HomeMy WebLinkAbout051590 CC AgendaT~f~"OL3t ~ Cl'T~ COUNCZL
invocation
Flag Salute
l!~ 3.5; Iggo
Mex'c in Order:
Ov~F~ance: No. 90-09
RemolBt~on: No, 90-54
Pastor Dave Wall
Trinity Christian Fellowship
FUBLXC CCIIfM~ITS
Birdsall, Lindemane, Moore,
Parks
Mufioz,
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. Speakers are limited to two (2)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink '~oquest
To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
CXt3[C.~erk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state
vgur name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be
fiIed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that
item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers2
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered
to be routine and all will be enacted by one toil call
vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items to be
removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
I O~lO/gO
K~tes
~RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve minutes of April 24, 1990 as mailed.
1.2 Approve minutes of April 25, 1990 as mailed.
Reconsideretlon of South West Area conunity Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Refer to Planning Commission for reconsideration of
the adoption of the Southwest Area Community Plan.
Rosolution. Reqardinq Time of N~etinqs
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OFT HE CITY COUNCIL OFT HE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING SECTION 5 OF ORDXN~NCB 8g-02 OF THE MUNICXP~L
CODE P~TAiNING TO THE TIMB OF CITY COUNCIL MBETXNGS
4. Te~e~ul& Redeveloment District~'
Continued from the meeting of May 1, 1990.
Presentation by Dave McElroy, County
Redevelopment Department
of Riverside
Reqion&l Park District
Presentation by Paul Romero, County of Riverside Director of
Parks
Riverside county Department of Health - Contract for Services
Presentation by Earl Tuntland and John Fanning, Environmental
Health Services Division
Tract 23304 - Club Valencia
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Direct the City Engineer to co~duct a traffic and
drainage study of Tract 23304.
o
Yund~nq Reauest for the Teme~ula Valley Economic Development
Corporation
Presentation by TemeculaValley Chamber of Commerce
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Defer decision until the budget hearings on May 22,
1990.
0
10.
Concept StriDing Plan for Rancho California Road Over I-X5,
from Front Street to Ynes Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Approve the concept striping plan for Rancho
California Road between Front Street and Ynez Road
and give' Bedford Properties authorization to
proceed with com~letion of the design based upon
said approval.
Cable Television Franchise Analysis
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
~Receive and file.
CITY MANJ~GER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: May 22, 1990, 6:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TEHECUL~CITY COUNCIL
HELD APRIL 25, 1990
A special meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order
at 6:04 PM at the Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding.
PRESENT: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mufioz, Parks
ABSENT:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present was City Manager Frank Aleshire.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Parks adjourned the meeting to a closed session and announced
that pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 (The Brown Act), an
executive or closed session may be conducted under a personnel
exception, for the purpose of appointment, employment, or dismissal
of a public employee.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 PM.
It was moved and seconded that the City Council schedule closed
sessions on Wednesday, May 2, 1990 at 6:30 PM and Thursday, May 3,
1990 at 6:30 PM at City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California, for the purpose of conducting City Manager interviews.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned to a meeting on April 26, 1990, 6:00 PM,
Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula California.
RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
F. D. ALESHIRE, CITY CLERK
Minutes\4\25\90 -1 - 04/27/90
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEHECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD APRIL 24, L990
An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was
called to order at 7:02 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding.
PRESENT: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mufioz, Parks
ABSENT:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott
F. Field and Recording Secretary Susan W. Jones.
II~VOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Peter Molster, Church of Christ.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Parks.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Parks declared May 20, 1990 as "Peace Day" in Temecula.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mike Primicerio, 29672 Ramsey Court, representing Citizens For
Quality Leadership, formally withdrew it's recall campaign against
Councilmember Birdsall and Councilmember Moore. Mr. Primicerio
reported that his committee met with Councilmember Lindemans on
Sunday, April 22, 1990, listened, deliberated and were persuaded to
reevaluate their methods at this time. Mr. Primicerio thanked
Councilmember Lindemans for his concern for citizens of Temecula
and his willingness to meet with their group.
Karel Lindemans, speaking as a citizen not a Councilmember, gave a
description of the meeting on Sunday, April 22, 1990. Mr.
Lindemans thanked the Citizens For Quality Leadership on their
decision. He commended the group on their real concern for
Temecula and courage to take a stand.
31minutd~O424N I
City CouncilMinutes April24.1990
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Lindemans requested the removal of items five (5) and
six (6) from the Consent Calendar.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to approve items one (1) through (4) and items seven (7)
through nine (9) as follows:
1. Minutes
1.1 Approved the minutes of March 20, 1990 as mailed.
1.2 Approved the minutes of March 27, 1990 as mailed.
2. Resolution ApDroving Payment of Demands
2.1 Adopted a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-45
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS ~ DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN
EXHIBIT A.
3. City Treasurer's Report for the Month Ending March 31, 1990.
3.1 Received and filed.
4. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - BudGet and Actual for
the Month - Endinq March 31, 1990.
4.1 Received and filed.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance ReGarding Parks and Recreation
Commission
7.1 Adopted an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-05
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDING CHAPTER 13.01 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEMECULA PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION.
~/mlnulm/e424N 2 0~/11/~
City Council Minutes
8.
April 24. 1990
Second Reading of Ordinance Regarding Public Safety Commission
8.1 Adopted an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDING CHAPTER 11.01 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEMECULA PUBLIC SAFETY
COI~IBBION.
Second Readina of Ordinance Regarding Traffic Commission
9.1 Adopted an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-07
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDING CHAPTER 12.01 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEMECULA TRAFFIC
COHMISSION.
The motion to approve carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mufioz, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Approval of drainage and access easement; across Lots 23 and
24, Tract 23220: located adiacent to Calle Katefine
Councilmember Lindemans asked if Willdan and Associates had
approved this item. city Manager Aleshire answered that all
planning and engineering cases go through Willdan and
Associates.
City Council Minutes April 24. 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans and seconded by
Councilmember Mufioz to adopt a resolution as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEHECULA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEDICATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR
DRAINAGE ANDACCESS PURPOSES ACROSS A PORTION OF LOTS 23
AND 24, TRACT 23220.
The motion was unanimously carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
6. Calendar for Fiscal Year 199~ Budqet
City Manager Aleshire reported that this is the "first-cut"
draft of the 1990-91 Budget. A workshop meeting on the budget
is set for Saturday, May 12, 1990 at City Hall, with the
public hearing following on May 22, 1990. Mr. Aleshire
requested that groups requesting funding in the 1990-91 budget
be present at the May 22nd meeting.
City Manager Aleshire emphasized these are still rough
figures. John McTighe, financial consultant, is still working
on an update of his first report. Mr. Aleshire told Council
that a first budget is a difficult process because there are
no comparisons from previous years from which to estimate.
Mr. Aleshire stated that projected revenues are estimated at
$11,000,000 and projected expenditures are $14,000,000. There
is concern that an unbalanced budget already exists.
Councilmember Lindemans stated that he met with John McTighe
on the budget and received a opposite opinion.
Mayor Parks asked how the Council could give input on the
budget. City Manager Aleshire stated that the Council can
input at any meeting. Citizens may write a letter to the city
of Temecula and this letter will be included in the meetings
held on the 1990-91 budget.
Councilmember Mufioz expressed his concern with the problem of
implementing increased fire protection and the amount of lead
time necessary to achieve the recommended levels of service.
,~/mlnutnlO424~ 4 O~/11/~
City Council Minutes April 24. 1990
City Manager Aleshire said he spoke with the Fire Chief and
start-up is not a problem for the Fire Department. There is
a problem with the Sheriff's Department and it is possible
that it may be August 1, 1990 before the City could expect
increased service.
Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Mufioz seconded a
motion to approve the calendar for Fiscal Year 1991 Budget.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mufioz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCIL BUSINESS
10. An Urgency Ordinance Regarding the Prohibition of Billboards
City Manager Aleshire introduced Ross Geller, Willdan and
Associates, to give a presentation on this issue.
Mr. Geller stated that the City Council has expressed concerns
about the potential proliferation of billboard advertising
structures throughout the community. He stated that although
the Council chose not to officially adopt the Southwest Area
Community Plan (SWAP), the plan does designate both Interstate
15 and State Highway 79 as Scenic Highways.
Presently as allowed by the Zoning Code, an applicant would
only be required to submit a plot plan for construction of a
billboard. It is staff's understanding that a number of plot
plans requesting billboards are on file with the County
awaiting review.
Until the City has an opportunity to articulate its future
goals, through the creation of the City's first Zoning Code,
it is staff's recommendation that a moratorium be placed on
approval of future billboards throughout the City. Adoption
of this urgency Ordinance would prohibit approvals for 45
days. At the end of this period the Council could adopt an
Ordinance that would extend the moratorium for an addition 10
months and 15 days.
,3/mlnutee/O424~ S O5/IWN
City Council Minutes April 24, 1990
Mayor Parks asked if there if any other way to "fix" this
problem. He expressed his concern over a moratorium of any
kind.
City Attorney Scott Fields stated that the only other method
would be by zoning amendments which entail 90-180 day
processing. Mr. Fields expressed his opinion that a general
plan should first be drafted. He recommended adoption of the
billboard moratorium until such standards can be established.
Councilmember Birdsall questioned what happens to applications
in process. City Attorney Fields answered that everything
would be stopped.
Councilmember Lindemans spoke in favor of the moratorium,
stating that the City needs time to establish a general plan.
Councilmember Mufioz also said he favors a moratorium. He
expressed the city's need for time to create its own sign
ordinance. He suggested turning this matter over to the new
Planning Commission to report on this issue.
City Attorney Fields explained that in order for an urgency
ordinance to pass, 4 votes were required. Councilmember
Lindemans moved and Councilmember Moore seconded a motion to
read by title only and waive further reading of an urgency
ordinance regarding the prohibition of billboards. The motion
was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Mufioz to adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-08
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TF~ECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CALIFORNIA GOVERI~ENT CODE SECTION 65858(B) AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
City Council Minutes April 24. 1990
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mufioz
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Moore requested that this issue be referred to
the Planning Commission as soon as it is in place.
11. Additional Traffic Enforcement Contract
City Manager Aleshire recommended that the City Council
approve funding for services from the California Highway
Patrol in May and June, for a total of 320 hours. The extra
patrol hours would be tentatively scheduled for Monday through
Friday, between the hours from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. The cost
of these services is $12,646, requiring an amendment to the
current budget. Mr. Aleshire stated that a car is available
pending CHP approval from Sacramento. Such approval is
expected.
Captain Sayre reported that service could be implemented
without delay, with Council's approval.
Councilmember Mufioz asked staff if an investigation on whether
the revenue gained from writing citations would recover some
of the cost for these services.
City Manager Aleshire stated that a large portion of cost
would be covered from writing citations, however, the exact
amount is not clear. The dollar amount is somewhat dependant
on how court cases are handled. It is unclear whether the
City will receive direct benefit from all citations. Mr.
Aleshire could not guarantee that all costs would be covered
in this manner.
Councilmember Mufioz moved and Councilmember Birdsall seconded,
a motion to adopt this additional 1989-90 Budget Item and
approve funding of California Highway Patrol time as
recommended by staff.
3/mlnu,,.-W 7 IS/i.!~N
City Council Minutes April 24. 1990
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mufioz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Mufioz expressed the need for traffic enforcement
on Calle Medusa. He expressed a desire to be able to enforce
speed limits on this private road.
city Manager Aleshire reported that he had followed through on
the issue, and there was a meeting scheduled for April 25,
1990 at 9:30 AM in City Hall with Traffic Engineers and Law
Enforcement Personnel. Mr. Aleshire received a letter from
owner of the street granting permission for enforcement of
speed limits. Mr. Aleshire stated the problem will likely be
resolved when the street is dedicated, permitting the City to
issue citations right away.
Mayor Parks wanted to clarify that the additional Highway
Patrol time was for the entire City, not merely Calle Medusa.
Councilmember Birdsall stated this will also relieve the
Sheriff's personnel to perform other needed services.
12.
Closed Personnel Session to Consider Ampointment of City
Manaaer pursuant to Government Code, Section 54957.
city Manager Aleshire announced that this is notice of a
closed meeting on April 25, 1990, 6:00 PM., Temecula city
Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, to
consider the appointment of a City Manager.
13. ADpointment of Planning Commissioners
City Manager Aleshire gave notice of a meeting on April 26,
1990, 6:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California, for the purpose of interviewing and
appointment five members to the Planning Commission.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Aleshire distributed written reports to members of the
City Council. The first answered comments brought up by
Councilmember Lindemans at two Council Meetings on April 10, 1990
andApril 14, 1990, in regard to the financial study of County fees
and property taxes. The report indicated that John McTighe has
3/rnlnute./~4N, ,g ~S/11/~4
City Council Minutes April 24. 1990
been hired to review the formula used by the County to determine
the city's property taxes.
The second is a traffic mitigation fee study.
will be ready for Council review in two weeks.
A report on this
The third item is the Apricot Overpass. There was a meeting
scheduled to discuss this with County representatives that was
canceled and has not yet been rescheduled. Mr. Aleshire stated he
will be meeting with the County to get the Mello-Roos going.
The fourth item is regarding the Business License Ordinance. Mr.
Aleshire reported that there are too many other priorities at this
time, but some time after the first of July it will be possible to
bring this back before Council.
The fifth item addressed the request to form a Debt Advisory
Committee. Mr. Aleshire said he was collecting information from
other cities who have similar organizations and would be putting a
report on the agenda giving recommendations on how to do this very
soon.
The sixth item covered was a legal opinion analyzing how far the
City can go in levying charges on developers and what we can do
about fees already charged during the approval process for vested
land maps.
The seventh item, a moratorium on bill boards, was acted on
tonight.
The eight item, the Quimby Act, Mr. Aleshire reported staff is
preparing an ordinance to come before the Council in May which will
establish a park fee to be levied on developers.
The ninth item, dedication of land for park - subdivision South of
Highway 79 South. Mr. Aleshire stated he met with developers on
this issue, however the project has been sold since the Council
reviewed it, and the new owners are not aware of the park land
offer. The new owners are studying this issue and will meet with
staff. Following the discussion with the new owners, staff will
bring this item back before Council for further discussion.
The second written report listed priorities being pursued by City
Staff and the consultants who have been hired. The report is
dated April 24, 1990, but resulted from a staff meeting at the end
of March. Mr. Aleshire reported that this should serve as an
update on what is being done by the various departments. Mr.
Aleshire offered to answer any questions on this issue.
3/mlnutes/M249~ 9 8S/11/9~
City Council Minutes April 24, 1990
Councilmember Lindemans thanked
addressing most of his questions.
City Manager Aleshire for
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Attorney Scott Field announced that he will not be present on
the Thursday, April 26, 1990 meeting, however his associate Jerry
Patterson will be present.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Birdsall relayed an invitation from Norton Younglove,
Supervisor of the Fifth District, to a County of Riverside Drought
Conference on Monday, April 30 at 2:00 PM at the Sheraton Hotel in
Riverside. As recommended by Councilmember Birdsall, Mr. Kratsch
from the Eastern Municipal Water District was appointed to attend
the meeting and report back to Council.
Councilmember Birdsall received notification from the League of
California cities on a downtown revitalization conference, and
recommended sending copies to Temecula Town Association, Merchants
Association and Chamber of Commerce, requesting they send a
representative.
Councilmember Birdsall also announced that Saturday, April 28, 1990
at 6:30 PM, at the Temecula Community Center, a follies will be
held at $35/person. All proceeds will benefit Temecula Volunteer
Fire Department.
Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:01 PM. The meeting was
reconvened at 8:03 PM with all members present.
Councilmember Mufioz asked what the status of the letters to sign
violators. City Manager Aleshire reported that staff is making up
a mailing list.
Anne Houston Rogers stated she is compiling a mailing list. She
stated her difficulty in creating this list, as business have
different names than as how they are registered. It is a difficult
process. The letter has not, as yet, been completed.
Councilmember Mufioz again appealed to the community to clean up
Temecula prior to the Balloon and Wine Festival. He reported that
he is working with Bill Johnson to do something about the medians
in front of the Target Center. Councilmember Mufioz appealed to
community groups and individuals to assist in this effort. He
asked the press to run stories or public service announcements to
aid in this process.
City Council Minutes April 24. 1990
Councilmember Lindemans requested action on the following:
Requested public comments be increased from a limit of two
minutes to a limit of three minutes.
2. Stated time keeping should be done by staff, not by the Mayor.
3. Requested Councilmembers sit in different places every week.
Stated a mission statement is needed to set the course for
Temecula. He provided staff with a report from Snider and
Associates on how to facilitate this objective.
Requested Council have more input in Drug Abuse Committee, and
that people become more involved and feel responsible for
community.
He stated he would like to see the community become involved
in volunteer programs and see the City hire an employee to
coordinate these activities.
Mayor Parks requested concurrence on the appointment of Barbara
Tooker to serve as Commissioner to Riverside County Library
Commission. He directed staff to notify Ms. Tooker of her
appointment and also the Library Commission.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to adjourn at 8:15 PM to a meeting on April 25, 1990 at
6:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula
California. The motion was unanimously carried.
RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
F. D. ALESHIRE, CITY CLERK
J/mlnu"-/e4~ff4 II I~/11/N
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
AB#: #2 TITLE: DEPT
MTG: 5/15/90 SWaP Reconsideration CITY AT
DEPT: cc CITY
R E C O~END~T I ON:
Refer reconsideration of adoption of the Southwest Area Community
Plan to the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of May 8, 1990, Council indicated that possible
reconsideration of the Southwest Area Community Plan as the City's
General Plan might be in order. The newly appointed members of the
Planning Commission have been provided with copies of the plan and
this is appropriate for their review and recommendation to the City
Council.
JSG
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
AB#: #~ TITLE: DEPT HD~F~
MTG: s/15/9o Change of Meeting Time CITY ATIY~
DEPT: co CITY MGR
RECOMMENDAT I ON:
Adopt a resolution to change the time for starting City Council
meetings from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of May 8, 1990, Council requested a change in the
time of their meetings from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM to accommodate the
lengthy agendas which are required during the early months of the
City. The date, time and location of City Council meetings was
specified in Ordinance 89-02 adopted at the first City Council
meeting held December 1, 1989. This ordinance contains a provision
which allows the Council to designate another date, time and/or
location by resolution. The appropriate resolution has been
prepared for your action.
JSG
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 5 OF ORDINANCE 89-2 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE TIME OF CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
WHEREAS, The City Council adopted Ordinance 89-2 entitled, "An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Temecula, California, Setting the Date, Time and Location of City
Council Meetings and Other Operating Procedures and Declaring the Urgency Thereof", on
December 1, 1989, and;
WHEREAS, Ordinance 89-2 provides in Section 5 (B) that the City Council may, by
resolution, designate another date, time and location for a meeting, and;
WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that for an unspecified period of time they
desire to have the meetings of the City Council commence at the hour of 6:00 PM,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby amends Section 5 (B) of Ordinance 99-2 to provide for commencement of City Council
meetings at 6:00 PM.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 1990.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
R¢sos-54
RusdCountw-Econ%CommDvipm% TEL No. 714 788 1415 Maw 11,90 g:11 P.02
1-1088)
NO. 1--1988 ~ncludes an are~kno~n in the courtunity as Old Town
cammmiry ~-~ Xa co~-qldeFe(l by local reeldante to be an importer
part of ~he communl~y*s heritage.
The Board of Supervisors of the County or alverside declares as
itte po~cy with rospoct to this itod~vo~opmmnt P1MI, ~klR~ ~0 the
greatest exten~ Tea~ble, ~he powers Bnd authorities of the
Riverm~de County Redevelopment Agonc~ should be used to pre~,ve
and protect the hZstorAc nature and architecture! ~ntegrt~y or
~easible0 preservation of the Old Town Temecula area should be
given hlgh prlorl%~f Milan conniefling A~nc~ p~o~ecto or
act~vitle~ ~thtn Redevelopment Pro~ec~ No. 1-1988. (Source:
RedevelopseM%t Plan ~-~9B8o page VA.).
F~OJKCT OTATXOT~OS
P~o~oct Adopted~ July 1988
P~o~ect S~ze: 2,270 acres (amen~ea r~om
KmZnen~ Domain: ~O
Life of Plan: 40 years from adoption
Asseased Value Base Year: 1987-88
FArs~ Xncreaent: ~anuar¥ 1990
Increnent Available to Da~e, 96~9,715 Tota~
Capital ProJect~ Share of To~al: $518,302
LOW/Moderate Nou~ng 8here o£ Total~ $17~,413
Percentage "Pass-Through" ~o Other Agencies: 35.119~
"Pa8o-ThFoug~" Recipients: School D~ricta, Flood 0ontro~,
Temecula Public Cemetery: Kastern Municipal Wa~er Dlstr~ct;
Rancho CallEoFnl& Wa~er
Pro~ected Increment, Over 40 Year Life of the Pla~: $479,000,000
Financing Limitations: Total outst-~ding principal of any bonds
~eoued and pa~abAa from tax Increment not ~o exceed
$340,000,000
RvsdCountg_Econ&CommDvipm~ TEL No.
714 788 1415 Mag 11,90 9:12 P.05
RvsdCounty_Econ&CommDv]pmt TEL No. 714 788 1415 May 11,90 9:13 P.04
...: ......................................... ....... ...... ....... ...........,.
~,~~ .... ~-~-.~,,,~..~ .... ,,~,,.~~.~.
~l~'~"~~'"'~:'""'~'~"~;;'--"~";.~
~ !I!IIII!IIIIIII!IIIIIiiI!III!IiI!!IIllll I ~=~ ~
' ""'"'"'"""'"""'""""""'
Mayor
'.on Parks
Mayor Pro Tem
Karel F. Lindemans
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 3000
Tcmecula, California 92390
(714) 694-1989
FAX (714) 694-1999
Councilmembers
Patricia }1. Birdsall
Peg Moore -
I. Sal Mufioz
April 20, 1990
Mr. Paul D. Romero, Director
County of Riverside Parks Department
4600 Crestmore Road
Riverside, California 92519-3507
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION MAY 15, 1990
The Temecula City Council requests you attend the May 15,
1990 City Council meeting to make a presentation for the
proposed Regional Park District. You should also be
available at the end of your presentation, should the
Council have further questions.
The city Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., and will be
held at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol
Street, Temecula.
Please call my secretary, Sharon Francis, and confirm
your presentation.
I look forward to seeing you on the 15th!
Frank Aleshire
City Manager
FA: sj f
cc:
June Greek, Deputy City Clerk
Bill Holley, CSD Coordinator
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PARKS DEPARTMENT
4600 Cregtmore Road, P.O. Box ~597~ Riverside, CA 92519 · (714) 787-2551
P&UL D. ROMERO
Director
May 9, 1990
Mr. Frank Aleshire, Manager
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 488
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Aleshire:
Enclosed is information requested on the proposed Regional Park & Open-Space
District. The fact sheet is self-explanatory. All activities and projects
currently provided by the County could be accomplished by the new District.
In fact, the district would replace the existing parks department. Also note
that the District could help fund local projects with cities that choose to
join. Regional project areas are shown by zones on the enclosed map. Zone
boundaries are flexible and can and most likely will be changed based on
future incorporations or annexations. Zones are structured for representation
(advisory members) and regional project fund allocation. The map is
representative only; i.e., boundary lines are descriptive, not exact.
Also enclosed is the most recent public opinion survey information, parcel
information based on 1990 assessor numbers, and a cost-sharing breakdown for
local park and regional park need. Based on a proposed $30 annual assessment
per parcel, Temecula would receive about $100,000 per year for local park uses.
I hope this information is valuable in helping you and the council determine
whether or not Temecula should participate in the District formation. I look
forward to our meeting on May 15 to answer any questions that may be asked.
Parks Director
PDR/1775M
Enclosures
"[~ ,l(.quir(L prote(t, develop, manage ,red interl}ret for the m~piration, u',e and enlovment of aJJ people,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PARKS DEPARTMENT
4600 Crestmore Road, P.O. Box 3507, Riverside, CA 92519 · (714) 787-2551
PAUL D. ROMERO
FACT SHEET Director
for a proposed
RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL PARK
AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
What would a Regional Park and Open Space District do?
The District would be empowered to acquire lands for parks, trail rights of way and natural
resource protection; develop, maintain and operate regional park, trail and recreational
facilities; provide nature centers and interpretive programs; and provide long term management
of, or enter into management agreements with appropriate entities for, sensitive open space
areas. The District would play a key role in enabling the County to meet its goal of developing and
implementing a Master Plan to protect the County's natural heritage and meet the parks and
recreation needs of its current and future residents.
The District would incorporate the existing County Parks Department functions and provide an
entity which could also acquire and manage open space areas with high wildlife habitat,
archeological and scenic resource values.
Why is a Regional Park and Open Space District needed?
While the County's population has grown very rapidly in the last decade, creating a corresponding
increase in demand for park and recreation facilities and seriously impacting open space
resources, funding for park and recreation services has remained static and even to maintain
existing levels of service requires a greater shift to user fees each year. With the County
expected to undergo even greater population growth in coming years, needs will rapidly outstrip
the existing Parks Department's ability to meet the demand for services.
Significantly, a 1989 voter opinion poll conducted in Riverside County revealed that 85% of
respondents placed great importance on the protection of wildlife areas and open spaces and 77%
rated having regional parks available as important. The poll also indicated that voters would be
likely to approve the formation of a new regional agency to meet these needs.
How would the District be established?
Under the terms of state enabling legislation, the Board of Supervisors would place two measures
before the voters: one actually establishing the District, and the other approving a benefit
assessment on parcels within the District to provide a stable revenue source for the District.
Parcel owners would receive free passes to use park facilities up to the value of the assessment.
The measures could be on the ballot as early as November, 1990. A simple majority vote would
be needed for passage of both measures.
What will be the boundaries of the District?
The District boundaries will include all the unincorporated area of the County from Chi.riaco
Summit west. Cities may join the District through City Council resolution. Voters in such cities
would then participate in the election to establish the District. Within the District, various
geographic zones would be created and assessments collected in a zone would be expended in
"To acquire, protect. develop. manaRe and interpret for the inspiration, u.~e and enjoyment of all people.
a ~ell-bal,~n(ed >~stem of area~ of outstand,ng scenmc. recreation, and historic impor/ante."
connection with land acquisitions and improvements located in that zone, with a reasonable amount
allocated for general expenses of the District.
Is there a reason for cities to join the District?
Cities within the district will have the benefit assessment collected on commercial/industrial and
residential parcels within their corporate boundaries. These revenues will be apportioned
between the City's Parks Department and/or local Parks and Recreation District and the Regional
Parks and Open Space District. A city's share may be used to fund local parks and recreation
projects, including community parks, recreation centers and ball fields. The District's share
would help fund acquisition, development and operation for new regional facilities within the same
District zone as the city. Analysis indicates that a city would annually receive more throug~
participation in the District than it has historically received from statewide bond act per capita
shares. Existing funding sources for City Parks Departments would not be affected by the
formation of the District.
How would the District be funded?
The District would be financed through user fees and charges (as the present Parks Department
is), other funds from County, state and federal agencies, and through the benefit assessment if
approved by the voters. Significantly, the secure revenue source from the assessment would
enable the District to issue bonds to provide greater up-front funds for acquisition and other
purposes. The District will thereby have greatly enhanced capital funds for major projects as
well as stable operations and management funding.
How will the District be governed?
The County Board of Supervisors would be the governing board of the District. We will
recommend that the Board appoint a District Advisory Committee composed of citizens from the
various geographic areas of the District to provide input and recommendations to the Board.
Can you participate in the District formation?
Yes, by all meansl We are seeking input from all citizens and organizations about the District,
particularly about priority projects the District should undertake if established, including
location of new regional parks, trail corridors, recreation facilities and significant open space
areas for acquisition. The County Parks Department plans to hold public workshops throughout
the County in March and April. Your attendance at these meetings will be highly valued as will
written comments which you may address to:
Bud German
Deputy Director for Administration
Riverside County Parks Department
P.O. Box 3507
Riverside, CA 92509
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PARKS DEPARTMENT
4600 Crestmore Road, P.O. Box 3507, Riverside, CA 92519 · (714) 787-2551
PAUL D. ROMERO
Director
WHAT TYPES OF PROJECTS WOULD BE FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT?
Regional Parks
Lands could be acquired and park facilities developed in accordance with the the Ten Year Parks
and Trails Master Plan currently under preparation.
Wildlife Habitat/Natural Open Space
Open space to be maintained in its natural state could be acquired for its wildlife, recreational and
scenic values in conjunction with the Wildlife and Open Space Conservation Plan currently being
prepared.
Trail Rights of Way and Development
Rights of way for equestrian, hiking and biking trails could be acquired and the trails developed. A
Trails Master Plan has been adopted for the western portion of the County and one for the eastern
portion is in progress.
Recreational Facilities
Regional recreational facilities, including sports complexes and special purpose facilities such as
the De Anza Cycle Park, could be developed.
Nature Centers and Interpretive Programs
Existing nature centers could be enhanced and new centers established and interpretive programs
at appropriate sites expanded or developed to provide educational and informational services to
park users and school groups.
Historical Preservation Sites
Sites of archeological or historical significance could be acquired and maintained.
Senior Citizen Centers
Especially through grants to Recreation and Parks Districts and funds committed to cities,
recreational and community centers for seniors could be developed.
Special Services and Facilities
The Regional Park and Open Space District could expend funds to expand or develop facilities and
services for those with special needs such as the physically impaired.
Operations and Maintenance
The Regional Park and Open Space District would provide a stable source of funds for operations
and maintenance of all District owned and operated facilities. The County Parks Department has
not previously had a stable funding source and thus revenues have not kept pace with operation
and maintenance needs.
Park and Recreation District Facilities
The Regional Park and Open Space District could make special grants to local Recreation and Parks
Districts (there are five in the County) to assist them with their projects, including development
of new facilities.
City Parks and Recreation Facilities
A share of the Regional Park and Open Space District funds would be allocated to participating
cities for neighborhood and community parks, baseball and soccer fields and other recreational
facilities, senior centers, etc.
"1'¢~ a(qtHre. i)r(~tect. de~elot~ manage and interpret for the msDiration. use and enjoyment of all people,
a ~eil-ba]an~'d ,~,~em ~! are,:~- ~)f out~land~ng ~,cemc. recreation, and historic importance."
TO:
FROM
DATE
RE:
MEMORANDUM
WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee
Joe Guzzetta, Bill Garrett, Norm King
April 16, 1990
County Park Bond Program
As requested by the county managers Bill Garrett, Joe Guzzetta and
Dave Streckler representing Norm King, met with Paul Romero to
discuss the county's proposed park bond program. Our understanding
of the program is as follows:
The county is conducting an opinion poll to determine what tax
rate would be acceptable to the voters. Results should be
available April 26.
The total number of parcels county wide has been updated per
the attached. This shows 341,026 (61%) in cities and 218,804
(39%) in the county. Palm Springs figure is being checked and
is probably overstated by 20,000. If so the split is 60%
cities and 40% county.
- The proposed sharing of revenue is 25% to city parks, 25% to
county regional parks, and 50% to wildlife and openspace.
Up to 20% of the cities' share could be used by cities for
operation and maintenance costs. Up to 20% of county parks
and wildlife funds could be used by the county for operation
and maintenance. The county would manage and maintain the
wildlife reserves. The $2 million county 0 & M figure
discussed previously would come totally from the county's
share.
A cost sharing example, assuming $24 per parcel, is as
follows:
City County Regional Wildlife
Parks Parks Openspace
Capital 4.80 4.80 9.60
Operation/Maint. 1.20 1.20 2.40
This is anticipated to be an on going assessment program
rather than a ten year program. The ten year term discussed
previously was for planning purposes only.
Parcels actively farmed would be exempt. Farms often consist
of multiple parcels which would result in excessive
assessments.
- Cities of Coachella, Elsinore, Perris, and Temecula have
expressed a strong interest in participating.
- Cities need to decide by June 17 whether or not to participate
in the program.
The city managers made the following recommendations which Paul
Romero felt were acceptable in principle from his perspective:
City councils should be able to submit the question of
participation to voters. If the voters of any city chose not
to participate, but the countywide vote favors the assessment,
parcels within that city will not be assessed; nor will that
city receive any funds. It is thought that this can be
accomplished by the way the ballot measure is formulated. As
previously designed, once a city council placed the measure
on the ballot, if the measure passed countywide the city would
have been assessed even if city residents had opposed.
Since 61% of the revenues for this program potentially will
be generated in cities, cities should participate in deciding
how the 75% revenues to the county will be spent. This may
be an appropriate activity for the two council of governments.
Cities should be able to receive their shares of the
assessment revenues annually and directly. They should not
have to participate in the county bonding program unless they
elect to. This would give cities the flexibility of at least
three options: 1) "pay as you go" 2) issuing of city bonds
(backed by annual revenues) or 3) participation in the county
bond program.
Treatment of new annexations to cities or incorporation of
new cities would need to be resolved. Once the county issues
debt its income stream would need to be guaranteed. However,
cities would want some transfer of revenues from newly
incorporated or annexed areas.
The 50% of funds designated as wildlife preserve for
endangered species should be broadened to "openspace" so that
it is not considered solely as subsidizing costs which would
be paid by new development.
To the extent that this program provides lands for endangered
species, any cities not participating in the assessment
program should not benefit from endangered species mitigation.
~evised Parcel Numbers - April 9, 1990
Revised Old
Banmn.Q 8,757 8,350
Beaumont 3,392 3,230
Corona 24,585 21.433
Elsinore 15,808 14,874
Henlet 14,697 13,396
Indio 11,345 10,329
Perris 9,373 9,503
Rivers~ de 69,410 61,878
San Ja¢into 5,772 5,293
T e me c',~l a 14,050 13,367
Coachella 3,677 3,267
Palm Springs 45,716' ~-~,~-~) 19,151
Desert Hot Springs 9,386 9,069
Norco 6,744 6,199
Indian Wells 6,407 3,790
Rancho Mirage ! 0,266 8,646
Palm Desert 16,906 15,395
Cathedral City 17,221 14,171
La Ouinta 9,602 9,476
Moreno Valley 37.912 37.400
CITY TOTAL 341,026 288,217
* probably includes double counting of structures and parcels on Indian land
Alvord USD 1,636 1,789
durupa 21,510 19,817
Riverside 7,953 7,320
Corona/Norco 10,617 8,178
Lake Elsinore 21,340 21,020
Murr] e! a 13.845 14.596
Hen',et 34,087 32,359
Moreno 910 847
Colton 612 608
Val Verde 6,904 ~ "~
U, t
Nuview 3,744 3,684
Romolan~l 5,988 5,851
San dacinto 2,090 1,783
Perr~s 4,447 4,398
Meni fee 19,062 19,045
Banning 7,51 I 7,088
Beaumont 4,622 4,331
Yucaipa 1,897 1,787
Palm Springs 20,343 18,567
Desert Sands 19,613 13,434
Coachella 10.073 9.711
UNINCORPORATED TOTAL 218,804 202,968
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
AB#
MTG
DEPT
5/~5/90
TITLE:
TRACT 23304 - CLUB VALENCIA
DEPT HD.
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that City Council direct City Engineer to conduct a traffic and drainage
study of Tract 23304.
BACKGROUND
At the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting, Mr. William Coghlan of IDM Corporation
answered questions concerning Tract 23304. Council asked for a traffic study.
On April 19, 1990 staff received a letter from IDM attorney stating that no conditions can
be imposed on the final map and that a traffic study is not warranted. IDM Corporation also
agreed to voluntarily pay a traffic mitigation fee of $150 per unit.
On April 20, 1990 an application was filed with City Planning Director requesting an
extension of time on the tentative map of Tract 23304. Time expired May 10, 1990. Staff
has worked with County Planning Director to expedite this request and it is now scheduled
for hearing before County Planning Commission May 23. The request for extension will
come to City Council for final action in June 1990.
City Planning staff is recommending denial of the extension for several reasons including
inconsistency with the proposed general plan and potential health and safety problems. The
final map of Tract 23304 is now being processed by County Road Department and may be
forwarded to City Council in May 1990.
Due to the fact the developer is unwilling to do a traffic or drainage study, it is
recommended the Council authorize the City Engineer to do the study. The information will
be needed when Council is asked to act on the two pending approvals.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated cost of the study is $20,000. Funds are available under "Consultant Services" in
the current budget.
ATTACHMENTS
City Attorney Memorandum dated May 9, 1990
Planning Director Report
IDM Corporation Letter dated April 18, 1990
Council Minutes dated March 13, 1990
VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CA~ARILLO~ CALIFORNIA ~3010
(805) 987-3468
TELECOPIER: (805) 482-9834
LAW OFFICES
]~URHE, ~rILLIAHS & SORENSEN
3:'00 BRISTOi STREI::T
SUITE 640
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
545-5559
May 9, 1990
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
ONE WILSHIRE BUILDING
6~'4 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, IITM FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ~OOI7
TELECOPIER: {213) 236-2700
F. D. Aleshire
City Manager
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Tract No. 23304 (Club Valencia)
Dear Frank:
This letter is in response to your inquiry
regarding the City's authority to condition or deny the
approval of a final map for Tract No. 23304, and in
addition, to deny an extension to its tentative map. Our
conclusions are as follows:
The City may not condition or deny the final map
except where the project places the residents of
the subdivision or the immediate community in a
condition dangerous to their health or safety. The
testimony received to date indicates the Tract may
pose a traffic hazard. There also may be a
drainage problem. Accordingly, the City may delay
approval of the final map until a traffic and
drainage study has been performed.
The City has the discretion to deny an extension to
the tentative map. For example, the City could
find that the subdivision, as approved, is not
consistent with the future General Plan, and
consequently, the map extension should be denied.
By filing an application to extend the tentative
map, the subdivider has effectively extended the
time for processing the final map by 60 days or
until the City takes action on the extension
request, whichever comes first. If the final map
application arrives before the extension request is
placed on the Agenda, then the final map
application must be considered.
F. D. Aleshire
May 9, 1990
Page 2
The basis for our conclusions are as follows:
1. Authority to condition or deny approval of final map.
The City must approve all final maps unless the
application for the tentative map was filed after the first
signature on the incorporation petition, or the tentative
map was approved after the incorporation election. Absent
either of these facts, then the final map must be approved
unless failure to condition or deny the map would place
either the residents of the future project or the
surrounding community in a condition dangerous to their
health or safety.
At this time, evidence has been provided indicating
that there is a traffic hazard resulting from the ingress
and egress patterns to Tract 23304. Further, City
Engineering has indicated there may be a serious drainage
problem with the Tract.
The developer initially indicated that he would do
a traffic study to address the traffic concerns, but has
since withdrawn that offer. In our view, action on the
final map can be delayed until traffic and drainage studies
are performed so that these issues can be resolved.
2. Authority to deny a tentative map extension.
A tentative map has a two-year life. Government
Code Section 66452.6(e) provides that the City may, on the
subdivider's application filed before the map's expiration
date, extend the map's life for an additional period or
periods not to exceed three years. Although granting an
extension of the tentative map is discretionary under
Section 66452.6(e), the courts have held that the city's
discretion is limited to the question of time, and that the
city cannot add new conditions to the tentative map
extension. (El Patio v. Permanent Rent Control Board (1980)
110 Cal.App.3d 915.) Note, however, that the subdivider may
voluntarily agree to a new condition. Otherwise, the city
can deny the extension on the basis that new conditions
should be added to the subdivision in the interest of the
public's health, safety or welfare.
It is important to note that once an application
has been filed to extend a tentative map, the mere
F. D. Aleshire
May 9, 1990
Page 3
application effectively extends the map for 60 days or until
it is denied, whichever comes first.
In the case of Tract 23304, its two year map
expires May 10, 1990. The subdivider has already applied
for a map extension. It is our understanding that extension
will be considered by the County Planning Commission at its
May 23, 1990 meeting. In considering the extension, the
Commission must also take into account Government Code
Section 65360, which requires that where a city has no
general plan, the city has the obligation not to take any
planning action unless it is likely consistent with the
future general plan, and if ultimately inconsistent, would
not significantly impair the future general plan. In the
case of Tract 23304, if the City's future General Plan would
provide reduced density at this location, then a tentative
map extension could not be granted.
3. Recommendation.
Accordingly, I would recommend that authorization
be sought from the City Council to perform a traffic and
drainage study immediately, so that the results of the study
are available concurrently with, or shortly after submission
of the final map. If, prior to action on the final map, the
tentative map extension were denied, then no further action
could be taken on the final map. This is not to suggest
that consideration of the final map may be intentionally
delayed until action on the tentative map extension is
considered. However, if during the usual processing of the
final map, the extension is denied, then the final map is
effectively dead, and may not be approved.
Please feel free to call me if you should have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Scott F. Field
City Attorney
CITY OF TEMECULA
sff/LTR17244 :bj j
iVlCKITTRICI'<i ,JACKSON, DE:MARCO & PECKE:NI:AUGH' -
A LAW CORPORATION
POST OFFICE BOX E710
NE:WPOI~T BEACH, CALIFORNIA
April 18, 1990
15643
Scott F. Field, Esq.
City Attorney
city of Temecula
Post office Box 3000
Temecula, California
92390
Re: IDM Corporation -- Vesting Tentative MaD 23304
Dear Mr. Field:
We represent IDM Corporation ("IDM"), the owner and
developer of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22304 in the City. IDM
has informed us that it will be ready to submit a Final Map to the
City Council for approval within the next several weeks. A
potential issue has arisen with regard to a requirement
potentially being proposed by the City, however, that IDM, as a
condition of approval of the Final Map, prepare a traffic study
with regard to Rancho California Road. The purpose of this letter
is to set forth the objection of IDM to any attempt by the City to
impose such a condition on the approval of the Final Map.
First, the imposition of any condition on the approval
of the Final Map is invalid pursuant to the California Supreme
Court holding in Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors. The City is
limited to ministerially determining whether IDM has complied with
all conditions of approval to the Vesting Tentative Map and
whether the proposed Final Map is in substantial conformance with
the Vesting Tentative Map in approving a Final Map. No conditions
may be imposed on the Final Map approval.
M,,~I~ITTrlCK,.,.,IACKSON, DEMARC ~PECKENPAUGH
Scott F. Field, Esq.
April 18, 1990
Page -2-
Second, pursuant to Government Code Section 66498.1(b)
the approval of the Vesting Tentative Map confers a vested right
on IDM to proceed with development in substantial compliance with
the ordinances, policies and standards in effect on the date that
Riverside County determined that the application for the Vesting
Tentative Map was complete. There was no requirement at the time
that the Vesting Tentative Map application was deemed complete
which would require a traffic study at the time of Final Map
approval. Thus, the City may not now impose such a requirement on
the Final Map approval.
Third, the exception created by Government Code Section
66498.6(a) allowing the City to protect against a condition
dangerous to the public health or safety is not applicable to IDM
since approval of the Final Map will not create a condition
dangerous to the public health or safety. Certainly a condition
to conduct a traffic study following such approval is not
justified.
Fourth, pursuant to Government Code Section 65961 the
City may not condition the issuance of building permits or
equivalent permits for the project on conformance with or
performance of conditions that the City could have lawfully
imposed as a condition of the previously approved Vesting
Tentative Map. The city succeeds to the rights, duties and
obligations of the County. The County could have imposed a
condition requiring a traffic study as a part of the approval of
the Vesting Tentative Map but did not do so. Thus, the City may
not now impose a condition on the building permits for the project
to require a traffic study.
For the foregoing reasons IDM strenuously objects to any
attempt by the City to impose a condition of approval on the Final
Map requiring a traffic study or any traffic mitigations since
such imposition would be invalid and contrary to law.
Nevertheless, as a good faith gesture, IDM remains willing to
voluntarily pay the amount of $150.00 per unit for traffic
mitigation, even though it is not required to do so, if the city
MCKITTRICK, JAC:KSON, OI:'~ARC~._.,, PEC:KE:NPAUGH
SCOtt F. Field, Esq.
April 18, 1990
Page -3-
enacts a traffic mitigation fee ordinance. That offer, however,
will be withdrawn by IDM if the City illegally attempts to impose
a condition relating to requirement of a traffic study on the
final map or otherwise attempts to delay recordation of the final
map.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
,,_
'-David L. Colgan
DLC:tmD
CC:
Scott F. Field, Esq.
@ Burke, Williams & Sorenson
Mr. William J. Coghlan
Mr. Ray Fujii
Mr. Steve Nicholson
City Council Minutes March 13. 1990
CXTYHAN&GER REPORTS
ll. Roport on Status - Club Valencia, Tract 23304
City Manager Frank Aleshire gave a staff report outlining the
details of the project's timetable. He advised that the City
Attorney's memo indicates that public safety issues could be
a valid reason to place additional conditions on this tract or
deny final approval.
Ronni Crossland, 30632 Hollyberry Lane addressed the Council
speaking about potential traffic hazards which will be created
by this development. She also expressed concerns that
emergency access is very limited. She stated that this is
likely to add an additional 500 children in the area who would
be walking to the nearby schools, having to cross very busy
streets.
William Coghlan, representing IDM Apartments Corporation,
advised the City Council that security gates are being
considered for this project. He said that he would be happy
to make a full presentation to the Council in two weeks time
showing them all the features of the project.
Councilmember Lindemans stated that he had spoken to the
developer with regard to the imposition of the traffic impact
fees and that they are willing to pay the $150 per unit fees.
He stated that with the improvements in police protection
being made by the City and the improvements in the circulation
element, this project should not pose the problems he
originally feared.
Mayor Parks suggested that the developer have his original
engineer update the traffic study presented to the County.
Coleen Dobbs, 42056 Roanoake, stated that there is no left
turn lane available at the site and that there will not be a
left turn lane there in the future. She spoke with regard to
the 30 foot wide bridges which are included in the plans to
cross "canals". She questioned the safety aspects of using
these bridges in the event of emergencies such as a major
fire. Finally Ms. Dobbs questioned the amount being paid by
the development to schools.
Councilmember Lindemans responded that it is his understanding
that this project is assessed $1,360 per dwelling unit in
school fees for a total of $469,000.
14t nutesS3\13\90 -13-
City Council Minutes March 13. 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Moore to continue this matter for a period of
two weeks. The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Muhoz, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to extend the meeting time to 11:00 PM. The motion
was unanimously carried.
12.
North county Lan4fill E.I.R.
City Manager Aleshire reported on the proposed locations for
three landfill sites in northern San Diego County. He
discussed a letter dated March 13, 1990, from Philip Anthony,
Inc. proposing to prepare an impact study for the City at a
cost of $4,000.
Councilmember Birdsall said she felt the City Council should
have some representation at the hearing to be held March 15,
1990 in Warner Springs.
Councilmember Muhoz expressed his concerns with the traffic
which would be generated on Highway 79 South, as a result of
trucks going to and from the proposed dump site.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by
Councilmember Muhoz to authorize the City Manager to retain
the firm of Philip~ Anthony, Inc. to represent the City of
Temecula in a consulting capacity during the hearings being
held and to coordinate with other concerned agencies in
Riverside County.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember Muhoz asked that the consultant represent the
City at the hearing scheduled on the Blue Canyon site to be
held on March 15th.
13.
Survey of Development Fees
City Manager Aleshire explained that the material on
development fees had been presented at the request of
Councilmember Lindemans and it is a receive and file item.
Mayor Parks pointed out that the material is outdated and
requested staff to check into more current information which
shows the Temecula Valley and Murietta areas fees.
Ninute$\3\13\90 - 14- 03/29/90
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNIN~ DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
First Extension of Time Request
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23304
Planning Commission Date: May 23, 1990
Agenda Item No.:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Date Extension
Request Filed:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
Zoning:
April 20, 1990
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23304, First
application for a one year time extension
IDM Development Corporation
Rick Engineering Company
The applicant requests a one-year time
extension for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 23304; a 344 unit multi-family
project on a 20.95 acre site.
North side of Rancho California Road
between Moraga Road and Margarita Road
R-3-General Residential
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-3 - 3000
South: R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
East: R-5 Open Area) and R-1 (Single
Family Residential)
West: R-3-3000
The attached County Staff
illustrates surrounding zoning.-
report
Surrounding Land
Uses:
Project
Information:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Primarily vacant rolling hills
Horse Farm (Damascus Arabians)
Single-family Residences and
three-acre park
Apartments (Wood Creek)
Density: 16.42 units per acre
Density excluding flood channel acreage
is 18.47 units per acre.
Unit Count: 344 units
Acreage: 20.95 Acres
Number of Residential Buildings.: 18
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Project Backqround
This project was originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on
May 10, 1988. (See attached Board action and Planning Department
staff report.) The proposal was approved as a condominium project,
subject to the provisions of Section 18.5 (Planned Residential
Developments) of Ordinance No. 348 and Section 5.4 of Ordinance No.
460 (Vesting Tentative Maps). The applicant, however, has
indicated the project will not be constructed as condominiums, but
rather as apartments.
Area Setting
The project site lies in an area of gently rolling terrain which is
undergoing extremely rapid urbanization. An apartment project
(Woodcreek Apartments) is constructed and occupied to the west. A
single family development and linear three-acre park has been
developed to the east. One older residential structure is within
sight of the project to the north. A horse farm exists to the
south across Rancho California Road, but is surrounded by single
family residential development.
Circulation/Traffic
Rancho California Road is a major east/west artery in the City.
This project lies on the north side of Rancho California Road and
has three access points from that road. A traffic study was not
performed for the project when the project was originally approved
by the County of Riverside. As a result, the following have not
been addressed:
Traffic generation
Infrastructure needs to accommodate the increased number of
people
Potential safety hazards
Median and lane configurations
The failure to perform a traffic study makes it impossible for
staff to assess levels of service, both in items of average daily
trips and peak hour impacts. The Southwest Area Community Plan
suggests the levels of service be "C" for ADT and "D" for peak
hour. The project could be inconsistent with the SWACP, and,
subsequently, with the future General Plan.
Proiect Description
The 344 units are scattered across the 20.95 acre site within 18
larger building groupings.
Page 3
Two pools and spa areas and two recreational buildings are
proposed. Three tennis courts have also been shown on the site
plan. The County Staff Report indicates the buildings will be
designed with a Mediterranean theme.
Passive open and recreation areas total 5.16 acres (or 24.6% of the
site). Ordinance No. 348 requires 40% open space for Planned
Residential Developments (Section 18.5.)
This deficiency in useable outdoor open space may result from the
fact that 2.33 acres were needed to construct the Long Canyon Wash
Channel.
The Long Canyon Wash Channel bisects the property in an east-west
direction. Two 30 foot wide crossing are planned over the channel.
A series of three elevational drop downs are shown on the tentative
map. Flood control conditions of approval indicate that the
proposed unlined channel may not be approved as shown on the
tentative map.
SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS
Drainage
Directly east of this project site the Long Canyon Wash Channel has
been developed in such a way that natural conditions and vegetation
are maintained. Further east, on commercial property, the channel
has been undergrounded within a concrete box culvert. The
opportunity to create an open, more natural channel with gently
sloping banks and natural vegetation would be lost with project
development as currently planned. At this time the channel already
comprises 2.33 acres, or 11.1% of the entire project site. A more
natural design would be more consistent with existing development
and would have been more beneficial to open space and biologic
needs.
Preliminary discussions with the County Road Department indicate
that the Flood Control District has approved a completely concrete
design for the channel. The design apparently meets the District's
criteria for protecting public safety, but may not ultimately be
consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Potential General Plan Inconsistencies With Drainage Floodways
Utilization of floodway areas as recreation areas when not
inundated;
Replacement habitat for wildlife displaced as a result of new
development and urban encroachment;
Recharge of the groundwater supply with broad earthen channels
designed to increase percolation; and
Page 4
Reduction of urban runoff contamination by utilizing natural
filtering systems (soils and biota) designed in the form of
natural, vegetated channels.
Traffic
No traffic study has assessed traffic conditions at this time.
Recently, a legal representative of the applicant has indicated
that no traffic study will be provided to the applicant. (See
attached Exhibits.)
The County Road Department has indicated, however, that street
improvement plans are complete or nearly complete and may be signed
in the immediate future. CC and R's for the project are under
review by Riverside County legal counsel.
Concern has been expressed by area residents regarding traffic
safety and improvement levels. Some offsite improvements are
required of this project under the County approval. The
Circulation/Traffic section of this report outlines areas of
concern, not previously addressed adequately in the environmental
assessment of the tentative project. Proper mitigation measures,
therefore, remain in question.
Gradinq
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23304 indicated that 65,000 cubic yards
of earth would be excavated on the project. Building pads, the
channel, and roadways are graded at this time. It is the staff's
understanding that the County routinely issues grading permits for
tentative maps which have not been finaled or recorded.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The County of Riverside found the project to be consistent with the
County's General Plan when the project was originally approved.
Question exists at this time, however, whether the project will be
consistent with Temecula's future General Plan when it is adopted.
The following concerns remain unresolved at this time:
1. Intensity of Development
The project is planned at a 16.42 unit per acre density. If
the channel were excluded in the acreage count, the density
would be 18.47 units per acre. The planned density is high
but is typical of apartment projects in Riverside County. The
project consists of 18 two-story buildings scattered in an
irregular fashion across the site. The style of development
is atypical of condominium projects in the area and likely
will not be marketed as such.
Page 5
It is difficult to project appropriate multi-family densities
without General Plan guidance. Staff is unable to conclude
that the density of the project and the resulting intensity of
development is appropriate both in terms of aesthetic impacts
and infrastructure and service availability.
Pro~ect Not Consistent With SWACP
The Southwest Area Community Plan is currently being used by
the City of Temecula as a policy guide. It designates this
site as multi-family 8-16 units per acre.
This project is approximately 93 units over the midrange of
permitted density; it is 121 units over midrange density
excluding the Long Canyon Channel.
The project exceeds the maximum density indicated for the
SWACP. The project, therefore, is inconsistent with the area
plan and likely to be inconsistent with the future General
Plan.
2. Waterway ImDrovements/Lonq Canyon Wash
It is very likely that the City of Temecula's new General Plan
will contain goals, policies, and objectives relative to
floodplain development and multi-purpose utilization of
waterways as greenbelts, passive recreation areas, or
wildlife habitat areas. The Drainaqe section of this report
further discusses the possibility of General Plan
inconsistency.
Land Use
A residential land use at a density midrange between the single-
family homes to the east and the apartment project to the west may
be the most appropriate land use for the site. The project as
proposed, however, does not meet that criterion.
A lower density, multi-family condominium project or high density
single family housing development are possibly two of the most
appropriate uses of the site.
Findings
The proposed first extension of time for Vesting Tentative
Tract No. 23304 could have an adverse impact on the existing
neighborhood and built environment of the City as discussed in
the staff report analysis. A Negative Declaration has been
adopted previously on the project.
Page 6
10.
11.
There is a reasonable possibility that Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23304 will be inconsistent with the City's new General
Plan, which will be reviewed and adopted within a reasonable
time.
There is a possibility of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use and request for the time extension does not
comply with State planning laws, in terms of probable General
Plan consistency.
The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use
in terms of the density and resulting building layout and
provision of open space. The project fails to provide 40%
outdoor open area as required for Planned Residential
Developments in Ordinance No. 348.
The intensity of land use proposed for Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23304 may not be compatible with surrounding land uses, as
described in the staff report analysis.
The project could have a negative impact on adjoining property
in terms of establishing a proper density buffer zone between
high density apartments and the existing single family
residential tract to the east. Additionally, the benefits
arising from the natural drainage area from the east are
severely diminished with the installation of a concrete lined
channel through the subject site. The interface between
drainage facilities is undesirable and unproductive.
The project does not meet open space requirements contained in
the Planned Residential Development section of Ordinance No.
348. Other requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460 have been
met. Other requirements contained in the development
standards of the R-3 Zone classification have been met.
In terms of cumulative traffic impacts, this project could be
inconsistent with the level of service requirements contained
in the SWACP, which has been adopted as a policy guide. This
inconsistency may also occur with the future General Plan.
The proposed density exceeds maximum densities suggested by
the Southwest Area Community Plan. which has been adopted as
a policy guide by the City.
The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map
Act in regard to the future passive energy control
opportunities. Units have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Page 7
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to
penetration in winter and shading in summer.
allow solar
12.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and
the resulting street layout are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
13.
That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits
and environmental documents associated with this project and
herein incorporated by reference.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
DENY the First Extension of Time Request for Vesting Tentative Map
No. 23304 based on the analysis and findings contained in this
staff report.
Officers and Board
PRESIDENT
Allan R. McDonald
President/CEO
Overland Bank
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
Bill Bopf
President
Wine Country Real Estate
SECOND VICE PRESIDENT
Doug Davies
Area Manager
Southern Ca/if. Edison
SECRETARY
Jim Bell
Owner/Operator
Churchill Comm. Brokerage
TREASURER
Bill Harker
Manager
Temecula Town Association
Directors
Beverley R. Ashbrook
~ Director of Visitor Relations
Callaway Vineyard & Winery
Frank Freeman
Owner
Freeman's Office Products
Marc S. Grisham
V.P. - Development Services
J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
Kathie Gray
Real Estate Agent
Judy Rosen & Associates
Tom Langley
Owner
LA Masters of Fine Jewelry
Deane Manning
General Manager
Temecula Creek Inn
Larry Markham
Owner
Markham & Associates
Nancy Maurice
Owner
Maurice Printers
Ron Perry
President / C EO
Butterfield Electronics
Radio Shack
-~- Kevin Walsh
~wner
Walsh Real Estate & Development
May 10, 1990
The Honorable Mayor Ron Parks and Members
of the City Council
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Re:
Funding Request For The Temecula Valley
Economic Development Corporation
Dear Mayor Parks and Councilmembers:
The Temecula Valley Economic Development
Corporation is proposed to be a public/private
partnership, committed to the economic growth of
the valley. The Chamber of Commerce fully
supports the proposed Corporation, and requests
that the Temecula City Council allocate funds, in
the amount of $75,000, for formation and initial
budget. The City's contribution would be matched
by the local business community.
The attached "Rationale for an Economic
Development Corporation in Temecula, California",
prepared by the accounting firm of Coopers &
Lybrand, outlines the goals, objectives and costs
of the Corporation. We feel the Corporations
proposed goals and objectives are consistent to
those the Council has expressed. As the major
contributor, the City Council would be guaranteed
a d~signated seat on the Corporation's Board of
Directors. In that capacity, the Council could
take an active part in directing the Corporation,
ensuring that its activities serve the needs of
the Community.
General Manager
Perry Peters
40945 County Center Drive, Suite C, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-5090
Economic Development Corporation
Page 2
The Chamber's Economic Development Committee has been working
deligently to raise the private capital necessary to match
requested public sector funds. We urge your favorable
consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Pres~--d~nt, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
ARM/kind
THE RATIONALE FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPOP~TION
IN TEMECULA~ CALIFOKNIA
May 4~ 1990
Coopers
&Ly3rand
Certified Public Accountants
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 The Big Picture: Why an Economic Development Organization is Needed . 1
2.0
3.0
4.0
Elements of Organizational Effectiveness ................. 4
2.1 Typical Leadership of an Economic Development Organization .... 4
2.2 Typical Economic Development Functions .............. 4
Funding ................................. 7
3.1 Budget Size ............................. 7
3.2 Funding Sources ........................... 7
3 3 Staff Size · 8
Expected Goals and Objectives ...................... 10
4.1 Goals ................................ 10
4.2 Overall Economic Development Corporation Objectives ........ 10
5.0 Colorado Springs Case Study ....................... 11
6.0 Conclusions ................................ I2
ii
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
1.0 The Bi~ Picture: Why an Economic Development Organization is Needed
It is important to understand the concept of economic development and the
prerequisites of a successful economic development strategy. Short-term results are
possible, but the mid- and long-term strategies and tactics must be allowed to take
their natural course. There are no "silver bullets" in economic development--just hard
work, planning, and a cohesive community action plan.
There are many reasons for a community to implement an economic development
program:
II
I
II
II
I
II
!
II
· To pro-actively direct Temecula Valley's economic future,
· To provide the appropriate ~ntx of jobs that will give opportunity to
Temecula Vaileyes population,
· To enhance the tax base of Temecula Valley,
· To diversify the economy against cycles and seasonality,
· To increase the income of Temecula Valley's population,
· To create a higher quality of Hfe,
· To implement a vision of public/private leadership,
· To assist Temecula Valley's desired rate and kind of growth,
· To be a vehicle for private sector advocacy,
· To be a forum for developing Temecula Vailey's leadership,
· To .support community development objectives,
· To monitor the local economy by providing early warning about shocks and
opportunities, and
· To be a source of networking and information to the private sector.
No m~tter what the specific mt~ of objectives for economic development, it is only
a part of a larger puzzle--community development. There are important differences
between "community development". and "economic development."
Community development is the process of melding social, political, and
economic objectives into a strategy for making the community a better
place to Hve and work. This is generally the operating environment of
the public sector, non-profit, and volunteer groups.
Economic development is the creation of wealth--the assembly of people,
money and materials to produce a good or provide a service for which
there is a m~rket in which somebody can make a profit. There is no
mention in this definition about community objectives--the creation of jobs
1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
!
!
!
!
!
It
!
!
or the expansion of a tax base. No wealth creator Is anxious to create
Jobs or pay taxes or buy goods or pay for services. Profit-making-onot
Job creation--is parsmount to wealth creators. Community development
spinoffs such as job creation occur because they are a necessary
ingredient in generating profitable goods and services.
Although it is distinct, economic development supports community development.
Economic development also creates "urban" growth, and, In this, It IS equal partners
with real estate development (led by the private sector) and urban development
(m~uaged by the public sector).
Thus, economic development is a bridge--a necessary ingredient of community
development, created in partnership between the private and the public sectors.
Illustrating this, Figure 1-1 shows the components of community growth.
A communlty's economic development strategy addresses the fundamental
causes of its growth. Growth Is caused by external forces, but internal
actions are needed to seize the opportunities. The mix and quality of
1ocational attributes--"internal forces" in the chart--determine the nature
of a community's economic base, and this, in turn, causes growth of jobs
and population. These three parts--monitoring external opportunities,
upgrading community improvements, and developing the economic base--
are the sphere of influence for an economic development strategy.
· Economic development also sets in motion a chain reaction of urban
development events. Growth in people and jobs creates real estate
opportunities, which, along with public sector control of infrastructure
improvements, determ~ues city shape. The ability of the public sector to
provide infrastructure and public services, like education, results in fiscal
impacts and quality of Hie as perceived by the community. The kind of
industrial development and city shape that occurs directly results in
environmental impacts from growth.
· There are also social impacts that result from economic development,
which creates wealth, income, and occupational opportunity. A sustainable
economic development strategy will share these among all population
groups--the "stakeholders" like business, developers, cittzen's groups,
m~norities, city governments, county government, educators, and others
who are part of the Temecula Valley.
2
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
2.0 Elements of Oq~anizational Effectiveness
Five key elements are necessary in order to establish an effective economic
development orl~niT~tton:
Capable Leadership: Qualified leadership is important to any economic
development organization~s success. Responsible, capable individuals who are
knowledgeable of the community and action-oriented should be involved in all
phases of the program.
Clearly Defined Purpose: No organization can succeed without a clear
understanding of its purpose and functions. It is important to define the
exact role your organization will play in economic development.
Adequate Fundinv. Funds must be provided to accomplish your organization's
objectives. The level of competition in economic development today requires
strong financial supix)it.
Professional Staff: The need for professionalism in economic development has
never been greater. Economic development professionals are now found in all
but the smallest communities.
Sound Organizational Structure: An economic development organization must
be structured to meet local needs and to mobilize critically-needed manpower
and fiscal resources.
2.1 Typical Leadership of an Economic Development Organization
Economic development organization leadership structures are tailored to the needs
of their communities. The public sector is an important leadership element and should
be included as a voting member of an economic development organization.
Potential members of the Board must be a balancing act between size and
representation of appropriate community interests. Typical private sector Board
members include bankers, industrialists, real estate interests, educators, media
representatives, elected officials, and top public sector administrators. ~
2.2 Typical Economic Development Functions
Typical economic development functions appear in Table 2-1. Each community's
focus will have a combination of attraction, retention, and small business assistance.
Temecuia's organization should confine its activities to regional marketing to firms with
over 25 employees and to retention of firms with 25 or more employees.
4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
TABLE 2-1
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS
Function
Data Collection
Marketing/Advertising
Prospect Response/
Follow-up
Business Retention
Incentive Negotiation
Arranging Financing
Srn~11 Business Development
Site Development
Typical Activities
Assembling community data useful to business and
industry (demographics, labor market conditions,
transportation services, sm~!l business financing
progr~mn~ etc.)
- Preparing promotional brochures about community
- Sending direct m~l letters to prospects
- Determining advertising copy/placement
- Developing videotape on community
- Responding to prospects who fnquire about
community
- Working to convince prospects to invest in
community
Surveying business expansion plans
Calling on local companies to see if they need local
assistance
Sponsoring business appreciation events
Working to obtain tax abatement, training assistance,
and low interest financing
Working with local banks to arrange loans for
businesses
Applying for state loan assistance to help local firms
expand
Providing financial assistance
Providing training
Providing managerial advice
Referring clients to others providing these services
Identifying suitable sites for development
Working to ready sites for development (zoning,
water, sewer, roads, etc.)
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Tourism
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS
Function Typical Activities
Infrastructure Development - Working to ensure water treatment and sewage
treatment facilities have excess capacity
- Working to improve area roads
- Developing tourism attractions
- Marketing/advertising tourism attractions
Business Lobbying - Representing business Luterests before governmental
bodies
- Reviewing laws, rules, and .regulations affecting
business
6
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
3.0 Funding
3.1 Budget Size
A rule of thumb is $1.50 to $2.00 per resident depending on community size. A
recent survey by the American Economic Development Council (AEDC) demonstrates
annual budget levels by community size (see Table 3-1).
TABLE 3-1
ANNUAL BUDGET LEVELS
Community Size.
Less than 75,000 population
75,000 to 300,000 population
Over 300,000 population
Average Budget
Per 1,000
Total Residents
167,000 $3,000
371,000 2,000
1,096,000 1,500
3.2 Funding Sources
A balanced funcling source from large and small "investors" from the public and
private sector is important to assure representation and insulate against inevitable
cyclical revenue fluctuations by investor groups. The national trend is for shared
funding between the public and the private sectors. Another AEDC survey (Tables 3-2
and 3-3) depicts sources of funding.
TABLE 3-2
SOURCES OF FUNDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL FUNDING
Percent of
Source Total Funding
Private Sector
Local Government
State/Federal Government
Operations (land sales, revolving
funds, etc.)
48~
44~
6~
2~
100~
7
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
TABLE 3-3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING BY COMMUNI~ SIZE
Comm~bf Size
Less than 75,000 population
75,000 to 300,000 population
Over 300,000 population
Local Government Funding
As Percent of Total Funding
56~
58~
39~
3.3 Staff Size
!
The number of paid staff varies by community size (see Table 3o4).
TABLE 3-4
NUMBER OF PAID STAFF
Community Size
Less than 75,000 population
75,000 to 300,000 population
Over 300,000 population
Average Number
of Staff
3,2
5.2
14.5
The competition is well-funded and Is growing, as shown in Table 3-5.
TABLE 3-5
REGIONAL COMPETITORS
Economic Development Group (EDC)
Keep Riverside Ahead
Oceanside EDC
San Diego EDC
Ontario EDC
City of Oxnard
San Bemadino EDC
Source: Ventura Marketing Group.
Estimated
Funding
$ 500,000+
150,000+
1,000,000+
400,000+
250,000
300,000+
8
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
These and other EDCs, such as Hemet, Perris, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, all
have, or are planning, a public and/or private economic development effort. For
Temecula Valley to be competitive and to get Its fair share of the quality firms seeking
to relocate, Temecula Valley should compete with its own organization, adequate
funding, and staff.
9
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
4.0 Expected Goals and Objectives
4.1 Goals
In addition to the business advocacy, issue identification, and social objectives
listed in Section 1, economic development organizations typically set goals. Temecula
Valley should consider adopting the following goals:
1. Fostering personal well being by sustaining both a healthy rate of
economic growth and a superior quality of economic development.
e
®
Using economic growth to sustain and improve essential public services by
broadening City, County, and public school tax bases.
Seeking targeted business attraction and supporting product development at
existing area facilities to become more of a research and development and
administrative center.
Upgrading the overall skill mix within the Temecula Valley labor market
and the occupational opportunity for area young persons.
5. Preserving and enhancing the area's quality of life.
4.2 Overall Economic Development Corporation Objectives
While these area goals represent worthwhile and ambitious aspirations, overall
economic development objectives translate these goals into tangible measures of success.
To sustain better employment growth than Riverside County as a whole.
To add 3,500 total new Jobs through direct economic development efforts
to the Temecula Valley area economic over the next five years.
Within the overall Job-generating objective, to target economic
development efforts to add new executive, professional, and technical jobs
in primary, export-based economic sectors.
To target economic development efforts to raise the average household
income in Temecula Valley.
To establish regular contact with major area export-based companies to
assess their retention and expansion needs.
10
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
5.0 Colorado Sprin~s Case Study
Colorado Springs, Colorado is often cited as having the premier economic
development progrsm in the West. From 1975 to 1985, the Colorado Springs Economic
Development Council (EDC) was involved in 111 firms locating in Colorado Springs,
creating 17,336 prtm.~ry Jobs, which created at least 17,336 secondary spinoff jobs--a
very conservative spinoff esttrr~te (see Table 5-1).
TABLE 5-1
COLORADO SPRINGS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
JOBS CREATED AND RETAINED
1975 - 1985
Year N~rnher of Jobs Year
Number of Jobs
1986 350 1980 933
1985 500 1979 1,752
1984 277 1978 1,241
1983 2,487 1977 6,205
1982 365 1976 1,325
1981 822 1975 1,413
Source:
Colorado Spring Economic Development Council.
According to Colorado Springs' reports, today's EDC-created jobs account for 23-
percent of all non-military employment in El Paso County; 50 percent of all construction
jobs; 19 percent of all F.I.R.E. jobs; and 14 percent of all retail jobs.
For tax revenue In 1986, the EDC reports that 14 percent of the City's Operating
Budget was supported by primary jobs resulting from EDC efforts. Sales and use tax
realized $5,443,504 in revenue, while property taxes realized $4,975,432, and
mf.~cellaneous revenues were $3,581,064.
The EDC-attracted firms reportedly had the following additional impacts:
· 33 percent of all non-military payroll in 1985 in El Paso County;
· 50 percent of net population increase from 1975 to 1985;
· 70 percent of all new retail stores - 1975-1985; and
· 42 percent of all manufacturing firms.
11
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
6.0 Conclusions
Colorado Springs is one of over 10,000 economic development efforts throughout
the United States. There are m~uy other successful, local efforts in Temecula Valley's
area. Temecula Valley will face stiff competition from a wide range of locations.
These areas have or are developing aggressive marketing campaigns and will use the full
complement of development tools and incentives to attract and retain facilities.
Because Temecula Valley's leaders wish to attract quality jobs in technology
industries, R&D, and ~dmtuistration, Temecula Valley finds itself in competition with
rr~ny areas. These competitors are generally well-organized and have significant
resources to apply to economic development.
For Temecula Valley to get its fair share, Temecula Valley's Proposed economic
development effort should be well funded, professionally staffed, and guided by a strong
Board of Directors representative of both the public and private sectors~ leadership.
12
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
RANCHO CR DEU C0-400 ~;~*
/
714 6'76 8847 ~,02
OririICE OF ROAD COt, INI$S!ONER ~ 'COUNTY
ROAD PI~NNZN~ DX¥ISXON
TRINASPOIRTA?tON PLA~IN~ SECTION
TO: Roger Streeter, ~lanning Director
~TTN, Ron SolOmon, Supervising Planner--Specific Ptans
lhe ~oaO Department has reviewe~ ~he above referenceo
~roposa~, anO has had several meetings with the applicant and his
traffic cOnSultant, As indicated in our prior letter date~ April
1, 1988 there are concerns with regar~ to the Rancho California
operations on the freeway itself. However~ it does appea~ that
with the improvements indicateQ ~y the traffic consultant that
the intIrchange may operate a level of service "O". %n adOition.
we are ~o?klng ~ith the applicant to prepare a corridor study as
recommenOe~ by Coltrans in order to satisfy their concerns.
We now melieve that the e~tent of traffic lmbacts associateO
with the pro~ect have been reasonaml¥ identifie~ and are
aeequatel¥ addresseO.
~eQ~rtmen~ recOmme~os the following conditions of apppoval.
All road improvements within the
constructed tt) ultimate County
Oe~tnance NO. ~&O and ~61 a~ a requirement of the
implementing subdivisions for the SpeclfLc Plan, as; aDprove~
by the Road Commissioner.
The project proponent s~all participate in the Traffic
gighal Mitigation Program a~ approved by t~e Board of
~upervisors.
f
RANCHO CA DEV C0-400 ~*~
714 6?6 884? ~.0~
require aQ~roval ~y the RoaO C~mmzssi~ne? and assurance o?
continuing maintenance through the esta~lishmen~ Of a
aQQrovecl ~ ~ne ~oad Commissi~n®~.
limits Of ~he Rancho Villages ~ssessment Ot~ic~ ~ch
an ~ntegra! component of t~e olanning fop this area. P~io~
~o the recordation of any tract maps within that po~t~
t~e sQecific ~lan O~ any o~er project located ~lthin
assessment ~tstrlctt ~e final actions necessary
formation Of ~e ~istrtc~ must be comglete~. S~ould the
~isC~ict fall, the ~rOJeCt proponent shall, prio~ the
reco.daCimn of any tract maps within t~at portion of the
specific Qlan ~rOvide for regional road Improvements in
accordance with t~etr Oro~ortionate s~are as determined by
traffic imOactso
~ri~ to the recordation ~f any su~divtsion fo~ any pO~tlon
~f t~e s~ecl¢ic Dlan~ the ~roject p~ODOnent shall make
orevisions fo~ the following road improvements~ which shall
~e constructed ~rio~ $0 the issuance of ~ul'ldtng permits fo~
any d~elling units in excess of 1~8~:
C~Ovtde for the wlOenin~ Of Rancho California Roa~ from
minimum~ an interim four-lane section as approved
:he ~oao COmmissL~ne~.
Provide for the ~iaentng/restrtplng/reconst~uction of
~ancho Califgrnia RoaO to provide si~ app~OaC~ Janes at
I-l~ with auxiliary lanes as may be deemo~ necessary
fr~ Yne~ Road to F~ont Street, carr¥in~ four ~h~oug~
l~nes ac~css 1-15, all as approved by the
Commissioner and
C. P~ovlOe for the widening of the on an¢ off ramps at the
1-15/~anc~o California ~oad interchange as app.oved
the Roao Commisslone~ and Call.ans, -
we generally :oncu~ wit~ the ~n-site master cipculatlon plan
as s~o~n on Figure ~-5 of the specific plan,
tD delete S~ut~ General Kearney ~oad is acceptable
t~at a Collector ~oad Oe p~o¥ided gone.ally along the same
alignment linking Kaiser Par~ay -ith Butterfield Stage
to cumulative impacts lnalCa~ln~ ~ne neea ~o ~plement
deman~ manaQement strate9tes aria/or provtae Cot the
prescrloe~ oy Caltrans, The stuOy 1S currently in
TOTAL P, 04
/}' !!
!)
Z
n-
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
AB#:
MTG: 5/11/90
DEPT: CM
TITLE:C~LE TELEVI'STON FI~I~CHTSE ~rALYSIS
DEPT HD
CITY ATT'f~
CITY MGR
RECOI~ENDAT'rON.-
Recommend that the City Council:
- Receive and file the attached report.
Direct staff to reject all cable
television license applications on
the basis that the existing County
ordinance, which the City of Temecula
adopted by reference, does not
adequately address the needs and
interests of our community.
Direct the City Manager to hire a
cable television consultant to:
Draft a new City
television ordinance.
cable
Present the new ordinance to the
City Council for adoption.
After adoption of
ordinance:
the new
Process Inland V a 1 1 e y
Cablevision's addendum to
their license.
--- Process Jones Intercable's
application.
ATTACHMENT:
Director of Information Systems' Agenda Report
of May 8, 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
AB#: TITLE: CABLE TELEVTSZON FlUtNCHZSE ~ALYBZ8 DEPT HD ~~
MTG: 5/8/90 CITY ATT~'~?' ~
DEPT: ~[s CXTY MGR ~
~ECO~ATION: Receive and file.
BACKGROUND: There are six cable television companies
that currently have Riverside County licenses apparently
authorizing them to operate a cable television system in the City
of Temecula. All of the licenses were authenticated by County
officials prior to the City of Temecula becoming a City. Three of
the cable television companies applied for County licenses less
than one year prior to the incorporation of the City of Temecula.
This rush to receive a license is not an attempt by the cable
television companies trying to get a license prior to our
incorporation. Rather, the rush is attributed to the fact that a
new State law, which became effective January 1, 1990, demands all
new licenses require new cable television companies to parallel
existing cable television systems. This law will eliminate
multiple companies in an area each having their own monopoly.
Instead, the consumer will have multiple cable television service
from which to choose. This forced competition is expected to lower
basic cable television rates and improve the service to the
consumer. The following is a short synopsis of each cable
television company with the action that has been taken or will be
taken by your staff:
- DIMENSIONS AKA TIMES MIRROR: Dimensions' County
license was granted on September 12, 1989 for 15 years and accepted
by Dimensions on November 17, 1989 (See Attachment A). The license
authorizes Dimensions to operate in the then unincorporated areas
of Temecula. However, Dimensions' County license is considered not
a valid license to operate a cable television system within the
jurisdiction of the City of Temecula for the following reasons:
- Two duly authorized Dimensions'
officers did not accept the license as required.
signature is recorded on the license.
corporate
Only one
- The license agreement does not contain a
corporate seal as required by the license.
- The required surety bond was not filed within
ten days after the issuance of the license as required by the
license. The license did not become effective until November 17,
1989.
- Dimensions did not in good faith commence
construction in the Temecula area within four months from the
issuance of the license as required by the license.
A letter from the City will be sent to Dimensions notifying them
that their County license is not a valid license to operate a cable
television system within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula
for the aforementioned reasons.
- KING VIDEOCABLE COMPANY= King's County license was
granted on November 20, 1984 for 15 years and accepted by King on
February 4, 1985 (See Attachment B). King was included in this
report due to unofficial information that King was planning to
expand into the City of Temecula. The license does not authorize
King to operate in the then unincorporated areas of Temecula.
Therefore, the license is considered not a valid license to operate
a cable television system within the jurisdiction of the City of
Temecula for the following reasons:
- AS indicated by the County, King has a license
authorizing King to operate within the Lake Elsinore unincorporated
area of the County of Riverside. This "limited service area" has
been designated as Bundy Canyon.
- The license agreement does not contain a
corporate seal as required by the license.
- The required surety bond was not filed within
ten days after the issuance of the license as required by the
license.
- King did not in good faith commence
construction in the Temecula area within four months from the
issuance of the license as required by the license.
A letter from the City will be sent to King notifying them that
their County license is not a valid license to operate a cable
television system within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula
for the aforementioned reasons.
- TOTAL TV OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED: Total's
County license was granted on December 6, 1988 for 15 years and
accepted by Total on February 23, 1989 (See Attachment C). The
license authorizes Total to operate in the surrounding
unincorporated areas of Temecula. However, Total's County license
is considered not a valid license to operate a cable television
system within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula for the
following reasons:
- The license appears to specifically target Lake
Mathews, Perris, Edgemont, Lake Perris, Lakeview, and the Woodcrest
areas of the County of Riverside as Total's license area. Even
exhibit "A" of the license does not highlight Temecula. The County
has indicated that Total is authorized to operate in the Western
unincorporated portions of Riverside County. This has not been
factually proven by the County.
- The license agreement does not contain a
corporate seal as required by the license.
- The required surety bond was not filed within
ten days after the issuance of the license as required by the
license.
- Total did not in good faith
construction in the Temecula area within four months
issuance of the license as required by the license.
commence
from the
A letter from the City will be sent to Total notifying them that
their County license is not a valid license to operate a cable
television system within the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula
for the aforementioned reasons.
- CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION: Continental's County
license was granted on AugUst 28, 1967 for 25 years and accepted by
Continental on September 12, 1967 (See Attachment D). The license
authorizes Continental to operate in the then unincorporated areas
of Temecula. However, Continental's County license is considered
not a valid license to operate a cable television system within the
jurisdiction of the City of Temecula for the following reasons:
- The license agreement does not contain a
corporate seal as required by the license.
- The required surety bond was not filed within
ten days after the issuance of the license as required by the
license.
- Continental did not in good faith commence
construction in the Temecula area within four months from the
issuance of the license as required by the license.
A letter from the City will be sent to Continental notifying them
that their County license is not a valid license to operate a cable
television system within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula
for the aforementioned reasons.
- JONES INTERCABLE INCORPORATED: Jones' County
license was granted on October 31, 1989 for 15 years and accepted
by Jones on January 18, 1990 (See Attachments E and F). The
license authorizes Jones to operate in the then unincorporated
areas of Temecula. However, Jones' County license is considered
not a valid license to operate a cable television system within the
jurisdiction of the City of Temecula for the following reasons:
- Two duly authorized Jones' corporate officers
did not accept the license as required. Only one signature is
recorded on the license dated January 18, 1990, over one and one
half months after our incorporation.
- The license agreement does not contain a
corporate seal as required by the license.
- The required surety bond was not filed within
ten days after the issuance of the license as required by the
license and was filed on January 18, 1990, over one and one half
months after our incorporation.
- Jones did not in good faith commence
construction and diligently proceed with the completion of the work
within four months from the issuance of the license as required by
the license. One receiver with one subscriber is not considered
diligent and complete. A plant, an office in the City, and a
business address within the City does not exist.
A letter from the City Attorney was sent to Jones (See Attachment
F) on April 26, 1990 notifying them that their County license is
not a valid license to operate a cable television system within the
jurisdiction of the City of Temecula for the aforementioned
reasons.
- I~U_~ND VALLEY CABL~VIBION: Inland Valley's County
license was granted on May 28, 1985 for 15 years and accepted by
Inland Valley on August 1, 1985 (See Attachment G). The license
authorizes Inland Valley to operate in the then unincorporated
areas of Temecula. Inland Valley's County license is considered a
valid license to operate a cable television system within the
jurisdiction of the City of Temecula for the following reasons:
unincorporated
incorporation.
- They have been operating in the Temecula
areas for over four years prior to our
- They have over 80% of the available market
within Temecula and have made a substantial investment in their
cable television system.
They did have two corporate officers sign their
license.
- No corporate seal is present on their license
and their surety bond was not filed within ten days of the issuance
of the license. However, these minor omissions do not in
themselves render a license invalid, especially since they were
five years ago when complete jurisdiction was under the County. To
deny Inland Valley the authority to operate within the City of
Temecula after they have successfully satisfied every other license
requirement for over one-third of their 15 year license term could
not be legally supported and would not be in the best interests of
Inland Valley, the City of Temecula, and the over 6,865 City
subscribers.
Near the expiration of Inland Valley's license (August 2000),
Inland Valley will be required to request renewal of their license
from the City of Temecula. In the meantime, Inland Valley
Cablevision has agreed to enter into an addendum to the County
license with the City of Temecula addressing those specific issues,
addressed below, that cities must oversee. This addendum would be
negotiated after the City Council approves a City Cable Television
ordinance.
On May 8, 1990, Jones Intercable submitted an application and
processing fee ($750.00) for a City of Temecula cable television
license. The City of Temecula adopted all of the County ordinances
by reference. One of those ordinances was a cable television
ordinance. Jones' application was submitted in accordance with
this ordinance. The problem is that the County's ordinance that we
adopted is a very general ordinance commonly used by counties. It
does not adequately address the needs of the City of Temecula. A
City ordinance is a more detailed document specifically tailored to
meet the needs of that jurisdiction. For example, a typical City
ordinance contains:
- License termrelated to projected investment by
the cable television companies.
liquidated damages
damages, etc.
License enforcement, e.g., security fund,
for nonperformance, procedures for imposing
- Specific construction schedule.
- System channel (technical) capacity.
- Consumer protection standards.
- Establishment of cable television company
performance standards and a performance monitoring system, e.g.,
service calls answered within a certain number of rings, on hold no
longer than a certain number of minutes, service calls responded to
in a certain number of hours, appointment time scheduling (A.M. or
P.M.) for customer convenience, etc. This performance monitoring
system is the foundation that cities must document and use to work
with cable television companies to improve service. This data is
also documentation that can be used to justify a cable television
company's license renewal request.
- Creation of public, education, and governmental
(PEG) access. Typically, a license provides not only for
dedication of one or more channels to PEG access but also for a
video studio to support PEG cablecasting and a capital contribution
towards governmental access, e.g., this would provide for
outfitting the Council Chambers with permanent video equipment so
that Council meetings can be cablecast live to subscribers.
5
- Specifically identify the locations that would
receive, without charge, cable television service and the level of
service, e.g., police and fire stations, public schools and
libraries, and other public buildings owned and controlled by the
City used for public purposes and not for residential use.
- Approval needed for the transfer of the license
ownership or control.
The County ordinance that we adopted does not address these issues.
Our City ordinance should address these City specific issues.
Therefore, Staff recommends to reject any new applications on the
basis that the existing County ordinance, which the City of
Temecula adopted by reference, does not adequately address the
needs and interests of our community. To date, only Jones' has
submitted an application and a processing fee. Staff recommends to
reject Jones' application and processing fee for the above reason.
Upon the City Council's adoption of the new City cable television
ordinance, Jones will be notified that applications will be
received and processed under the new ordinance's guidelines. Jones
is not expected to agree with staff's recommendation to reject
their application; however, Jones has stated that they are willing
to assist the City in any way possible and would agree to abide by
the stipulations of the new City cable television ordinance. Staff
understands that each day that Jones is delayed is costing them
valuable time. Staff recommends hiring a cable television
consultant to (1) draft a new City cable television ordinance, (2)
present the new ordinance to the City Council for adoption, (3)
after adoption, process Inland Valley's addendum to their license,
and (4) process Jones' application. Staff intends to complete
items (1) through (4) above, no later than June 30, 1990.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Copy of Dimensions' License
(B) Copy of King's License
(C) Copy of Total's License
(D) Copy of Continental's License
(E) Copy of Jones' License
(F) Copy of City Attorney's ltr to Jones
(G) Copy of Inland Valley's License
6
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
I
AB# TITLE: APPROVAL OF CONCEPT STRIPING PLAN FOR DEPT HD.
MTG RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OVER 1-15, FROM CITY ATTY
DEPT-~.~ ENGINEER FRONT STREET TO YNEZ ROAD CITY MGR~
RECOMMENDATION:
That the city Council approve the Conceptual Striping Plan for
Rancho California Road between Front Street and Ynez Road and give
Bedford Properties the authorization to proceed with completion of
the design based upon approval.
DISCUSSION:
This proposal is to remove the existing raised landscape
medians on Rancho California Road between Front Street and Ynez
Road and restripe the street to provide for two through lanes and
longer left-turn pockets at Front Street and the freeway ramp.
Right turn pockets will also be provided at Ynez Road, both freeway
ramps and at Front Street. It is estimated by the developer's
traffic representatives that an additional 1,000 vehicles an hour
will be able to cross the bridge with the proposed striping. The
proposed striping will enable vehicles to enter left turn lanes
prior to entering the bridge and will prevent the storage in the
left lanes from controlling the movement of the through traffic.
The following chart compares the through traffic volumes for the
existing conditions, the signal installation only, and the signal
installation with median removal:
COMPARISON OF THROUGH LANE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existin~
Eastbound
Westbound
820 cars per hour
825 cars per hour
Sianals only
Eastbound
Westbound
1,165 cars per hour
1,335 cars per hour
Siqnals and Bridqe Restripin~
Eastbound
Westbound
1,700 cars per hour
1,940 cars per hour
Bedford Properties, the developer, is conditioned to perform
these improvements under Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village,
Amendment No. 1. The Conditions of Approval are attached.
The restriping project is being coordinated with the
intersection signals to be built at the off-ramp locations in
conjunction with widening and restriping the off-ramps. The
intersection signal at Front Street has been designed and is
currently in plan check review at the County of Riverside, Traffic
Engineering Department. The traffic signals at both off-ramps are
currently under design by Herman Kimmel Associates for the County
of Riverside and are being paid for with County Signal Mitigation
Funds. The traffic signal light at Ynez Road will also be
retrofitted by Bedford Properties to match the restriped lanes. No
other improvements for the intersection at Front Street have been
placed upon development.
All of the above-mentioned improvements are anticipated to be
installed as a single project.
STAFF CONCERNS:
Removal of the landscaped median, including the trees and
antique street lights, may provide for the loss of an "entry
statement" on Rancho California Road. It is possible that the lack
of traffic congestion on Rancho California Road at the overcrossing
may provide an alternative entry statement with a better effect.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Not determined.
SUMMARY:
The subject striping plan is part of a larger list of
improvements necessary to alleviate traffic congestion on Rancho
California Road. The developer, Bedford Properties, is conditioned
under Specific Plan 199, Margarita Village, Amendment 1 to provide
the improvements. The developer has put forth a plan which
requires removal of the existing landscaped median on Rancho
California Road in order to maximize the carrying capacity of the
roadway.
STRIPING
DMSad