HomeMy WebLinkAbout082594 PTS AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TO BE HELD AT
CITY HALL
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California
Thursday, August 25, 1994 - 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COMMISSIONERS: Perry, Sander, Guerriero,
Johnson, Coe
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commission on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Commission 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 you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items, a 'Request to Speak' form must be filed with the Recording
Secretary before the Commission gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for
individual speakers.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission request specific items be removed
from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of July 28, 1994
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Minutes of July 28, 1994.
(Continued to the meeting of September 22, 1994)
1.1
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Existina Ordinance ReeardinQ City Advertisina Reoulations
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and comment on the City of
Temecula, Planning Department existing Sign Ordinance.
3. Caltrans Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Reaardincl Access Configurations to
State Route 79 (SR79)
RECOMMENDATION:
3, 1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend approval of the draft
MOU regarding access to SR79.
4. City of Temecula - Street Closure or Modification Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and comment on the draft
Street Closure or Modification Policy.
5. Traffic Engineer's Report
6. Police Chief's Report
7, Fire Chief's Report
8. Commission Report
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held
on Thursday, September 22, 1994at 7:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Main Conference Room,
43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ITEM NO. I
ITEM NO. 2
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: Marty Lauber, Traffic Engineer ~
DATE: August 25, 1994
SUBJECT: Item 2
Existing Ordinance Regarding City Advertising Regulations
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and comment on the City of Temecula,
existing Sign Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
The Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission has formed a subcommittee to study traffic
operations on Jefferson Avenue from Sanborn Avenue to Via Montezuma. The subcommittee
feels the Planning Department should take input from the subcommittee and incorporate this
input into the City's new sign ordinance when it is prepared, It is the subcommittee's feeling
that this input could assist the Planning Department in preparing a sign ordinance that will
lessen the potential for collisions along Jefferson Avenue south of Winchester Road.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment: Ordinance 348 - Advertising Regulations
ARTICLE XIX
ADVERTISING REGULATIONS
SECTION 1g.1. PURPOSE AND INTENT. Because Rtverslde County ts a large,
dtverse end raptdly expanding Jurisdiction the Board of Supervisors finds that
proper st96 control ts necessar/to profide for the preservation and protection
of open space and scentc areks, the many fiefurl1 end man4ade resources, and
established rural cgnmuntttes withtn RIverside County. It ts tM tntent of
this ordinance to profide standards to safeguard 11fl, health, property and the
publlc wellires to protiM the means for adequate identification of businesses
end other sign users by prohibiting, regulating and controlling the design,
location end maintenance of st ns, end to provt~e for the removal and
limitation of use of signs witgin the untncorporated area of RIverside County.
All outdoor advertising displays end on-stte adverttst structures end signs
in the unlncorporated area of the County of Riverside ~all confom to the
applicable provlstons of this article. If any spectflc zoning classification
withtn this ordinance shall impose mere stringent ~treaents then ere set
forth within thts article, the more stringent prorislonS shall prevatl.
lended Effective:
07-16-85 (Ord. 348.2496)
SECTION 19.2. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of thts ordnance, the following
words or phrases shall have the following definitions.
a. "Outdoor Advertising Dtsplay" means outdoor advertising structures and
outdoor advertising stgns used for outdoor advertising purposes, not
including on-stte advertising signs as heretnafter defined, An
outdoor advertSsin dtsplay m~y be ceamonly knmm or referred to as an
"off-st re" or an o~f-prmt ses" b~llboard.
"Outdoor Advertising Structure' means I Structure of aqy ktnd or
character erected or maintained for outdoor advertising purposes, upon
which any poster, .bill, printing, patnttng or other advertisement of
any Idnd whatsoever may he placed, including statuary, for outdoor
advertising purposes. Such structure shall he constructed or erected
upon a pemanent foundation or shall he attached to a structure having
a peruanent foundation.
· Outdoor Advertising Stgn" means any card, cloth, paper, metal,
patnted, plastic or wooden sign of any character placed for outdoor
advertising purposes, on or to the Found or Iny tree, wall, lash,
rock, fence, bull(flag, structure or tMn9, etther prtvltely or
publtcly owned, other than an advertising structure.
d. The words 'Outdoor Advertising Structure" and 'Outdoor Advertising
Sign" is defined in subsections (b) end (c) do not tnclude:
1. Offtotal notices tssued by any court or publtc bo~ or officer;
242
2. Notices posted by any public officer tn perromance of a public
duty or by any person tn giving legal nottee;
3. Directtonal, warntrig or lnfomatton structures requtred by or
luthortzed by law or by Federal, State or County authority;
Including signs necessl~/for the operation and safety of public
utt 1 t ty uses.
4. A structure erected near a city or county boundary, ahtch contains
the nmae of such city or county and the nlals of, or a~y other
tnfomatton rlfarcHfig, civic, fraternal or religious organizations
located theretn.
· On-site Advertising Structure and $tgns" means any structure,
houstng, sign deface, figure, statuarT, painting, display, Beesage
placard, or other contrivance, or any part thereof, Vdich ts designed,
constructed, created, engineered, Intended, or used to advertise, or
to provide data or tnfomatlon tn the nature of advertising, for any
of the following purposes:
(1) To designate, identify, or indicate the name of the business of
the tamer or occupant of the prmtsee upon whtch the Structure or
Stgnts located,
(2) To advertise the bustness conducted, serFices available or
rendered, or the goods produced, sold, or available for sale,
upon the premises where the structure or stgn Is located.
f. "Freeway" means a diFided aftertel htghwly for through traffic wtth
full control of access and wath grade separations at intersections.
"Highway" means roads, streets, boulevards, ]ames, courts, places,
cmrnons, tratls, ways or other rights-of-way or eesanents used for or
laid out end Intended for the publlc passage of vehtcles or of
vehicles and poisons.
h. "Edge of a RIght-of-we.y" means a measu~eaent froa the edge of a
centerline of the free~ay ~Tg
t. "Nextmum Height" means the htghest potAt of the structure or stgn
measured frm the average nature1 ground level at the bose of the
supporttng structure,
· Free Standing Stgn" means any sign ihtch ~s supported by one or more
colLens or uprights 1robeddad In the ground, and .hlch ts not attached
to an~ bo11ding or structure.
· Surface Area" means that area of outdoor advertising s~gns and
on-stte advertising stgns as measured b~ the s~allest geemetric foe
such aS a square, rectangle, iraangle, or ctrcle, or cmbtnatton
thereof, ~hich ~111 encompass the face of the stge on ihtch the
message ts displayed.
243
1. advertising that the
located ts for sale,
· For Sale, Lease or Rent Stgn" means a stgn
property or structure upon whtch the stgnts
lease, or rent.
"Shopping Center" means a parcel of land not less than 3 acres In
stze, on whtch there extsts 4 or more separate business use that have
mutual porktng fact11Ues.
n. "DIrect(one1 Stgn" mains I stgn used to dtrect end conare1 vehicular
or pedestrian traffic that ts located upon the same larcel of land as
the use that ttts tntendod to serve.
o. 'SIgnificant Resources" Beans any county, state or fed~ra] stte whtch
has significant or potentially significant soctal, cultural,
historical, Irchleolog~cal. recreational or scentc resources. or ,htch
plays or potentially could play a significant role
tn promot ng
tourtsfil. For the purposes of thts arttcle, the ten, significant
resources shall tnclude, but not he 11tilt ted to, the following:
R1verstde Nattonal Cemetery. A str~D, 660 feet tn ~tdth, fileasured
fra~ the edge of the right-of-way 1the on both stdes of
the Intersection of Van Burart Boulevard southerly to Nance Road,
and on both stdes of Van Buren Boulevard frm the lnterlectlon of
Z-Z:~5 westerly to Mood Road.
Z.Scenic Highways.
3. A corridor 500 feet In vtdth ad3acent to both sides of
htghways w~thtn three-tenths (3/ZO) of a mtle of any Regional,
State or Federal pork or recreation area.
· $centc Highway" means any officially dostgnated state or county
scenic highway as defined In Streets and Htghwty Code Sections Z54 and
261 et seq.
q. "Zllegaq Outdoor Advertising Dtsplly" means any of the folioring:
(:~) An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising stgn
erected wlthout first complying wtth ell applicable county
ordinances end regulations tn effect at the ttme of Its
construction, erectton or use.
(2} An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising stgn that
was legally erected but whose use hie ceased, or the structure
upon whtch the advertising dtsplly ls placed has been abandoned
by 1as owner, Ind not Belntelned or used for e Fertod of not lies
than one (t) year.
(3) An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising stgn that
t
wee legally erected wh ch later becme nonconfomlng as I result
of the adoptton of in ordtnence; the emortlzatlon pertod for the
.tspl ly protided by the ordinance rendering the allsplay
nonconfomtng hie expl red; and conromance has not been
~1 t s had.
accomplish
(4) An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertlstn sign
t not camply ~th the Nottce of Derision or t~e approved
wh ch does
plot plan.
244
An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign
which is a danger to the public or ts unsafe as may be determined
by the Director of the But] dtng and Safety I)eperment.
An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising stgn
whtch ts a traffic hazard as may be datemined by the Dtrector of
the Buildtrig and Safety Department preytried satd traffic hazard
was not created by the relocatton of streets or htghways or by
acts of the County.
r. "Zllegal On-Site Advertising Structure or Sign" sans any of the
fo]I wtng.
(1) An on-stte advertising structure or slgn erected ~tthout first
ccmplJrlng ~tth al1 applicable County ordtnancas and regulations
in effect at the time of Its construction, erection or use.
(2) An on-stte advertising structure or sign that was legally
erected, INt whose uses has ceased, or the structure upon which
the advertising a~spl~ ts placed has been abandoned by 1Is
owner, and not maintained or used to tdenttfy or advertise an
ongotng bustmess for a period of not less than ntnety (90) da3~.
(3) An on-site advertising structure or stun that was legally erected
which later became nonconforming as i result of the adoptton of
an ordinance; the amortization parted for the d~splay provtdad by
the ordinance rendering the dtsplay nonconfomtng has explred;
and confermince has not been acceapltshed,
(4) An on-site advertising structure or sign whlch ts a danger to the
b t
pu ltc or is unsafe as may be datemined by the D rector of the
Bull ~tng and Safety Oeparment.
(5) An on-site advertising structure or stun which is a traffic
hazard as may be dotemined by the I)trector of the Butl dlng and
Safety DeparUnent provided satd traffic hazard was not created by
the relocatlon of streets or highways or by acts of the County.
· Abandoned" means el that:
(1) Any outdoor advertising dfsplly that is allowed to contlnue for
more than one (1) J~ar ~theut a poster, bt11, printing,
painting, or other fom of adverttsment or message; or
(2} Any outdoor adverttstn dtspl that does not appear the
Inventory reclulred by Lcttonl~g.3.a.(15); or on
(3) A~y on-stte advertising structure or sign that ts alleyed to
continue for mere thin ninety (90) dVs Mtheut a poster, b111,
printing, painting, or other form of advertising or message for
the purposes set forth tn Section Zg.2.e hereof.
/mended Effect1
06-20-89
SECTZON 19.3. OUTDOOR ADVERTZSZNG DzSPLAY$. No person shall erect or
· .in.in .n outdoor .d.rti st., ,sp, ay ,. the?.
County of RIverside, except tn Iccordance dth
245
The changtng of an advertising message or custmsry maintenance of a
legally extstlng outdoor advertising d~spl~y shall not require a permit
pursuant to thh sectton.
a. Standards,
Z. Zontng. Outdoor advertising display are permitted onl.v tn the
C-Z/C-P, Iq-$C, Haq ~nd H-H zonts Ind providing only that the
dt splay meets el 1 of the other requt r~aents of the zontng
classification end thts article. Outdoor advertising cltspla.vs are
expressly prohibited tn all other zones.
2. Spattrig. No outdoor advertising titsplay shall be 1ousted wtthtn
five hundred (500) feet tn e~y erection frm any other outdoor
advertising dtspli~ on the sine stdo of the htgh~ty; provided,
however, that If tn a particular zone a different interval shall
be stated, the spacing tnterval of the particular zone shall
h
preys11, No outdoor advertising titsplay shall be erected ~t in
the boundary of any significant resource as defined in Section
Zg.2,o. of this ordinance, No outdoor advertiSIng display shall
however, that an outdoor advertising d~splly ely be pllced ~thln
one hundred (:L50) feet of property for ~htch zoning does not-allow
displays, if at the ttme an application for In outdoor advertising
dtsplay permtt is applted for, there ts no extsttng residential
structure or an appleveal butldtng pemtt for a residential
structure ~thin one hundred fifty it50) feet of the location of
the proposed outdoor advertising dhplly.
3. He~ hi. The maximum height of an outdoor advertising d~spla.v
sha~l not exceed a height of t~enty-flve (25) feet frm the
roadbed of the adjacent freeway or htghw~y to which the d~splay is
oriented, or a maxtm~ height of twenty-five (25) feet frm the
grade on which it is constructed, whichever is greater.
4. Poles. A maxtram of t~ (2} steeq pales are alloeed for support
of an outdoor advertising d~sple.v.
5. Roof Nounts. No outdoor advertising titsplay shall be aff xed on
or over the roof of any botld~ng and no dhpl~ shell be affixed
to the wall of a bJtld~ng so that tt Jects above the parapet of
t
the bu 1cling, For the purposes of thslc~°sectton, I mlnsard sVle
roof shall be considered a parapet.
per t ~ pemttted.
7. Setbacks, No outdoor advertising cllsplly shell be erected ~lthtn
an estabqtshed setback or butld~ng ltne, or uqthtn reid
rtght-of-w~y lines or future road rlght-of-w~y 11ne~ as shown on
k ,h.
8. Nmher of Display Faces. No more than be (2) d¶splly faces per
outdoor advertising dlspla shall be permitted. Back-to-back an
V-t.ype dlspllys shall be :{1owed prey dad that the~y are on the
see o, tdoor advertising structure an~ provided that the V-type d
246
dtsplays have a separation between titsplay faces of not more than
twenty-five (25) feet.
Ltghttng and Illumination of l)tsplays. An outdoor Idvert~stng
dlspl mty be 111rotnat,d, unless othervise ,
file.ant, or statler source of 1liStnation ts Hstble be.vond the
dtsplly face. Dtsplty maktng use of 11ghts to convey the effect
t 1
of movanent or fllshtng, tntemtttent, or variable tntens t~ she1
not be permitted. Dtaplly shell use the most edvanced methods to
tnsure the most ene efficient methods of dtspl~y t11mtnatton.
iitthtn the Palomar 0r~LYservatory $pectal Ltghttng Area, all displays
shell cmply elth the reclutments of RIverside County 0rdtnance
No. 655.
Dtsplay Novmeet. No outdoor advertising dtspllys shall move or
rotate, to dtspl~ any moving and/or rotattn9 pare. No
propellers, flags, or Other nots, creattng devtces, and no
architectural ebelltsMents whtch uttllze mechanical or natural
forces for morton, shall be pemttted. Use of dayltght reflective
materials or electronic message hoards ustng flashing,
tntemtttent or mort rig 11ght or 11ghts ts I~ohtblted. provided,
however, that electronic message boards displa~tng only ttme
and/or temperature for pert otis of not less than thtrty (30)
seconds ts pemttted.
1]. DIsplay Face SIze. No outdoor advertising dtsplay shell have a
total surface area of more than three hundred (300) square feet.
12. Outdoor Advertising Dtsplay Pemtt Required. No person shall
eroct, alter, repatr, or relocate any outdoor advertising titsplay
4.
vlthout fl~st obtatntn an outdoor adve~ttstn cllsplly pemtt
pursuant to RIverside ~ounty Ordinance No. 45~. No outdoor
advertising display pemtt shell be tssued unless and unttl the
Butldtng Dtroctor determines that the proposed actlvtty ts tn
accordance vlth thts Arttcle and RIverside ts tn accordance idth
thts Arttel, and RIverside County Ordinance No. 457, and that the
applicant has obtatned a valtd State Outdoor Advertising peaft.
Identification. No person shall place, erect, or materate an
outdoor advertising display and no outdoor advertising dlsplly
shall be placed, erect, or maintaining aNNhere wlthln the
untncor~orated area of Rherstde Coun unless thero ts securely
fastened thereto end on the front dtspt~ly face thereof, the name
of the outdoor advertising dtspl~y miner In such i manner that the
nan, ts vtstble free the htghvay. Any titsplay placed, erected, or
maintained vtthout thts Identification shell be demed to be
placed, erocted, and maintained tn violation of th¶s sectton.
Nob11, DIsplays. No person shall place maintain, m' otherYtse
allow a mabtle vehicle, trailer, or other advertising dtspl~y not
pemanently affixed to the ground, Is defined tn Sectton 19.;.b.
of thts ordinance, to he used as an outthor advertising dtspl~y.
15. Dtsplay Inventor . Zn order to evaluate and assess outdoor
edverttstng dlspTa~s ~tthfn the untncorporeted am of RIverside
County, vtthtn one hundred e(ghty (180) d~ys of the effecthe date
247
of this orefinance and on each fifth (5) annt versar~ after the
effective date of this ordinance, each dtsplly cropany w~th
outdoor advertlain eftsplays ~lthtn the untncorporated area of
RIverside County s~all sulztt to the Departsent of Building end
Safety, a current Tn,ntory Of the outdoor ad,rttslng displays
they currently mm md/or maintain ~tthtn the unlncorporated area
of RIverside County. Fatlure to subett a curr~nt or accurate
Inventory shell be ~ee, ed to be a se~ara~ violation of this
ordtnance.
Proces$tng Procedure.
1. Application. In ~dditton to all other applicable Federal. State,
ind local llws, rules, rqulattons and ordinances, rio outdoor
advertising display shall be placed or erected unit1 a pemtt
therefore has been tssued by the RIverside County Planning
Director, on the form provtded by the Planning Deparment
accanpanted by the filing fee set forth tn Ordinance No. 67:1 and
meettng the requireants of Sectton 18.30 of thts ordinance. Sstd
application shall also constst of ton (10) coptes of a Plot Plan
dra~n to scale, containing the nine. address or tolephone n.nber
of the applicant, a copy of the Current valid State Outdoor
Advertising Pemt t, and a general duscrtption of the property upon
whtch the outdoor advertising dtsplly is proposed to be placed.
In addition, the applicant shall provide sufficient rambar of
address labels as domed appropriate by the Plenntn~i Dlroctor for
all property miners vtthtn a five lindred foot (500) radius of
any proposed outdoor advertising display. The Plot Plan shall
show the precise location. type, ~nd size of the proposed o~tdoor
advertising ~lsplays, all property lines, zoning. and the
dimensions, location of and distance to the nearest advertising
displays, building, business
rtghts-of-v~y, butldfng setback lines, and spedftcally planned
future road rtght-of-,ly 11nes, and a~y and all other tnfomation
requtred by the Planntng ~rector tn such I manner that the
pro~sed ~spla~ m~ ~ ~adtl~ ucertatned, t~nttfted, and
eva1 uated.
~artng and Notfce ~ ~clston. U~n ~cepti~e of an ~pltcat~on
for an out~or ,d~rttslng ~spl~ u croplate, ~e Pl~ntng
Dt,ctor s~11 tramtt a copi of ~ epltcatton ~ ~
h armant of Butl~ Ind $afeV for ~Hw ~d cmet.
(i~ ~t less t~n ~tr~ (30) ~ Ifter gcWt~ce of tM
pitcarton for outdoor adv~rttstn dtspliy as cempleto, the
ffanntng DIrector shall scbedule ~e time ~d ~ on ~tch
the Pllnntng ~c~r's ~dston on t~ ~pltc~t~on t$ ~ ~
ma~. ~t less t~n ~n (10) ~s ~tor ~ ~ ~to on ~tch
the dectston tS to be made, the Planntn Dtrector shall gtve
notice of the pro seal outdoor adverttsTng display, by metl
248
(b)
(c)
vlthln aftve hundred (500) foot radius of the exterior
boundaries of the porte1 upon which the proposed outdoor
advertising display is to be located. Nottce of the I~oposed
outdoor advertising dtspl~y shell also be gtven by
1
publication tne newspaper of general drcu etton wtthin
RIverside County. The Nottce shall tnclude the stetment
that no INbllC hearing wtll be held unless a hearing ts
requested, tn m'ltlng, end doltverld to the Pllnntng Dtrector
at least t~m (2) days before the date scheduled for the
doctston ts to be made, No INbllC hearing on the oppllcatton
for en outdoor advertising display shall be held before a
dectston ts made by the Plenntng DIrector, unless a hearing
Is requested, tn ~tttng, by the applicant or other
Interested person, or tf the Plenntng Dtrector detemlnes
that a publtc hearing should be required. Zf no publlc
heart rig ts requested or required, the PTannlng Dtrector shall
gtve the Nottce of Dectston to the applicant end any other
person who has made a wrttten request for i Copy of the
Nottce of Decision. The doctston of the Planning Dtrector
shall be considered ftnal unless ~lthln ten (ZO) days of the
date of matltng of the Notice of I)ectston to the applicant,
an appeal therefrom Is ftled,
Zf e public hearing is requtred under the prevtston of this
subsection, notice of the ttme, date, end place of the
hearing before the Planntng DIrector end a general
description of the location of the real property whtch ts the
subject of the hearing, shall be gtven st least ten (10) days
1) t I r 11 ovners of real properV
which ts located vlthtn a 500-foot radius of the
exterior boundaries of the par~el upon whtch the
proposed outdoor advertising display ts to be located
as, such o~ners ere shchm on the lest equalized
assessment roll end any updates.
(2) The Plenntng Dtrector ely requtre that additional nottce
he gtven tn any other matter the Dtrector does
necessar~ or desirable,
Zf e pobllc hearing ts required, the Pllnntng Dtrector shall
hear relevant testimony fr~a triterested persons end make a
dectston wlthtn a reasonable time after the close of the
pobllc hearing, A Nottce of hctston shell be filed by the
Planning Dtrector wtth the Clerk of the hard of Supervisors,
not more then fifteen (zS) d after the decision, A copy
of the Nottce of Dectston sh,~l be matled to the oppltcant
Ind to i~y person Ifho his Ilde I mitten request for a copy
of the doctston, The Clerk of the herd of Supervisors shell
place the Nottce of Dectston on the next egenda of the herd
of Supervisors held five (5) or ere days after the Clerk
recetves the Notice of Dectslon fr.~ the Plenntng DIrector,
24~
Appeals. The decision of the Planntng Director shall be
considered final unless an appeal therefrm Is filed.
(a) Apbeals to Planntng Cemtss¶on. The applicant or an~
Interest person may file an appeal, accgnpanted by the fee
set forth tn Ordinance No. 671 of thts ordinance, and on the
foe I~ovtded by the Plenntng I)eparlaent ~lthtn ten (10) MYs
after the Nottce of Dectston ts milled for those utters
~here a publlc hearing es mt requested or requt~l or
~tthtn ten (10) da~ after the Nottce of Dectst~n q~pea~s on
the Board of $upervtsor's ~gena. The ~ppeal sh,11 state the
Peasons ~hy ttts belteyed the actton of the Planntng
Dtrector ts tml~oper. Upon necetpt of e camplated ,ppeal and
Nottce of the hearing on the
appeal shall be gtven tn the see manner that nottce was
the ,, ,.n..r th.t
The Planning Commission Shall render its decision on
the appeal ~4thtn ten (10) dens of the clostng of the
shall he ftled by the n o
S~bervtsors, not more than fifteen (15) da~s after the
~ectston. A copy of the Nottce of Dectston shall be nailed
to the applicant, appellant and to a~y person ~ ~s ma~ a
aFt tree ~est fo~ a cop~ of t~ ~lston. T~ ~erk of t~
9oa~ of ~r~so~, shall plKe the ~ttce of ~tston on
t~ next agentis of t~ Board of ~r~so~, ~ld five (5) or
mo~ d~ after the Clerk ~cet~s the ~ttce of ~ctston
free the Planntn9 Director, The dectston of the PlaneInS;
Cammtss4on shell be constdered ftnal unless an appeal
therefrain ts filed.
(b) ApbealS to Board of $.pervtsors. The dectston of the
Planntng Commission shall be constdermt ftnal unless an
appeal therefrm ts filed. The applicant or an triterested
person m~y file an appeal, accmpantN by the fee set forth
tn Orcltnence No. 671 of this ordinance, and on the foe
protided by the Planntn Deparment vithln ten (tO) da~s
after the Notice of Deck;atom of t~ Planning ~sshn
ap~a~ on the ha~ of ~rdso~'s
agent. The m~al s~11 sta~ ta Nuo~ ett is
belt eyed the actton of the Planntng Cmtssto~ ts improper.
Upon ~ecetpt of a cmpleted ~ppell md fee, or tf the ~!
of S~pervtsors assrues Jurisdiction by ordering the Eattar
set for publlc hearth , the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
shall set the matter ~ public hea~l~ before the Board of
S~pervlsors, mt less t~an five (S) clVs mr m~re than thirty
(30) da~s thereafter, and shall gt~, rotice of the time and
place of the hearing in the sane manner ms notice of the ttme
end place of the hearing in the same manner ms notice was
tven for the hearing before the Planntng Cmmmtsston. The
goard of Supervisors shall render its decision dthtn thirty
250
(30) days follo~ng the close of the heart rig on the ap el
The dectston of the Board of Supervisors shall he finale..
4. Revocation. Any outdoor advertising display pemtt which has
been tssued es · result of e mater1·1 misrepresentation of fact
by the applicant or hts agent, uemther or not I criminal
prosecution Is Initiated therefor, ·el be mmar~li revoked by
the Planntng Director who shall forthdth 91ve wttton riottee of
Revocation to the applicant. Ifith!· thtrty (30) days after
nottce ts 91ven, aety outdoor advertising display autherlzed by
satd outdoor advertising displty bermlt shall he moved at the
appltcant's expense. Fatluro to tenOva the display wlthtn satd
thtrty (30) days shell be de·ned a separate violation of this
ordinance. Nothtn9 tn thts ordinance shall authorize the
installation or maintenance of any outdoor advertising display
whtch ts tn riolatton of any St·t· or Federal 1an or regulation.
Enforcmnt. I/he~ever the officials responsible for the enfor~enent
of a~tntstratton of the Land Use Ordinance or thetr designated
agents, have cause to suspect a v4olatton of this arttcleo or whenever
necessary to Investigate etther an application for the granting,
modification. or any actton to suspend or revoke an outdoor
adverttstn display permtt, or whenever netass·F7 to Investigate a
posstble ~olatton, satd agents may lawfully gain access to the
appropriate parcel of land upon whtch satd violation ts belteyed to
extst. The follo~n9 provisions shall apply to the vJolattons of this
arttcle:
1. All v~olatJons of thts arttel· c~muttted by any person, whether as
a ant, employee. offleer, principal, or other~4se, shall be a
m~sdeneanor.
2. Every person who knowlngly provtdes false tnfom·tton on an
outdoor advertising display peratt application shall be gutlty of
a misdemeanor.
3. Every perso.n who falls to stop turk on an outdoor edverttstn9
display. when so ordered b the Diroctor of Butlding and SafeV or
the Planntng DIrector, sh~l be 9utlt7 of a rotsden··nor.
4 Every person who, haytrig recetved Nottce to Appelr In court to
answer a related charge, v~llfully fatls to appear, shall he gutlt~
of a mtsdenea·or.
5 A Itsdemeanor may be prosecuted by the County I· the nme of the
People of the St·t· of C·11forntao or any be redressed by civil
action. Each v~olatton ts Funtshable by · fine of not more than
one thousand dollars (:,000.00), or by tnprtsoment tn the County
h
Jatl for · tern of not taro than stx (6) months, or by lot fine
and tmp~soment.
6. Every person found guilty of · vSolatton shell be de·ned gufity of
· separate offense for ever~ da7 durtng· porttoe of whtch the
violation tS committed, continued, or rmttted by such person.
7. Every 11legal outdoor edverttstng disp~ei~ and ever/abandoned
outdoor advertising display ts hereby declared to be a public
nutsan~e and shall be subject to abetanent b repatr,
rehabilitation, or re,oval tn accordance vl~ the procedures
contained tn Sectton 3 of RIverside Coun~ Ordinance No. 457.
251
Nonconfomtng Signs. [ver~ outdoor advertising display ~tch does not
confoe to th~s ordinance shell be domed to be e nonconfomtng sign
and shill be reoved or altered in accordance with th~s ordinance as
followS:
1. A~y outdoor edverttstng dtsphy which was 1wfully in existence
prior to the effective date of the enlclaent of Ordinance No.
348.2496 (July 16, 1985) shill he abeted or brought into
conromance with these provisions by Jull 17, lggO.
2. Any outdoor Idvertistng disphy whtch wes lmmrfully in existence
prtor to the effective date of the enaclaent of Ordinence No.
348.2856 (June 30, 1988) but efter the effective date of the
enecl~ent of Ordinence No. 348.2496 (July 16, 1985) shall he
ebated or brought into conromance with these provisions by July
1, lgg3.
3. Any outdoor edverttstng displey which was 1rowfully in existence
prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 348.Zg8g but efter
the effective date of the enactment of Ordinance ~o. 348.Z856
(June 30, 1988) shall be abeted or brought into conromance with
these provisions within eleven (~Z) yeerS of the effective Sate of
Ordinence No. 348.2989.
4. If federal or store le~ requires the County of Riverside to pay
Just campensatlon for the removal of any such lowfully erected but
nonconfoming outdoor advertising disphy, it may rematn tn place
until Just ca~pensaUon es defined tn the Eminent Domain Law
(Tttle 7, of Part 3 of the Code of ChR Procedure) ts petd.
Illegal and Abandoned Outdoor Advertising Displays. All tlle al
outdoor advertising displays end all abandoned outdoor advertising
displays shall be rmoved or brought into conromance with this
ordi hence tmedi ately.
k~ended Effectt
07-16-85 (Ord. 348.2496)
06-21:)-8g : 348 2989)
SECTTON 19.4. ON-SZTE ADVERTZSZNG STRUCTURES N~D SZGNS.
No person shall erect an on-site advertising structure or stgn tn the
untncorparated area of the County of RIverside that ts tn violation of the
provisions contained vlthtn any speclftc zontng classification in this
ordinance or that ts tn violation of the follwlng prov4slons.
Free-standing St ns
1. Located wtthTn 660 feet of the Manse edge of a freway right of
The maximum hetght of e st n she1] not exceed 45 feet.
The maxtram surface ares o~ a stgn shell not exceed 150
square feet. ,
2. All Other Locations. /~
(a) The maxtmum hetght of e stgn shall not exceed ~ feet.
(b) The maxtram surface area of a sign shall not exceed 50 square
feet.
3. Shoppl ng Centers - A11 Locattons.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraphs I end 2, an
alternate standard for free standing on-stte advertising signs for
shopptng centers Is established as follo~:
(a) the maximum f not exceed 50 square
surface area o a sign shall
feet of .25 percent (1/4 of 1S) of the total extsttn
butlding floor area tn a shopptng center, ~hichever Is
greater, except that tn arty event, no sign shall exceed
square feet in surface area, &'
b T
· he maxtrain height of a sign shall not exceed ~ feet.
4. Number of Free-standing Signs - All Locations. Not more than one
free-standing stgn shall be paintteed on a parcel of land, except
that if a shopping center has frontage on 2 or more streets, the
shopping center shall he perutired 2 free-standin~ stgns, provtded
that the 2 stgns are not located on the see street; are at least
100 feet apart and the second stgn does not exceed 100 square feet
tn surface area and 20 feet in height.
SIgns Afftxed to buildings - All Areas
1. No on-stte advertising sign shell be afffxed on, above or over the
roof of any building, and no on-site advertising st shall be
afftxed to the wall of a butlding so that tt projects above the
parapet of the building. For the purposes of tMs section, e
aansard style roof shall be considered a parapet.
The maxtmaa surface area of stgns offlxed to I butld~n9 shall be
Is follows:
u e° t 'sign shall not exceed tOZ of the
surface ares of the front face of the building.
(b) Stde walls of a butldtng -
The surface area of the stgn shall not exceed 10~ of the
surface area of the side face of the buildin9.
(c) Rear wall of a butlding -
The surface area of the stgn shall not exceed 5Z of the
surface area of the rear face of the building.
253
DIrections1 Stgns- DIrections1 stgns to advtse patrons of location,
dtstance or purpose shell be past tied on a pa~el of land as follows:
1. The mSxim~S Night Of SuCh stgns shall not exceed 3 feet.
Z, The maximum surface area Of such signs shall not exceed 6 square
feet o
On-stte Zdonttftcatlon Stgns o On-stte identification signs affixed to
the suffice of yells, windows, and doors of Imminent structures,
which do not exceed 4 inches tn letter be'l ht/rid do not exceed 4
square feet tnarea are peat tied .tn addttTon sign
other
any
permitted tn thts ordinance.
SECTION 19.5. FOR SALE. LEASE OR RENT SIGNS. For sale, lease or rent
stgns shall be bemttted to be placed tn a11 zone classifications subject to
the fol 1 o~d ng regul art ons,
1. For one and two fantly residential uses - one stgn not exceeding 4
square feet in surface ares end not more than 4 feet in height.
2. For multtple fantly residential uses - one sign for each separate
frontage on a street, each sign not to exceed 16 square feet in
surface area and not more than 8 feet in height.
3. For c~erctal uses - one sign for each separate frontage on a
street. each sign not to exceed 24 square feet in surface area and
not more than 8 feet in height.
4. For industrial uses - one sign for each separate frontage on a
street, each stgn not to exceed 32 square feet in surface area and
.ot .helV .%r ..c, .p.re, fro.t.ge on.
5,Forc n
street, each sign not to exceed 16 square feet in surface area and
not more than 8 feet in height.
SECTION 19.6 SUBDIVISION SZGNS.
On-site subdivision signs, advertising the orlgtnal sale of a
subdivision are peat tied wtthtn the beundertes of a subderision, upon
approval of s plot plan pursuant to Sectton 18.30 of thts ordinance
end subject to the following mtntm.~ standards:
1. No sign shell exceed 100 square feet tn area.
2. No stgn shall he wtthtn 100 feet of any extsttng residence that ts
outstde of the subdivision beundertes.
3. No more than tvo such stgns shall be peaT tied for each
subdt vt st on.
4. No stgn shall be ertiftcts11~ 11ghttd. ~
b. Off-stto subdivision slgns sdverttst the ortgtnsl sale of a
subdivision, shell he perutired tn a~ zone classifications, except
the C-P-S, N-A, and li-1 Zones, provided a cond~ttonal use permit is
granted pursuant to the p_rov~stons of Sectton 18.28 of thts ordnance,
and subject to the follo~ng mtntmm standards:
1. No sign shall exceed 100 square feet tn area,
254
2. No stun shall be vlthtn ZOO feet of any extstt residence.
3. No more then 1~o such stuns shall be pemtttedn~or each
subtit YI ston.
4. The maximum period of ttmea stgn may rmatn tn place shall be two
years,
5. No stun shall be artificially lighted.
6. /~ agreement, secured by a $100 cash heed, shall be executed etth
the Count), for each sign, essuFing the move1 of the stun ~thtn
the a11oed time period. The bend and aUra, ant shall be filed
vlth the Departslet of ktldtng and SafetY.
Added:
09-13-73 (0rd; 348. Z201)
Mended Effect1 ve:
01-20-77 (Ord. 3Q.X540)
09-25-80
07-16-85 : 348.2496)
SECTION 19.7. TEMPORARY POLITZCAJ. SIGNS.
For the purpose of thls ord4nance, a temporal/political sign shall
h
mean a stun, not othen~lse permttted by tts ordinance, which
encourages a parttcular vote tn a scheduled election.
Not~f thstandtng any other provision of thts ordinance, temporary
pol
the
tttcal signs ere perutired tn all zontng classifications subject to
go11 owtng 1 trot tat1 one:
No such StUn shall exceed 16 squire feet tn surface area.
No free-standing ts~purary political sign shell exceed 6 feet tn
hetght.
No lot shall contatn tenporary political stuns having in aggregate
surface Irli tfi excess of 80 Squlll feet.
No such sign shall be artificially laghand.
No such stun shall be erected or more
placed then 90 da~s pFior to
the scheduled election to ~htch St pertains.
6. All such stuns shall be moved ~tthtn ZO days after the scheduled
t
electton to eh ch they pertain, except that e sign erected or
placed for e can~dlte who prevltls tn I prtmlr7 electton m~y be
maintained until 10 da~s after the final 1
· ICtlon.
7. No such stun shall be erected, placed or meant,tried upon
prayate propertY ~thout the consent of the me,r, lessee, or
person tn lefful possession of such prop,racy.
8. No temporary political sign shall be erected, pllced, or maintained
on an~ publtcly o~ed tree or shrub or upon the laproved portton of
In), street or hlgl~ay Fight of ely vhtch ts used for traffic or
pl rkt ng.
9. No tmporar7 political sign shell be erected, placed or maintained
so that tt does any of the following:
(I) Hare, defaces, d4sftgures or damages an), iNbllC INtldtng,
stnJcture or other property.
(b) Endangers the safe~ of persons or properU.
255
ITEM NO. 3
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission
DATE: August 25, 1994
SUBJECT: Item 3
Caltrans Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding Access
Configurations to State Route 79 (SR79)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend approval of the draft MOU regarding
access to State Route 79 South to City Council.
BACKGROUND:
On August 5, 1991 the City Council approved the current Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Caltrans regarding access to State Route 79 South and Winchester Road. The
need for this MOU was deemed necessary "due to differing views by each agency on what
access spacing is appropriate for each highway corridor".
During the process of adopting the General Plan the City Council directed staff to re-evaluate
the current MOU, as the access configurations potentially had an effect on the developability
of some of the properties pursuant to the adopted land uses.
A committee was formed made up of two Public/Traffic Safety Commissioners and two
Planning Commissioners to evaluate input from affected property owners at a series of
workshops held at the City. The attached draft MOU is a result of those workshops.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
1. Attachment "A" Draft MOU
2. Attachment "B" Current MOU
3. Attachment "C" Workshop Agenda, Minutes
ATTACHMENT "A"
r:~cssey\draft. mou-O81941ajp
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is between the State of California, Department of Transportation (hereinafter
Caltrans) and the City of Temeeula (hereinafter the City). This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) constitutes
solely a guide to the respective obligations, intentions and policies of the City and Caltrans to use in approving new
development along north and south State Route 79. This MOU has not been designed to authorize funding for
project effort, nor is it a legally binding contract. It is the intent of this MOU to establish a mutual policy which
will lead to a cooperative agreement between Caltrans and the City within approximately twelve (12) months after
the execution of this MOU.
The basic traderstanding is as tbllows:
NORTH ROUTE 79 (WINCHESTER ROAD)
1. Route 79 shall have up to three lanes for through traffic and up to two lanes for local circulation.
Realignment may be necessary upon future development along Route 79. The City shall protect the right-
of-way for said realignment.
2. Route 79 is to have 1/4 mile intersection spacing with 1/8 mile spacing for limited access driveways (i.e.
right in, right out only) from 1-15 to Margarita Road on the north side.
3. From Margarita Road to Mumeta Hot Springs Road the spacing shall be 1/4 mile intersections.
4. Intersection spacing beyond Murrieta Hot Springs Road will be 1/2 mile.
5. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU are excepted.
SOUTH ROUTE 79
1. Route 79 is to have 1/4 mile intersection spacing and 1/8 mile limited access driveway spacing from 1-15
to Anza Road.
2. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU are excepted.
APPLIES TO NORTH & SOUTH ROUTE 79
1. Intersection and limited access design shall be developed in accordance with policies, procedures, practices
and standards normally followed by Caltrans and the City.
2. Eventual realignment of Route 79 may be necessary due to development along current Route 79. The City
shall provide Caltrans future right-of-way protection for Route 79 realignment through negotiations.
KEN STEELE, District Director
District 8
RONALD H. ROBERTS, Mayor
City of Temecula
Date
Date
SEE ATTACHED MAPS
Table 6
I.D. Access Location
0 NB I-15 Off-Ramp
S.R. 79 (South) Access Recommendations
State Route 79 Access Study
Approx. Spacing in Miles
Southside
Right In
East- West- and
bound bound Right Out
m
m
Type of Access Permitted
Northside Southside
Right In
and Full
Right Out Movement
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
m m
m m
m
m
[]' i
[]
[]
m m
m m
Northside
Full
Movement
[]
[]
i
'1
Table 5
S.R. 79 (North)RVinchester Road Access Recommendations
State Route 79 Access Study
Approx. Spacing in Miles
I.D, Access Location North- South-
bound bound
0 NB 1-15 Off-Ramp
1 SB Convenience Center Driveway
0.153
Type of Access Permitted
Eastside Westside Eastside
Right In Right In
and and
Right Out Right Out
m mI
Westside
Full Full
Movement Movement
[]
0.092
[]
[] []
re. []
[] []
i
[] []
· .. []
I_f_'Z'ZTi'Z'iiZi_i_L'iT"Z'_i___iZfZ'Z. iI__Z'!L~!'/'_ ..............I'ZL'ZTiTZ'iiZ'fiYiYTi'iUi'ZTZ_i ........g
Table 5
S.R. 79 (North)/Winchester Road Access Recommendations (cont.)
State Route 79 Access Study
Approx. Spacing in Miles
Eastside Westside
Right In Right In
I.D. Access Location North- South- and and
bound bound Right Out Right Out
14 {Un-named) Access
Type of Access Permitted
Eastside Westside
[]
[] []
0.199 [] . .
* = RightIn Only
ATTACHMENT "B"
r:\casey\draft.mou-OS/94/ajp
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY~""~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER '~'~
TO:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
FROM:
Department of Public Works
DATE:
August 5, 1991
SUBJECT:
Memorandum of Understanding - Access to
Winchester Road and State Route 79 South
PREPARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council APPROVE the Memorandum of Understanding'with CalTrans
and AUTHORIZE the Mayor to sign.
DISCUSSION:
Attached you will find a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of
Temecula and the State of California CalTrans. This MOU sets forth access criteria
to be used by the City and CaITrans in approving future development along
Winchester road and State Route 79 South (SR79S).
The need for this MOU is due to differing views by each agency on what access
spacing is appropriate for each highway corridor. Although each highway is within
the boundaries of the City of Temecula, prior to this MOU the City and developers
were subject to a somewhat arbitrary 1/2 mile access interval imposed by CalTrans.
City Staff has negotiated closer access spacing, as denoted in the MOU, which is now
acceptable to both agencies. CalTrans is currently discussing the portions of each
corridor within the County with County personnel to develop a similar understanding.
As a side note, CalTrans personnel has stated to City Staff that this is one of the first
MOU's of its type in the State of California.
STFP~°'I'~MOU-vvlN
Tb. is Memora.ndu.m of Understanding is be~veen the State of California, Deparu'nent of Transportation
thereinafter CainTans) and the City of Temecula (heroinafter the City). This Memorandum of
Understanding constivates solely a guide to the respective obligations, intentions and policies of r. he City
and Cakrans to use in approving new development along norr. b. and south State Route 79. This MOU
has not been designed to authorize funding for project effort, nor is it a legally binding contract. It is
the intent of Lb. is MOU to establish a mutual policy which will lead to a cooperative agreement between
Caltr~ns and the City within approximately twelve (12) months after the execution of this MOU.
The basic understanding is as follows:
· NORTH ROUTE 79 (WINCHESTER ROAD)
Route 79 shall have up to three lanes for Lkrough traffic and up to two lanes for local
circulation. Realignment may be necessary upon fuLure development along Route 79. The City
shall protect the right-of-way for said realignment.
Route 79 is to have 1/4 mile intersection spacing wit_b. 1/8 mile spacing for limited access
driveways (i.e. fight in, fight out only) from I-t5 to Margarita Road on the north side and is to
have 1/4 mile intersection spacing on he sour_~ side.
3. From Margarita Road to Murriet~: Hot Springs Road the spacing shall be 1/4 mile intersections.
4. Intersection spacing beyond Murfieta Hot Springs Road will be 1/2 mile.
5. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU are excepted.
SOLrTH ROI/TE 79
1. Route 79 is to have 1/2 mile intersection spacing and 1/4 mile limited access driveway spacing
from t-15 to Anza Road.
2. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU are excepted.
APPLIES TO NORTH & SOUTH ROUTE 79
Intersection and limited access design shall be developed in accordance with policies,
procedures, practices and standards normally followed by Cain-arts and the City.
Eventual rea~gnme~t of Route 79 may be necessary due to development along cua-rent Route 79.
The City shall provide Calftans future right-of-way protection for RouTe 79 realignment Lhrough
negotiations.
I Co
KY2q ~-'II:.~LE, District Dkector
District 8
RONALD J. PARKS, Mayor
City of Temecnla
Date
Date
SEE AI'FACHED MAPS
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
· Scott F, Reid, City Attorney
ATTEST:
RANPAC
ATTACHMENT "C"
r: \cesey~draft. mou-OS/94/ejp
AGENDA
HIGHWAY 79 COMMITTEE
ATTENDEES: Planning Commission Chairman Steve Ford, Planning Commissioner Billie Blair, Public
Traffic/Safety Commissioners Charles Coe and Ron Guerriero, Public Works Principal Engineer
Raymond Casey, Traffic Engineer Bob Davis, and affected property owners
June 29, 1994 6:00 p.m.
CITY OF TEMECULA
City Hall
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
MEETING AGENDA
introduction
A. Minutes
B. Discuss Current Proposal
Proposed Revisions
A. Locations and Types of Access
B. Traffic Study Analysis
Public Input
A. Desired Access Points
Public Traffic/Safety Commission, Planning Commission Schedule
Conclude Meeting
pwOS\casey\94~ltr\hwy792.agda
Request
Made By:
Acceu
Location
T~LE1
S.R. 79 (SOUTH) l'relim~,,,a--j'AcCess Assmnptiom "
Approx. $pacin~ in Miles
Soulside
and
,~stbound Westbound Right Out
Type of Access Requested
Northside Southside Northside
Right In
and FuB Full
Right Out Movement Movement
Lan'y Markham
West of Murrieta
Hot Springs
Rustic Glenn
CUP 3194
Ceas
Right-h, Right-Out
X ~ X
Replace with Salkine (?) Driveway
Right-h, Right-Out
Request
Made By:
John Moramarco
Larry Markham
Andy Anderson
Larry Markham
Rich Valdez
Mrs. Santoro
Chris Smith
Larry M~rkham
Chri~ Smith
Jerry 5wanger
Csaba Ko
Jerry Swanger
Steve Corona
Larry Markham
T~LE2
.. . . . , . · , . . . · . . . ... . .. ........:.,: .: ... .....
Approx. Spacing in Miles
Type of Access Requested
Southside Northside Southside Northside
Right In Right In
Access and and Full Full
Location Eastbound Westbound Right Out Right Out Movement Movement
La Paz
Need 4-way stop si2ns
Limit Access to Commercial Property from La Paz
Wabash
Right-In, Right-Out from Southside Only
Old Pala Road
Jedediah Smith Rd.
Right-In, Right-Out from Southside Only
Limk to Right-h, Right Out both sides
Country Glen Way
Constance *A*
Margarita
Commercial Center
Full Turning Movement both sides
Full Turning Movement both sides
Right-In, Right-Out from Southside
East of Margarita 1/8 Mile
Right-h, Right-Out Southside
East of Margarita 1/8 Mile
Right-In, Right-Out from Northside, 1/8 Mile Spa~ing
East of Paloma Del 1/8 Mile
Sol Center Drive
East of Butterfield 1/8 Mile
Stage
Jedediah Smith
Road
Right-In, Right-Out Southside
[1/4 Mile Frontage] X
Elimiate Access to Highway 79
(Existing?)
Minutes
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
All Attendees
/Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development
June 9, 1994
Highway 79/Bedford Court
Mr. Casey began the meeting with:
This is the second in a series of meetings to take input from property owners associated with
Highway 79 South and Highway 79 North (Winchester) regarding access points. City Council
directed Staff through the General Plan process to re-evaluate the current Memorandum of
Understanding (M.O.U.) with Caltrans regarding these access points. Consequently, this
committee was created, with two members of the Planning Commission and two members of
the Public/Traffic Safety Commission. The first meeting was held in March to take input.
Revisions to the current M.O.U. were presented at that meeting and were sent out to be
reviewed.
Mr. Casey introduced Mr. Bob Davis, the Traffic Engineer for the City's General Plan who is
also evaluating these access points on behalf of the property owners. The meeting was
designed so that questions/comments could be brought forth from both property owners and
committee members.
(Using an overhead'exhibit) Mr. Casey showed the attendees and committee members the
access points being discussed, He compared access points from the current M.O.U. with the
proposed revisions and felt the revisions to Winchester were relatively minor.
Mr. Casey stated that he understood Bob Davis supported all the Requested road access
points. Bob Davis agreed except for the access associated with the Riverside County CUP,
No. 16. They felt that the spacing of that particular intersection was not adequate. They are
trying to maintain a 1/5 mile spacing which is slightly less from the original Caltrans M.O.U.
spacing which is 1/4 mile. This particular intersection is less than 1/5 mile from Winchester
Creek Road.
Using the exhibit, Bob Davis explained that the intersections with the asterice are limited to
right-in right-out and the ones with the holes are consistent with the M.O.U., the open ones
are additional proposed accesses.
Mr. Casey suggested taking input on Winchester Road first, whether a consensus of access
points locations can be recommended to the full commissions and ultimately to the City
Council. Mr. Casey opened the discussion for input.
1 of 5 r:\casey\mem\94\minutes.h79 skg
Bob Davis stated that Rustic Glenn Drive is a proposed full movement intersection and will be
signalized. According to Mr. Larry Markham, Markham and Associates, the CUP 3194 is on
the east side and coincides with the Ceas property driveway location. The proposed Arco
station is on the east side of Winchester and south of Murriata Hot Springs Road. A driveway
exists on the west side. Mr. Casey stated that the CUP 3194 access, as shown on the
exhibit, should be replaced with the existing Salkine driveway. Larry Markham agreed. The
Ceas driveway is a right-in and right-out driveway.
Larry Markham further stated that Bedford Court is proposed to have an access point on the
north side. La Paz Street will be a four-way signalized intersection. Wabash Lane is shown
on the current M.O.U. as a full turning movement intersection. We are proposing that it
remain a four-way signalized intersection to provide access to the commercial property on the
north side of the street. Pala Road is on the current M.O.U. and shown as a right-in right-out.
The new Pala Road alignment is between the old alignment and Jadeallah Smith Road.
Jedediah Smith Road is shown as a full movement signalized intersection with a driveway on
the south side. Constance A street is in the current M.O.U., and there will also be limited
access on south side at the same spacing. Constance B street and Avenida de Missions are
existing intersections and is in the current M.O.U. Country Glen is existing on the south side
as a right-in right-out and we are proposing that there be a four-way signalized intersection
in the new M.O.U. The existing Arco station is right-in and right-out on the north side and the
Vail Ranch Center is proposing a limited access on the south side. Margarita Road is an
existing full movement intersection. Paloma Del Sol minor will be on the north side as a
limited access and restricted to right turns. Paloma Del Sol Center Drive would be the main
access point to the center on the north side and would also provide access to parcels south
of Highway 79 south. This will be a new full turning movement signalized intersection.
Meadows Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road are currently on the M.O.U. as four-way
signalized intersections. One other additional access was agreed to as right-in and right-out
on the north side. Temecula Creek Road is also shown on the current M.O.U. and will be
recommended as a right-in and right-out.
According to Bob Davis, the distance between Margarita Road and the Paloma del Sol minor
driveway is slightly less than a 1/4 of a mile. The distance between the freeway and the first
full movement intersection is slightly over a quarter of a mile,( .27 miles), to Wabash Lane is
just slightly under .2 miles, to the new Pala Road alignment is just slightly under .4 miles, and
to Jadedlab Smith Road is about a quarter of a mile. On Highway 79 South, we are still
concerned about Bedford Court. We cannot support full movement on Bedford Court. The
issue will be whether or not this signal can be inner-connected with the ramps to provide a
smooth flow. Full movement will be determined after a more in-depth study of whether the
signals can work together or whether or not it restricts traffic flow.
Mr. Casey suggested that the Jedediah Smith Road remain a four-way signalized intersection
as it is identified as a primary circulation element in the City's General Plan.
Larry Markham stated that the Los Ranchitos Home Owners Association met two weeks ago
to discuss the matter, and the board is in support of limiting the access into Los Ranchitos at
Jedediah Smith Road and La Paz Street. We are in the process of putting together a survey
to send out to our property owners soliciting their thoughts on perhaps "cul-de-sac-ing"
Jedediah Smith Road, or making it a right-in and right-out only. La Paz should be connected
2 of 5 r:\casey\rnern\94\minutes.h79 skg
at Vallejo Avenue and not carried through from Vallejo Avenue to the State Highway. It is our
belief that the commercial traffic associated with the State Highway should be separated from
the Los Ranchitos residential traffic.
Mr. Markham went on to say, Mr. Raymond's project has been established for about six years.
Bedford Court is not a driveway but is a publicly dedicated street. The business owners in the
center are in favor of the intersection going to full movement and would prefer to see it
signalized as soon as possible because a fatality had occurred at this intersection
approximately a month ago. Mr. Moromarco is also in favor of the intersection being full
movement. Mr, Medley is concerned about the intersections at Constance A & B, both
existing and dedicated, given that his property consists of 55 acres of office-professional
zoning. Mr. Medley is opposed to losing the turn movement capabilities at Constance B. Mr.
Markham felt Constance A street should be a full turning movement, but a final
recommendation will be made to the Committee when we get the survey back from the
property owners.
Jerry Swanger, Vail Properties, had asked to add some right-in's and right-out's at 1/8 mile
spacing on the south side of Highway 79 (S), east of Margarita. Meadows Parkway and
Kaiser Parkway are both shown as four-way signalized intersections.
Jack Raymond, Bedford Court, reaffirmed that this intersection should be full movement. If
it were to stay right-in, right-out it would prohibit people from getting back on the freeway.
We feel it should be signalized. There was not a driveway encroachment permit. The original
Parcel Map 21592 and various summary use permits showed a public street.
Burton Meryl stated that he and many others have built a business there. There is going to
be a mess at La Paz Street as well as, by the freeway and Texaco. A signal at this
intersection would be ideal. The problem is that there are no breaks in the traffic through this
section of Highway 79(S). A stop sign at La Paz and at the west side of the freeway on-ramp
would reduce the speeds and have a positive affect on traffic flow, including safety. There
are some safety and traffic flow problems. This would be the least expensive solution.
Mr. Casey responded that Caltrans is studying the intersection of I-15 and Highway 79 for
possible stop sign installations, which may help the situation in the interim. Catch 22,
ultimate improvements are two years away, but there is a traffic problem now.
Marty Lauber said that he has been in contact with Caltrans. They are currently studying the
entire corridor from the freeway ramps to Pala Road. The preliminary suggestions are to go
to a four-way stop at the southbound ramps. Channelization for the westbound approach.
This area needs to be re-surveyed for new speed limits.
Mr. Casey stated that input needs to be taken, in meeting such as these, so that
recommendationscanbetakentoCityCouncilandthenultimatelytoCaltrans. Caltransdoes
have the ultimate authority over the roadway. These meetings afford the property owners the
opportunity to have a say in a somewhat focused arena.
Dennis Kitcheli, Hussong's Mexican Restaurant, as a merchant, does not like the
recommendation of a right-in right-out. As a citizen, he is concerned about the traffic level
3 of 5 r:\casey\mem\94\rninutes,h79 skg
and any dangers at the 'intersection. This is his livelihood, and his livelihood depends on
people's access to him. It was always his understanding that this intersection was always
going to be a full intersection. The traffic break is the biggest problem. The speed limit adds
to the problem. The saying that "speed kills" is true in this case.
Faye Ryan, Mobil Oil, stated that placing a median would cut off residents and commercial
traffic going to I-15. Service stations run on convenience. This would reduce business by half
if not more. After delivery of gasoline, the trucks would have to go into a residential area in
order to turn around.
Mike Carchar, CarIs Jr., supports not recommending right-in right-out, and he also was under
the understanding that this would be a full movement intersection.
Paul Dodiwald, Circle B Food and Market, supports a full service movement intersection.
John Moromarco, is in favor of a four-way signal at Bedford Court.
Richard Valdez, TPC, stated the project report shows two approved access points at Pala
Road, and shows that the new Pala Road is the access point and the old Pala Road is also
approved and it may not be wise to abandon the old access point at this time. He thinks it
will be needed for secondary access to California Sunset Homes.
Old Pala Road should be limited to right-in right-out.
Jerry Swanget, MDC Vail, stated that consideration should be given to those paying for these
improvements (Assessm,ent District 159 participants).
Steve Ford, Planning Commission, stated that this intersection should be synchronized with
the proposed on-ramp signals and would like to see Wabash Lane a full movement
intersection. He also was in support of the additional right-in right-outs as proposed on both
sides. He expressed having concerns about Los Ranchitos Home Owners Association thought
process on La Paz Street and Jedediah Smith Road. If there is any way possible to encourage
Caltrans to place stop signs at the ramps, he felt it would be a big step forward.
Billie Blair, Planning Commission, stated that she travels that highway and would like to see
a way that individuals would not have to "jump in front" of traffic to make it across the road.
She questioned the number of signals proposed for Highway 79 (too many).
Ron Guerriero, Public/Traffic Safety Commission, favored a full movement intersection at
Bedford Court. Ten signals are not extraordinary for a State Highway. We need to put
pressure on Caltrans.
Charles Coe, Public/Traffic Safety Commission, stated that Bedford Court needs a signal. It
cannot be the merchants fault, the businesses are there. It is a dangerous area and something
needs to be done. He has a problem with the proposed culode-sacs on Jedediah Smith Road
and La Paz Street. No small group of the City should have the right to restrict circulation for
the rest of the City.
4 of 5 r:\casey\mem\94\mlnutes.h79 skg
Steve Ford, Planning Commission, would like to change the name of Highway 79, for it is
changing with the town.
Dennis Kitchell, stated that Highway No. 39, in Orange and Los Angeles Counties, has a great
portion of commercial, residential, and vacant type of land. It has signals every half mile or
mile, and has a lot of congestion, but Temecula's Hwy 79 (S) is not as big. The signals will
not impact the people.
Steve Ford stated that he favors the additional right-in right-outs as proposed.
Marty Lauber stated that Commissioner Coe would also like to rename Highway 79 and the
public may need to be involved.
Target date for next meeting was set by Mr. Ray Casey for June 15, 1994, at the same time
and place.
Steve Ford asked for a report from Caltrans regarding their temporary and immediate plans
for I-15 and Highway 79 north and south. Marry volunteered to handle this issue.
Marty suggested that the next meeting be pushed back to June 29, 1994.
Next meeting scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on June 29, 1994, in the Main Conference Room at
City Hall.
5 of 5 r:\casey\rnem\94\rninutes.h79 skg
AGENDA
HIGHWAY 79 COMMITTEE
ATTENDEES: Planning Commission Chairmen Steve Ford, Planning Commissioner Billie Blair, Public
Traffic/Safety Commissioners Charles Coe and Ron Guerrio, Public Works Principal Engineer
Raymond Casey, Public Works Traffic Engineer Marry Lauber, and affected property owners
May 11, 1994 6:00 p.m.
CITY OF TEMECULA
City Hall
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
MEETING AGENDA
II.
III.
Introduction
A. Describe Existing MOU
B. Council Direction (General Plan)'
Proposed Revisions
A. Locations and Types of Access
B. Traffic Study Analysis
Public Input
A. Desired Access Points
Schedule Next Meeting
Conclude Meeting
pwOS%ceeey%94%ltr~hwy79.egde
AGENDA
HIGHWAY 79 COMMITTEE
,TTENDEES: Planning Commission Chairman Steve Ford, Planning Commissioner Billie Blair, Public
Traffic/Safety Commissioners Charles Coe and Ron Guerrio, Public Works Principal Engineer
Raymond Casey, Public Works Traffic Engineer Marty Lauber, and affected property owners
March 23, 1994 6:00 p,m.
CITY OF TEMECULA
City Hall
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
MEETING AGENDA
Introduction
A. Describe Existing MOU
B. Council Direction (General Plan)
Proposed Revisions
A, Locations and Types of Access
B. Traffic Study Analysis
Public Input
A. Desired Access Points
Schedule Next Meeting
Conclude Meeting
pwOS~casey\94\ltr\hwy79 .agda
ITEM NO. 4
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM:
Marty Lauber, Traffic Engineer
DATE:
August 25, 1994
SUBJECT:
Item 4
City of Temecula - Street Closure or Modification Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and comment on the draft Street Closure
or Modification Policy.
BACKGROUND:
Due to requests to have the Department of Public Works close or modify public streets, the
Traffic Division proposes to create a policy to guide public officials in order to ensure solutions
that are equatehie for the entire community.
The State of California has preempted the field of traffic control (refer to Section 21 of the
California Vehicle Code), and no local authority is allowed to enact or enforce any ordinance
on the matters covered by the Vehicle Code unless expressly authorized by statute.
It is the policy of the State that all persons have an equal right to use the streets and
highways, and localities have no carte blanche and, absent express authority, may not
determine which traffic shall and which shall not use streets. Based upon this policy, in the
absence of specific State legislative authority to the contrary, a city may not restrict the right
to travel upon one of its streets to its residents or to other exempted drivers. Some examples
in the Vehicle Code of such specific authority to regulate travel upon streets are: if the City
Council determines the street is no longer needed for vehicular traffic [§21101 (a)]; if needed
to implement the Circulation Element of a General Plan [§21101 (f)]; if due to criminal activity
[§21101.4]; regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages [§(a)]; and on streets
dividing school grounds to protect students attending such school or school grounds. When
a local agency decides to utilize the express delegation of such authority, the local agency
may only utilize "office traffic control devices" authorized by the Vehicle Code, Additional,
local authorities may not place gates or other selective devices on any street which deny or
restrict the access of certain members of the public to the street, while permitting others
unrestricted access to the street.
PURPOSE OF POLICY
Consistent with State law and policy, it is the general policy of the City to not allow temporary
or permanent closure of any public street to vehicular traffic. Requests for closure or
modification of traffic flow on a public street will be considered, however, based on a petition
which meets all the criteria and procedures outlined in the attached policy. The City will
carefully review each street closure or traffic flow modification request to ensure that the
proposed location and attending circumstances meet all the criteria outlined in our policy and
in State law described above. The purpose of this policy is to set forth the process and
criteria by which modification of traffic flow or closure of public streets may be considered by
the City Council and to identify the conditions under which closures or modifications may be
enacted. This policy only applies to the closure or modification of traffic flow on public streets
initiated by citizens. This policy will not apply to the closure or modification of traffic flow on
public streets initiated by the City to address specific traffic safety issues or to comply with
State and Federal standards and warrants. This policy also will not apply to temporary
changes in traffic that are needed to stage special events in the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
1. Draft Street Closure or Modification Policy
2, Appendix "A"
CITY OF TEMECULA
POLICY FOR CLOSURE OR MODIFICATION
OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON PUBLIC STREETS
DRAFT
Traffic flow modifications covered by this policy include all "official traffic control devices" authorized
by the California Vehicle Code. Some of the methods authorized in particular circumstances might
include traffic islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features, removing or relocation
traffic signals and one-way traffic flow.
CRITERIA
A petition request for the closure or modification of traffic flow on public streets, including re-opening
previously closed streets, will be considered by the City for those streets meeting all of the following
criteria:
The street must be classified as a "local street" based on the City's Circulation Element of the
General Plan.
b. The street should be primarily residential in nature.
c. Traffic volumes on the street must equal or exceed 2,000 vehicles per day for a complete
closure. Volumes for a partial closure must equal or exceed 1,000 vehicles per day.
d. Public Safety Agencies have not provided sufficient evidence of any major public safety
concerns regarding the proposed street closure or traffic flow modification.
An engineering safety study has determined that the proposed closure or traffic flow
modifications will not create unreasonable traffic on the subject street or on sweets which may
be impacted by diverted traffic.
f. The changes in traffic flow will not result in unreasonable liability exposure for the City.
All persons signing a petition requesting a street closure or traffic flow modification
acknowledge it is the City's policy that they will need to participate in all costs directly
associated with the street closure or traffic flow modification in order to facilitate the funding
of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow
modifications.
h. The requested action is authorized by legislative authority in State law.
PETITION REOUIREMENTS
The following procedures must be followed for submitting a petition to the City:
The City Traffic Engineer will examine the technical feasibility and anticipated impacts of the
proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications. This review will include, but will
include, but will not be limited to, items such as State law, the Circulation Element of the
City's General Plan, the type of road or street involved, compliance with engineering
regulations, existing traffic conditions, projected traffic conditions, the potential for traffic
diversion to adjacent streets, the increased liability exposure for the City or conflicts with
future planned improvements.
The City Traffic Engineer will determine the boundary of the "affected area" to be petitioned.
The affected area will include but not be limited to those properties where normal travel
routes to and from the "affected area" are to be altered by the street closure or traffic flow
modifications, and/or properties which are significantly impacted by traffic that is to be
diverted.
The petition requesting the street closure or traffic flow modifications must be supported by
a minimum of 85 percent of the total number of citizens affected by the proposed changes in
traffic flow, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The citizens should include property
owners, and long-term tenants such as mobile home park residents within the "affected area"
who might be significantly affected by the proposed traffic flow modifications or street
closure. Persons submitting petitions must attempt to contact all affected parties. At a
minimum, 95 percent of all affected persons who may need to use the street(s) on a daily basis
must be contacted for the petition to be accepted by the City. This requirement will be
satisfied by signatures from 95 percent of the affected parties indicating support or non-
support for the street closure or traffic flow modifications.
d. At a minimum, petitions submitted to the City for review must include the following:
A statement that all persons signing the petition acknowledge it is the City's policy that
they will need to participate in all costs directly associated with the street closure or
traffic flow modifications in order to facilitate the funding of the ultimate improvements
needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modifications.
A drawing showing the exact location of the proposed street closure or traffic flow
modifications and the boundary of the area in which traffic could potentially be affected
must be provided. The drawing must include changes in traffic patterns anticipated as
result of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications.
· The petition language must also clearly explain the location and nature of the proposed
street closure or traffic flow modifications.
The petition language and attached drawing must be reviewed and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer prior to circulation to ensure its accuracy and ability to be clearly
understood.
· A specific reference to the Vehicle Code section authorizing such street closure or traffic
flow modifications must be provided.
A sample petition has been provided as an attachment to this policy.
PET1TION REVIEW PROCESS
The following process will be used to review all petitions associated with a proposed street closure or
traffic flow modifications:
The City Traffic Engineer will review any petition to verify compliance with all petition
requirements set forth above, including whether the request in the petition is authorized by
State law. Any petition not complying with these requirements will not be accepted for
consideration. Ifthe petition contains all ofthe required information under this policy, aletter
will be sent out to all who signed the petition, affected property owners, and long-term tenants
such as mobile home park residents requesting verification of their support or opposition to
the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications by signing a signature sheet that is
included in the letter.
ff the petition contains all of the required information under this policy, the proposed street
closure or traffic flow modifications will be referred to all affected public agencies in
conjunction with the environmental review process. When applicable, these agencies will
include all City Departments, the local office of the California Highway Patrol, County Sheriff
and Fire Departments, Riverside County Public Works Agency, all affected local utility
companies, Temecula Valley Unified School District, Riverside Transit Agency, the local
office of California Department of Transportation and any other agencies affected by the
requested closure or traffic flow modification.
ff the petition contains all of the required information under this policy, where the street
closure or traffic flow modifications on a street or system of streets may be accomplished by
several different methods, a public workshop will be held to which all petitioners, affected
property owners, and long-term tenants such as mobile home park residents will be invited
to participate after the petition requesting the traffic flow modifications or street closure has
been received and verified by the City. The purpose of the workshop will be to attempt to
determine the method that has the greatest community support.
CITY ACTION ON STREET CLOSURE OR TRAFF C FLOW MODIFICATION REOUESTS
Once a petition contains all of the required information and all of the matters described above under
"Petition Review Process" have been completed, the City Traffic Engineer will prepare a report with
recommendations and initiate and complete the environmental review process for the project. Project
alternatives to the extent required will be defined for a temporary or permanent street closure or traffic
flow modifications. The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will review the street
closure or traffic flow modifications request, any environmental review document prepared for the
project, all public agency referral responses received during the environmental review process, and the
results of the technical staff review. The City Public/Traffic Safety Commission may support or
recommend against the street closure or traffic flow modifications. If the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission recommends against the street closure or traffic flow modifications, that action will be final
and then the City Traffic Engineer will notify all petitioners. If the request is recommended for further
consideration, after public notice is given, the City Council may, after making any necessary findings,
establish a temporary or permanent period of street closure or traffic flow modifications.
The City will typically, when the City Council is contemplating a potential street closure or traffic flow
modifications, follow the process outlined below:
A letter explaining the street closure or traffic flow modifications and the time and place when
the matter will be heard by the City Council will be sent to all petitioners, property owners,
within the affected area prior to its installation.
b. A Public Hearing will be set before the City Council and public notice will be given.
Public notification of the Council action will be given in cases when a street closure or traffic
modifications is approved by the City Council, and signs giving notice of the street closure
or traffic flow modifications will also be erected at least two weeks prior to the date of
implementation of the street closure or traffic modifications.
A letter explaining the final City Council decision will be sent by the City to all affected
p~tkioners, property owners, and long-term tenants such as mobile home park residents within
the affected area.
The City Council has the sole discretion, subject to all applicable laws, to approve, modify, continue or
deny any street closure or traffic flow modifications request regardless of any support or lack thereof via
the petition process. Any action by the City Council to approve or deny a street closure or traffic flow
modifications request will be by adoption of a formal resolution.
APPENDIX "A"
RULES AND REGULATIONS: SUBJECT MATTER
22100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the
following matters:
a. Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways.
b. Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for hire and drivers of passenger vehicles
for hire.
c. Regulating traffic by means of traffic officers.
d. Regulating traffic by means of official traffic control devices meeting the requirements of
Section 21400.
e. Regulating traffic by means of any person given temporary or permanent appointment for such
duty by the local authority whenever official traffic control devices are disabled or otherwise
inoperable, at the scenes of accidents or disasters, or at such locations as may require traffic
direction for orderly traffic flow.
No person shall, however, be appointed pursuant to this subdivision unless and until the local
authority has submitted to the commissioner or to the chief law enforcement officer exercising jurisdiction
in the enforcement of traffic laws within the area in which such person is to perform such duty, for
review, a proposed program of instruction for the training of a person for such duty, and unless and until
the commissioner or such other chief law enforcement officer approves the proposed program. The
commissioner or such other chief law enforcement officer shall approve such a proposed program if he
reasonably determines that the program will provide sufficient training for persons assigned to perform
the duty described in this subdivision.
Regulating traffic at the site of road or street construction or maintenance by persons
authorized for such duty by the local authority.
Licensing and regulating the operation of two truck service or two truck drivers whose
principal place of business or employment is within the jurisdiction of the local authority,
excepting the operation and operator of any auto dismantler's two vehicle licensed under
Section 11505 or any tow truck operated by a repossessing agency licensed under Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 7500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and its
registered employees. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the authority of a city or city and
county pursuant to Section 12111.
h. Operation of bicycles, and, as specified in Section 21114.5, electric carts by physically
disabled persons, or persons 50 years of age or older, on the public sidewalks.
Providing for the appointment of nonstudent school crossing guards for the protection of
persons who are crossing a street or highway in the vicinity of a school or while returning
thereafter to a place of safety.
Regulating the methods of deposit of garbage and refuse in streets and highways for collection
by the local authority or by any person authorized by the local authority.
Regulating cruising. The ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall
regulated cruising, which shall be defined as the repetitive driving of a motor vehicle past a
traffic control point, as determined by the ranking peace officer on duty within the affected
area, within a specified time period and after the vehicle operator has been given an adequate
written notice that further driving past the control point will be a violation of the ordinance
or resolution. No person is in violation of an ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this
subdivision unless (1) that person has bee given the written notice on a previous driving trip
past the control point and then again passes the control point in that same time interval and
(2) the beginning and end of the potion of the street subject to cruising controls are dearly
identified by signs that briefly and clearly state the appropriate provisions of this subdivision
and the local ordinance or resolution on cruising.
Regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers of vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire
lane, as described in Section 22500.1, on private property. Any removal pursuant to this
subdivision shall be consistent to the extent possible with the procedures for removal and
storage set forth in Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650).
TRAFI~IC CONTROL DEVICES: UNIFORM STANDARDS
21100.1 Whenever any city or county, by ordinance or resolution, permits, restricts, or prohibits
the use of public or private highways pursuant to this article, any traffic control device erected by it on
or after January 1, 1981, shall conform to the uniform standards and specifications adopted by the
Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 21400.
REGULATION OF HIGHWAYS
21101. Local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and
regulations by ordinance or resolution on the following matters:
a. Closing any highway to vehicular traffic when, in the opinion of the legislative body having
jurisdiction, the highway is no longer needed for vehicular traffic.
Designating any highway as a through highway and requiring that all vehicles observe official
traffic control devices before entering or crossing all highway or designating any intersection
as a stop intersection and requiring all vehicles to stop at one or more entrances to the
intersection.
Prohibiting the use of particular highways by certain vehicles, except as otherwise provided
by the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 1031) of
Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 1 of the Public Utilities Code No. ordinance which is adopted
pursuant to this subdivision after November 10, 1969, shall apply to any state highway which
is included in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except an ordinance
which has been approved by the California Transportation Commission by a four-fifths vote.
d. Closing particular streets during regular school hours for the purpose of conducting
automobile driver training programs in the secondary schools and colleges of this state.
Temporarily closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and
other purposes when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is
necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are the use that portion of the street
during the temporary closing.
Prohibiting entry to, or exit from, or both, from any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic
barriers, or other roadway design features to implement the circulation element of a general
plans adopted pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 65350) of Chapter 3 of
Division 1 of Ti~e 7 of the Government Code. The rules and regulations authorized by this
subdivision shall be consistent with the responsibility of local government to provide for the
health and safety of its citizens.
LOCAL AUTHORITY TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE HIGHWAY: CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
21101.4 (a) A local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, adopt rules and regulations for
temporarily closing to through traffic a highway under its jurisdiction when all of the following conditions
are, al~er a public hearing, found to exist.
The local authority finds and determined that there is serious and continual criminal activity
in the portion of the highway recommended for temporary closure. This finding and
determination shall be based upon the recommendation of the police department or, in the case
of a highway in an unincorporated area, on the joint recommendation of the sheriffs
department and the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
2. The highway has not been designated as a through highway or arterial street.
3. Vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the highway contributes to the criminal activity.
The closure will not substantially adversely affect the operation of emergency vehicles, the
performance of municipal or public utility services, or the delivery of freight by commercial
vehicles in the area of the highway proposed to be temporarily closed.
(b) A highway may be temporarily closed pursuant to subdivision (a) for not more than 18
months, except that period may, pursuant to subdivision (a), be extended for one
additional period of not more than 18 months.
DEPARTiMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PETITION TO CLOSE OR MODIFY THE TRAFFIC FLOW ON STREET
BETWEEN AND
BY THE INSTALLATION OF (Nature of Changes)
AT (Location)
DATE:
BEFORE YOU SIGN THIS PETITION, KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SIGNINGI IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT YOU FIRST READ THE CITY'S STREET CLOSURE OR TRAFFIC FLOW
MODIFICATION POLICY.
We, the undersigned resident of the area shown on the attached map do/do not petition the City of
Temecula to on Slreet as
shown on the attached drawing.
All persons signing this petition acknowledge it is the City's policy that they will need to participate in
all costs directly associated with the street closure or traffic flow modification in order to facilitate the
funding of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modification.
The specific California Vehicle Code section(s) authorizing such closure or traffic flow modifications
is/are section(s)
All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside within the area impacted by the
proposed traffic flow change as shown on the attached map.
Our designated contract person is:
Phone:
Signature Prim Name Print Address Zip
ITEM NO. 5
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
(for August 25, 1994)
City Council Actions:
June 26, 1994
a. Approved the purchase of a fire engine for the new fire station on Pauba Road.
August 9, 1994
a. FY1995-99 Capital Improvement Program - Approved staff recommendation (3-0-1-1)
Caltrans Coordination:
a. Pala Road/SR 79(S) Right Turn Lane - Request City Council reject only bid
City Construction Projects:
a. Margarita Road - Rancho California Road to La Serena (completed)
b. Solana Way - Ynez Road to Margarita Road (completed)
City Traffic Project States:
a. Traffic Signal - Nicolas/Winchester - Awarded contract August 9, 1994, 90 working days for construction.
b. Dual Southbound LeRs - Rancho California Road/Front - Awarded contract, 20 working days for construction.
c. Vehicle Pre-emption system - Bids close August 2:5, 1994, (Amended) - 30 working days for construction.
d. Traffic Signal - Margarita/SR 79(S) - Meeting with AD 159, County, and the State to finalize funding.
e. Traffic Signal - Avenlda Barca/Margarite Road - Project specification have been revised and re-submitted to
Caltrans
Commission Requests:
a. Contacting Greyhound Bus Lines, and the three major shopping centers, to provide information at Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA) proposed Route Change Workshop
Upcoming Meetin~ Dates
Executive Committee Meeting - September 7, 1994 at 8:00 a.m.
Commissioner's Goals and Objectives Workshop - September 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m.
RTA - Futere Route Change Workshop - September 13, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. - 5:1210 p.m.
Safe Route to School Committee - September 14, 1994 at 9:00 a.ra. to 10:30 a.m.
Jefferson Avenue Subcommittee - September 20, 1994 at 9:00 - 11:00 a.ra.
Traffic Commissioners Workshop - October 15, 1994 at Cal Poly, Pomona
r:\traffic\engrpt .aug/nip
ITEM NO. 6
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
Ronald H. Roberts
Mayor
Jeffrey E. Stone
Mayor Pro Tern
Patricla H. Birdsall
Councilmember
J. Sal MuPioz
Councilmember
Ronald J. Parks
Councilmember
(909) 694 6444
FAX (909) 694-1999
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
city Council
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ron Bradley City Manager
Rick Sayre
Police Chief
August 15, 1994
POLICE ACTIVITY REPORT FOR JULY 1994
The following report reflects the Part I Crimes, Traffic
Activity, and miscellaneous activity occurring in the
City of Temecula during July 1994.
As in past monthly reports the Part One Stats are broken
down by individual districts within the City. This
provides a greater understanding of the criminal activity
within the City for police staff deployment and for
Council / Commission interest.
Testing is scheduled for the third motorcycle officer
that will be added during 94/95. Four officers have sent
interest memos.
During the month of July a couple of incidents that
merited a urgency response by patrol officers were
reported. During all of the events patrol officers were
at the scene within minutes of receiving the call. One
incident involved the robbery of a florist shop and the
other was an attempted auto theft. The "average"
response times based upon computer generated information
were:
* Priority one 6.7 minutes,
, Priority two 10.0 minutes,
, Priority three 15.0 minutes.
For the Month of July 124 hours of bicycle patrol were
provided. An assortment of activity was conducted by the
officers including the arrest of one person for driving
while under the influence and the issuing of 18 citations
for vehicle code violations.
POLICE ACTIVITY REPORT
JULY, 1994
PAGE TWO
The "McGruff Truck" program is scheduled to begin during
September. The program concept is to attach McGruff stickers to
the local public service trucks and to provide training to school
kids explaining that if they are in harms way they can contact the
"McGruff Truck's" driver for assistance.
The taxi ordinance is in place and being worked. The only taxi to
be certified to date is Yellow Cab Company.
The F.Y. 94-95 budget goals for this month have been met.
Temecula Police
Department
Monthly Statistics
July 1994
August 94
Table of Contents
Statistical Information
Map of Districts ..................................... Page 01
July 1994 Number Totals ............................... Page 02
Graphs
Part 1 Property Crimes ..............................
Part 1 Persons Crimes ...............................
Activity Breakdown by District ......................
Burglaries by District ..............................
Burglary Comparison .................................
Arrest Statistics ...................................
Miscellaneous Activity ..............................
Page 03
Page 04
Page 05
Page 06
Page 07
Page 08
Page 09
Traffic Violations ................................... Page 10
Traffic Collisions ................................... Page 11
Narcotic Activity .................................... Page 12
City of Temecula
Part I Crimes by Reporting District
.|uly 1994
District C
Persons 1
Property 3
Total 4
District D
Persons 2
Property 17
Total 19
District G
Persons 9
Property 11
Total 20
District l
Persons 1
Property 11
Tots1 12
District B
Persons 6
Property 7
Total 13
District H
Persons 3
Property 6
Total 9
District
Persons
Property
Total
District F
Persons 1
Property 6
Total Z
1
CRIME A B C D E F G H TOTAL
HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RAPE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
ROBBERY 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 4
FELONY ASSAULT 1 6 0 1 2 1 7 3 21
TOTAL PERSO.S I ~1 el ~l 21 31 ~1 Sl 31 26
BURGLARY 6 5 3 8 4 3 5 3 37
GRAND THEFT 4 2 0 2 1 3 3 2 17
AUTO THEFT 1 0 0 7 2 0 3 0 13
ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
TOTAL PROPERTY I '~ '~1 71 31 '~ 71 71 61 '~ '~1 61 68
GRAND TOTAL 12 13 4 19 10 7 20 9 94
HAZARD CITES 46 35 70 31 56 9 80 24 351
NON-HAZARD CITES 29 37 24 22 16 5 18 11 162
PARKING CITES 7 8 6 6 5 8 7 4 51
TOTAL CITES I 821 801 1001 591 771 221 1051 391 564
DIST. PEACE 10 6 6 17 2~ 11 36 10 125
SHOPLIFT 3 3 1 10 0 0 0 0 17
PE~Y THEFT 3 4 5 7 ~ 0 4 1 26
VANDALISM 4 ~ 1 7 5 4 9 10 4~
MISD. ASSAULT 4 13 3 11 9 3 15 6 64
ALARMS 107 37 9 64 20 18 46 29 330
PUBLIC INTOX. 3 6 0 6 4 0 4 1 24
DUI 4 1 1 5 4 4 2 1 22
T/C INJURY 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
FATAL T/C 0
TOTAL TIC I ~61 31 ~1 ~71 ~1 61 151 51 77
RESID. BURGLARY 1 1 3 2 3 3 4 1 18
COMM. BURGLARY 5 3 0 5 1 0 0 1 15
OTHER BURGLARY 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4
VEHICLE BURGLARY ~ 0 0 1 0 2 0 ~ ~
MISD. ARRESTS
FELONY ARRESTS
TOTAL ARRESTS
I 201 361 71 401 4'~1 '121 4'~1 71 204
TOTAL ACTIVITY I 2481 1731 1311 2221 1741 751 2561 '~'~'~1 '~3S0
Page 2
E~
E
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<
(/) 0 ii
0 0 0 0
m ~ E ~ c
ITEM NO. 7
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183
August 4, 1994
TO
Attn. :
Re. ·
Temecula City Council
Temecula Public Traffic / Safety Commission
Ronald Bradley
Temecula City Manager
TEMECULA FIRE SERVICES
July 1994 Activity Report
The following reflects the monthly fire suppression and fire prevention activity of your fire
department for the month of July, 1994.
Fire season continues to be very active. This year, there have been many larger fifes in the
county than usual for July. Due to our fire prevention efforts, weed abatement program, and just
good fortune, fires within our community have been small and non-destructive. A fire started
on July 2 afternoon off of DePortola Road. Though there was a potential for around 1500 acres
to be burned, the fire was stopped at 75 acres with the help of extra timfighting airplanes. On
the evening of July 281h, we responded to a grass fire just south of Pauba and east of
Butterfield. On July 31st, units responded to a grass fire on Solana Way near Margarita. Both
of these were stopped at about one acre apiece.
Fire Department vehicles were in the July 4th parade in Old Town and then stood fire watch
at the Sports Park during the fireworks show. Only one small fire occurred during the show and
no action by our department was necessary due to our pre-show controlled burn which removed
most of the flammable vegetation. City FD staff conducted a review of the City area to identify
any extreme fire hazard severity zones. None were found that met the statewide area criteria.
The Temecula Fire Department is a participant in the new McGruff truck program. This
program provides readily available help to adults and children in need of assistance. Though the
FD is already known as a safety provider, our participation will reinforce this to children and
others in need of help. Our vehicles will be featured in the orientation video used at our public
schools.
printed on recycled paper ~
Fire Apparatus Engineer Matt McWilliams, one of our state funded firefighters who has
responded to many Temecula emergencies over the years, has promoted to Fire Captain effective
August 1, 1994. His new assignment will be as Fire Crew Captain at the Pilot Rock
Conservation Camp in Crestline, Ca. We wish him well.
Thank you for your support of the fire services in Temecula. Please contact John Winder
or me if you should have any questions.
I. M.Harris, Chief
Riverside County Fire
By: Mark Brodowski
Battalion Chief
Temecula Battalion
e,i ET_ LL
TEMECULA FIRE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY INCIDENT STATISTICS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Month July Year 1994
FIRE CONTROL ACTIVITIES
Structure Fires
Vehicle Fires
Vegetation Fires
Other Fires
Medical Aids
Traffic Collisions
False Alarms
Fire Menace Standby
PSA's
Assists and Covers
TOTALS:
STATION #12
STATION #73 TOTAL
3 1 4
6 2 8
22 4 26
2 0 2
88 57 145
24 3 27
27 15 42
4 1 5
3 4 7
12 47 59
191 134 325
STATION FIRE PREVENTION
Community Activities
School Programs
Fairs and Displays
Company Inspections
LE-38 Inspections
Fire Investigation
Burning Permits Issued
TOTALS:
STATION #12 STATION #73 TOTAL
1 1 2
117
I42
TOTAL HOURS
B15-1 (6/92) By: '~~ Date: 8/4/94
Brodowski, BC
ITEM NO. 8
COMMISSION REPORTS