal]
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Business Park (BP)
Business Park (BP) and Service Commercial
(SC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
Business Park (BP)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
R:~STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 1
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel and Vacant
Parking Lot and Vacant
Commercial Center
Offices
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 1.75 acres
Total Site Area:
Building Area: 9,994 square feet
Landscape Area: 13,634 square feet
Paved Area: 24,998 square feet
Other Paved areas: storage yard 28,200 square feet
Parking Required: 13 spaces
Parking Provided: 31 spaces
Building Height: Twenty-eight feet (28')
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 20, 1996 to allow the
City Attorney time to review the issue of consistency with the Development Code. At the
meeting of May 20, 1996 the issue of a complete application was raised by the attorney. His
concern was that if the application had in fact been deemed incomplete, it would be
inconsistent with the Development Code and therefore could not be acted upon. Subsequently,
the City Attorney has reviewed the file and determined the application was complete.
Therefore the application, and in particular the use, is consistent with Ordinance 348 which
was in effect at the time the determination of completeness was made.
Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings were held on January 25, 1996 and March
7, 1996. Planning Application No. PA96-0008 was scheduled for Directors Hearing on April
25, 1996. At that hearing, staff recommended the case be heard by the Planning Commission
because there were four letters of opposition to the project. A special meeting was held with
the applicant and the Community Development Director on April 29, 1996 to clarify the City's
position on the appropriate level of design for the proposed building and landscaping
enhancements.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to design and construct a 9,994 square foot office/warehouse facility.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the project site will be landscaped. Parking will occupy the
fault hazard zone constrained portion of the site. A 28,000 square foot outdoor storage area
will be enclosed by an eight foot wall and fence combination to provide screening of the stored
contents. The project area has been previously graded. Enterprise Circle North has been
improved to its ultimate right-of-way and all utilities are at the project site.
ANALYSIS
Project Desion
The architecture is similar to other buildings in the area and features tilt-up concrete panels,
recessed reveals and windows to break up the massing. Parking for the project occupies the
fault hazard set-back area established by County Geologic Report No. 457. An employee lunch
area has been provided at the northern portion of the site. Loading will be at the west and
north sides of the building. The applicant has addressed most of Staff's concerns regarding the
building's design with the exception of the front entry statement and enhanced landscaping
treatment along the street.
Because of the proposed operation, the entrance has been located to the rear of the building.
Staff has requested a stronger architectural feature statement be incorporated into the
building's design to direct customers to the building's entry. Special design features such as
additional trees and vines will be required to break up the large building mass and enhance the
streetscape. Conditions of approval (#12 and #13) have been included to require these
revisions.
Letters of Ooposition
Staff has received four letters of opposition to the Hydro-Scape proposal. The project
opponents base their objection on the incompatibility with the existing bank, medical office, and
Jefferson Creek retail center. Opponents fear that outdoor storage will be a nuisance and cause
loss of property values. Moreover, the opponents cite traffic impacts and storage of potentially
toxic chemicals as a basis for denial of the project.
Staff has reviewed the project for compatibility with the surrounding area noting the
architectural design of the adjacent buildings. With the conditions of approval requiring
enhanced landscaping and architectural design, staff feels that the end product will conform
to the level of design in the local community. Other issues raised by the opponents suggest
that traffic will be an issue. The City's Public Works Department has reviewed the project for
traffic impacts and had determined that the project will contribute less than five percent of
traffic to Enterprise Circle North. The storage and use of toxic and hazardous chemical are
permitted in the Business Park designation. Hazardous chemicals usually identified with the
proposed land use consist of glues and solvents utilized in the welding of a variety of plastic
pipe. These chemicals will not be used on the premisses but will be offered for sale to local
contractors and home owners for use off site. Staff has concluded that the sale of these
materials does not constitute a threat to the community.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is BP (Business Park), However, because the project was submitted
prior to the implementation date of the Development Code (February 9, 1996) and new zoning
designations, it was determined that the case would be processed under the land uses
permitted by the M-SC zone. Ordinance No. 348 Section 11.2 relating to permitted uses in the
M-SC zone specifically permits building materials sales yards and warehousing and distribution
which would normally include the storage and use of toxic or hazardous materials.
R:\STAFFRPT~,gPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 3
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Typical uses in this
designation may include: light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply and wholesale
businesses. The project as proposed is consistent with the M-SC zone and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the M-SC zone. The applicant has
responded to issues and concerns raised by Staff with the exception of architectural details and
landscaping that would make this project conform to the same level of design exhibited by the
surrounding uses. Conditions of Approval will require the applicant to refine the architectural
elevations and landscaping.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: Ordinance 348, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these
effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the
project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
R:\STAFFRFI~\BPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 4
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 96-~ - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 21
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 38
Exhibits - Blue Page 45
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Landscape Plan
Letters of Opposition - Blue Page 46
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6/12196 slb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO1VINHSSION OF
THE CITY OF TEIVIECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0008 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT A 9,994 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, AND
WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.75
ACRES LOCATED AT 41581 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-281-026
AND 909-281-028
WHEREAS, Robert Tigilo fried Planning Application No. PA96-0008 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0008 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA96-0008
on May 20, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA96-0008
to June 17, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0008; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Eia0.iagl The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0008 makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances to include: Ordinance 348(Zoning Code), Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
R:\STAFFRPT~gPA96.pC2 6/12196 slb 7
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
3. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An
Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be
significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of
Approval added to the project.
4. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0008
(Development Plan) as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this ease because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 to construct a 9,994 square foot office, and warehouse
facility located at 41581 Enterprise Circle North and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-281-026
and 909-281-028 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 17th day of June, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June.
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 9
ATTACHMENT NO. A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96,PC2 6/12/96 slb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
Project Description: A Development Ran for a new 9,994 square foot warehouse with office
and storage facilities, a 28,200 square foot outdoor storage area and parking for 31 vehicles
and 4 bicycles.
Assessor's Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-281-026 and 909-281-028
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan) which action is brought within the appropriate
statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section
21000 et sea., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167}.
City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the
action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" approved
with Planning Application No. PA96-0008, or as amended by these conditions.
A. A minimum of 31 parking spaces shall be provided.
I~,:\STAFFRPT\8PA96.i~'2 6/12/96 slb 11
B. A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
Floor Plans and front and side elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit "B",
or as amended by these conditions.
The rear elevation shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C", or as amended by these
conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "D" or as amended
by these conditions.
Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit "E", or as amended by these
conditions.
All handicapped parking spaces shall be a minimum of 14 feet by 18 feet as required by
the City of Temecula Code.
All standard parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet as required by the
City of Temecula Development Code.
10, The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
11. All signage shall conform to Ordinance No. 348.
12.
The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans that show sufficient landscaping to
achieve the following: 1). Adequately screen the storage yard from view of the property
to the north of the Santa Gertrudus Creek. 2). Increase the landscaping on the south
and east planting areas adjacent to the building. 3). Increase the landscaping area on
the easterly side of the building, Landscaping plans shall be approved by the Planning
Manager.
13.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Manager for review and approval revised building elevations showing a stronger entry
statement.
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate, by submittal of a written report, compliance with the
Conceptual Landscape Plans for this stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
15.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required
by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
16. A copy of the grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6112196 slb 12
17.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
18.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecuia Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
19.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing
fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover
page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
20.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
21.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation
plans.
22.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
23.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the international Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
R:\STAFFRPT\SPAq6.PC2 6/12/96 slb 13
24.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning,
25.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
26.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
27.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
28.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code
29.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
30. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
31.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994),
32.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
33.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
34. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
35.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
36.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
37. Provide disabled access from the public way.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
38.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
39.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
40.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
41.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
42.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
43.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
44.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations
to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
R:~STAFFRPT\8PA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb I 5
45.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
46.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
47.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
48.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Del~artment of Public Works for review and approval.
49.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
50.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is subject
to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall
comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code and with the rules
and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
51.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets
for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply.
Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for
drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
52.
Improvement plans and/or Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment
Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. The
following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving,
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
R:%STAFFRPT\BpA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 16
53.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
54.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
55.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof,
the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed -~10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or
the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
56.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
57.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
58.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
59.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at
no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly
shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways,
improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the
project to further review and may require revision.
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 17
General Requirements
60.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
61.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
62.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjoining projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
63.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall
include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent
public and private property.
64.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
65.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
66.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
67.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing that the
grading and erosion control improvements are in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
68.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
69.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, or verification that such a fee has been previous paid for this lot,
prior to issuance of any permit.
R:~STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 18
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
70.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment
Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. The
following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
C,
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Street outlet for onsite drainage shall be constructed per City of Temecula
Standard No. 301.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
71.
The Developer shall construct or post security and execute an agreement guaranteeing
the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable
City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Sidewalk along entire property frontage of Rio Nedo and related improvements
including relocation of street trees and utilities.
72.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
73.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
74.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof,
the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
R;\STAFFRPT\BPA96.pC2 6/12/96 slb 19
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or
the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; provided that the Developer is not waiving his/her right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
75.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
76.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
77.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
78.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
79.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance
No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated April 17, 1996, a copy of
which is attached.
80.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth by the Riverside County
of Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated January 19, 1996, a copy of
which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:x, STAFFRPT\SPA%.PC2 6/12/96 slb 20
ss r ula. California 92590
(909) 694-~444 · Fax (909) 694-1999
Apdl 17, 1996
TO:
ATIN:
PLANNING DBPARTIVIENT
STEVE BROWN
HYDRO-SCAPE
PA96-0008
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fn'e protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum lure flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance
546. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be
located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required lure flow shall be available
from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum lure flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company,
the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fn'e hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically f~re sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fee alarm system. Plans shah be submitted
to the Fire Depaxtment for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings and electronic gates. If
building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the
Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are
protected by a fire or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
Blue dot re~ecWrs shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
f'tre hydrant.
Street address shallbe posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
17. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
La ra Cabral u
Fire Safety Specialist
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
JAN29
DATE: January 19, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2CE~ HARRISON, Environmental Health Specialist
III
PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0008
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA96-0008 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency.
b)
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture
schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Fond
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055
will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground stomge tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste reduction management.
CH:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health Clearance,
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC'2 6/12/96 slb 2 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Planning Application No. 96-0008 (Development Plan)
City of Temecula
43714 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Stephen Brown, (909) 694-6400
Project Location: Enterprise Circle North 500 feet north of Winchester Road
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Hydro-Scape Products, Inc
5808 Kearney Villa Road.
San Diego, CA 92313
General Plan Designation: Business Park (BP)
Zoning: Processed under the MSC zone
Description of Project: Construction of a 9,994 square foot office and storage building
and a 28,200 square foot outdoor storage area for landscape supplies.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located on a previously graded parcel
within an area of existing light industrial and commercial uses.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department,
Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal
Water District and Rancho California Water District.
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 22
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IX]
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ]
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 significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
[]
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 23
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project.
Stephen Brown, REA Project Planner
Januarv 23.1996
Date
R:~STAFFRPT\SPA96.FC2 6/12/96 slb 24
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (2)
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (3, p. 17.02-3)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (1, F5-4; p. 5-17)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including low-
income or minority community)? ( )
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively excee~ official regional or local
population projections? (1, F4-2, p. 4-5)
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( )
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (1, F7-1, p. 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking? (1, F7-1, p. 7-6)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(1, F7-2, p. 7-8)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e. Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
X
X
X
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6112196 slb 25
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
g. Subsidence of the land? (1, F7-2, p. 7-8)
h. Expansive soils? ( )
I. Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and mount of surface runoff? ( )
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (1, F7-3, p.
7-10 and 1, F7-4, p. 7-12)
Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
( )
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( )
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( )
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ( )
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
( )
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
Potentially
S~gnificant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Segnificant
Impact
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\8PA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 26
m
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
d. Create objectionable odors? (
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a,
Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(4)
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersection or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(3, pg17,24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( )
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( )
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals and birds)? (7 & 1, F 5-
3, p. 5-15)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (7 & 1, F 5-3, p. 5-15)
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (7 & 1, F 5-
3, p. 5-15)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (1, F 5-3, p. 5-15)
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1, F
5-3, p. 5-15)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Stgnificant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
S~gniflcant
Impact
X
NO
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\gPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 27
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
( )
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation)? ( )
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
( )
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( )
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( )
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ftammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? ( )
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( )
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection? (
b. Police protection? ( )
c. Schools? ( )
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
Significant
Impact
Less Than
S~gnificant
Impact
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPTX8PA96.PC'2 6112196 slb 28
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact Impact
e. Other governmental services? ( ) X
12, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ( ) X
b. Communications systems? ( ) X
c. Local or regional water treatment or X
distribution facilities? ( )
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) X
e. Storm water drainage? ( ) X
f. Solid waste disposal? ( ) X
g. Local or regional water supplies? ( ) X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
( )
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic X
effect? ( )
c. Create light or glare? ( ) X
14, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (2, F55, X
p .280)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (2, F56, p. X
283)
c. Affect historical resources? (2, p. 281) X
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change X
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( )
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within X
the potential impact area? ( )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or X
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
R=\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 29
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact incorporated Impact Impact
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( )
X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade X
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve X
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulativety considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063{c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
R:ISTAFFRPT~SPA96.PC~ 6/12/96 slb 30
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact incorporated impact impact
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project,
SOURCE LIST
1 - City of Temecula General Plan
2 - City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
3 - City of Temecula Zoning Map
4 - City of Temecula Development Code
6 - Geotechnical Investigation on the Wildomar Fault, Parcel Map 19582-2 Rancho California
area, Riverside County, CA,
R:~STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC2 6/I2/96 db 3 1
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an in-fill
Development Permit and will occupy the site which is currently Vacant. There is an
established commercial and light industrial concentration at this site. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Population and Housing
2.b.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly.
The project is in-fill development and will occupy the site which is currently vacant.
While the project could conceivably cause a few people to relocate to the Temecula
area, the project will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3.a.b.e.
Any development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards
since the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active.
Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is
consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. The project has been designed to
avoid the fault hazard zone identified by County Geologic Report prepared for the
underlying Parcel Map No. 19582-2. information contained in the City of Temecula
General Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the
project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or
mudslides. No known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The
same is true for mudslides.
3.c,g.
The project is identified by the General Plan as an area susceptible to liquefaction and
subsidence. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through mitigations recommended
in the slope stability report, geotechnical studies, prepared for this site and through
the requirements of the Uniform Building Code standards.
3.d.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The
project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur.
3.f.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in
topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and will therefore
require minimal grading for the project. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both
on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project
may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques
will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape
and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the
amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project,
modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered
significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be
mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils.
R:\STAFFRPT\8PA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 32
Water
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate
and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered
impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways.
While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, any potential impacts can be
mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project
to safely and adequately handle the runoff which will be created.
4.b.
The project is located within the limits of the lO0-year flood plan. To mitigate any
potential impacts, a buildings will be required to be build above the flood elevation.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters
and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the
project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of
Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the
NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than
significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d.e.
The project will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any
waterbody, impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. No
major waterbodies are located in the subject project area.
4.f-h.
The project will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. No
changes will occur in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions,
withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Further, the
project will not result in an altered direction or rate of flow of groundwaters or in
impacts to groundwater quality. Construction on the site will not be at depths
sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters.
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists at
the project site. Additional water service will need to be provided by Rancho California
Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Quality
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
project air quality violation. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating
any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no sensitive
receptors in proximity to the project.
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 33
5.c.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change
in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant
impacts on the environment in this area.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips and may add
to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that the project have a less than five (5) percent
increase to the nearest intersection (Enterprise Circle North and Winchester Road)
during peak travel hour. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation
fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project.
6.b.c.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is in-
fill within an existing industrial area. Further, the project is designed to current City
standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. A
sidewalk exist on the site along Solana Way and Ynez Road. Hazards or barriers to
bicyclists have not been identified as part of the project.
6.g.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists
currently in the immediate proximity of the project.
Energy and Mineral Resources
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.
The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to
energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the
project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the
rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s)
(construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the
subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of
the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known
mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the
State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Hazards
9.a.c. The project will not include the storage of petroleum based or other hazardous
products in large quantity.
R:\STAFFRPT\aPA96.PC2 6/12196 slb 34
9.b.
9.d.
9.e.
Noise
lO.a.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an
emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and
will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No
health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with fl,ammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard
area.
The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently
vacant and any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels
during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run.
The project site is located within an industrial area. There are no sensitive receptors
located in the area,
lO.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of
producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very
annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source
of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new
or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for
fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance
of service provision from these entities.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new
or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people
to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or
altered school facilities. This project may be required to pay school mitigation fees
prior to the issuance of building permits (this determination will be made by the
Temecula Valley Unified School District). No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the
Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California.
Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of
development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered
significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6112196 slb 35
11.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered to the
site.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.).
12.c.
The project will have a less than significant effect in the need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an
ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR
further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly
impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There
are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to storm water drainage. The project is in-fill, and will need to provide
some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a
condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system.
12.f,
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this
development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and
Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City.
12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is in-fill and
is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have
any designated scenic highways.
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.pC2 6/12196 slb 36
13.b.
Although the project is considered infill in nature, the size and lack of articulation of
the building mass will created a negative aesthetic environment. Mitigation measures
and the conditions of approval will be instituted that will create a similar level of
design compatible with the surrounding area and thus mitigate against the negative
aesthetic effect.
13.e.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project
will produce and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results in new
light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory, The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655
(Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution).
Cultural Resources
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values. None exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
ReCreation
15.a,b. The proposal will not result in ~mpacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people
to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts to the
quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities,
R:\STAFFRPT~gPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 37
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPT\SPA96.PC2 6/12/96
<
z
Z
Z
z ~ ~
< < <
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPTXSPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 45
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
/
t
\
\
LIB
BEST
WESTERN
'\, TEMECULA -
\ '-.~ ,~ ~_
A
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
O
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
~P
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFP, PT~SPA96,PC15/2/~
CITY OF TEMECULA
'1
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
LANDSCAPE PLANS
R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC1 512196 slb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
LETTERS OF OPPOSITION
R:\STAFFRPT\gPA96.PC2 6/12/96 slb 46
Jefferson Creek, Ltd.
273 11 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (909) 676-7177/676-6168 / FAX (909) 699-0048
April 18, 1996
Mr. Stephen Brown
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: PA 96-0008 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC.
........
Dear Mr. Brown,
I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing concerning the proposed development referenced
above.
I represent of Jefferson Creek, Ltd., which owns the adjacent shopping center known as Jefferson
Creek. Our project is a high quality, retail development with tenants such as Richie's Real
American Diner, Filippi's Pizza, Making Waves Hair Salon, Jarvinen Travel, CDM/Westmar
Commercial Real Estate and others.
We are strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons:
The use is incompatible with the surrounding development in North Jefferson Business
Park, which includes our property. It is immediately adjacent to office buildings, medical
office buildings, First Pacific National Break, and similar uses. The proposed use is
clearly an industrial use.
The proposed use will have a high concentration of outside storage. According to the site
plan that I have reviewed, the building consists of 9,994 sq. ft. with outside storage of
27,830 sq. ft. The storage yard is the predominant use. I have enclosed for your review
photographs of the Hydro-Scape building and yard located in Escondido so you can get
some sense of what type of use it really is. We believe the photographs graphically
illustrate that the use is incompatible with the existing development surrounding the
project.
Mr. Stephen Brown
April 18, 1996
Page 2
In summary, we believe the proposed project will adversely impact surrounding properties. We
request that this proposed project be denied on the basis of its incompatibility with surrounding
uses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
JEFFERSON CREEK, LTD.
CO-MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER
,
Fred D. Grimes
FDG:jss
copy: Mark Esbensen
Jack Raymond
i,
Z
,/
John C. Raymond
P. O. Box 3295
Escondido, CA 92033-3295 U.S.A.
April 19, 1996
Arts 'd ............
Director of Planning
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Case No. PA96-0008;
Hydroscape Products, Inc.
Gentlemen:
I am strongly OPPOSED to the above proposed development plan and I am amazed that
staff has recommended approval. North Jefferson Business Park, in which this project is proposed,
is comprised primadly of professional office uses in an "up-scale" environment. The Jefferson
Creek retail center, immediately adjacent to the east, is an expensive, neat, well maintained facility
which would be greatly damaged by this proposed project dominated by a most inappropriate
outdoor storage area.. It is incompatible to all of the surrounding uses, depreciates property values
of nearby properties, and represents unsound land planning and use.
The use proposed belongs more appropriately in an industrial park area or at least away
from quality office and commemial uses.
Please be advised that as an investor in the Jefferson Creek Center I will suffer economic
harm and damages if this project is approved. We assert that there is significant environmental
harm which may ensue and that not all environmental impacts have been appropriately considered
or reviewed. We contest the negative declaration determination on numerous grounds, including
but not limited to traffic impacts, incompatible uses, storage of potentially toxic chemicals, and
adverse economic impact on surrounding properties.
' I urge immediate rejection of this plan and proposal,
cc: Lounsbery, Ferguson, Esquire
John C. Raymond
FIRST PACIFIC N;,ONAL
BAN/,,
Administrative Offices,' 613 H~ Valley Parkway, Escondido, California 92025-2597 (619) 741-3312
April 25, 1996
Mr. Stephen Brown
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: PA 96-0008 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC.
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing concerning the proposed development referenced above.
I represent First Pacific National Bank which owns the existing high-quality bank/office building located
adjacent to the proposed development as well as the two lots now being developed into additional parking
and available parcels next to the bank.
We are strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons:
1. The use is incompatible with the surrounding development in North Jefferson Business Park,
which includes our property. It is immediately adjacent to office buildings, medical office
buildings, a high-quality retail center and similar uses. The proposed use is clearly an industrial
use.
2. The proposed use will have a high concentration of outside storage. According to the site plan
that I have reviewed, the building consists of 9,994 square feet with outside storage of 27,830
square feet. The storage yard is the predominant use. This is not compatible with the
surrounding existing development of office/medical building and retail centers.
In summary, we believe that the proposed project will adversely impact surrounding properties. We
request that this proposed project be denied on the basis of its incompatibility with surrounding uses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Executive Vice President/COO
MJP:jff
FAX.' (6 19) 74 1-7381
RECEIVED
APP, 2 9 1998
FAMILY ENTERPRISES
4607 MISSION GORGE PL., SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 - TEL.: (619) 287-8873 - FAX (619) 287~24~
April 22, 1996
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Re:
Hydroscape Products, Inc.
Plot Plan Development Plan Submittal No. PA96-0008
To Whom It May Concern,
We own 41593 Winchester Road and 27315 Jefferson Avenue, which are located one lot
over from this proposed use. We feel Hydroscape is a great company but it's use does not
fit into an office and retail park. As you know most of the office and retail projects in this
park have been given back to the banks. As one of a handful of owners that have hung
in here the last thing we need is to compete with other projects in Temecula that have
outside storage next to their building.
Let's bring Hydroscape to Temecula but in the appropriate place, not in an office park.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
CASTE~,R,/EAMI).Y ENTERPRISES
Brian R. Caster
Chief Executive Officer