HomeMy WebLinkAbout080691 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER - 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE
August 6, 1991 - 7:00 PM
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 91-79
Resolution: No. 91-28
CALL TO ORDER:
Invocation
Assistant Pastor Hack Wilkerson
Harvester Church of Temecula
Flag Salute
Councilmember Lindemans
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council
on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are
limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item
not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink 'Request To Speak' form
should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council 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 City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
2/lOleell/081290 I OS/O 1/91
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1
Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
2 Aooroval of Teleohone Lease/Purchase
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Approve the lease included in Attachment "A" for telephone equipment.
3 Memoranda of Understanding - Johnson + Johnson Partnershios
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Approve 13 memorandums of understanding between the City of
Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson +
Johnson Development Corporation.
4
Aoorooriation of Funds and Aooroval of Payment to the County of Riverside
Transoortation Deoartment for the Comoletion of Roadway Imorovements at the
Intersection of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Appropriate $85,290.06 from the Gas Tax Fund balance into Account
Number 165-5402 (Street Maintenance) for the payment of road
improvements constructed by Riverside County Day Labor Forces at the
intersection of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road in accordance with
the City Council action of June 26, 1991.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences
delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
21agenda0612gO 2 ~ OS/01/g 1
5
Aooeal No. 17 - Cu!~ No. 11
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow automotive sales by individual owners
at an existing parking lot located at Front Street and Las Haciendas Street.
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Deny Appeal No. 17 and uphold the Planning Commission denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 11.
6
Chanqe of Zone No. 9, Substantial Conformance No. 11, Specific Plan No. 1999, Buie
Corporation
An application to allow duplex and four-plex units north of Rancho California Road,
east of Margarita Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
6.2
Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMCULA
APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 348.2922
OF SAID CITY, TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR DUPLEX AND FOUR-
PLEX UNITS IN PLANNING AREA NO. 37 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199.
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 348.2922 OF SAID CITY IN THE
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9, TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR DUPLEX
AND FOUR-PLEX UNITS IN PLANNING AREA NO. 37 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
199.
7
Outdoor Advertisinq Disolay Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
21aeenda/Oe 1280 3 Oe/O 1/~ I
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 91-17
PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858(b) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: August 13, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community
Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California
21agenda/O61 2~0 4 0~/01/~ t
ITEM NO. 1
ITEM NO. 2
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manage/City Council
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
August 6, 1991
Lease Agreement for City Hall Telephone Equipment
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the lease included in
Attachment "A" for telephone equipment.
DISCUSSION: In connection with the move to our new facility, staff
requested a proposal for rental of telephone equipment from GTEL who was providing
the telephone equipment at the time. On April 26, 1991 staff met with GTEL whose
quote exceeded $1,000 per year but was less than $10,000 per year. In accordance
with the City purchasing ordinance we obtained two (2) additional verbal quotes for
telephone equipment as specified in the GTEL quote.
The two (2) additional quotes were prepared in the form of a lease purchase. The
least expensive quote was from Intertech. The form of the agreement provided for
the vendor to buy back the equipment at a percentage of cost at the end of years 1
2 and 3 in the event that the City no longer found the equipment to be suitable to our
needs.
On May 8, 1991 staff met with GTE and GTEL to discuss the three options available.
Based on our discussions staff concluded that Intertech equipment was the most cost
effective for the City. GTEL requested one week to prepare a quote for the lease of
the same brand of equipment offered by Intertech which was granted. On May 16,
1991, we phoned GTE twice to inquire as to when the quote would be available. GTE
indicated that GTEL had declined to prepare the quote.
As of May 16, 1991 the anticipated move in date to the new facility '~ s June 15,
1991. For this reason the City Manager determined that an emergency purchase/lease
would be required in order to ensure that telephone service would be functioning at
City Hall upon move in and official award of contract was temporarily deferred until
this date.
Subsequent to May 16, 1991 telephone equipment design meetings were held with
Department heads, and Police Services staff. During these meetings significant
modifications to the original specifications were identified, especially in the area of
Police Services. Modifications resulted in annual lease payments in excess of
$10,000 per year, however these modifications were effective after the proposal
period had closed and the anticipated installation commencement date. Rather than
seek new formal proposals from the same vendors, it was determined that the existing
proposals were sufficient because they were based on unit costs.
The lease of the NEC equipment is highly cost effective. It provides the City an
opportunity to continue telephone service at a per unit cost that is less than the
previous rental agreement, provides an equity interest in the equipment and will save
the City a considerable amount in monthly service costs because it utilizes a PBX
system as opposed to a Centranet system which requires more dedicated lines and
associated services charges. The lease agreement with Intertech (Citicorp) provides
for Intertech to buy back the telephone equipment in the event that the equipment is
no longer adequate for the City's needs.
FISCAL IMPACT: The annual lease payment is $17,131 and is included in the
Fiscal Year 1991-92 budget.
ATTACHMENT:
Lease Agreement Citicorp North America
ATTACHMENT "A"
CITICORPO NORTH AMERICA
STATE AND MUNICIPAL
LEASE"PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This State and Municipal Lease, Purchase Agreement (the "Lease") is made and entered into on this, the __day of
.198 __ by and between Citicorp North America. lnc., with offices at 601 Midland Avenue, Rye. New York 10580,
iherein called the "Lessor"), and CITY OF ?EMECU'f.A with its principal address at
43174 BU.~INW. SS PARK nRIVR, TP. ME('Uf.A,
!herein called the '*Lessee"), wnere~n ~t ~s agreed as follows:
1. LEASE OF EQUIPMENT. Lessee hereby requests Lessor to acquire the equipment described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof. Subject to the terms and conditions hereof. Lessor agrees to lease to Lessee and Lessee agrees to lease from Lessor the equipment
described in Exhibit A, with all replacement parts, repairs, additions and accessories incorporated therein or affixed thereto (herein collectively
called the "Equipment").
2. DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE. At the request of Lessee. Lessor agrees to order the Equipment from the supplier of such Equipment, but
shall not be liable for specific performance of this Lease or for damages if for any reason the supplier delays or fails to fill the order. Lessee shall
cause the Equipment to. be dehvered at the location specified =n Exhibit A (the "Equipment Location"). Lessee shall pay all transportation and
other costs. if any, ,ncurred ~n connection with the delivery and installation of the Equipment. Any delay in such delivery shall not affect the
vaiidity of this Lease. Lessee shall accept the Ecluipment as soon as it has been delivered and is operational, or as soon as any manufacturer
or vendor preacceptance test period has expired. Lessee sna~l have no more than thirty (30) days from the date of ceilvery of the Eduipment to
accept such Equipment. In the event the Equipment is not accepted by Lessee within thirty (30) days from the date of its delivery, Lessor, at
Lessors sole option, shall have the right to terminate this Lease. Lessee shall evidence its acceptance of the Equipment by executing and
delivering to Lessor a delivery and acceptance certificate in the form of Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Acceptance
Certificate"). Lessee hereby authorizes the Lessor to add to th~s Lease and to any other description of the Equipment the serial number of each
.tern of Equipment when available.
3. TERM. This Lease shall become effective upon the execu',~on hereof by Lessee and Lessor. The initial term of this Lease shall commence
on the date Lessee executes the Acceptance Certificate (the "Start Date') through the end of Lessee's fiscal year containing the Start Date
and. unless earlier terminated as expressly prowdeal for in this Lease, shall be automatically renewed on a year-to-year basis for the number of
annual fiscal periods necessary to compnse the lease term as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Lease
Term").
4. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to Lessor or any Assignee (as defined in Section 22 below) the rental payments for the Equipment as set forth in
Ext~ibit C [the "Rental Payments"). A portion of each Rental Payment is pa~d as and represents the payment of interest as set forth in Exhibit C.
The Rental Payments shall be payable. without notice or demand, at the office of Lessor (or such other place as Lessor or any Assignee may
designate in writing, from time to time) and shall commence on the Start Date or as otherwise set forth in Exhibit C. and the remaining Rental
Payments shall be payable on the same day of each consecutive month or quarter or semiannual or annual period thereafter (as designated in
Exhibit C) for the duration of the Lease Term. Any notice, invoicing, purchase orders, quotations or other forms or procedures required by
Lessee as a condition precedent to payment shall be fully explained and provided to Lessor or any Assignee sufficiently in advance of the
payment due date for the completion thereof by Lessor or any Assignee prior to such payment date. To the extent permitted by applicable law,
whenever any portion of a Rental Payment is received by Lessor or its Assignee more than ten (10) days from the due date, Lessee shall Day to
Lessor or its Assignee, on demand, the greater of twenty-five dollars (S25.00) or ten per cent (10%) of such overdue amount. EXCEPT AS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN SECTION 8 HEREOF, THE RENTAL PAYMENTS SHALL BE ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL IN ALL
EVENTS AND WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY SETOFF, DEFENSE, COUNTERCLAIM, ABATEMENT OR RECOUPMENT FOR ANY
REASON WHATSOEVER.
5. AUTHORITY.AND AUTHORIZATION. Lessee represents. warrants and covenants that (a) it shall do or cause to be done all things
,~ecessary to preserve and keep in full force and effect (i) its existence. and (ii) the Lease; {b)it has complied with atl bidding and budgeting
requirements where necessary and by due notification has presented this Lease for approval and adoption as a valid obligation on its part and
that all requirements have been met and procedures have been followed to ensure the enforceability of the Lease: (c) it has sufficient
appropriations or other funds available to pay all amounts due hereunder for the current fiscal period: (d) no event has occurred and no
condition exists which, upon the execution of this Lease or with notice or the passage of time or both. would constitute a default under any debt,
revenue or purchase obligation which it has issued or to which it is a party (the "Obligation") nor has it been in default under any Obligation at
any t~me dunng the past five (5) years: and (e) no lease, rental agreement or contract for purchase. to which Lessee has been a party, at any
t~me during the past five (5) years, I~as been terminated by Lessee as a result of insufficient funds being appropriated in any fiscal period.
6. LESSEE CERTIFICATION. Lessee warrants and covenants that (i) it is a state, or a political subdivision thereof, within the meaning of
Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and the related regulations and rulings thereunder: fii) Lessees
obligation under this Lease constitutes an enforceable obligation issued by or on behalf of a state, or political subdivision thereof, such that any
;nterest income derived under this Lease and due Lessor or ~ts Assignee. including, but not limited to. those amounts designated as interest ~n
...... Exhibit C, shall not be includable ~n the gross income of Lessor. ~ts Assignee or any participants with such for the purposes of federal income
taxation: (iii) th~s Lease represents a valid deferred payment obligation of Lessee for the amount herein set forth: (iv) Lessee has the legal
capacity to enter into this Lease and ~s not rn contravention of any state, county. district. city or town statute. rule. regulabon or other
governmental provision; (v) during the Lease Term, the Equipment shall not be used in a trade or business of any other person or entity: and fw)
=essee shall complete and file on a t~mely bas~s. Internal Revenue Service form 8038g or 8038gc. as appropriate.
Section 149fel of the Code.
7. APPROPRIATIONS AND ESSENTIAL USE. Lessee reasonaoty believes that sufficient funds can be obtained to make all Rental Payments
during the Lease Term. Lessee hereby covenants that ~t shall do a,I things lawfully within ~ts power to obtain funds from which the Rentai Payments
may ee made. including making provisions for such payments. to the extent necessary. ~n each budget submitted for the ourpose of obtaining
fJ'-'",ng, using ~ts bona fide best efforts to have such portion of the 3uqget approved and exhausting all available administrative reviews and appeals
event such portion of the budget is not approved. It is Lessee s intent to make the Rental Payments for the full Lease Term if funcs are legally
av,==~able therefor and in that regard Lessee represents that:/a) the use of the Equipment is essential to its proper, efficient and economic functioning
or to the serwces that it provides to its citizens: (hi Lessee has an immediate need for and expects to make immediate use of substantially all the
E"auioment, which need is not temporary or expected to diminish ~n the foreseeable future: and (c) the Equipment shall be used by the Lessee only for
the purpose of performing one or more of its governmental or proprietary functions consistent with the permissible scope of its authority.
8. NONAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. In the event no funds or insufficient funds are appropriated and budgeted for the acquisition. retention or
operation of the Equipment and funds are otherwise unavailable, by any means whatsoever, in any fiscal period in which the Rental Payments for the
Equipment are due under this Lease, then Lessee shall, not less than sixty (60) days prior to the end of such applicable fiscal period, in writing, notify
Lessor and any Assignee of such occurrence. This Lease shat] thereafter terminate and be rendered null and void on the last day of the fiscal period
for which appropriations were made without penalty, liability or expense to the Lessee of any kind, except as to (i) the portions of the Rental Payments
herein agreed upon for which funds shall have been appropriated and budgeted or are otherwise available and (ii) Lbssee's other obligations and
~iabilities under this Lease relating to, accruing or arising prior to such termination. In the event of such termination, Lessee agrees to peaceably
surrender possession of the Equipment to Lessor or its Assignee on the date of such termination, packed for shipment in accordance with
manufacturers specifications and eligible for manufacturer's maintenance, and freight prepaid and insured to any location in the continental United
States designated by Lessor, all at Lessees expense. Lessor or its Assignee may exercise all available legal and equitable rights and remedies in
retaking possession of the Equipment.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee agrees (a) that if this Lease is terminated in accordance with the preceding paragraph, Lessee shall not
aurchase, lease or rent equipment which performs the same functions as, or functions taking the place of, those performed by the Equipment, and
shall not permit such functions to be performed by its own employees or by any agency or entity affiliated with or hired by Lessee for the balance of the
fiscal period in which such termination occurs or the next succeeding fiscal period thereafter; and (b) that it shall not, during the Lease Term. give
ariority in the application of funds to any other functionally similar equipment.
9. LIMITATION ON WARRANTIES. LESSEE HAS SELECTED BOTH THE EQUIPMENT AND THE VENDOR(S) FROM WHOM LESSOR IS TO
PURCHASE THE EQUIPMENT IN RELIANCE HEREON. LESSEE ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS OF A SIZE,
DESIGN AND CAPACITY SELECTED BY LESSEE, THAT LESSOR IS NOT A MANUFACTURER, VENDOR OR DISTRIBUTOR OF SUCH
--QUIPMENT, AND THAT LESSOR HAS NOT MADE, AND DOES NOT HEREBY MAKE, ANY REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR COVENANT.
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE MERCHANTABILITY. CONDITION, QUALITY, DURABILITY, DESIGN, OPERATION, FITNESS
FOR USE, OR SUITABILITY OF THE EQUIPMENT IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER OR IN CONNECTION WITH OR FOR THE PURPOSES AND
USES OF LESSEE, OR ANY OTHER REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR COVENANT OF ANY KIND OR CHARACTER, EXPRESS OR
IMP_LIED, WITH RESPECTTHERETO AND LESSOR SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATED OR LIABLE FOR ACTUAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL
'~THER DAMAGES OF OR TO LESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
, ~IPMENT. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE USE, PERFORMANCE OR MAINTENANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT.
Lessor hereby assigns to Lessee during the Lease Term, to the extent permitted by law, all manufacturer's warranties. if any, that it may have,
express or implied, with respect to the Equipment, and Lessor authorizes Lessee to obtain the customary services furnished in connection with such
warranties at Lessee's expense. Lessor authorizes Lessee, to the extent permitted by law, to enforce in its own name any warranty, representation or
other claim enforceable against the manufacturer. Lessor assumes no responsibility for shipment, detivery, installation or maintenance, and all
claims of Lessee with respect thereto, whether for delay, damage or otherwise, shall be made against the manufacturer. Lessor. at its option. may
3rovide in its purchase order that the manufacturer agrees that any of such claims may be made by Lessee directly against the manufacturer. The
obligation of Lessee to pay the Rental Payments as defined in Section 4 snail not be abated, impaired or reduced by reason of any claims of Lessee
,vith respect to the Equipment, including but not limited to its condition, quality, workmanship, delivery, shipment, installation. defects or otherwise.
10. TITLE; SECURITY AGREEMENT. Title to the Equipment is deemed to be in Lessee so long as no Event of Default pursuant to Section 19 below
~ as occurred and,' or this Lease has not been terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 above. Upon the earlier of (i) termination of this Lease
n accordance with Section 8 above or (ii) the occurrence of an Event of Default by Lessee pursuant to Section 19 below, title shall revest
tamedlately in and shall revert to Lessor free of any right, title or interest of Lessee unless Lessor elects otherwise. In order to secure all of its
obligations hereunder, Lessee hereby (a) grants to Lessor a first and prior security interest in any and all rights, title and interest of Lessee in the
_ease, the Equipment and in all additions, attachments, accessions, accessories, replacements, improvements and substitutions thereto, now or
:~ereafter acquired, together with all rents, issues, income, profits and proceeds thereof, including insurance proceeds; (b) agrees that this Lease may
3e filed as a financing statement evidencing such security interest: and (c) agrees to execute and deliver all financing statements, certificates of title
and other instruments necessary or appropriate to evidence and perfect such security interest. Lessee further agrees that the Uniform Commercial
Code shall apply as between the parties hereto and assignees of Lessor.
11.PERSONAL PROPERTY. The Equipment is and shall remain. personal property and shall not be deemed to be affixed or attached to real
~roperty or any building thereon. If requested by Lessor, Lessee shall, at its expense, furnish to Lessor a landlord or mortgagee waiver with respect to
;he Equipment.
12. USE; REPAIRS. Lessee shall use the Equipment in a careful manner for the use contemplated by the manufacturer of the Equipment and shall
comply with all laws, ordinances, insurance policies and regulations relating to, and shall pay all costs, claims. damages, fees and charges arising
out of. its possession. use or maintenance. Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain the Equipment according to the manufacturer's
~ecommended guidelines or the equivalent and meet any and all recertification requirements and shall furnish proof of such maintenance, if
requested by Lessor and shall furnish all needed servicing and parts, which parts shall become part of the Equipment. If the Equipment is such as is
c.~-~tomarily covered by a maintenance agreement, Lessee shall furnish Lessor with a maintenance agreement with a party satisfactory to Lessor.
~LTERATIONS. Lessee shall not make any alterations, additions or improvements to the Equipment without Lessor's prior written consent, and
any l:)erm~tted alteration or attachment which cannot be readily removed without damaging the Equipment's originally intended function or value
shall become part of the Equipment.
14. LOCATION; INSPECTION. The Equipment shall not be removed from. or if the Equipment consists of rolling stock, its permanent base shall not
3e changed from the Ecu~Dment Location w~thout Lessor s prior wr:tten consent, which consent shall not be unreasonaoly w~thheld. Lessor shall be
~m't~ed to er".er uCcr* ?e E~u~pment Location or elsewhere dur'¢g reasonable business hours to msoect the Equ~0ment or observe its use and
15. LIENS AND TAXES. Lessee shal! keeo the Ecu:pmert free and clear of all levies. liens and encumbrances except those created under th,s
_ease. Lessee spa:: pay. when due. all charges and taxes fecerai. state and Iocall winch may no,¥ or "ereafter 3e ~mgosed uoon the ov,,nersh,2
easing, rental. sale. purchase. possession or use of t:"e Ecu~pment. excluding however. all taxes on or ~easurec cy Lessor s ',ncome. If Lessee fa,:s
~o pay sa~d charges and taxes when :3ue, Lessor shai', ha,.e the r~ght. but shall not be obhgated to 0ay sa~d charges and taxes. If Lessor pays an,,
charges or taxes for which Lessee ~s responsible or haDie ur, der th~s Lease. Lessee shall. upon demand, reamourse Lessor therefor
1 6. RISK OF LOSS; DAMAGE; DESTRUCTION. Lessee assumes all risk of loss of or damage to the E:u~pmem from any cause vvhatsoever. ann
-o such loss of or damage to the Eeu,:mer'~ ?a~' '~' ,"" _sssee of the obligation to make the Rental Payments er to perform any other oDligatfo¢'
under th~s Lease ~ the event of damage to a'?/', ~m ,of ~2~u:pment. Lessee shall immediately place the same ~n good repair (the proceeds of an';,
,nsurance recover,/she?, be applied to the cost of such repair). If Lessor determines that any item of Equipment ~s lost. stoien. destroyed or damegee
Peyond repair. Lessee. at the option of Lessor, shall: iat replace the same with like equipment in good repair: or [b~ on the next Rental Payment date
pay to Lessor ~h a,~ amounts owed by Lessee under this Lease, including the Rental Payment due on such date. and tii/an amount not less than the
3alance of the Rentai Payments then remaining unpaid hereunder. In the event that Lessee ~s obhgated to make such payment with respect to less
than all of the Equipment. Lessor shall provide Lessee ',vlth the pro rata amount of the Rental Payment and the balance of the Rental Payments then
remaining unpaid hereunder. as applicable, to be made by Lessee with respect to the Equipment which has suffered the event of loss.
1 ?. INSURANCE. Lessee shall, at its expense. maintain at all times during the Lease Term. fire and extended coverage. public liability and property
damage insurance with respect to the Equipment in such amounts. covering such risks, and with such insurers as shall be satisfactory to Lessor. In
no event shall the insurance limits be !ess than an amount equal to the balance of the Rental Payments then remaining for the Lease Term. Each
~nsurance policy shall name Lessee as an insured and Lessor or its assigns as an additional insured and loss payee. as appropriate, and shal!
contain a clause requiring the insurer to give Lessor or its assignee at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of any alteration in the terms of such
policy or the cancellation thereof. The proceeds of any such policies shall be payable to Lessee and Lessor or ~ts assigns, as their interests may
appear. Upon acceptance of the Equipment and upon each insurance renewal date, Lessee shat! deliver to Lessor a cerbficate evidencing suc~
,nsurance. In the event of any loss, damage, ;njury or accident involving the Equipment. Lessee shall promptly 3rovide Lessor w~th written notice
thereof and make available to Lessor all information and documentation relating thereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing. with Lessor's pnor written
consent. Lessee may self-insure against an,/and all risks for which insurance is required.
18. INDEMNIFICATION. In the event that Lessee is not a state or political subdivision thereof. within the meaning of Section !03 of the Code. or
Lessee. w~qether Pv ',is use of the Equ,cmem or by ;[s actions or omissions or by any means whatsoever. causes a""/~nterest payment as set f~,rth
Exhibit C to be tnc:uoed ',n Lessor: gross ,r~come. _essee agrees to pay to Lessor. ~ts Assignees a.~c any par~'c~pants with suc~: an acdi~',ena,
amount which. together with the amount of ~nterest to De pa~d by Lessee under this Lease. puts Lessor. ,rs Assignees and any pa,"t~c',pants w~th suc?
n the same after-tax position they would have been ~n had such payments been excluded from the gross ~ncome of Lessor. ~ts Assignees and an,
3artic~pants with such under Section 103 of the Code. In addition. Lessee agrees to indemnify Lessor against, and hold Lessor. its Assignee, or ant,'
..... participants with such, harmiess from. any and all cia~ms. actions. proceedings. expenses. damages. iiab'.iities or 'osses i:nciuding. but not !impted
attorneys' fees and court costs) arising ~n connection with the Equipment, including, but not limited to. its selection. purchase. delivery. possession
¢se. operation or return and the recovery of cia~ms under ~nsurance policies thereon.
19. EVENTS OF D EFAU LT. The term "Event of Default", as used in this Lease, means the occurrence of any one or more of the following e',,ents: i a~
Lessee fails to make any Rental Payment Ior any other payment) as it becomes due in accordance with the terms of this Lease, and any such falture
continues for five f5) days after the due date thereof:
performed or observed by it hereunder and such failure ~s not cured within ten (10) days after written notice thereof by Lessor; (ct the discovery by
Lessor that any statement. representation or warranty made by Lessee in this Lease or in any document ever deiivered by Lessee pursuant hereto
or in connection herewith is false. misleading or erroneous in any material respect: (d) Lessee becomes ;nsolvent. ;s unable to pay its debts as they
become due, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, applies or consents to the appointment of a receiver, trustee, conservator or
Iiquidator of Lessee or of all or a substantial part of its assets. a petition for relief is filed by Lessee under federal bankruptcy, insolvency or similar
laws, or a petition in a proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws is filed against Lessee and is not dismissed within thirty (30) days
thereafter; (e) Lessee suffers an adverse material change in its financial condition or operations from the date hereof and, as a result. Lessor deems
,tself insecure: or (f) Lessee shall be ~n default under any other agreement executed at any time with Lessor, its affiliates or Lessor's Assignee or
under any other agreement or instrument by which it is bound.
20. REMEDIES. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default. Lessor may, at its option, exercise any one or more of the following remedies: (a) by
written notice to Lessee, declare an amount equal to all amounts then due under this Lease and all remaining Rental Payments which shall become
due during the Lease Term to be immediately due and payable, whereupon the same shall become immediately due and payable: (b) by written
notice to Lessee, request Lessee to (and Lessee agrees that it shall), at Lessee's expense, promptly return the Equipment to Lessor in the manner
set forth in Section 8 hereof, or Lessor, at its option, may enter upon the premises where the Equipment is located and take immediate possession of
and remove the same without liability to Lessor or its agents for such entry or for damage to property or otherwise: !c) sell or lease the Equipment or
sublease it for the account of Lessee, holding Lessee liable for (i) all Rental Payments and other payments due to the effective date of such selling,
leasing or subleasing, and (it) for the difference between the purchase price, rental and other amounts pa~d by the purchaser, lessee or sublessee
pursuant to such sale, lease or sublease and the remaining amounts payable by the lessee hereunder: and (d) exercise any other right, remedy or
privilege which may be available to it under applicab!e law. including the right to (i) proceed by appropriate court action to enforce the terms of this
Lease, (ii) recover damages for the breach of this Lease. and (iii) rescind this Lease as to any or all of the Equipment.
In addition, Lessee shall remain liable for all covenants and indemnities under this Lease and for all legal fees and other costs and expenses.
including court costs. incurred by Lessor w~th respect to the enforcement of any of the remedies listed above or any other remedy available to
.-~_ Lessor.
21. EARLY PURCHASE OPTION. Lessee may, upon s~xty ~60) days prior written notice to Lessor, and provided Lessee shall have fully pa~d and
performed all other obligations hereunder and provided no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, pay to Lessor the applicable amount set
forth on Exhibit C artached hereto. whereupon t~tle to the Ecuipment shall become unconditionally vested in Lessee and Lessor shall transfer any
~nd all of its right. tit',e and interest in the Eau~oment to Lessee as ~s. where ~s. without warrant. express or ~mptied exce0t that Lessor shall warrant to
_=~e ~,~ .~u ~3u;O,'mer't :S free a~'c ~.~c~,
22. ASSIGNMENT. Without Lessor s prior written consent. Lessee shall not: (a) assign, transfer, pledge. hypothecate or grant any security ~nterest ,n.
or otherwise dispose of. this Lease or the Equipment or any interest in this Lease or the Equipment or lb) sublet or lend the Equipment or permit the
-=-quipmerit to be used by anyone other than Lessee or Lessee s employees.
essor, without the consent of Lessee, may assign all or any port,on or portions of its right, title and interest in and to tins Lease. the Equipment and
.>, other documents executed with respect to this Lease, and, or grant or assign all or any port,on or port~ons of its secur't~/~nterest in th~s Lease and
~he Equipment. ~n whole or in part to various assignees, their agents or trustees (each and any one hereinafter referred to as an "Assignee'). Any
such assignment to an Assignee may provide that Lessor or the Assignee shall act as a collection and paying agent for holders of certificates of
participation in this Lease, or may provide that a third-party trustee or agent shall act as collection and paying agent for any Assignee, prowded
Lessee receives written notification of the name and address of the trustee or the agent and a copy of the pooling and fractionalization agency or
trustee agreement, if any. Any such Assignee shall ha, ve all of the assigned rights of Lessor under this Lease. Subject to the foregoing, this Lease
shall inure to the benefit of and is binding upon the heirs, executors. administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. Any assignment or
reassignment of any of Lessor's right, title or interest m this Lease or the Equipment shall be effective upon receipt by Lessee of a duplicate original of
the counterpart document by which the assignment or reassignment is made. disclosing the name and address of each such assignee and, where
applicable, to whom further payments hereunder should be made. During the Lease Term, Lessee covenants that it shall keep a complete and
accurate record of all assignments in form necessary to comply with Section 149(a) of the Code and the regulations. proposed or existing, from time
to time promulgated thereunder. Lessee agrees to acknowledge. in writing, any assignments if so requested.
LESSEE AGREES THAT, UPON NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT, IF SO INSTRUCTED IT SHALL PAY DIRECTLY TO THE ASSIGNEE, OR ITS
TRUSTEE OR AGENT WITHOUT ABATEMENT, DEDUCTION OR SETOFF ALL AMOUNTS WHICH BECOME DUE HEREUNDER. LESSEE
FURTHER AGREES THAT IT SHALL NOT ASSERT AGAINST ANY ASSIGNEE, TRUSTEE OR AGENT ANY DEFENSE, CLAIM, COUNTERCLAIM
OR SETOFF ON ACCOUNT OF ANY REASON WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO ANY RENTAL PAYMENTS OR OTHER AMOUNTS DUE
HEREUNDER OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTION BROUGHT TO OBTAIN POSSESSION OF THE EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO THIS LEASE.
23. NATURE OF AGREEMENT. Lessor and Lessee agree that it is their intention that, for federal income tax purposes, ~ne interest of Lessor ~n the
Equipment is as a secured party and the interest of Lessee is as a debtor, and that Lessor neither has nor shall have any eourty in the Ec!ui0ment. It is ;he
agreement of Lessor and Lessee that the aggregate rental payments provided for hereunder constitute the purchase price of ~e Equipment together
nterest on the unamortized amount thereof over the term of this Lease, that each monthly rnstallment of rent constitutes prmc~pat and interest.
accordance with the schedule of rental payments set forth in Exhibit C of this Lease, which fully amortizes the purchase pnce of the Equipment. together
with interest, over the term of this Lease. and that upon the due and punctual payment and performance of the installments of Rental Payments and other
amounts and obligations under this Lease, title to the Equipment shait vest permanently in Lessee as prowded ~n th~s Lease. free and clear cf any lien or
security of Lessor therein.
24. AMENDMENTS. This Lease may be amended or any of its terms modified for the purpose of adding Equipment. w~th the written consent of the
2arties hereto. tn such event, additions to or additional exhibits attached hereto shall be executed by Lessee. All other amendments or modifications of
the terms of this Lease f except for the addition of serial numbers for the Equipment as set forth in the Acceptance Certificatel must be accomplished by
.... men consent of Lessee and Lessor. or its Assignee. if any; provided. however. that no amendment of this Lease shall operate to reduce or delay any
.tal Payments to be made hereunder without the consent of Lessor. or its Assignee. at the time of such amendment.
25. NOTICES. All notices to be given under this Lease shall be made in writing and mailed by certified mail to the other part,/at ~ts address set forth hereto
3r at such address as the party may provide in writing from time to time. Any such notice shall be deemed to have been received five f5) days subsequent
:o mailing.
26. SECTION HEADINGS. All section headings contained herein are for the convenience of reference only and are not :mended to define or limit the
scope of any provision of this Lease.
2?. GOVERNING LAW. This Lease shall be governed by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the state or other jurisdiction where the Equipment is
ocated.
28. FURTHER ASSURANCES. Lessee shall deliver to Lessor: (i) an opinion of counsel in substantially the form of Exhibit D attached hereto or as Lessor
may otherwise request; and (it) if applicable, a certificate of a duty authorized official as to designation as a qualified tax-exempt obligation. Moreover.
_essee shall execute or provide, as requested by Lessor. any documents and information which are reasonably necessary with respect to the
:ransaction contemplated by this Lease. Lessee hereby authorizes Lessor to execute and file on behalf of Lessee and as Lessee's attorney-in-fact such
rjCC financing and continuation statements as Lessor deems necessary to secure its and/or its Assign's interest in the Equipment or this agreement.
29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Lease, together with the exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof and other attachments hereto, and other
,~.ocuments or instruments executed by Lessee and Lessor in connection herewitlq, constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to
¢ne lease of the Equipment. and this Lease shall not be modified, amended, altered or changed except with the written consent of Lessee and Lessor.
30. SEVERABILITY. Any provision of this Lease found to be prohibited by law shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition without invalidating
:he remainder of this Lease.
31. WAIVER. The waiver by Lessor of any breach by Lessee of any term, covenant or condition hereof shall not o:)erate as a wawer of any
subsequent breach hereof.
LESSOR: Cit,~corp North America, Inc.
DATE:
PRINTED NAME AND l~TLE
.2NAVPG I I23 ~7 87)
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AND TITLE
LESSEE: C__TT¥ OF' TF:MP, CUf, A
MUNICIPAL ,,NTITV
BY: ~
AUTHORIZED SIGNAT;.,,=--
PRINT,,D NAM,, AND T:T~,,
DAT .~'
CITICORPg~ NORTH AMERICA
EXHIBIT A to
STATE AND MUNICIPAL LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT
Quantity
Description of Leased Equipment (Make, Kind, Model No., Serial No., Any Other Pertinent Identification)
NEC 2400 IMS DIGITAL TELEPHONE SYSTEM
SEE SCHEDULE "A" ATTACHED
HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE:
LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT
COUNTY:
ZIP:
CERTIFICATION
Lessee hereby certifies that the description of the property set forth above constitutes an accurate acco6nt of the Equipment as
referred to in the Lease.
Lessee:
By: c.~
Date.~
CIT~Z OF TEM~C~A
(Municipal Entity)
(Authorized Signature)
(Printed Name and Title)
Z:4A '.'PG ' '23-.=,
CITICORPO NORTH AMERICA
Schedule A (Multiple Pieces Equipment/One Location)
MAKE/MANUFACTURER - DESCRIPTION
10
16
37
91
21
4
2
2
NEC 2400 SYSTEM PACKAGE "A"
FULLY REDUNDANT 30 AMP RECTIFIER WITH
COUNTER EMF PANEL AND BATTERIES
16LCG-G 16 PORT SINGLE LINE
CIRCUIT CARD
8ELC-C 8 CIRCUIT DIGITAL TELEPHONE
CIRCUIT CARD
8COT-F 8 CIRCUIT BOTHWAY
TRUNK CARD
ETE-16D-2 16 BUTTON DIGITAL TELEPHONE
ETE 6D-2 6 BUTTON DIGITAL DISPLAY
TELEPHONES
ETE 1HM-2 SINGLE LINE TELEPHONE
MULTIFUCTION
HFU-E HANDSFREE SPEAKER MODULES
RED- SINGLE LINE TELEPHONE
LOBBY TELEPHONES
NORTHERN TELECOM HEADSETS
HEADSET ADAPTER KITS
MODEL NO.
Page 1 of __
SERIAL NO.
.... Schedule attached to and made part of that Lease,
,,,,. , dated the day
of ,19 , between the
Lessee and Citicorp North America, Inc.
C:'4A VFP 7-83
This Schedule is hereby verified as correct by the
undersigned Lessee.
LESSEE: CITY OF TEMECULA
By.-%
Autl~onzed Signature and Title
CITICORPO NORTH AMERICA
EXHIBIT B to
STATE AND MUNICIPAL LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT
DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE
To: Citicorp North America, Inc.
Reference is made to the State and Municipal Lease/Purchase Agreement between the undersigned ("Lessee"), and
Citicorp North America, Inc. ("Lessor1'), dated ("Lease") and to the Equipment
as such term is defined therein. In connection therewith we are pleased to confirm to you the following:
1. All of the Equipment has been delivered to and received by the undersigned: that all installation or other
work necessary prior to the use thereof has been completed; that said Equipment has been examined and/or
tested and is in good operating order and condition and is in all respects satisfactory to the undersigned and
as represented, and that said Equipment has been accepted by the undersigned and complies with all terms
of the Lease. Consequently, you are hereby authorized to pay for the Equipment in accordance with the terms
of any purchase orders for the same.
2. In the future, in the event the Equipment fails to perform as expected or represented we will continue to honor
the Lease in all respects and continue to make our rental and other payments thereunder in the normal course
of business and we will look solely to the vendor, distributor or manufacturer for recourse.
3. We acknowledge that Lessor is neither the vendor nor manufacturer or distributor of the Equipment and has no
control, knowledge or familiarity with the condition, capacity, functioning or other characteristics of the
Equipment.
4. The serial number for each item of Equipment which is set forth on Exhibit A to the Lease is correct.
This certificate shall not be considered to alter, construe, or amend the terms of the Lease.
Lessee:
O~' T~CUf.,A
(Municipal Entity)
By:
Witness
(Authorized Signature)
(Printed Name and Title)
Date~
CNA VPG 1 "23-b 7--37
CITICORP '
PURCHASE OPTION RIDER B
At the end of the Original Rental Term, and upon satisfactory completion of the terms and conditions ~ncluding receipt
of all monies due and payable under terms of the attached Lease, the following option will be availab!e to the Lessee:
Lessee upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to Lessor, shall have the option to purchase all, but not
less than all, of the Equipment. for the amount of one United States dollar ($1.00).
For Office Use Only
Rider attached to and made part of that Lease,
No. , dated the __
day of .19 __, between the
Lessee and Citicorp North America, Inc.
Lessor: Citicorp North America, Inc.
By:
(Authorized Signature)
Title:
Date:--
Lessee:
Address'"
CITY OF TEMECULA
(Lega~ Name of Cornpan'/
(Authorized Signature)
Printed Name and Title~
,19__
EXhIBiT c
M!OeTIZATION SCI~EDULE FI~ HUNZ::PAL LEASES
Northly in Advance
PAYNE!IT PAI'~#T PRINCIPAL ~#TEREST PREPAYNERT
~ ~ PA]D PA[D ANOUNT
0 2,855.1~ 2,855.1& 0.00 67,151.05
1 I,&Z?oS? 893.75 5'5~.82. ~5,?..39.~3
2 1,4~?.57 900.99 526.58 65,3~.~1
~ 1,&Z?.$7 908.30 519.27 6~,393.95
4 1,~27.$? 915.66 ~11.91 63,~59.9T
5 1,427.57 923.09 51~.48 6~.,518.4,2
6 1,¢~?.57 930.57 ~97.00 61,569.2_3
r 1,4Lrr. 5'r 938.12 489.&5 60,612.35
8 1, ~ZT. 57 9~$. 73 ~,1 .~ 59,6~?. 71
10 I ,~?.S? 961,13 ~a6. ~t~ 57,694.90
11 1,4Z?.57 968.9~ &$8.65 56,706.~
12 1,427.57 976.78 ~50,79 55,710.29
13 1,427.57 9~.rO &&~.87 54,705.90
1~ 1,~,?.57 99Z.68 634.89 53,693.37
15 1,~27.~7 1,000.73 ~26.~ 5~,672.6Z
16 1,~.7.§7 1,008.8& 618.73 51,64,3.60
17 1,4~7.57 1,017.0~ ~10.55 50,606.26
t8 1,~.?.57 1,0~.Z7 /*OZ.30
19 1,a27.57 1,033.58 393.99 ~,$06.L='0
20 I.~.?.$? 1,0A1.97 385.60
Zl 1,427.57 1,0~0.41 377.16 ~6,371.97
Z2 1,627.57 1,0~.9~ 3~..64 45,Z91.B~
~ 1,427.57 1,076.17 351.~4] 63,105.30
2S 1,~7.57 1,08~.90 34,2.~7 ~1~998.~
26 1.&~?.57 1,093.70 333,87 ~0,88;3.13
Z? 1o6~?.57 1,10Z.57 3~.00 39,758.51
28 1,/~7,57 1,111.51 316,06
~9 1,/~/',$7 1,1zo. SZ 307,05 37,~1.85
30 1,~?.S7 1,129.60 ~7.97 36,3~9.65
31 1,~27.57 1,138.76 288.81 35,168,11
3z 1,~7.57 1,1~8.00 279.57 $3,997,15
33 1,~7.57 1,157.31 z?o,?.6 3~,816.70
3~ 1,/,zr.$7 1,166.69 2.~.88 31,~26.67
35 1,~.7,57 1,176.15 z51,~ 30,4~7.00
36 1,&z7,57 1,185.69 ~¢1.88 z9,~17.68
37 1,~27.~7 1,195.30 237..~7 27,9~.39
38 1,~27.57 1.z0~.99 222.58 26,769,30
~ 1,42'/'.57 1,z14.77 212.80
40 1,~27.57 1,~.~ 202.95 2~,Z61.13
EXHIBIT C
ANOP, T~ZAT[O~ SCHEDULE FOil ~I.I#~CIPAL LEA'~S
Ho~I~Ly in Advance
43 I,~7.57 1.~.65 1~.~ z0,~.71
~ 1,~27.57 1,~.~ 1~.~ 19,1~.59
45 1,427.57 1,2~.~ 152.49 17,~.01
47 1,427.57 1,~5.~ 131.~ 15,Z4V.13
~ 1,4~7.}7 1,~.35 1Z1.~ 13,~14.~
49 1,427.57 1,314.~ 110.~ 1~,5~.~
52 1,427.~7 1,~9.~ ~.~ 8,4~.85
~3 1,427.57 1,~.17 67.~ 7,~.47
~ 1,~7.57 I,~1.~ ~.~7 5,691.~
~5 I,~7.57 1,~.32 ~5.~ ~,281.87
~7 1~4~.57 1,4~.~ ~.74 1,4Z7.~
5~ 1~4~7.57 1,416.~ 11.35
C[Tf OF TEMEI:ULA
CITICORPONORTH AMERICA
EXHIBIT E to
STATE AND MUNICIPAL LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTIONS
I, , do hereby certify that I am the duty elected, or appointed
and acting Secretary/Clerk of the CZ'['~ O~' TBtvlECfSr,A
an agency duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of (the "Lessee")',
and that the following resolutions have been presented to and duly adopted by the
at a meeting duly and regularly held and convened in accordance with applicable law on the
day of ,19 __
WHEREAS, the Lessee is entering a State and Municipal Lease/Purchase Agreement ("Lease") dated
with Citicorp North America, Inc.;
,191
WHEREAS, Lessee has carefully reviewed its financing requirements for the current calendar year and reasonaely expects that it will
not issue more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of tax-exempt obligations during the calendar year:
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Lessee be, and hereby is, authorized to enter into the Lease with Citicorp North
America, Inc. for a period of months, and be it further
RESOLVED, that an official of the Lessee be, and hereby is, authorized, empowered and directed to sign on its behalf the Lease
and any addenda, schedules, notes, UCC financing statements or other instruments issued under the provision of the Lease
and any other instrument or document which may be necessary or expedient in connection with agreement upon or fulfillment
of the provisions of the Lease.
RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, this Lease be and hereby is
designated a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" includable within the ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of the aggregate issues
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the calendar year within which this Lease is entered into.
RESOLVED, that Lessee shall not designate more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of tax-exempt obligations during the
current calendar year as qualified tax-exempt obligations and Lessee, together with its subordinate entities, does not
reasonably expect to issue more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of tax-exempt obligations during the current calendar
year.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this certificate and affixed the seal hereto this __ day of
19__
Lessee:
CT'I"Y 0~' TF_,tvtECUf.,A
(Municipal Entity)
ByE'
(Signature of Secretaryf Clerk)
(Printed Name
CNA VPG 1123-e 7-87
ITEM NO. 3
APPROVAL
CITY A'I-FORNEY
CITY MANAGER -~ --._
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
City Manager's Office
August 6, 1991
APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND
JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION
RECOMMENDA T/ON:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of
understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are
a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation.
D~CUS~O~
Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the
City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development
Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation
between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's
sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's
boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future
development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and
Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's
incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as
depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s.
memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the
Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the
properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for
development agreements.
a:agenda.jul
ITEM NO. 4
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER -
TO:
FROM: ~,q,q~2
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
August 6, 1991
Appropriation of Funds and Approval of Payment to the County of
Riverside Transportation Department for the Completion of Roadway
Improvements at the Intersection of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road
PREPARED BY: Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council appropriate $85,290.06 for fiscal year 1990-91 from the Gas
Tax Fund balance into Account Number 165-5402 (Street Maintenance) for the
payment of road improvements constructed by Riverside County Day Labor Forces at
the intersection of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road in accordance with the City
Council action of June 26, 1990.
DISCUSSION:
At the regular Council Meeting of June 26, 1990, the City Council authorized
$200,000 to be used for various traffic projects, including the construction of a left
turn and a right turn lane on Winchester Road at Nicolas Road. Through the diligent
efforts of Max Gillis, the City, Riverside County and CalTrans we were able to
construct this project with Riverside County Day Labor Forces in April and May of this
year. The project is now complete and it is appropriate to pay the County of Riverside
for their construction services.
pwO 1 \agdrl~t\0806.001
ITEM NO. 5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
P~anning Department
August 6, 1991
Appeal No. 17 for Conditional Use Permit No. 11
PREPARED BY:
Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council:
DENY Appeal No. 17 and uphold the Planning
Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 11.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
R EPR ESENTATIVE:
Robert C. Vecchione/Eduardo J. Lopes
Barbara Elias
PROPOSAL:
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
automotive sales by individual owner at an existing
parking lot.
LOCATION:
27919 Front Street
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial)
M-M ( Manufacturing - Medium)
1-15 Freeway
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
Not requested.
EXISTING LAND USE:
Office Building
A:CUPll.APP 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Retail Center
Parking Lot
Offices/ I - 15 F teeway
Packing House
BACKGROUND:
Appeal No. 17 was filed with the City of Temecula
Planning Department on June 27, 1991. The
application is an appeal to the City Council as a
result of the Planning Commission denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 11. Conditional Use
Permit No. 11 was denied by the Planning
Commission on June 17, 1991.
The findings made by the Commission in denyin9 the
proposed permit were relative to adverse impacts to
traffic and circulation, site compatibility,
insufficient parking, and inappropriate use.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Conditional Use Permit in question was an
application to conduct automotive sales from an
existing parking lot. The proposed sales would
have taken place on weekends only, and would be
conducted on an individual by owner basis. The
parking lot is located at the northwest corner of
Front Street and Las Haciendas Street.
Attached are the applicant's comments relative to
the processing of the Conditional Use Permit, and
their reasons for appeal. Also attached are various
letters protesting the project from citizens and
individual business owners in the City of Temecula.
FINDINGS AND
SUPPORTING FACTS:
In denying the application for Conditional Use
Permit No. 11, the Planning Commission made the
following findings:
The site of the proposed use, together with
the on-site parking required and provided,
is not suitable in size to accommodate the
proposed intensity of use.
e
The proposed use will have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The proposed use is
on scale of intensity to impact adjacent uses.
The site for the proposed use does not have
adequate circulation and access to the fully
improved Jefferson Avenue, as evidenced in
the site plan for Conditional Use Permit No.
11, for the proposed intensity of use.
A: CUPll. APP 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be inconsistent with the City's
General Plan once it is adopted because the
proposed is not a permitted use in the M-M
( Medium Manufacturing) zone.
There is a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of area development,
These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits,
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
Staff recommends that the City Council:
DENY Appeal No. 17 and uphold the Planning
Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit
No. 11.
MR: ks
Attachments:
R esol ution
Exhibits
A: CUP11. APP 3
RESOLUTION NO. 91-56
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 11 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AUTOMOBILE
SALES BY INDIVIDUAL OWNER LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRONT STREET AND LAS
HACIENDAS STREET.
WHEREAS, Robert C. Vecchione and Eduardo J. Lopes filed CUP No. 11
in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission considered said CUP on June 17,
1991. at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approved said CUP;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty ~30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
12) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
A:CUP11 1
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan. (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed CUP is not consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that CUP No.
11 proposed will not be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is a probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action does not complies
with all other applicable requirements of state
law and local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be
approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as
shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
A:CUP11 2
12) The Planning commission, in denying the proposed
CUP, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
The site of the proposed use, together with
the on-site parking required and provided,
is not suitable in size to accommodate the
proposed intensity of use.
b)
The proposed use will have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The proposed use is
on scale of intensity to impact adjacent uses.
c)
The site for the proposed use does not have
adequate circulation and access to the fully
improved Jefferson Avenue, as evidenced in
the site plan for Conditional Use Permit No.
11, for the proposed intensity of use.
d)
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be inconsistent with the City's
General Plan once it is adopted because the
proposed is not a permitted use in the M-M
(Medium Manufacturing) zone.
e)
There is a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of area development.
f)
These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits,
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the CUP proposed
is not compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption
per the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies CUP No.
11 for the operation of automobile sales by individual owner located at the northwest
corner of Front Street and Las Haciendas Street.
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
A:CUP11 3
SECTION 4_~.
PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof. held
on the 17th day of June. 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 3
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
ABSENT: 1
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:CUP11 4
PL~qNIN~ CONNISSION ~INUTES
~UNE 17, 1991
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT NO. 1~
7.1
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow automotive
sales by individual owner at an existing parking lot.
Located at 27919 Front Street.
Chairman Chiniaeff, stepping down due to a conflict of
interest, turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Ford.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. Mr. Jiannino
verified that the Commission had received the copies of
the letters of opposition from neighboring property
owners as well as local automobile dealerships.
VICE CHAIRMAN FORD opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M.
BARBARA ELIAS, Charles L. March Red Carpet Real Estate,
38710 Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Murrieta, representing
the applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed
"For Sale By Owner" car lot. Ms. Elias stated that this
concept would offer individuals a safer avenue for selling
their automobiles as opposed to having people come to
their homes or businesses as well as discourage people
from parking their "For Sale" automobiles all over town
on private property.
CHARLES L. MARCH, Red Carpet Real Estate, 28500 Front
Street, Temecula, spoke in favor of the project.
SANDRA WILSON, 40310 Carmelitia Circle, Temecula, spoke
in favor of the project.
DAN ATWOOD, Toyota of Temecula, spoke in opposition to
the proposed "For Sale By Owner" lot.
STEVE PALMER, Nissan of Temecula, and speaking for the
principals of Temecula Dodge; Griffin Oldsmobile, GMC
and Cadillac; and Temecula Acura/Mazda, expressed
opposition to the proposed "For Sale By Owner" lot.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF, 29321 Via Norte, Temecula, spoke in
opposition to the proposed "For Sale By Owner" lot. He
added that the Traffic Ordinance recently adopted by the
City of Temecula will address individuals parking their
"For Sale" automobiles on public streets and private
property.
PCMIN6/l?/91 -6- JUNE 18, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at
7:45 P.M. and Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 11, seconded
by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland,
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
The Commission indicated the following as their findings
for denial: the location and it's proposed use, on-site
parking, trash pick-up and clean-up of oil spills,
control of illegal parking on adjacent properties and
traffic congestion.
Vice Chairman Ford turned the gavel back over to Chairman
Chiniaeff.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a recess at 7:50 P.M.
reconvened at 8:00 P.M.
The meeting
...... AlII - - I II
~eMZN6/X7/9Z
-7-
JUNE 18, 1991
EXHIBITS FOR APPEAL NO. 17
B.
C.
D.
Provided at Applicant's Request
Provided at Applicant's Request
Audio Tape - Planning File
Video Tape - To Be Provided at The Request of The
Applicant
Provided at Applicant's Request
Provided at Applicant's Request
Public Comment
A:CUPll.APP
//
EXASCTLY WHAT IS BEING APPEAI...IED~,
DENIAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 9:1.
CASE NO,: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT :1:1::1.:1.
'THE DEC, ISION FOR DENIAL BY THE CITY O1:::' TEI"tECLJLA PL,"]NNIhlG
COldMISSION WAS NOT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CONDITIOr'.,IS "f',~.lA'f
WERE PRESENTED TO THEM IN T'HE STAFF RIEPORT t.,,.IHICH WAS PRE. PARED
FOR THEM BY THE DIRECTE)R OF PLANNING,~ GARY THORNHI L L. ,,
ASSISTANT PLANNER MARK RHOADES,~ SENIOR PLANNER STEVE .]'IAN.[IqO,
ALL EMPLOYEED AS EXPERTS BY THE CI"f'Y "I"EI ADV]:SE THE APPO]:NTED
NON-PAID RESIDENCE OF 'FEMECULA WHO SERVE ON THE COMM]:SSION,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL,~ APPLICANTS AGREEMENT WITH
THE CONDITIONS AND EXHIBITS TO tlANDLE OPPOSIT",:ON WERE N[)F
EVEN CONSIDERED.
THE FACT THAT CHAIRMEN DENNIS CHINIAEFF EXCUSED HIMSELF DUE
TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND WAS THEN PERMITTED TO SPEAK AS
A PRIVATE CITIZEN OPPOSING C.U. P. :l.t.l 1 AND THEN ASKED "I'HE
COMMITTEE ON WHICH HE SERVES TO STRONGLY DENY THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT THAT STAFF REOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
WE FEEL THAT THE VOTE TO DENY WAS GREATLY INFLUENCED BY THE]
!]HAIRMEN CHINIAEFF'S UNOR'I'~IODOX OR POSSIBLY II...LEGAL ACTIONS
AND TIdE EMOTIONAL APF:EAL MADE BY THE LOCAL CAR DEAI...EI':,'..S AS
THEY REMINDED THE COMMITTEE THAT THEY WERE THE LARGEST TAX
PAYERS IN TOWN.
ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE CI'IIZENS OF THE
TEMECULA WHO ARE IN A NO WIN SITUATION .... SELL YOUR CII~AR TO A
DEALER FOR A WHOLESALE PRICE... PUT IT ON A CITY STREET AND BE
FINED .OR PUT THEMSELVES AS RISK BY ADVERTISING AND ALLOWING
STRANGERS TO COME TO THEIR HOMES.
REASONS & JUSTIFICATIONS TO SUPPORT THE APPEAL:
1. ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 5RD, 1991, THE DATE OF THE
ORIGINAL HEARING, BARBARA ELIAS, ~REZD CARPET CHARLES i...
MARCH,WHO IS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR APF" L I CANTES ROBERT
VECCHIONE & EDUARDO LOPES CALLED 'THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
SPOKE TO ASSISTANT PLANNER MARK RHOADES WHO WAS THE CASE
PLANNER FOR 'THE "FOR SALE BY OWNER CAR LOT". WHEN ASKED IF
ANY ADDITIONAL LETTERS OR OBJECTIONS HAD COME IN SHE WAS
ADVISED THAT LETTERS OF OBJECTIONS HAD COME IN FROM ELI
B.DUBROW, ROBERT D. BROWNING, BW/IP SEAL DIVISION,DATED
"RECEIVED MAY 30, i991"BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA,AND ONE FROM
EDWARD DOWNER, OWNER OF THE t~ CLUB,DATED "RECEIVED JUNE
· 3,1991" BY THE CITY TEMECULA. A REQUEST WAS MADE FOR A COPY
OF THE ENTIRE FILE AND PICKED UP THAT A.M. EXHIBITS WERE
PREPARED 'TO ALL ITEMS OF OPPOSITION AND WERE BROUGHT TO "!-HE
SCHEDULED MEETING THAT EVENING.
"WHY WERE NONE OF THE LETTERS FROM TEMECULA, DODGE,CHRYSLER,
.ZEEP, SIGNED BY PRESIDENT ~OHN HARRISON, TEMECULA VALLEY
TOYOTA, SIGNED BY PRESIDENT DAN ATWOOD, OR ACURA, SIGNED BY
PRESIDENT GARY L. ANDERSON, ALL STAMPED "RECEIVED MAY 30,
1991" I',.IOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL FILE?"
"WHY WERE THESE LETTERS NEVER MENTIONED DURING THE MANY CALLS
MADE TO THE PLANNING DEPT. RE;ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF'
'"~ ~1~ ,~ ~ T hi['~ "'~ '~
OPPOSITION DURING THE ..' WEEKS PRIOR 'TO .IUNE ~'7]-H .",~_~ ....'~.~:
"WHY DIDN'T ASSISTANT PLANNER MARK A. RHOADS WHO WAS '['FIE
CASE PLANNER NOT ADVISE US THAT HE WOULD NOT BE IN TOWN WHEN
NE SAID 'TO HIM ON LEAVING THE PREMISES "SEE YOU IN 2 WEEKS"?
2. "WHY ~ WHEN WE CALI..ED ON THE MORNING OF JUNE ~7, 199l
ADVISED BY SENIOR PLANNER STEVE .IIANNINO THAT MARK RHOADES
WAS ON VACATION AND THAT HE WOULD BE HANDLING ]'HE CASE
c~_r't.~inly ~.~s no onjection to that). WHEN ASKED IF THERE WE[~E
ANY NEW LETTERS OF OPPOSITION HE ASKED IF WE HAD RECEIVED
COPIES OF THE LETERS FROM THE CAR DEALERS..WE ADVISED HIM
THAT WE HAD NOT AND REQUESTED A COMPLETE COPY OF THE CASE
FILE WHICH WAS PICKED UP 'THAT A.M. SO WE COULD HAVE ANSWERS
AND EXHIBITS TO THEIR COMPLAINTS.
:3. WHY WHEN PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMEN DENNIS CHINIAEFF
EXCUSED HIMSELF "DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTERES'F" (~hich
neveP disclosed ~,;h~'h. t~e conflict ~;as) WHY WA~3 HE LATEIR
ALLOWED 'TO SPEAK AS A "PRIVATE CITIZEN" AGAINST C.U.P.:I~11 AND
REE~UEST THAT THE COMMITTEE WHICH HE CHAIRS TO DENY APPROVAL?
PROTEST LETTERS THAT STAFF RECEIVED IN THE 2 WEEKS PRIOR '1-0
THIS HEARING. THESE PROTEST INCLUDE LETTERS FROM CURRENT AUTO
DEALERSHIPS IN TOWN, ACURA, TOYOTA, CHRYSLER, ADJOiNiNG
PROPERTY OWNERS AND MR. DOWNER. WHEN S'I':.AFF IST REVIEWED THIS
PROJECT, THERE WAS WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINTS THEY FELT THAT THE
PRO.]'ECT COULD BE APPROVED, THAT THERE WERE, WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT PARKING THERE WAS NO USE ON THE WEEKENDS, iTS BEEN
I";::P, OUGHT "1~0 S'I'A~:FS ATTENTION THAT THIS BUILDING MIGHT BE USE
ON "['HE WEEK-ENDS MORE THAN STAFF ANTICiPATED,'IHAT MIGHT COME
OUT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF DOESN'T KNOW THE USE OF THE
BUILDING, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WITH THE CONDiTIOND
OF APPROVAL PLACED ON THE PROJECT, THAT YOU APPROVE C.U.P.
:t:1:11 AT THIS TIME. ANY 'QUESTIONS?" (this quote may be vepified
by 'the o9ficial tape enclosed )
THE APPELLANTS ALLEGE THAT THE MANY PARTS OF THE STATEMENT
MADE BY SENIOR PLANNER STEVE JIANINO ARE UNTRUE. SEE EXHIBTS
iNCLUDED AND MENTIONED ABOVE REGARDING DATES LETTERS WERE
P. ECEIVED. ALL WERE STAMPED PRIOR TO MEETING OF JUNE 3RD. ALL
L[iLT'TERS WERE iNCLUDED IN THE CASE PACKET FOR THAT DATE EXCEPT
FOR THE LETTERS FROM THE DEALERSHIPS WHICH WE HAVE ALSO
ADDRESSED IN A PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH, ASKING WHY THEY WERE NOT
INCLUDED.
5. THE APPLICANTS PUT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME INTO MAKING
A VIDEO OF THE S.D. LOCATION, WHICH WE WERE ADVISED PRIOR TO
THE .]'UNE 3RD HEARING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW. BOARDS OF
EXHIBITS DEALING WITH ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS AND LETTERS OF
PROTEST WERE AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION '[0 SEE. ON
THREE OCCASIONS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANTS, BARBARA
ELIAS TRIED TO PRESENT THE VIDEO, THREE TIME IT WAS DENIED OR
ADVISED IT WAS NOT NECESSARY.
"I"HE EXHIBITS INCLUDED VARIOUS "FRONT PAGE" NEWS ARTICLES,
PHOTOS OF THE DANGER T[] OUR CITIZENS BOTH BY LOOKING AT CARS
PARKED ALONG STREETS AND HIGHWAYS, AS WELL AS ARTICLES
AND TESTIMONY REGARDING THE RISK FACTOR OF PEOPLE PUTTING
THEIR CARS FOR SALE IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES OR ADVERTISING AS
-iNDIVIDUALS. ALL OF THESE WERE IGNORED.
ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND PRINTED COPIES OF THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE
AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION THE NIGHT OF THE MEETING. THESE
HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE APPELLANTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE AT
GREA"I' EXPENCE OF TIME AND MONEY. THIS SHOULD GiVE YOU
ADE~'~UATE PROOF AND EVIDENCE OF THE ISSUES OF PROTEST AND HOW
THEY WEP. E HANDLED, YET DISREGARDED BY THE COMMISSION.
THERE WAS NOT ONE COMMENT MADE BY ANY MEMBER OF ]'HE
COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACTOR INVOLVED
IN THIS ENTIRE VENTURE.
OF C.U.P. $~ lI, WERE NOT STATED. THE OPPOSSING FORCE OF
CURRENT AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS LOBBY IN TEMECULA, WHO MADE THEIR
POINT WELL "THAT THEY WERE THE BIGGEST TAXPAYERS IN TOWN" AND
AFRAID OF THe.:- LITTLE COMPETITION FROM A SMALL BUSINESS THAT
WOULD ALSO BE A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITIZENS OF
TEMECULA.
Co. ALL OTHER COMPLAINTS OR PROTEST EXPRESSED BY LETTERS, OR
COMMENTS MADE DURING THE JbNE17TH HEARING WITH REGARD TO
ADEQUATE PARKING.~ 'I'RASH CANS, OiL LEAKS, OR REFERENCE MADE BY
THE COMMISIONERS REGARDING THE TRASHING OF THE "BEAUTIFUL
CREATIVE ARTS BUILDING" ARE COVERED AND EVIDENCED BY THE
APPLICANTS LEASE AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF ALL OF THE
CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH BY THE REPORT OF THE PLANNING DEPT.
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND
MORE SPECIFICALLY ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT WHICH
DEALS WITH THE "FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING FACTS" THAT ALLOWED
THEM TO MAKE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION NO. 91- APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
11. AT THE TIME OF THIS STAFF REPORT THEY iN FACT "DID" H'AVE
ALL OF THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.
7..APPELLANT'S ALSO REQUEST ADE[~UATE TIME TO SHOW THE VIDEO
OF THE EXISTING FSBO LOT IN AN AREA OF SAN DIEGO COMPARABLE
TO THE TEMECULA LOCATION AND ADEQUATE TIME TO SHOW EXHIBITS
THAT MAY BE BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF TEMECULA HERING THIS APPEAL.
EXHIBITS C AND D
AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPES
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
A:CUPll.APP
ExHmrr, ~ ~ ~
FOR
S.kLE
BY
O 'NER
~" - ' ~ ~. --"~ ~ ~ ~' ~ F ~.'~-'~
This is an ac~dent waiting ~ happeru The woman l~o~ng at car
'.~ street, Sateday & 8~day. P8BO Paring Lot offers a safe
', . . k.,:', ;.:,
x,:~ ~ from people coming m their home.
· ,...~444 ~z:.:.:.:.,,.
.. ~ ~_~. ~ '~.,.~.. ~--_ ~ , .:.,.,.. ~ , . _ '.:....:.:.,:.:.:~......,..., ..,.....,..,..
· ~ ~v ., ,,~ · .:~+~;, , ....~ c ~ ~h
, ~~ ~.. ~..4.~,¥~>~'~..~'~, '=~:~, ~,~x,.~,.~ .............
' ~ /~, . . ,~.,~ : ~ .. ~ . .~ . ~..~,,, .~ ~ ~,,.., ~.., .....,,, .......~=.....~,.,~;
'For Sale'
sign nets
ticket, not
interested
¢ustom.ers
· ORDINANCE:.$eIIinE
vehicle, on city streets'
illegal in Temecula
MARY McKENZIE/The Cali[orrtia,a .
TEMECULA "Whefi'
Juanita Gullotta hung a
"For Sale'" sign on the
family's 10-year old camper.
outside her Ramsey CoU.~.'
home, she only wanted to
attract potential buyers.
One day after the sign
went up, Gullotta and her
husband Leonard were
surprised to find not the'
interested customers
looking over the camper but'
a ticket fr0m~the Riverside
'County Sheriffs
Department hanging from
it.
They did not know Why,
After calling Temecula
Please see FINE, A4 ,-
FINE
Continued [rorn A1
Police .Capt. Rick Sayre,
thecouple found out that
they were being fined for
selling an automobile on a
public street.'.
"This is a county
ordinance that's been on
the books for ages," Sayre
said. "And the city adopted
it last year~" .
Sayre said the California
Highway Patrol previously
had enforced the ordinance.
Once the city
incorporated and the
county rule was adopted,
ocal law enforcement
officer. s were given the
power to issue tickets to
'homeowners for
advertising the sale of an
auto on the structure.
But Gullo.tta said the
ticket she received did not
spell out what codes wer~
broken and did not state
how much the fine was for.
"This o. rdinance has been
on the books for as long as I
can remember," Sayre said.
"If the owner puts a 'for
sale' sign on any cars,.
trucks or RVs (recreation
vehicles/motor homes) on a
public street, he will get
fined."
Sayre said the Gullotta's
will learn how much the
ticket will cost them from a
judge once they appear in
court next month.
"I don't know why the
ticket didn't have an
amount on it," he said, "but
.it is really the respon,-ibility
of the court."
~ ~Gullotta said she thinks
tlie city did not do enough
to inform residents of the
ordinance.
"I didn't know about it,
my husband didn't know
about it and neither does
anybody else I know," she
said. "It seems to me that
the city should have
advertised the ordinance so
people knew.
"We kind of feel like
we've been singled out," .~he
added. "I'd like to know'
how many other people
have received these fines."
ADVERTISING FORM
FOR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MOND^Y, June 03. 1991
BEGINNING AT 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AUDITORIUM
29915 MIRA LOMA DRIVE, TEMECULA. CA 92390
A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
APPLICATION:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Conditional Use Permit No. 11
Robert C. VeccHione
27919 Front Street
Utilize an existing parking lot for weekend automotive sales by
individual owners.
Environmental Action.: Categprical-.Exemptlon
Any person affected by the application[s) may appear and be heard in support or
opposition to the proposals at the time of the hearing.
The environmental findings along with the proposed project applicationIs) may be
viewed at the City of Temecula, Planning Department, q3180 Business Park Drive,
Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92390 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
The Planning Commission in their deliberation could approve the project, deny the
project, or approve the project in an alternative form.
If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Department at, or prior to,
the Public Hearing.
FORMS/ADVRTSNG
,LdO:~ S,I:13SYH:)I:Ind
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Pt~rmit No, 11
Commission Approval Date:
Planni
'1.
2,
6:
o
10,
nq Department
No signage shall be allowed by this permit,
This conditional use permit shall be subject to Planning Commission review
every five {5) years, The permit shall remain active until such times as the
Commission determines that the use is not in conformance with the approved
conditions of.approval,
Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 12 parking spaces for use for the
existing weekend building tenant,
No repair or mechanical maintenance of vehicles will be permitted on site,
The conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance 348.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to any use allowed
by this permit,
The primary use of the proper~ty shall be restricted to the individual private
sale by owner of automobiles. No other uses shall be allowed by this permit.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal' boards, or legislative body concerning
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding a9ainst the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fai:s
to cooperate fully in the defence, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
Prior to any use allowed by this permit, a letter of clearance must be
submitted from the Riverside County Fire Department.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever,
A:CUP11 9
11.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1 ~
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
12. Fourteen parking spaces shall be kept for "customer" use.
13.
For as long as this use exists no present or future tenants will be permitted
to conduct normal operating hours on Saturdays or Sundays, with the
exception of the Creative Arts Callery.
Enqlneerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questionu
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
14. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative. the
developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
· Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
15.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
A:CUP11
10
FOR SALE BY OWNER
PARKING LICENSE
"WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE DO IT"
Sellers are encouraged to call for reservations.
Owners arrive with their vehicles between 6:00am and 9:00am any Saturday morning. They
should be prepared to provide their driver's license number, the vehicle identification n-mber
(VIN), license plate number and proof of insurance.
Owners may stay with their vehicles or exchange their keys for one of our free pagers. Vehicles
are kept on the lot Saturday night and are protected by our security guard who is instructed to
roam the lot and ensure security. Both the FOR SALE BY OWNER Parking Lot and security
company are insured for loss resulting from negligence.
Vehicles are always kept locked unless you instruct us otherwise.
Buyer inspections are monitored whenever possible. Sellers, however, should remove all
valuables. We are responsible for the vehicle only, not its contents.
..... '~.llers will be paged upon the request of a prospective buyer. Pagers have a 60 mile range.
Test drives are left to the discretion of the seller Whenever possible, sellers should accompany all
buyers on test drives. If time permits, and a seller requests we join them, a lot attendant will
accompany the prospective buyer during test drives. Our insurance does not cover any personal
injury or property dsmage that occurs off the lot. We do record the driver's license number of the
prospective buyer before all drives.
When an agreement to sell is reached, we can provide all the required DMV forms to facilitate
the transfer.
Blue Books are available to buyers and sellers.
Our system is based on convenience and effectiveness. Vehicles are seen by a great amount of
buyers who have chosen to shop the car lots or run around Riverside County in an endless search
for their next deal. We advertise in all major publications selling used cars to find the active car
buyer and on 5 radio stations addressing the passive buyer as well. We charge $35 a weekend
and if your car doesn't sell this weekend, bring it back next weekend at 1/2 price.
---~xperience has shown us that the classified ads are a great way to generate calls but not visitors.
flowever, if you advertise your vehicle in the classified ads and tell your callers that the vehicle
can be seen at the FOR SALE BY OWNER Parking Lot, the likelihood of your vehicle selling will
increase dramatically. You eliminate the risk factor of having strangers come to your home.
FOR $A L £ B Y 0 WN£R Pa ltl'ng L o t
Robert C. Vecchione and Eduardo Lopes propose to lease
parkinE spaces Ioca ted a t
for the p~rpose of engaB~ng in a b~si~ess to be kno~n as FOR SALE
B Y O~VNER Parking Lot. The nature of this business shaIl be t o ran t
parkin g spaces t o pri va t e m ch' w' duaIs for the soIe purpose of the
parking and chSplay of their pri vateIy o~ned vehicles F~BO shaIl
issc~e t o each inch' w dual a copy of the a t t a ched parking Iicense as a
receipt for a s)~ci'fied amount of moneypaid for the rentaI and use
of the park in g space from 6.'00am. on ~qa tur day to no later than
6.'OOBm. on b~nday
tSBO is engaged solely m the business of a lessor of parking spaces
and does not represent themselves to anyone as car dealers and
shall assume no responslbily or ~aran tte for the sale of any vehicle
FSBO shallpro ~'de the landlord ~'th an msurance polic? m the
amount of $3,000,000 to protect themselves and the owners of the
said property from any liability that may occur as a result of t~BO
£ obert £ Vecchione and Eduardo Lopes further agree that no vehi~le
shaII be granted a license topark on the $ai'di~roperty that does not
show e ~'dence of their own liabIlt y insurance
F~ a~es topa? the o~'ner or on~ners a~nt the sum of $
~r month rental for a ~ri~ of ~onths A d~'tional terms as
f ollo ~.'
F~ furtherpromISes the owner of thepremises that they shall
decadently clean the parking areas after each weekend use and shall
also pl-o vx'de security on the premiSes dum,?g ho~rs of ~se
Respectfully submi't ted for your consideration and appro vol'
Please Make Checks Payable To: FOR SALE BY OWNER PARKING LOT
Name Date
Address City State Zip
Telephone #
Driver's License #
Vehicle Make Model Year License #
Vehicle I.D. # Color
Vehicles must be removed from the lot prior to 4:30 p.m. Sunday evening. Any vehicle left beyond this time will subject
to towing and storage at the owner's expense. Please plan your Sunday accordingly. Note: You are required to bring your
driver's license and this contract when picking up your vehicle.
All valuables must be removed from your vehicle. We make every attempt to monitor the inspection of your vehicle by
prospective buyer, but theft is always a possibiity and we accept no responsibility for any items left in your vehicle. Your vehicle will be kept locked unless you instruct us otherwise.
During the inspection of your vehicle, prospective buyers may ask to start your vehicle. If you wish to authorize the start
of your vehicle, please check and initial the appropriate entry:
~ Yes, a start is O.K. I~ No, a start is not O.K.
All test drives are done with your authorization and we strongly recommend that you be present during these drives. We will, with your
permission and release of liability, accompany a prospective buyer during a brief test drive. Please understand that our company accepts
no liability for properly damage, property loss or personal injury resulting from these drives. Please check and initial the appropriate entry:
[~1 Yes, a test drive is O.K.[~1 * No, a test drive is not O.K.
· Note: No verbal change pen'nitted
The WYNN OIL COMPANY offers no deductable warrantees to individuals buying 1984 and newer vehicles'with less than 100,000 miles.
Warrantees are provided ONLY when the vehicle is SOLD within 5 days of being shown at the FOR SALE BY OWNER CAR LOT. The standard
cost is $195, with few exceptions. If your vehicle ~luaiifies, a "WARRANTEE AVAILABLE' window sticker will be placed on your vehicle to
advise prospective buyers. If you'd prefer that we do not place this "WARRANTEE AVAILABLE' sign, please initial this box. I
Pagers are provided for your convienience. There is no charge for the use of our pager, however, please understand
that there is a $100 charge for any pager not retumed.
How did you hear of us? [3 Newspaper- Union/Tribune
[3 Auto Trader
[3 Reader
Direct Mail- Post Cards
Radio: Which Station?
Other:
I have read, understand and agree to the above conditions.
Seller's Signature:
Remember:. Your Drivers License and
this contract are needed at check out time.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Paid Vehicle#
Pager#
Proof of Insurance
White Copy - Office · Yellow Copy - Customer
FOR SALE BY OWNER PARKING LOT
Buyer's vehicles can be further inspected with the assistance of lot
employees, sellers can be immediately contacted by our paging system -
Just Ask For Our Assistance
PRICE:
YEAR:
MILEAGE:
OWNER'S REMARKS:
MAKE:
LICENSE NUMBER:
MODEL:
OWNER'S NAME:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
This form must be filled out by owner of vehicle.
BW/IP Interhational, Inc.
· e~.l ~794 ' 'T e me¢ ul~ '[ etepho,~e
S~,ee' 9239~
May 30, 1991
City of Temecula, Planning Commission
43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Gentlemen:
This letter is a protest to the granting of
Conditional Use Permit No. 11 to Robert C.
Vecchione for the use of the parking lot at 2.7919
Front Street for weekend automotive sales.
BW/IP Seal Division, a long time major employer in
the Temecula area, is located at 27941 Front
Street and the employee parking entrance is
directly across Las Haciendas Street from the
27919 Front Street address in question.
BW/IP strongly opposes granting this Conditional
Use Permit for the following reasons:
Since BW/IP has weekend work scheduled with
employees arriving and departing at various
times, a major concern exists that the BW/IP
employee parking lot will be used by patrons
of the automotive sales lot for parking, and
access and parking availability for BW/IP
employees will be severely curtailed or non-
existent.
The possible use by patrons of BW/IP's lot
increases BW/IP's liability risk thus causing
increased insurance premiums and potential
liability claims.
Excessive trash may accumulate unless
appropriate containers are provided.
Since there is no traffic light at the
intersection of Las Haciendas Street and
Front Street, an already hazardous situation
will be increased by the additional traffic
this business will generate.
BW/IP concern
for employee
parking on weekends
Sat., June 15, 1991
the BW/IP parking
lot as photographed
9:30- 11:00
1:30 - 3:00
This car has been
parked at BW/IP
with FSBO sign
for over 2 months
Mon. to Fri.
city of Temecula, Planning Commission
May 30, 1991
Page2
BW/IP requests your attention to these serious
concerns which impact not only BW/IP and its
employees but the safety and environment of
Temecula citizens. Your denial of this permit is
requested and will be greatly appreciated.
Robert D. Browning C
BW/I'P Seal Division
cc: Eli Dubrow
dm
LAW OFFICES
BARRINGTON, FOX_X, DUBRO%~' & CANTER
LOg ANGELES. CAL1FOPLN'IA 9OO17
May 28, 1991
ORANGE orr~cE
SAN DIEGO OFFICE
Planning Commission
City' of Temecula
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention: Mr. Mark Rhoades
Re:
Application of Robert C. Vecchione for Conditional
Use Permit Number 11
Location: 27919 Front Street
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is the owner of the property at 27941
Front Street, Temecula, California (Lots 14, 15, 18 and 19) which
is currently occupied by BWIP Industrial Products. I have received
a notice of the application of Mr. Robert C. Vecchione to utilize
an existing parking lot at 27919 Front Street for weekend
automotive sales by individual owners.
As the owner of the adjacent property (which includes a
large parking lot) I urge the City Planning Commission not to grant
a Conditional Use Permit to the applicant for such use.
The use of the existing parking lot at 27919 Front Street
for weekend automotive sales by individuals will result in
additional trash and debris and the likelihood of trespassing upon
the BWIP parking lot by others drawn to the area to sell not only
motor vehicles but other items like a "swap meet" I don't believe
such activity should be permitted to the detriment of the adjacent
property owners. The BWIP employees parking lot will have to be
"policed" to make sure it is available to them on the weekends in
order to maintain proper security.
LAW 0 ~' ;' I C I~' $
Planning Commission
May 28, 1991
Page 2
I do not believe that the adjacent property owners should
be forced to live with all of the detriments that a weekend used
car lot will bring to their area.
I urge the city Planning Commission to reject the
application of Robert C. Vecchione for a Conditional Use Permit
Number 11 for the premises at 27919 Front Street, Temecula,
California.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours very truly,
ELI B. DUBROW
EBD/lmp
cc: James M. Vandewater
Dartmouth Development Company, Inc.
Mr. Martin Hovenkotter
BWIP Industrial Products
Bill Johnson
Johnson & Johnson
G: \DOC$\LMP\E BD LMPL 1'. 015
FSBO has covered these concerns in contract with Creative Arts.
Sunday, June 16, 1991 approx. 2:30 p.m.
Sunday, June 16, 1991 approx. 11:30 a.m.
Saturday, June 15, 1991 approx. 1:00 p.m.
Saturday, June 15, 1991 approx. 3:00 p.m.
I,ncol
COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE
Mr. Robert C. Vecchione
Mrs Bobbie Elias
Temectda, California 92390
Pia Oliver
Principol
May 8, 1991
Dear Bob and Bobbie,
Re: Parking lot at the Creative Arts Building and the Los Amigos Shopping Centres,
Temecula
The Lessors of the Creative Arts Building and the Los Amigos Shopping Center are willing
to consider leasing you portions of the parking lots at the properties on the following
outlined terms:
The areas to be leased to be as per attached exhibit. This is open to further review
and discussions. The period shall be every Saturday from 6.00am to the following
Sunday 6pro, of every month. Initially the agreement shall be for a twelve week
period, if Lessor and Lessee desire thereafter to continue the arrangement, it shall
be for a fifty-two (52) week period, with the option to renew by mutual agreement
for additional fifty-two (52) week period(s), until terminated by either party giving
notice in writing to the other that they wish to terminate the agreement. This notice
must be given not less than twelve weeks days prior to termination.
2
The existing tenants to be given all priority and consideration in the parking areas,
throughout the term of the lease. They will co-operate by giving notice ahead of
time for needs for additional parking spaces reserved for them, etc.
3
The agreement will have a probationary character for the first twelve weeks, and
Lessor will have the right to cancel the agreement at any time during this period by
giving Lessee notice in writing two weeks prior to termination of agreement.
4
a) Lessee to be solely responsible for the clean-up of the parking areas and the
driveways to the properties. The cost and arrangrnents therefore to be borne solely
by Lessee. Lessee will not allow, and shall be responsible for any leakage or spUis
of any oils, gasoline fuel, diesel fuel, or other wastes originating from the vehicles
Lessee is contracting with. Further, Lessee will provide at his cost and expense,
security arrangments protecting Lessor and Lessee from any risk, peril, dRrn~ge and
liability of any kind. Lessee to show Lessor prior to any use of the Premises,
satisfactory to Lessor, proof of this.
b) Any cleaning of the site, landscaping repairs or any other work not
performed by Lessee will be done by Lessor and the cost for such work, will be
deducted from the security deposit. The security deposit to be readjusted to the full
amount wit~fin 10 working days of notice by Lessor to do so.
27919 Front Street · Rancho Califor.nia, California 92390 · (714) 676-0123
.Individual Membership
SOCIETY OF INDUSTRIAL AND
OFFICE REALTORS'"
Mr. Robert C. Vecchione
Mrs Bobbie Elia~
Temecula, California 92390
May 8, 1991
5
Lessee will provide Lessor with broad coverage general liability insurance in an
amount not less than $2,000,000.00 for each occurrence, annting Lessor as
additional insured. Further, Lessee agrees not to allow any vehicle on the Premises
which has not showed evidence of adequate and appropriate valid insurance policy.
6
Lessee to be solely responsible for the application for, and obtaining of, if
necessary, any ~nd all permit(s) or license(s) by any municipal or governmental
agencies, and any and all costs associated therewith. Further, Lessee will be solely
responsible for any signage, advertising, promotional material for his business, and
any permit(s) or licences therefore, and any costs therewith associated.
This ~roposal may be subject to additional terms and conditions, and may be
amended from time to time, upon mutual agreement by both parties. However,
Lessor reserves the right at all times to terminate this agreement, as per paragraph 1
above, for any reason, when it is in the best interest of the building/project for
financing, transfer of title, or si~ilsr purposes.
Security deposit to be $1,000.00 and the rent to be $ ................ per each four
week-end period. This rental is subject to increases. The security deposit and the
first period's rent are payable at the time of execution of the agreement.
9
This proposal will be open until Tuesday May 14, 1991 5pn~
Please feel free to call me/A<~Imcuss this further.~ be happy to clarify or review any
and all points. Thankin~you once again. for your 'm~and efforts. Regards,
· INCO Commercial Brokerage ~~N
PO:bmw
c.c. Tomislav Gabric
RECEIVED
JUNE 1, 1991
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
CITY OF T£MECULA
RE: PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11 FOR THE
SALE OF USED CARS AT 27911 FRONT ST. TEMECULA
I am the owner of the "Q CLUB", a business which is located at
27919 #4, Front st. Temecula, a center which has the same ownership
as 27911 Front St. I am not opposed to the sale of used cars at
27911, I am however opposed to the utilization of the parking lot
at 27919 Front St., for this proposed use, sale cars, overflow parking,
or customer parking.
I do not wish to have any cars for any reason associated with this
proposed operation on the parking lot of 27919.
Additionally, I am opposed to temporary signs, banners, billboards,
and etc., that are not allowed to permanent business. Whatever
the existing sign requirements are for all businesses they should be
strictly and uniformally enforced.
I've enclosed a copy of a letter delivered to the owner of the center
at 27919 Front st., signed by 4 of the 5 total businesses at this
address informing the property owner/operator of the objection to the
sale of cars at the 27919 location.
RespeCt fully sub~tted,
Q Club
.by Edward Downer
-Q Club" opposed to banners & signs
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE'CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 3, 1991
DRAFT
A regular meeting of the city of Temecula Planning Commission was
called to order Monday, June 3, 1991, 6:30 P.M., at Vail Elementary
School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to
order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 3
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Ford, Hoagland
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning
Director Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart and
Minute Clerk Gail Zigler.
CHAIRMAN .CHINIAEFF adjourned the meeting at 6:30 P.M. due to lack
of a quorum.
Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff
Secretary
Local groups step forwar
SANDRA PICKUP/The Californian
TEMECULA -- Honor stu-
dent Garrett Leevers can deposit
$2,500 in his college fund today,
thanks to the Temecula Town
Association.
That organization was among
the 80 individuals, businesses,
service Organizations and public
agencies that distributed annual
academic scholarships Monday
night to Temecula Valley High
School seniors. Scholarships to-
talled more than $65,000 this
year.
"The community has been ex-
tremely generous this year, espe-
cially with the economy. It's been
a real pleasure," said Joan Gold-
smith of the Temecula Valley
High School Scholarship Foun-
dation, which coordinates the
program.
Contributions ranged from
$250 to $2,500, and donors each
bestowed a scholarship in their
name to near-graduates during
the ceremony. Educator and
foundation board member Bar-
bara Tooker welcomed the recip-
ients, their parents and the do-
nors to the event. Temecula
Valley High School's principal,
Dr. Glen England, spoke to those
in attendance, recognizing the
students and the contributors.
Along with England, Tooker
and Goldsmith, the foundation's
executive board includes: Beth
Cann, Elizabeth Cooke, Donna
Denham. Luci Flaharty, Ella
Goldman. Kay Owens and Ed
Sibby.
Last year 82 students benefit-
ted from the scholarships, and
Monday night eight more ~u-
dents than that received ~,(luca-
tional funds. Students (nust use
the dollars for highe~ education
at universities, coffeges or trade
schools.
briefs.
~-i Temecula commissioners fail to show: A scheduled Planning
:'~ Conunission meeting was cancelled Monday night due to lack of a
'-*' quorum. After a half-hour wait, Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff an-
Scholarship recipients we
Alexander M Aiken Ill. Daniel
Alexander, Olga Lidia Alferez. Wen,
Janinc Armstrong, Brian A. Bart,
Shon Basal, Max Calder, Greg Cons
Campbell, Tracy Ann Cannon, Step
L. Carpenter, Jennifer Cart, Jennifi
Chamb~rlin, Camilia Christensen,
Clawson, Jill Aileen Cook, Esmerali
Cuevas, Erin Kathleen Delaney,
non Y. Dixon. Tamml Renee
Allegra Downer, Juan Carlos Duron
Scott M. Elam;
Justin Edward Ernest. Kristen S
Fleming, Jessica S. Fogel, David Frt
Jennifer Sue Gaier;Lisa Ann Gallet,
David Gonzalez, Jason Allen Grahal
Amy Ksy Graves, Tami Rae Graves
frey P. Haines, Erik Wayne Hansen
tin Hamson, Jason Michael Helmic
Christine Jackson. Jeff Jones, Holli~
~n Kessler. Carrie Lynn Lawlet.
· ~rs, Adam Lewis, J_~l.sh~-
Lewis, Ron be~;]s, ~.tlsta Lyons, Au
Lopez. Lawrence P. Manaio;
Kristina Lynn Manning, Ryan Oq
roll Mansell. Andrew Marshall. Matt
Matlock. Heather C. McBroom. Juaz
Munoz, Tami Lyn McCoy, Diana
McCauley, Maureen E. McDonald,
Serkejh Mirwaisi, Jason Gregory Mo
nounced to a crowd of about 50 that since he and Commissioner
Linda Fahey were the only members of the board present, the meet-
ing would have to be cancelled. All of the public heatings will be
rescheduled for the Planning Commission's June 17th meeting.
lvl~r~neta ~--~ley
parade will take place at 10 a.m. Saturday, 0u~y 6 on Wastington
Avenue. The parade will kick off the fair and commemorate the
City's incorporation w~ch occur~ J~y ~. q~ne fair which win be held
at the northwest corner of Wa.~hington Avenue and Kalrnia Street
in old to~ ~urtiet~, ~,~ be on-going t~rou~hout the c~y. A~iv~-
ties ,,~11 include a turn-of-the-centu~' 7th Calva~' encampment,
polo tournaments, ~ld west horsemanship exhibitions, gold trea-
sure hunts. square dancing. the musical kids. western concerts.
BBQ and more. Participant~ in the parade are still being accepted.
.An application can be picked up at Reidy Ranch Realty, on the
corner of I~.' Street and Adam~ Avenue, the Murrieta Chamber of
Commerce office at 41885 Ix~' Street, Suite A2, Murrieta. 92362 or
by writing the Chamber at this address. Inquires should be ad-
dressed to the parade coordinator, Casey Oosterbann or by calling
677-7916.
County Planning Commission to hold public hearings: r(ivemiae
County Planning Commission will meot. WoA,,oo,~ ...... ~ .....
//
FOR
S. ,LE
BY
OW. 'ER
Let's clean up our streets & protect our
citizens of Temecula.
FSBO Parking Lot is the alternative way.
PARKIN'G
LOT
.,' ./ / -/
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 17, 1991 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner 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
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Minutes
2.1 Approval of minutes of May 20, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Variance No. 6
Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc.
Northwest Corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive
Variance in order to allow an additional freestanding sign
display in lieu of the maximum allowed freestanding signs
per Ord. 348.
Richard Ayala
Continue to July 1, 1991
e
7
Be
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Parcel Map No. 26135
Luis Stahl
Northwest corner of Santiago Road and Ormsby Road
Subdivide 5.19 acres into three residential parcels.
Richard Ayala
Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 25055
Jack Hamry
Northside of Via La V' '~ of Margarita Rd.
29 Unit Condominium
Mark Rhoades
Approval
Tentative Tract
Steve Lee
Northwest Corner 4.
Subdivide 5.0 acre site
Mark Rhoades
Approval · ~,~,
Conditional Use Permit No. 11
Robert C. Vecchione/Eduardo Lopes
27919 Front Street
Request for a. Conditional Use Permit to allow automotive
sales by individual owner at an existing parking lot.
Mare Rhoades
Approval
Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 2
Larry Gabele
Westerly side of Ynez Road approximately 200 feet North
of Solana Way
To increase the building space of an approved automotive
service Center by approximately 300 square feet and
delete 3 parking spaces.
Scott Wright
Approval
Change of Zone No. 11, Parcel Map 26852 and
Plot Plan No. 224
Bedford Properties
Northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads.
Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S
(Scenic Highway Commercial) on
site. Subdivide the 57 acres
remainder parcels. Construct
Commercial Center on
Steve Jiannino
Recommend Approval
19.7 acres of a 57 acre
into 14 Parcels and 2
a 177,000 square foot
FOR
BY
OWNER
Please note
Staff recommendation
is for approval to
adopt C.U.P. #11
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 17, 1991
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 11
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
approving Conditional Use Permit No.
11 based on the analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Robert C. Vecchione/Eduardo J. Lopes
Barbara Elias
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
automotive sales by individual owner at an existing
parking lot.
27919 Front Street
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S ( Scenic Highway
Commercial)
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
1-15 Freeway
M-M I Manufacturing - Medium)
Not requested.
Office Building
North:
South:
East:
West:
Retail Center
Parking Lot
Offices/1-15 Freeway
Packin9 House
A:CUP11 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Within the M-M [Manufacturin9 - Medium) zone,
Section 11.26.f. of Ordinance 348 states that a use
may be permitted or conditionally permitted
provided that the use is similar in intensity and
character as other designations listed in that
section. The Planning Director has determined that
the proposed use of an automobile sales lot by
individual owner is similar in character to permitted
uses such as parking lots, truck and trailer sales
and rental and mobile home sales. The proposed use
was also determined to be similar to conditionally
permitted uses such as swap meets. The Planning
Director has also determined that this use is
appropriate, provided the Planning Commission
approves a Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is an
application to conduct automotive sales from an
existing parking lot. The proposed sales will take
place on weekends only, and will be conducted on an
individual by owner basis. The proposed parking
lot is located at the northwest corner of Front Street
and Las Haciendas Street.
The proposed site currently supports an office
building. The existing office building only has one
tenant that operates on weekends and parking for
that tenant has been adequately provided for. Of
the 116 parking spaces on site, 14 are set aside for
the tenant who will remain open on the weekend.
Required parking for the open sales area use is 14
spaces. Those spaces will be kept available for
"customer" parking. A total of 28 spaces will be set
aside for uses other than auto sales. Staff has
received a letter from the property owner indicating
that with the exception of the one existing weekend
use, no future tenants will be permitted to operate
on weekends for as long as the proposed use exists.
A condition relevant to this matter has been
included in the Conditions of Approval.
The applicant will not be occupying any space
within the existing building, therefore, no signs
will be allowed. Temporary signs [i.e., weekend
use) are not permitted under Ordinance 31~8 except
for political purposes and real estate sales.
A:CUP11 2
GENERAL PLAN,
ZONING AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS AND
SUPPORTING FACTS:
If the Planning Commission approves the proposed
Conditional Use Permit. then the ordinance
interpretation will be that the use in question will be
in conformance with the M-M {Manufacturing -
Medium) zoning designation. Surrounding zoning
includes M-M and C-P-S [Scenic Highway
Commercial ).
The SWAP designation for the proposed site is
Commercial. The proposed use is commercial and
would therefore be consistent with SWAP.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is a Class 1
Categorical Exemption per the CEQA Guidelines,
e
The site of the proposed use together with
the on-site parking required and provided is
suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
intensity of use,
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property of the
permitted use there of, The proposed use is
not on scale of intensity to impact adjacent
uses.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access to the fully improved Jefferson Avenue
as evidenced in the site plan for C.U.P, 11,
As conditioned, the'project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment
as the project is categorically exempt per the
CEQA Guidelines.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once it is adopted, based on
analysis in the staff report and the proposal's
conformance with existing applicable
ordi nances and Conditions of Project
Approval.
A:CUP11 3
0
There is not a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insi9nificant
scale in the context of regional development.
Further, if found to be ultimately
detrimental, the use is subject to termination
under City ordinance provisions contained in
Section 18.30 of City Ordinance No. 348
These findings are supported
analysis, minutes, maps and
associated with this application
incorporated by reference.
by Staff
exhibits,
and herein
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. '91- approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 11 based on the
analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
MR: ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
A:CUPll 4
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 11 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AUTOMOBILE
SALES BY INDIVIDUAL OWNER LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRONT STREET AND LAS
HACIENDAS STREET.
WHEREAS, Robert C. Vecchione and Eduardo J. Lopes filed CUP No. 11
in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on June 17,
1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approved said CUP;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findincls. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty ~30) months
following incorporation.. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
{1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
A:CUP11 5
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan,
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, I hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City, At this time. the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan,
C. The proposed CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets
the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan,
{ 2) The Planning Commission finds. in approving projects
and takin9 other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that CUP No.
11 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan,
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances,
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be
approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as
shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
A:CUP11 6
{ 2 ) The Planning commission, in approving the proposed
CUP, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
The site of the proposed use together with
the on-site parking required and provided is
suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
intensity of use.
b)
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property of the
permitted use there of. The proposed use is
not on scale of intensity to impact adjacent
uses.
c)
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access to the fully improved Jefferson Avenue
as evidenced in the site plan for C.U.P. 11.
d)
As conditioned, the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment
as the project is categorically exempt per the
CEQA Guidelines.
e)
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once it is adopted, based on
analysis in the staff report and the proposaPs
conformance with existing applicable
ordinances and Conditions of Project
Approval.
f)
There is not a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of regional development.
Further, if found to be ultimately
detrimental, the use is subject to termination
under City ordinance provisions contained in
Section 18.30 of City Ordinance No. 348
g) These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits,
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the CUP proposed
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
A:CUP11 7
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption
per the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP
No. 11 for the operation of automobile sales by individual owner located at the
northwest corner of Front Street and Las Haciendas Street subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 17th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANN INC COMMISSIONERS
A:CUP11 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 11
Commission Approval Date:
Planninq Department
1. No signage shall be allowed by this permit.
This conditional use permit shall be subject to Planning Commission review
every five (5) years. The permit shall remain active until such times as the
Commission determines that the use is not in conformance with the approved
conditions of approval.
Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 12 parking spaces for use for the
existing weekend building tenant.
u,. No repair or mechanical maintenance of vehicles will be permitted on site.
The conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance 3~8.
o
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to any use allowed
by this permit.
The primary ~e of the property shall be restricted to the individual private
sale by owner of automobiles. No other uses shall be allowed by this permit.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails
to cooperate fully in the defence, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
Prior to any use allowed by this permit, a letter of clearance must be
submitted from the Riverside County Fire Department.
10.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
A:CUP11 9
11.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 )
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
12. Fourteen parking spaces shall be kept for "customer" use.
13.
For as long as this use exists no present or future tenants will be permitted
to conduct normal operating hours on Saturdays or Sundays, with the
exception of the Creative Arts Gallery.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the
developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
15.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee. or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in .excess of those now estimated [assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
A:CUP11 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
M -SC
~ c,~'~ CZ 3173
~-sc ~,~
~z ~7o ~
CZ 915
C-P-S
CZ 4070
CZ 915
'CZ 5008
C-P
CZ
F..~T'
CZ 410Z
-I/C
C-P
CZ 1706
C^SE .0: CU. P."'.l_l
CITY OF TEMECULA
VICINITY
CASE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
~,.c. OAT~:G-:I7.-CLI )
CITY OF TEMECULA
RLI
.!
SWAP
MAP
CASE NO"~--..J-J'1~. ~' II
~,.c. ~ATE
FOR
S.[LE
BY
O 'NER
Why .did Chairman
Dennis Chiniaeff excuse
himself for conflict of
interest and than be
permitted to speak
against C.U.P. #11 as a
"private citizen?"
What is his conflict of
interest?
PARKING
LOT
Impromptu
car
to be crime
A San Bernardino law will
'allow seizure ol' vehicles
left for sale on street
comers.
By Ronnie D. Smith
The Press-Enter!~rise
SAN BERNARDINO
Dealing used cars on street corners is
going to be a crime in this city.
San Bernardino's City Council yesterday
approved a law-allowing the city to seize
and keep vehicles left on street corners for
sale. The law also lets the city prosecute
the owners of the land wilere the cars are
sold.
Similar to laws in other cities, including
Riverside, the law takes effect next month.
San Bernardino h.~isIant City Attorney
Dennis A. BarlOw said motorists driving by
the impromptu sales lots Imve stopped in
tra~c to look. at the for-sale vehicles,
creating traffic hazards.
Debra L. Daniel, a city code enforce-
ment officer, said busines~ owners near
some of the uno~cial lots have com-
plained about them. She contended tttat
stolen cars have been sold from some of
tile lots.
"It has been a real nuisance," slm said.
The law doesn't bar people from selling
.a car from their home. And cars can still
be sold at businesses, such as gasoline
stations.
The city's largest impromptu sales lots
are at the corners of Higllland Avenue and
Orange Street. and Second Street and Mr.
Vernon Avenue. On weekends, as many
was 50 vehicles for sale are parked at those
corners.
The law allows the city to i~npound and
keep vehicles and charge the offender
with a misdemeanor, punishable by a
maximum of a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.
First-time offenders will be given their
cars back, Barlow said. But the city will
keep the property of repeat offenders, he
said.
A controversial part of.~he law states
that the city can also prosecute the owners
of the land where the cars are sold. Barlow
said the land owner could be jailed or fined
the same as the person selling the car.
"We have these things week after
week," Barlow said of some lots. "The
'property owner must know it is happen-
ing."
O~cials said the law should encourage
owners to fence vacant lots.
Ron Little, a used-car salesmarl for C J
Auto Sales in San Bernardin,~, said the law
is an infringement on property rights.
"People have a rigttt to sell cars from their
land," he said.
But used-car dealer Max Stevens of
Harold's Auto Sales said l~e paid $2,500 for
permiLs and liceroses to sell used cars in
'San Bernardino and the street-corner
salesmen are "unfair competition."
"One guy or, the corner up here Itas five
cars for sale every weekend," Stevens said.
FOR
S,[LE
BY
OWNER
Please note the following letters
stamped "Received May 30,
1991" - Why were these not
given to us on June 3rd before
the first hearing?
How come the car dealers were
not at the first hearing?
How Come there wasn't a
quorum at the first hearing?
How come we did not receive
these until the morning of June
17, 1991, although I called
several times for additional
opposition?
PARKING
LOT
RECEIVED
TEMIuCUL.a, DOI~GE CHR~'51. tR JEEP
26~55YNEZ
TEMECUI. A, ('A 02 390
514
May 29, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92390
Dear Mr. Thornhill;
On Monday, June 3, 1991, the PlanrLtng Cc~ttee is scheduled to hear
a request for a conditional use permit (#11) from applicant, Robert Vecchine,
to utilize an existing parking lot for weekend automotive sales by individual
owners.
We are against approval of a conditional use permit for such use.
We had to comply with rigid guildlines to have our dealership pleasant
looking. We have a substantial investment in landscaping, a provision for
handicap parking and restroom facilities, etc. To allow an "individual" to
open an automotive sales est_ablishment under rules different from the rest of
us is not right.
In addition we believe that this proposal is not good for the image of
our community.
Very Truly Yours,
President
F
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
RE: Request for Conditional Use Permit ~11
Applicant: Robert Vecchine
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
The above referenced request for an automotive sales lot for
"individual owners" can only create hardship for the area's
dealerships who have invested heavily in their facilities.
If approved, I believe that a double standard will have been
established allowing others to open sales lots with far less
than the desirable, or equivalent investment required by franchise
auto dealers.
Gary, your staff supported the auto center and help to set up
r~gid guidelines to keep the area pleasant looking and centralized
f~r the community's benefit. The auto dealers have cooperated
fully with the City. This proposal is not good for our business
or the image of the community. It cannot even be monitored
effectively by the DMV or the Board of Equalization.
If an "individual" wants to open a automotive sales establishment
I have no problem, as long as we all play by the same rules.
I believe that an approval would only contradict the commitment
that the city has made to the auto dealers and to the community
that they serve.
We respectfully urge you to deny this proposal.
Sincerely,
President
DA/sp
26631
Ternecula' CA 92390 (71,4) 69,4 05
A d, ' '"
Tcmecula Acura
26799 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 699-4444
May 30, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
RE: Request for Conditional Use Permit #11
Applicant: Robert Vecchine
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
The above referenced request for an automotive sales lot for
"individual owners" can only create hardship for the area's
dealerships who have invested heavily in their facilities. If
approved, I believe that a double standard will have been estab-
lished allowing others to open sales lots with far less than the
desirable, or equivalent investment required by franchise auto
dealers.
Gary, your staff supported the auto center and help to set up
r~gid guidelines to keep the area pleasant looking and centralized
for the community's benefit. The auto dealers have cooperated
fully with the City. This proposal is not good for our business
or the image of the community. It cannot even be monitored
effectively by the DMV or the Board Of Equalization.
If an "individual" wants to open a automotive sales establishment
I have no problem, as long as we all play by the same rules.
I believe that an approval would only contradict the commitment
that the city has made to the auto dealers and to the community
that they serve~
We respectfully urge you to deny this-proposal.
Sincerely,
· / G&fy L. Anderson President
GLA/mrf
FOR
BY
SALE
All three dealers advised me to put an ad
in the paper, or a FSBO sign & sell it on
my own to get more money then they could
allow on trade. Why are our dealers
turning people to our streets to be fined or
invite strangers into their home with ads?
PA KING
LOT
· SPECIAL ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT
25¢
THE CALIFORNIAN
MONDAY
JUNE 24, 1991
Car lot
proposal
gets one
last shot
· COUNCIL: Temecula
p~anners say no, but final
decision still to come
MARY MCKIrNZIE/The Calilomian
TEMECULA -- Although the
Planning Commission denied
their plans for · 'for sale by own-
er' car lot, two local businessmen
are hopeful the idea will be ac-
cepted by City Council.
Robert Vecchione and Eduar-
do Lopes are trying to create a
small, weekends-only businees by
renting space to Temecula Valley
residents looking to sell their
Both men received permission
from Tomas Gabtic, owner of the
Creative Artz Building on Front
Street, to use his lot from Sator-
day morning to Sunday evening.
Barbara Elias, a reprseentetive
for Vecchione and Lopes, said
the lot would 'provide a needed
serv/ce* for the Temecuis Valley.
Elias was referring to a city-
wide ordinance forbidding sale of
cars on public streets and park-
ing lots. The ordinance allows
Temecula police to fine anyone
who sticks a "for sale' sign on a
vehicle and parks it on a public
street or parking lot.
This leaves homeowners with
few alternatives: either sell the
vehicle by adver$ising or sell it to
an automobile dealer.
'If you are advertising your car
in a newspaper or shopper (sales
guide), then you don't know who
will be calling you or showing up
at your doorstep," said Elias.
~'hat's a scary possibility, espe-
cially for older people and worn-
But Temecula car daalers and
Dennis Chiniaeff, chairman of
the Planning Commission; dis-
Chiniaeff, who said he had to
step down from voting on. the
subject becaune of a conflict of
interest. spoke on the subjec~ as a
resident instead, saying he felt
the busine~ would conflict with
the city ordinance.
Planning commissioners John
Hoegland, Billie Blair and Ste-
ven Ford l/s~d the following rea-
sons for their vote.
· Inappropriate location.-
the 1o$-abute a small shopping
center.
· ProMe,,,- with on-~te park-
ing for potent/el buyers
· Need for trash pick-up and
clean-up of o2 spRis
· Control of illegal parking on
adjacent properties
· Potential for traffic conges-
tion
Commissioner Linda Fahey
was absent.
"First of all, the offices (at the
Creative Arts Building) are al-
most always empty on the week-
ends,' said Elias. 'So I don't
think it will cause any problems
and if anything, it will benefit
shopkeepers nearby.'
Vecchione and Lope~ are mod-
eling the project after a similar
'for sale by owner' lot in San
Diego.
CAR LOT:
People will pay $35 to rent a
space in the lot from 9 a.m. Sat-
urday to 6 p.m. Sunday. The lot
will be patrolled by security
gnards for the entire period, Eli*
as seid.
'P~ople would not have stay
with their car, we would supply
them with a b~per so that if any-
one is interested in their car they
can talk with that person end
strike up · deal," he said. "We
aren't involved in (selling) at all;
we just rent them the apace. If
the car doesn't sell the first week-
end then they can come beck the
second weekend for half the
price.*
Elia* said she hopes to allay
City Council rum with a pruen-
tatJun end a vi(ieo of the Sen Die-
'Even if we ere turned down,
we will keep rifht on pushing for
this, because it really couM be a
rrset benefit to the community.'
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 17, 1991
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 11
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
approving Conditional Use Permit No.
11 based on the analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Robert C. Vecchione/Eduardo J. Lopes
Barbara Elias
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
automotive sales by individual owner at an existing
parking lot.
27919 Front Street
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S ( Scenic Highway
Commercial)
M-M ( Manufacturing - Medium)
1-15 Freeway
M-M ( Manufacturing - Medium)
Not requested.
Office Building
North:
South:
East:
West:
Retail Center
Parking Lot
Offices/I - 15 F teeway
Packing House
A:CUP11 I
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Within the M-M (Manufacturing - Medium) zone,
Section 11.26.f. of Ordinance 348 states that a use
may be permitted or conditionally permitted
provided that the use is similar in intensity and
character as other designations listed in that
section. The Planning Director has determined that
the proposed use of an automobile sales lot by
individual owner is similar in character to permitted
uses such as parking lots, truck and trailer sales
and rental and mobile home sales. The proposed use
was also determined to be similar to conditionally
permitted uses such as swap meets. The Planning
Director has also determined that this use is
appropriate, provided the Planning Commission
approves a Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is an
application to conduct automotive sales from an
existing parking lot. The proposed sales will take
place on weekends only. and will be conducted on an
individual by owner basis. The proposed parking
lot is located at the northwest corner of Front Street
and Las Haciendas Street.
The proposed site currently supports an office
building. The existing office building only has one
tenant that operates on weekends and parking for
that tenant has been adequately provided for. Of
the 116 parking spaces on site, 14 are set aside for
the tenant who will remain open on the weekend.
Required parking for the open sales area use is 14
spaces. Those spaces will be kept available for
"customer" parking. A total of 28 spaces will be set
aside for uses other than auto sales. Staff has
received a letter from the property owner indicating
that with the exception of the one existing weekend
use, no future tenants will be permitted to operate
on weekends for as long as the proposed use exists.
A condition relevant to this matter has been
included in the Conditions of Approval.
The applicant will not be occupying any space
within the existing building, therefore, no signs
will be allowed. Temporary signs li.e., weekend
use) are not permitted under Ordinance 348 except
for political purposes and real estate sales.
A:CUP11 2
GENERAL PLAN,
ZONING AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS AND
SUPPORTING FACTS:
If the Planning Commission approves the proposed
Conditional Use Permit, then the ordinance
interpretation will be that the use in question will be
in conformance with the M-M (Manufacturing -
Medium) zoning designation. Surrounding zoning
includes M-M and C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial).
The SWAP designation for the proposed site is
Commercial. The proposed use is commercial and
would therefore be consistent with SWAP.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is a Class 1
Categorical Exemption per the CEQA Guidelines.
e
The site of the proposed use together with
the on-site parking required and provided is
suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
intensity of use.
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property of the
permitted use there of. The proposed use is
not on scale of intensity to impact adjacent
uses.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access to the fully improved Jefferson Avenue
as evidenced in the site plan for C.U.P. 11.
As conditioned, the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment
as the project is categorically exempt per the
CEQA Guidelines.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once it is adopted, based on
analysis in the staff report and the proposal's
conformance with existing applicable
ordinances and Conditions of Project
Approval.
A:CUP11 3
e
There is not a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of regional development.
Further, if found to be ultimately
detrimental, the use is subject to termination
under City ordinance provisions contained in
Section 18.30 of City Ordinance No. 348
These findings are supported by Staff
analysis. minutes, maps and exhibits.
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference·
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 11 based on the
analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
MR:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
A:CUP11 4
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 11 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AUTOMOBILE
SALES BY INDIVIDUAL OWNER LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRONT STREET AND LAS
HACIENDAS STREET.
WHEREAS, Robert C. Vecchione and Eduardo J. Lopes filed CUP No. 11
in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission considered said CUP on June 17,
1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approved said CUP;
NOW. THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
{1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
12) The planning agency finds. in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
A:CUPll 5
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets
the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that CUP No.
11 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be
approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as
shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
A:CUP11 6
(2) The Planning commission, in approving the proposed
CUP, makes the following findings. to wit:
a)
The site of the proposed use together with
the on-site parking required and provided is
suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
intensity of use.
b)
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property of the
permitted use there of. The proposed use is
not on scale of intensity to impact adjacent
uses.
c)
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access to the fully improved Jefferson Avenue
as evidenced in the site plan for C.U.P. 11.
d)
As conditioned, the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment
as the project is categorically exempt per the
CEQA Cuidelines.
e)
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City~s
General Plan once it is adopted, based on
analysis in the staff report and the proposal~s
conformance with existing applicable
ordinances and Conditions of Project
Approval.
f)
There is not a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of regional development.
Further, if found to be ultimately
detrimental, the use is subject to termination
under City ordinance provisions contained in
Section 18.30 of City Ordinance No. 3L~8
g)
These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits,
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the CUP proposed
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
A:CUP11 7
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption
per the CEQA Guidelines,
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP
No, 11 for the operation of automobile sales by individual owner located at the
northwest corner of Front Street and Las Haciendas Street subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A. attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 17th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A-CUP11 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANN I NG DEPARTMENT
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 11
Commission Approval Date:
Planninq Department
1. No signage shall be allowed by this permit.
This conditional use permit shall be subject to Planning Commission review
every five 15) years. The permit shall remain active until such times as the
Commission determines that the use is not in conformance with the approved
conditions of approval.
Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 12 parking spaces for use for the
existing weekend building tenant.
No repair or mechanical maintenance of vehicles will be permitted on site.
The conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance 3~8.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to any use allowed
by this permit.
The primary use of the property shall be restricted to the individual private
sale by owner of automobiles. No other uses shall be allowed by this permit.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails
to cooperate fully in the defence, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
Prior to any use allowed by this permit, a letter of clearance must be
submitted from the Riverside County Fire Department.
10.
This approval shall be used within two 12) years of approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
A:CUP11 9
I n the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 )
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
12. Fourteen parking spaces shall be kept for "customer" use.
13.
For as long as this use exists no present or future tenants will be permitted
to conduct normal operating hours on Saturdays or Sundays, with the
exception of the Creative Arts Gallery.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
lq. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the
developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
15.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in,excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
A:CUP11 10
CITY OF TEMECULA)
CASE NO.~"Ll'~'~r~}
VICINITY MAP '~
P.C. DATE ~--/~7-~I
{~ CITY
OF TEMECULA
C-P-S
CZ 4070
M-SC I~
~e~ CZ 3173
ZONE MAP
'CZ 5008
C-P
CZ 4~02
C-P
CZ 1706
C^SE .o: C.!3. P.~_l."
P.C. DATE(o*/~-Otl J
CITY OF TEMECULA
t
RLI
SWAP MAP ~ P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
~^sE ,o.C,L~.~.'~ I'~
TOMISLAV GABRIC & ASSOCIATES
~rchlleclure - plannlttg - Interior
27919 Front St., Suite 20t, Temecula, CA
?'~4/699-9t15 2t3/404-3456 FAX ?'14/699-4428
~ay 29, 1991
Flaming Depa~ b,~nt
City of Te~mcula
43180 Business Park Drive
T~m~mla, C~liforllia g23go
R~: AP ~921-O50-013 /Plot plan 9243
Dear Planning Camdssion:
/he property o~a~r agrees that no present (excepting the Creative Arts Gallery) or future
t~ants will be imrmitted to conduct norml operating hours cm Saturdays or Stmdays.
Further, the property ownmr understands that conditions wil'] 1:~ imposed ~,d.th an approval
of C.U.P. No. 11. It is also understood that violation of amid conditions will result
in the r~vocation of the C.U.P. pursuant to Ordinance 348 of the City of TeTmcula.
~ir~erel y,
/
/ o~r
TG/.dod
EXHIBIT G
OPPOSITION LETTERS
A:CUPll.APP
EXHIBIT ~
CASE #_~Fr-,~,- ~"1
Temecula Acura
26799 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 699-4444
May 30, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
RE: Request for Conditional Use Permit #11
Applicant: Robert Vecchine
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
The above referenced request for an automotive sales lot for
"individual owners" can only create hardship for the area's
dealerships who have invested heavily in their facilities. If
approved, I believe that a double standard will have been estab-
lished allowing others to open sales lots with far less than the
desirable, or equivalent investment required by franchise auto
dealers.
Gary, your staff supported the auto center and help to set up
r~gid guidelines to keep the area pleasant looking and centralized
for the community's benefit. The auto dealers have cooperated
fully with the City. This proposal is not good for our business
or the image of the community. It cannot even be monitored
effectively by the DMV or the Board Of Equalization.
If an "individual" wants to open a automotive sales establishment
I have no problem, as long as we all play by the same rules.
I believe that an approval would only contradict the commitment
that the city has made to the auto dealers and to the community
that they serve~
We respectfully urge you to deny this proposal.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Anderson
President
GLA/mrf
T£MIdCt'LA DODGE CHRT>I. ER JEEP
26755YNEl RD.
T E.',tECL;I..~. CA 02 390
714 676.0010
RECEIVE5 3 t.'.
May 29, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92390
Dear Mr. Thornhill;
On Monday, June 3, 1991, the Planning Cc~mtittee is scheduled to hear
a request for a condition_M use permit (#11) from applicant, Robert Vecchine,
to utilize an existing parking lot for weekend automotive sales by individual
owners.
We are against approval of a conditional use permit for such use.
We had to ccmply with rigid guildlines to have our dealership pleasant
looking. We have a substantial investment in landscaping, a provision for
handicap parking and restroom facilities, etc. To allow an "individual" to
open an automotive sales establishment under rules different from the rest of
us is not right.
In addition we believe that this proposal is not good for the image of
our cc~m~dnity.
Very Truly Yours,
John Harris~~~*~
President
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
RE: Request for Conditional Use Permit ~11
Applicant: Robert Vecchine
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
The above referenced request for an automotive sales lot for
"individual owners" can only create hardship for the area's
dealerships who have invested heavily in their facilities.
If approved, I believe that a double standard will have been
established allowing others to open sales lots with far less
than the desirable, or equivalent investment required by franchise
auto dealers.
Gary, your staff supported the auto center and help to set up
rigid guidelines to keep the area pleasant looking and centralized
for the community's benefit. The auto dealers have cooperated
fully with the City. This proposal is not good for our business
or the image of the community. It cannot even be monitored
effectively by the DMV or the Board of Equalization.
If an "individual" wants to open a automotive sales establishment
I have no problem, as long as we all play by the same rules.
I believe that an approval would only contradict the commitment
that the city has made to the auto dealers and to the community
that they serve.
We respectfully urge you to deny this proposal.
Sincerely,
Dan~A woo~
President
DA/sp
26631 yneZ
Road'
Ternecula'
CA 92390 '
(714)
694-0575 -
;
·
LAW OFfiCES
HARRINGTON, FOX/~, DUBRO%~ & C~?TER
61[ WEST SIXTH STREET, 30TM FLO0~
LOS A~'GELES, CALIFOP.~'IA 90017
TELEPHONE: (213) 489-32~:2
FACSIMILE (213) 623-79~9
May 28, 1991
ORANGE OFFICE
(ioo TOWN ~ COUNTRY ROAD
,SAN DIEGO OFFICE
FILE NO.:
Planning Commission
city of Temecula
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention: Mr. Mark Rhoades
Re:
Application of Robert C. Vecchione for Conditional
Use Permit Number 11
Location: 27919 Front Street
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is the owner of the property at 27941
Front Street, Temecula, California (Lots 14, 15, 18 and 19) which
is currently occupied by BWIP Industrial Products. I have received
a notice of the application of Mr. Robert C. Vecchione to utilize
an existing parking lot at 27919 Front Street for weekend
automotive sales by individual owners.
As the owner of the adjacent property (which includes a
large parking lot) I urge the City Planning Commission not to grant
a Conditional Use Permit to the applicant for such use.
The use of the existing parking lot at 27919 Front Street
for weekend automotive sales by individuals will result in
additional trash and debris and the likelihood of trespassing upon
the BWIP parking lot by others drawn to the area to sell not only
motor vehicles but other items like a "swap meet" I don't believe
such activity should be permitted to the detriment of the adjacent
property owners. The BWIP employees parking lot will have to be
"policed" to make sure it is available to them on the weekends in
order to maintain proper security.
LAW OFFICES
Planning Commission
May 28, 1991
Page 2
I do not believe that the adjacent property owners should
be forced to live with all of the detriments that a weekend used
car lot will bring to their area.
I urge the City Planning Commission to reject the
application of Robert C. Vecchione for a Conditional Use Permit
Number 11 for the premises at 27919 Front Street, Temecula,
California.
EBD/lmp
CC:
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours very truly,
ELI B. DUBROW
James M. Vandewater
Dartmouth Development Company, Inc.
Mr. Martin Hovenkotter
BWIP Industrial Products
Bill Johnson
Johnson & Johnson
G: \DOCS\LMP\EBD LMPLT .015
city of Temecula, Planning Commission
May 30, 1991
Page 2
BW/IP requests your attention to these serious
concerns which impact not only BW/IP and its
employees but the safety and environment of
Temecula citizens. Your denial of this permit is
requested and will be greatly appreciated.
Robert D. Browning C
BW/IP Seal Division
cc: Eli Dubrow
dR
Sesl
Division
iIW Seals*'
BW/IP International, Inc.
27941 Temecula Telephone
Fro~t Cahforn,a 714 676 5662
Street 92390 Fa,
714 676 3881
May 30, 1991
City of Temecula, Planning Commission
43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Gentlemen:
This letter is a protest to the granting of
Conditional Use Permit No. 11 to Robert C.
Vecchione for the use of the parking lot at 27919
Front Street for weekend automotive sales.
BW/IP Seal Division, a long time major employer in
the Temecula area, is located at 27941 Front
Street and the employee parking entrance is
directly across Las Haciendas Street from the
27919 Front Street address in question.
BW/IP strongly opposes granting this Conditional
Use Permit for the following reasons:
Since BW/IP has weekend work scheduled with
employees arriving and departing at various
times, a major concern exists that the BW/IP
employee parking lot will be used by patrons
of the automotive sales lot for parking, and
access and parking availability for BW/IP
employees will be severely curtailed or non-
existent.
The possible use by patrons of BW/IP's lot
increases BW/IP's liability risk thus causing
increased insurance premiums and potential
liability claims.
Excessive trash may accumulate unless
appropriate containers are provided.
Since there is no traffic light at the
intersection of Las Haciendas Street and
Front Street, an already hazardous situation
will be increased by the additional traffic
this business will generate.
MAY 9, 1991
RECEIVt:o
~,~ 0 ~
~ OF
TOM GABRIC AND ASSOCIATES,
WE OPPOSE THE USE OF THE PARKING LOT FOR TIlE SALE OF CARS.,or
FOR ANY OTHER USE, OTHER TH,Mq PARKING FOR EXISTING BUSINESS
CUSTOMERS.
Q CLUB
PASQUALE'S RESTAURANT
JUNE 1, 1991
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
RE:
RECEIVED
CITY OF TEMECIJ[.A
PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11 FOR THE
SALE OF USED CARS AT 27911 FRONT ST. TEMECULA
I am the owner of the "Q CLUB", a business which is located at
27919 #4, Front st. Temecula, a center which has the same ownership
as 27911 Front St. I am not opposed to the sale of used cars at
27911, I am however opposed to the utilization of the parking lot
at 27919 Front St., for this proposed use, sale cars, overflow parking,
or customer parking.
I do not wish to have any cars for any reason associated with this
proposed operation on the parking lot of 27919.
Additionally, I am opposed to temporary signs, banners, billboards,
and etc., that are not allowed to permanent business. Whatever
the existing sign requirements are for all businesses they should be
strictly and uniformally enforced.
I've enclosed a copy of a letter delivered to the owner of the center
at 27919 Front st., signed by 4 of the 5 total businesses at this
address informing the property owner/operator of the objection to the
sale of cars at the 27919 location.
Q Club
by Edward Downer
ITEM
NO.
6
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY .~__~/<"'""'
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER'7~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
August 6, 1991
Buie Corporation, Change of Zone No. 9
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Mark Rhoades
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
Zone No. 9; and
__ approving Change of
INTRODUCE and read by title only Ordinance No.
91- :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 348.2922 OF
SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 9, TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE
PROVIDING FOR DUPLEX AND FOUR-PLEX
UNITS IN PLANNING AREA NO. 37 OF
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
P R OPOSA L:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Buie Corporation
Turrini $ Brink
A change of zone application to allow duplex and
four-plex units in Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan
No, 199.
North of Rancho California Road and east of
Margarita Road.
Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential
A:CZ9 1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan, Golf Course
Specific Plan, Medium
Residential
Specific Plan, Very High
Residential
Specific Plan, Golf Course
Density
Density
PROPOSED ZONING:
Amend zoning criteria for Planning Area 37 to allow
duplex and four-plex units, which is allowed within
the medium density residential designation for
Specific Plan No. 199.
EXISTING LAND USE:
Model Units
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Specific Plan No.: 199
Planning Area No.: 37
Tract No.: 23371-1
Total Units: 107
Acres: 23.7
Density: 4.6 DU/AC
BACKGROUND:
Change of Zone No. 9 was submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department on January 9, 1991.
The project was considered by the Planning
Commission on May 6, 1991. The proposed
Ordinance Amendment was forwarded to the City
Council with a Planning commission recommendation
for approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed Change of Zone is an application to
amend a section of Ordinance 348.2922 {Specific
Plan No. 199). The change in question is page 56 of
the subject ordinance.
In order for the existing model four-plex to remain
on site in Planning Area No. 37, the zone {Specific
Plan No. 199) must be changed to reflect language
which permits the duplexJfour-plex unit. All the
existing Medium Density Residential Planning Areas
lexcept No. 37) contain language which include
provisions for duplex and four-plex units whether
or not they are proposed. In order to bring
Planning Area No. 37 in conformance with the
balance of the Specific Plan, the proposed
Ordinance Amendment is requested.
A:CZ9
As previously stated, no new units are proposed,
2
and the density will remain the same.
FINDINGS:
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as Staff has determined that
this project is a categorical exemption per the
CEQA guidelines.
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change will be consistent with the future
General Plan since it is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 199. Further, zoning
proposed is similar to existing zoning in the
vicinity of the project site.
There is not a reasonable probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future and adopted General Plan, if
the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that
the proposal is substantially buffered from
surrounding land uses.
The proposed change in density classification
will likely be consistent with the goals,
policies and action programs which will be
contained in the General Plan when it is
ultimately adopted.
o
The site of the proposed change in density
classification is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district as it is of adequate
size and shape for the proposed use.
Possible land use conflicts are not likely to
arise as the project does not propose to alter
the density of the subject site.
Adequate access exists for the proposed
change of zone from Meadows Parkway.
Additional internal access and required road
improvements to proposed lots will be
designed and constructed in conformance
with City of Temecula standards.
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
A:CZ9 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
Change of Zone No. 9; and
approving
INTRODUCE and read by title only Ordinance
No. 91- :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 348.2922 OF SAID
CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN
CHANCE OF ZONE NO. 9, TO
INCLUDE LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR
DUPLEX AND FOUR-PLEX UNITS IN
PLANNING AREA NO. 37 OF SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 199.
MR:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Ordinance
Map
A:CZ9 4
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3~8.2922 OF SAID CITY, TO
INCLUDE LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR DUPLEX AND
FOUR-PLEX UNITS IN PLANNING AREA NO. 37 OF
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed Change of Zone No. 9 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on
May 6, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Change of Zone;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Change of Zone on August 6, 1991, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Change of Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission
proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes
the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
A:CZ9 1
! 2) The planning agency finds. in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan,
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances,
B. The Riverside County General Plan. as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City, At this time. the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan,
C. The City Council in approving the proposed Change of
Zone. makes the following findings. to wit:
a)
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment. as Staff has determined that
this project is a categorical exemption per the
CEQA guidelines.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change will be consistent with the future
General Plan since it is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 199. Further, zoning
proposed is similar to existing zoning in the
vicinity of the project site.
c)
There is not a reasonable probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future and adopted General Plan, if
the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that
the proposal is substantially buffered from
surrounding land uses.
A:CZ9 2
d)
The proposed change in density classification
will likely be consistent with the goals,
policies and action programs which will be
contained in the Ceneral Plan when it is
ultimately adopted.
e)
The site of the proposed change in density
classification is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district as it is of adequate
size and shape for the proposed use.
Possible land use conflicts are not likely to
arise as the project does not propose to alter
the density of the subject site.
f)
Adequate access exists for the proposed
change of zone from Meadows Parkway.
Additional internal access and required road
improvements to proposed lots will be
designed and constructed in conformance
with City of Temecula standards.
g)
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Staff has determined that the proposed Change of Zone is exempt from
the CEQA per Section 15061.
SECTION 3.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Change of Zone
No. 9 amending Ordinance No. 348.2922 of said City to include language providing
for duplex and four-plex units in Planning Area No. 37 of Specific Plan No. 199.
SECTION 4__:.. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 1991.
A:CZ9 3
RONALDJ. PARKS
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof. held
on the 6th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
A:CZ9 4
ATTACHMENT II
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
3q8.2922 OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9,
TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR DUPLEX AND
FOUR-PLEX UNITS IN PLANNING AREA NO. 37 OF
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission
and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of
Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is
hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of
Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time
by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning
Map is amended by placing in effect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone
No. 9 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the
City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and
cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City.
SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the
date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 1991.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
A: CZ9
PL~NNIN~ COI~ISSION ~INUTES ~ULY 1, ~991 .... ~
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9/SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 11
4.1
Proposal to amend zoning and issue substantial conformance
to allow one four plex unit to exist in Planning Area 37
of SP 199. Located north of Rancho California Road, East
of Margarita Road.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the applicant was
proposing to build duplexs in this planning area also.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M·
BARRY BURNELL, 3242 Halliday Street, Santa Ana,
representing the Buie Corporation, advised the Commission
that when the plan was originally approved it allowed
duplex and four-plex products in this planning area,
the County changed their designations in an amendment to
the plan and this area was overlooked. He added that
in this particular planning area, it will only be the
four-plex model that will be built.
JIM RESNEY, 16935 West Bernardo Drive, San Diego,
with the Buie Corporation, answered questions relating
to condominium maintenance and the Homeowner's
Association.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at
6:25 P.M. and Direct staff to issue a Letter of
Substantial Conformance for Planning Area No. 37, Specific
Plan No. 199 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next)
recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 9, seconded by
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
None
PCMIN7/01/91 -2- July 5, 1991
.... MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director' ..L/~
May 6, 1991
Change of Zone No. 9, Substantial Conformance No. 11
This item was continued from the April 1, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. The
proposal was continued because of site inaccessibility, and lack of a project
representative at the public hearing. Since that time the applicants (Buie
Corporation), have made themselves available for site tours. The applicants'
representative will also be presenting a slide exhibit which portrays the proposed
site and existing improvements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
DIRECT Staff to issue a Letter of Substantial
Conformance for Planning Area No. 37,
Specific Plan No. 199.
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 9.
MR:ks
A:SC11 .MEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
Recommendation:
Case No.:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1. 1991
Substantial Conformance No. 11
Change of Zone No. 9
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
1. DIRECT Staff to issue a Letter of
Conformance for Planning Area No.
Plan No. 199
Substantial
37, Specific
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 9.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Buie Corporation
Turrini & Brink
A change of zone application and request for
substantial conformance to allow duplex and four-
plex units in Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan No.
199.
North of Rancho California Road and east of
Margarita Road.
Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan, Golf Course
Specific Plan, Medium
Residential
Specific Plan, Very High
Residential
Specific Plan, Golf Course
Density
Density
Amend zoning criteria for Planning Area 37 to allow
duplex and four-plex units, which is allowed within
the medium density residential designation for
Specific Plan No. 199.
Model Units
STAFFRPT\SCl 1 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Specific Plan No.: 199
Planning Area No.: 37
Tract No.: 23371-1
Total Units: 107
Acres: 23.7
Density: 4.6 DU/AC
BACKGROUND:
Substantial Conformance No. 11 and Change of Zone
No. 9 were filed concurrently on January 9, 1991.
The cases were filed for Planning Area 37 of Specific
Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). The Margarita
Village Specific Plan was adopted by the County of
Riverside on September 6, 1988. Planning Area 37
is composed of 107 single family units on 23.7 acres.
The overall density is approximately 4.6 dwelling
units per acre.
As part of its model program, the Buie Corporation
has bonded and constructed a four-plex within
Planning Area 37, with proper City permits. The
applicant now requests the proposed Change of
Zone and Substantial Conformance to allow the
single model four-plex to remain and be utilized as
a permanent unit.
PROPOSAL:
Substantial Conformance No. 11
The applicant is requesting a letter of substantial
conformance from the Planning Commission to add
language to the housing types allowed in the
specific plan. Currently, the subject Planning Area
is approved for 107 patio homes. In order to
conform to the specific plan, the applicant proposes
to add the words "duplexes, four-plexes" to patio
homes. The addition of this language would bring
the four-plex unit into specific plan conformance.
The applicant is not proposing to construct any
additional units on the proposed site. The density
will remain the same, and with the exception of the
STAFFRPT\SC11 2
existing model four-plex, the balance of the units
will be patio homes. The proposed substantial
conformance will not affect any other portion of the
specific plan because other Planning Areas
designated Medium Density Residential allow
duplexes and four-plexes with each Planning Area
allowed a maximum number of units independent of
the housing type.
Chanqe of Zone No. 9
The proposed change of zone is an application to
amend a section of Ordinance 348.2922 (Specific
Plan No, 199). The change in question is page 56 of
the subject ordinance.
In order for the existing four-plex to remain in
Planning Area 37. the zone (Specific Plan No, 199)
must be changed to reflect language which permits
the duplex/four-plex unit, By changing the zone
requirements, the unit would be in conformance
with Ordinance 3L;8.2922.
As previously stated, no new units are proposed,
and the density will remain the same. The change
of zone will bring the existing unit into conformance
with ordinance requirements.
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
The proposed change of zone and substantial
conformance are being requested in order to bring
an existing four-plex into conformance with the
approved specific plan, If the change of zone and
substantial conformance are not approved. the
existing model four-plex will be demolished,
removed, and replaced by a production patio home,
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The proposed projects are consistent with the SWAP
land use designation of SP (Specific Plan Area).
Staff finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted,
Staff has determined that Change of Zone No, 9 and
Substantial Conformance No, 11 are exempt from the
CEQA requirements as defined in to Section 15061,3
of the CEQA guidelines.
STAFFRPT\SCl 1 3
FINDINGS: Chanqe of Zone No. 9
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 9 will be consistent with the
City's future Ceneral Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law, due to the fact
that the subject request is consistent with
the density which is already approved for the
existing specific plan, and the proposed
change is relatively similar in character to
the approved project.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan. if Change of Zone
No. 9 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
due to the fact that an approval of the change
of zone does not represent a significant
change in the current land use approval.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The proposed project is consistent
with the zoning ordinance.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed density is consistent
with the zoning ordinance and approved
specific plan.
Substantial Conformance No. 11
The project as modified meets the intent and
purpose of the adopted specific plan in that it
does not represent a change in land use
category or density.
The project as modified is consistent with the
findings and conclusions contained in the
resolution adopting the specific plan in that
no significant changes are proposed and the
project is exempt from CEQA guidelines.
STAFFRPT\SCl 1 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
DIRECT Staff to issue a Letter of Substantial
Conformance for Planning Area No. 37,
Specific Plan No. 199.
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 9.
MR:ks
Attachments:
Resolution (Change of Zone No. 9)
Exhibits A - H
Large Scale Maps
STAFFRPT\SCl 1 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9 TO CHANGE ORDINANCE
348.2922 TO INCLUDE DUPLEX/FOUR-PLEX USES WITHIN
PLANNING AREA 37 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199. THE
PROJECT AREA CONTAINS 23.7 ACRES AND IS LOCATED
NORTHEASTERLY OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 946-060-010.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed Change of Zone No. 9 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on
April 1, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
STAFFRPT\SCl 1 6
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(hi
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 9 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law, due to the fact
that the subject request is consistent with
the density which is already approved for the
existing specific plan, and the proposed
change is relatively similar in character to
the approved project.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if Change of Zone
No. 9 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
due to the fact that an approval of the change
of zone does not represent a significant
change in the current land use approval.
STAFFRPT\SCl 1 7
c)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The proposed project is
consistent with the zoning ordinance.
d)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. due to the
fact that the proposed density is consistent
with the zoning ordinance and approved
specific plan.
D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Based on the criteria established in Section 15061.3 of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Change of Zone No. 9 has been determined to be exempt.
SECTION 3,
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof. held
on the 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\SCl 1 8
EXHIBITS A - H
STAFFRPT\SCl 1 9
1
2
§
7
10
11
12
1A
17
18
2O
21
22
2~
2A
2§
2~
28
the front, side or rear yard except as provided
Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348.
(3) Except as Drovided above, all other zoning require-
ments shall be the same as those requirements identified in
Article VIII of Ordinance No. 348.
Planning Area 37.
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 37 of Specific
Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those uses permitted in
Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition,
the permitted uses identified under Section 6.1(a) shall
also include noncommercial community association recreation
and assembly buildings and facilities: churches: medical and
dental offices: and ohsire signs, affixed to building Walls,
stating the name of the structure, use, or institution,
however, the sign shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the
surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon which the
sign is located.
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 37 of
Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those standards
identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348,
except that the development standards set forth in Article
VI, Section 6.2(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1), (2) and (4) shall
be deleted and replaced by the following:
A. Lot area shall be not less than four thousand
(4,000) square feet. The minimum lot area shall be
determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is
used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as
-56-
a building site.
i RO POSE D
the front, side or rear yard except as provided for in
Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348.
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning require-
ments shall be the same as those requirements identified in
Article VIII of Ordinance No. 348.
kk. Planning Area 37.
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 37 of Specific
Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those uses permitted in
Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the
permitted uses identified under Section 6.1(a) shall also
include~uplexes, 4-plexes,~noncommercial community association
recreation and assembly buildings and facilities; churches;
medical and dental offices; and onsite signs, affixed to
building walls, stating the name of the structure, use, or
institution, however, the sign shall not exceed five percent
(5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon
which 'the sign is located.
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 37 of
Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those standards
identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348,
except that the development standards set forth in Article VI,
Section 6.2(b), (c), (d), and (e) (1), (2) and (4) shall be
deleted and replaced by the following:
A. Lot area shall be not less than four thousand
(4,000) square feet. The minimum lot area shall be
determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used
solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a
building site.
-56-
PLANNING COMMISSION q'
EXHIBIT ~
APPROVAL I~ff
CASE PLANNER ~"~Z'~cA'~--'c~
TABLE II-3
HOUSING TYPES
DENSITY HOUSING TYPE
Family-Oriented Housing
High Townhouses & Condominiums
Medium-High Single Family Detached and
Patio Homes
PLANNING
AREAS/
DU TOTALS
158
326
Medium
Single Family Detached and
Patio Homes
1,847
Low
Custom Single-Family Lots
(e.g. 10,000 sq. ft. to
larger than one acre).
Single Family Detached
50
Retirement-Oriented Housing
Very High
Apartments and Condo-
miniums
[585]
Medium-High Patio Homes, duplex and
4-plex condominiums [1,308]
Medium Patio Homes [duplexes~ [107]
~4-plexes] ~
Grand Total. 4,381
Note: Text in brackets [] amended by Substantial Confor-
mance numbers 1 and 2.
-33-
PLANNING COMMISSION -q' t'O' I
EXHIBIT
A?PRgV. H.
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CASE N
~P,C. OATE LI-- ~
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
VIClNI r¥
MAP
CASE N O.C.z.9//~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
21,8 AC ' 7.5 ac
348 DU~
~* ~ ~ANNING AREAS
37 ,38 ,39,40,41
A_ Margarita Villaee
CASE '"
EXHIBIT NO.
~.P.c. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
LO ¢,.~1'10 N MAP )
CASE NO. ¢'%R/'~'C
P.C, DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
,")EL HOME COMPLEX
"' .o.c'z.~/~.c ~[
CASE
EXHIBIT NO. ~
~P.C. OA]'E
ITEM NO.
7
APPROVAL
FINANCE OFFICE-R-
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
August 6, 1991
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDAT ION:
Oliver Mujica
1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- , entitled:
"AN URGENCY ORDINANCEOF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 91-
17 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 658581B) AND MAKING FINDINGS
SUPPORT THEREOF."
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
An Ordinance establishing regulations for Outdoor
Advertising Displays.
LOCATION:
City Wide
BACKGROUND:
On April 24, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
90-08, declaring a forty-five (45) day moratorium
pertaining to regulations for outdoor advertising displays.
On June 5, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
90-09, declaring a ten (10) month and fifteen (15) day
extension of Ordinance No. 90-08, which was due to expire
on April 24, 1991.
A: OUTDOOR 4. ADV 1
DISCUSSION:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
On April 23, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
91-17, declaring a one J 1 ) year extension of Ordinance No.
90-09, which will expire on April 23, 1992. In adopting
Ordinance No. 91-17, the City Council directed the
Planning Department Staff to prepare an amendment to the
Ordinance that would provide for an exemption procedure
so that special cases could be heard.
According to the California Government Code, revisions to
an Ordinance must be first reviewed by the Planning
Commission, in order to allow the Commission the
opportunity to forward a formal recommendation. Thus,
on July 1, 1991, the Revised Ordinance was considered by
the Planning Commission, and a recommendation for
approval was forwarded by the vote of 5-0, subject to the
following modification:
An application for an exemption shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission for a
recommendation to the City Council.
Based on the direction given by the City Council, Staff
has amended Ordinance No. 91-17 by adding the following
section:
"SECTION 4. Not withstanding the provisions of
this Ordinance, should any party believe that they
would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an
outdoor advertising display, they may apply to the
Planning Director for an exemption to this
Ordinance. Such application for an exemption shall
be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a
recommendation to the City Council. Such
exemption may be granted by the City Council only
after due notice and public hearing thereon."
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- entitled:
"AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 91-
17 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 658581B) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF."
A:OUTDOOR4.ADV 2
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 91-
17 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858 (b) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
WHEREAS, On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was established as a duly
organized Municipal Corporation of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the
requirements of California Government Code Section 57376, the City Council of the City of
Temecula adopted its Ordinance No. 89-01, thereby adopting, by reference, for 120 days the
Riverside County Code, which contains the Land Use Regulations of the county of Riverside,
and which Regulations are currently applicable to the establishment of all uses and development
applications (including allowance of signage) within the City of Temecula.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance no. 90-04, the City readopted Ordinance No. 348
of the County of Riverside as the Land Use Regulations for the City of Temecula;
WHEREAS, As part of its review of new and potential development within the city of
Temecula, the City Council examined the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) portion of
Riverside County General Plan as it has pertained to development in the City of Temecula.
Such examinations revealed that said SWAP may not provide an appropriate development
scheme for the City of Temecula, and consequently, the City Council adopted SWAP as planning
guidelines until the City could adopt its own General Plan. All action on development
applications since incorporation, as to required consistency with the adopted General Plan, has
taken place pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360.
WHEREAS, In recognition of the need for effective long range planning criteria, the
City Council commenced within the time limits prescribed for adoption of a General Plan, the
study and formulation of a General Plan for the City of Temecula. A material part of said
General Plan Study will be the review and development of effective criteria to regulate all forms
of signage within the City of Temecula.
WHEREAS, Ordinance no. 348 of the Riverside County Code (hereinafter referred to
as the "Land Use Code") currently provides for the approval and establishment of "Outdoor Use
Advertising Displays" within the City of Temecula. The Land Use Code defines an "Outdoor
Advertising Display" as "the advertising structure and signs used for outdoor advertising
purposes, not including on-site advertising as hereinafter defined"
5/Ords27 -1-
WHEREAS, In the near future there could be certain applications for such Outdoor
Advertising Displays, the approval of which would not conform to the contemplated General
Plan scheme of development in the City of Temecula and would contradict the specific purposes
for the adoption of a unified General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan,
it is foreseeable that further outdoor advertising display proposals will be submitted for property
within the City which would contradict the ultimate goals and policies of the proposed General
Plan;
WHEREAS, This Council is concerned about the maintenance of the visual aesthetic
quality of the City of Temecula, and with the creation of an orderly and balanced development
scheme within the City of Temecula. Accordingly, to protect the integrity of the ultimate
General Plan and to assure the continued development stability of property within the City of
Temecula, this Council f'mds that it is necessary to investigate and formulate the ultimate plan
of development for the City of Temecula as encompassed within the terms and provisions of the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ordinance No. 90-08, the City Council of the City of Temecula
enacted an interim zoning ordinance, which expired on June 8, 1990, pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65858;
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-09, the City Council of the City of Temecula
extended Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 90-08, which expires on April 24, 1991 pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65858; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No 91-17 the City Council of the City of Temecula
extended Ordinance No. 90-09 pursuant to Government Code section 65858 which expires April
23, 1992;
WHEREAS, All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have
occurred;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth above are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council further finds as follows:
(a) The City of Temecula is presently developing a General Plan for
development of the City of Temecula. The ultimate goal of the General Plan is to provide a
balanced and unified plan of development within the City of Temecula and will ultimately
upgrade the economic, social, and cultural welfare of persons and properties within the City of
Temecula. A material portion of the General Plan Study will be the formulation and
5/Ords27 -2-
establishment of regulations for signage, including primary signs, in the City of Temecula.
(b) There is the potential for certain applications for the establishment
of Outdoor Advertising Displays, the approval of which would contradict the ultimate goals and
objectives of the General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan it is
foreseeable that further such applications will be received which may further contradict such
goals and objectives of the General Plan; and,
(c) Pending approval of the General Plan, and associated Land Use
Code Regulations concerning signage, the approval of any further sign location plans, plot plans,
or other discretionary entitlement for Outdoor Advertising Displays, would result in immediate
threat to the public health, safety or welfare of persons and properties within the City of
Temecula.
SECTION 3. The following interim zoning regulations are hereby adopted.
(a) Pending the completion and adoption of the General Plan of the City
of Temecula together with associated signage regulation for the Land Use Code for the City of
Temecula, the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays is hereby prohibited and no
application for sign location plan, plot plan, or other applicable discretionary entitlement for a
Outdoor Advertising Display shall be accepted, acted upon, or approved.
application for:
(b) The provisions of subparagraph 3 (a), shall not apply to any
Section 19.5)
Onsite Advertising Structures and Signs (Ordinance 348,
(ii) Subdivision signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.6)
(c) Other than expressly provided in this Ordinance, all other applications
for signage shall be processed and acted upon pursuant to the normal and customary provisions
of the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Temecula.
SECTION 4. Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, should any party
believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an outdoor advertising display,
they may apply to the Planning Director for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such an
application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City
Council. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public
hearing thereon.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance is enacted under the authority of the California
Government Code Section 65858 (b) and shall be of no further force and effect one (1) year
from the date of adoption of this Ordinance unless the City Council has extended this Ordinance
510rds27 -3-
in the manner as provided in said Section 65858 (b). -'--
SECTION 6. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure
pursuant to the terms of the California Government Code Sections 65858 and 36937 (b), and this
Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance an
shall cause the same to be posed in three (3) public places.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
day of~., 1991.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Ordinance 91-m was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the ~ day of ~, 1991, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
5/0rds27 -4-
DEPARTMENT
REPORTS
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
Monthly Activity Report For: June 1991
This This
This Last Fiscal
Month Month Yr/Date
PLANS CHECKED: ~
Residential 1 0 84
Commercial 15 12 165
Indust/Warehouse o 0 5 ;
Others 6 7 lO3
TOTAL: ~ ? ~ o ~ 57
PERMITS ISSUED:
Building 223 232 1579
Value 75,611, eifi8 11,476,&q8 .102,158,248
Fees 84,484 85,966.34 516,181
Electrical 122 165 1,073
Fees 14,751 12.366.46 39,061
Last
Fiscal
Yr/Date
Plumbing 102 133 729
Fees 13,720 15,935.46 27,359
Mechanical 82 119 532
Fees 6,682 7010.69 )5,829
529/ 649/ 3,877/
TOTAL $ REC'D: $119,651 $121,279.45 I;818,444
THIS MONTH'S No. of No/Units Plan Check
PERMITS: Permits Yr/Date Fees
Permit
Fees
Single Family 62 387 7.546 39.650
Duplex 0 0 0 0
Multi-Family 0 0 0 0
Commercial 6 181 31,150 29,029
Industrial 0 0 0 0
Relocate/Demo. 1 8 o 60
Swimming Pools tO 108 9S 1 1,309
Signs 7 28 271 390
Other 82 1122 440 2,728
ALTER/ADD
To Dwelling 4o 125 2216 2997
' To Commercial 15 51 6085 8321
To Industrial 0 0 0 0
TOTAL: 223 2010 48.689 84,484
BUILDING VALUATION
This Fiscal Year to Date: S102,158,278.00 This Calendar Year to Date:
Last Fiscal Year to Date: Last Calendar Year to Date:
Last
Calendar
Yr/Date
Total
Fees
47,196
0
0
60,180
0
60
2,290
661
3,168
5,213
14,406
0
133,174
This
Cflendar
Yr/Date
I9
60
4
38
121
906
70,877,719
362,863
609
53,052
473
,54,724
395
124,130
2383/
$495,083
Valuation
6,407,010.00
o
0
17,346,773.0(
0
0 -
113,632.00
17,400.00
64,411.00
291,613.00
1,370,699.00
o
25,611,538.0
$70,877,749.00