HomeMy WebLinkAbout060590 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
PJ~NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~E 5, 1990 - 7=00 PM
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 90-09
Resolution: No. 90-54
CALL TO ORDER=
Invocation
Pastor T. J. Mercer
Rancho Community Church
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL:
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Parks
Certificates of Appreciation:
Moore, Muhoz,
1)
2)
Ad Hoc Law Enforcement
Committee
Traffic Advisory Committee
Negotiating
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can
address the Council on items that are not listed on the
Agenda. 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 "Request To Speak" form should be filled out
and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state
vour name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be
filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that
item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered
to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call
vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items to be
removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
2/~gend~O60E 90 1 06/01 ~0
RELATION:
1.1
Approve minutes of Nay 15, 1990 as'Bailed,
0 ·
A 7,992 squarefootofficebuildingwtthaubterraneanparkinq
:located West of Front Street and south of First Street.
I~ECOMMENDATION:
2.1
2.2
Pull for staff report
Receive and file
A. tVO stoFy, S000 Square 'root office ~dilding on 0.37 acres
located north' of Second S~Feet and noF~heaet of Hercedes
Street.
3 .:1
3.2
Pull for staff report
Receive and file
o
F~-oo!lfl~ F4038 - Lot Split of 4.99 acree located northeast
.of Hercedes Street, east of Xoreno Road and southwest of
· Interstate 15
Continued fret he meeting of Nay 22, 1990.'
RECOMMENDATION:
4 .¸1
Deny Parcel Nap No. 24038, based on the Analysis
and Findings contained in the staff report.
5.1
A~o~t an urger~y ordinance entitle:
ORDZ~B ~O. 00-
,
f~li~e of IA~e lie. S446
A Zone Change for 6.51 acre site on the vest side of Ynez Road
at the terminus of County Center Road, from existing IP to
.CPS o
R~)J~/~NDATION:
6.1 Adopt the negative Declaration
Assessment No. 33728.
for EnvirOnmental
6.2
Approve change of Zone Application No. 5446
0
Appeal£iledbyOpto 22, of condition by the Riverside County
Road Department to construct lane improvements at Rancho
California Road and Front Streets.
P~O~2iDATION:
7.1
Uphold the appellant's appeal, subject to the
recommendationsof'the CityTraffic Engineer, based
on findings and analysis contained in the County
report.
7.2
Approve Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis
and findings contained in the County staff report,
subJect to the conditions of approval as revised in
Appeal No. 1.
06~1~0
Appeal No. 2, - Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769
Appeal filed by Won Yoo of County Planning Commission approval
for location north west of Rainbow Canyon Road, South of Pala
Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Continue the appeal for Revised Tentative Parcel
Map No. 21769, amended No. 2, to the meeting of
June 26, 1990, to allow staff additional time to
review the project and analyze the appeal.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
10.
11.
Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water
District Presentations
Presentation by Judy Conacher, Reclamation Coordinator and
Chuck Kratsch, Manager Project Services, EMWD
Presentation by Bob Lemons, John Henniger and Philip Forbes,
Rancho California Water District
Request for Sponsorship - Hiss California Pageant
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Motion to appropriate $500 from Contingency Fund if
desired.
Budget Consideration
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Discuss and continue to the meeting of June 12,
1990 for final consideration and adoption.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
12.
13.
14.
15.
Traffic Report
Sign Ordinance
Mello Roos - Ynez Corridor
Landscape Maintenance
2/egend~C160680 4 05/31
Next. meet. ing: June 12, 1990, 7:00 PH, TelUe~-'ula Co'fmuni,~.y Cent. eF,
28816 l:~Jol St.z'eel, Temecula, California
6
~INUTES OF ~N ADJOURNED REgULaR ~EETIN~
OF THE TF~ECUL~ CITY COUNCIL
HELD MAY 15; 1990
An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was
called to order at 7:07 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding.
PRESENT 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore Muhoz, Parks
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott
F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek.
INVOCATION
The invocation was waived.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember
Lindemans.
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Parks announced the appointment of a permanent City Manager,
David Dixon, who is presently serving as City Manager of Moreno
Valley.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Anne Greenstone, County Public Health Nurse spoke concerning five
health issues.
Requested help in organizing a transportation system
connecting Lake Elsinore with Temecula, (i.e. bus system and
dial a ride).
Requested that signs in the County Health Center be in Spanish
as well as English.
Consider establishing programs for youth, (i.e. extended day
care programs, and summer programs)·
Provide teen mother centers on high school campuses with child
care on premises.
Minutes~5\15\90 -1- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes
May 15. 1990
Provide a centrally located facility for homeless population
or new Spanish speaking citizens which would offer "drop in"
health care.
Jay Waterman, 41790 Winchester, Ste. F, spoke in opposition to
street vendors who set up shop in the City roadways. Mr. Waterman
stated these vendors are in direct competition with local
businesses. He also expressed concern that sales tax revenues will
not be reported in Temecula. Mr. Waterman asked the Council to
adopt a resolution to prohibit street vendors in the City of
Temecula.
Councilmember Mufioz askedMr. Waterman if he would favor a business
license requirement, restricting street vendors to certain areas.
Mr. Waterman stated he would be in favor of a business licensing
process.
Steve Sander, 4213 Holden Circle, spoke in opposition to removal of
the trees in the median on Rancho California Road. He asked
Council to save the street trees and not destroy the character of
Temecula.
CONSENT C~I, END~%R
Mayor Parks requested the removal of Item No. 3 from the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Mufioz requested the removal of Item No. 2 from the
Consent Calendar.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to approve Item No. 1 as follows:
1. Minutes
1.1 Approve minutes of April 24, 1990 as mailed.
1.2 Approve minutes of April 25, 1990 as mailed.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Muhoz, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Minut~s~5\15\90 -2- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes May 15. 1990
Reconsideration of South West Pea Community Plan
Councilmember Muhoz said he was not in favor of adopting the
Southwest Area Community Plan, stating it has many flaws.
Councilmember Mu~oz indicated his desire to proceed with the
creation of the City's own general plan.
Councilmember Lindemans stated SWAP should be used as a
guideline or reference for creating the City's general plan.
Councilmember Lindemans stressed that actions taken by the
Council today will set the stage for Temecula for the next 50
years.
Councilmember Birdsall stated her concern with how the
Planning staff is expected to function without any guidelines
on which to base their decisions.
Councilmember Moore suggested the City use SWAP as a base
plan, and look into changing the problem areas. She stated
that the City is not compelled to "live" with this plan
forever.
Mayor Parks said he does not agree with all of the provisions
of SWAP, however, he believes it is a good tool to use a base
on which to begin building a comprehensive general plan for
the City.
Councilmember Muhoz reported that SWAP is available now to use
as a guide, without the need to adopt it as our general plan.
Councilmember Birdsall asked for an opinion from the Planning
staff.
Ross Geller, Planning Director, stated that it is not a
problem to operate without a plan. He said it gives the City
Council an opportunity to review each parcel on a case by case
basis. He suggested that when discussing the SWAP with the
Planning Commission, he would point out that the whole plan is
not worthless, and should be used as a guide in creating the
general plan.
Councilmember Muhoz moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a
motion to modify staff recommendation to refer to the Planning
Commission for evaluation of Southwest Area Community Plan.
Minutes~5\ 15\~0 -3-
City Council Minutes May 15, 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
Resolution Re~ardinu Time of Meetings
Mayor Parks spoke in opposition to this resolution. He stated
changing the meeting time from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM would place
a burden on the public as well as staff, not allowing them
time to eat or take any break after work.
Councilmember Mufioz suggested a compromise of 6:30 PM.
Councilmember Moore stated that City Hall is open until 6:00
PM and the change of time would prove very difficult for City
staff.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Mufioz to table the resolution regarding time of
meetings.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Councilmember Lindemans requested consideration of Item No. 10
next.
10. Cable Television Franchise Analysis
City Manager Aleshire reported this item was continued from
the meeting of May 8, 1990. The recommendation has been
changed to receive and file the report and direct staff to
reject all CTV license applications filed under the County
Ordinance, and to direct City Manager to hire a CTV
Consultant.
Minu~s~5\15\90 -4- 05/29/90
city Council Minutes
May 15, 1990
Mr. Aleshire stated a Consultant would be hired to draft a
City ordinance and this could be placed on the agenda in a
couple of weeks.
Donnie Clark, Vice President of Jones Intercable, stated his
desire to bring a high-tech system to Temecula. He said Jones
Intercable is prepared to wire the entire City. Mr. Clark
stressed the highquality of service Jones Intercable provides
and stated that competition is in the City's best interest.
Mr. Clark stated Jones Intercable is in favor of creating a
City ordinance, but did not want construction delayed for nine
months to one year.
Charlie Guild, Attorney for Jones Intercable, stated that
Jones Intercable was provided with certain permits by the
County of Riverside, they relied on these permits and
commenced construction and are in fact still relying on this
franchise. Mr. Guild reported that Jones Intercable submitted
an application to the City of Temecula in an effort to settle
some differences.
Councilmember Mu5oz asked if the points indicating non-
compliance by Jones Intercable are correct, and which items
have been complied with now. Mr. Guild reported that all
items have been complied with.
City Attorney Fields reported the chief issue is that Jones
Intercable did not accept the franchise prior to City
incorporation. Once the City had incorporated, a new
franchise was necessary. Additionally, the documents the City
has seen did not have two signatures, which is necessary. Mr.
Fields further stated that Jones Intercable has now filed a
surety bond, however it was filed long after the allowed 10
day period.
Jim Allman, 43954 Gatewood Way, stated he is in favor of
competition and receiving the best service possible. He
suggested that staff do research on the best alternatives and
negotiate in the residents best interest.
Thomas Unglaub, representing Inland Valley Cablevision,
reported that with 7,000 subscribers, they have made a major
commitment to Temecula. Mr. Unglaub stated the City should
take time to evaluate whether it needs another cable company
and who the competition is.
Councilmember Muhoz asked staff to report on three issues:
one, the significance of the failure to comply with the
franchise requirements on the part of Jones Intercable; two,
how does the City determine the needs for service in a
Minut~5 \15 \90 -5- 05/29190
City Council Minutes
May 15. 1990
community of this size, three, what is the status of the other
cable companies listed in the staff report.
City Attorney Fields stated Jones Intercable had a period of
time to accept a contract, but did not do so when the County
had jurisdiction. He reported there are practical limitations
on how many cable companies can logistically operate in the
same community. Mr. Fields said staff wishes to be sure
procedures followed for awarding franchises represent the
needs and interests of the City. He stated he was not sure
the City would be able to determine these issues in the next
30 days.
Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Services, reported that the
City has only received one application from Jones Intercable.
He stated that a copy of all County franchises to operate in
the City of Temecula, are included in the agenda packet to
serve as information for the Council on all the cable
operators active in the area.
Councilmember Mufioz asked City Attorney Fields if the City is
on pretty solid ground in regards to jurisdiction. City
Attorney Fields stated he felt comfortable with his opinion.
Mayor Parks asked the cost of having a consultant to draft an
ordinance. City Manager Aleshire reported that to draft an
ordinance would cost approximately $1,000. If the consultant
is asked to process applications for franchise, it could cost
up to $9,600.
Councilmember Mu~oz suggested contacting the League of Cities
regarding a prototype ordinance. City Manager Aleshire
reported that the League had been contacted and their
recommendation is to hire a consultant.
Mayor Parks stressed the importance of hiring an expert to
draft an ordinance of this type to assure future applications
will be resolved.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Parks
to adopt the staff recommendation to receive and file the
report and hire a CTV Consultant.
Minutiae5\ 15\90 -6- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes May 15, 1990
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 Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Birdsall to deny all Franchise Applications filed under the
County Ordinance.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Muhoz requested patience from the applicants stating
that the City Council is not opposed to competition, but it
requires time to establish an ordinance to serve the best interests
of community.
RECESS
Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:20 PM. The meeting was
reconvened at 8:42 PM.
4. Temecula Redevelopment District
City Manager Aleshire reported this item was continued from
the meeting of May 1, 1990. Mr. Aleshire introduced Dave
McElroy, Managing Director of the Riverside County Economic
Redevelopment Agency, to give present report.
Mr. McElroy reported that the land within Redevelopment
Project No. 1-1988 includes the area known as Old Town
Temecula, and suggested that all effort should be made to
preserve and protect the historic nature and architectural
integrity of Old Town Temecula. Mr. McElroy stated that the
plan specifically states there will be no eminent domain used
in the redevelopment area. The District also authorizes the
agency to provide flood control improvements, traffic signals,
road improvements, street lighting, bridge improvements, parks
and recreation improvements, parking facilities, fire fighting
Minutes~5\15\90 -7- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes
May 15. 1990
facilities, library facilities, school facilities,
construction of a museum in Old Town, improvements for French
Valley Airport and participation in County CORAL obligations.
Mr. McElroy stated that the County has 35 project areas and
would welcome the City taking jurisdiction over this agency.
He further stated that redevelopment does not increase
property tax. It receives a tax increment as a result of new
growth.
Mr. McElroy informed the City Council that a law suit is now
in progress, and if successful, would halt the redevelopment
plan from taking effect and the City would lose funding for
these projects. Over the 40-year life of the redevelopment
program, $211,000,000 of public facilities could be
constructed using Redevelopment funds.
Mr. McElroy described three scenarios for possible management
of the redevelopment services:
1. The County could continue to manage the program.
The City could assume management of the redevelopment
agency.
The City could enter into a contract with the County
specifying how the agency is to be managed.
Councilmember Birdsall asked if the City takes over management
of this agency, would there be any additional pass throughs.
Mr. McElroy stated that according to the County policy on City
Redevelopment Projects, the County gets a 100% pass through in
some form. This can be in actual dollars or, through
acquisition of certain facilities benefiting the City. If the
City took over management, the County would enter into an
agreement specifying the financial arrangements needed.
Councilmember Moore questioned the status of the law suit.
Mr. McElroy reported that the law suit is still active,
however, a court date has not been set.
Councilmember Lindemansquestioned whether the County desired
the City to take over the law suit. Mr. McElroy stated that
it is staff's recommendation to have the City of Temecula take
over this issue. Councilmember Lindemans stated the big loser
in this issue would be Old Town, if funding is lost, and
questioned if this law suit can be won. Councilmember
Lindemans suggesting referring this to the City Attorney.
Minutes~5\15\90 -$- 05t/9/90
~--- City Council Minutes May 15. 1990
Councilmember Mufioz asked if the County plan is adopted, can
changes still be made. Mr. McElroy stated amendments to the
plan can be made. He further stated that the County would not
adopt a plan they did not feel was legal, and would not defend
a case that could not be won.
Councilmember Mufioz asked how much time the City has to decide
this issue. Mr. McElroy stated the County is prepared to give
Temecula as much time as is needed.
Mayor Parks asked if the City agrees to take over the
District, would the County still want it's total pass-through.
Mr. McElroy stated that the County would insist on the total
pass-through, however it could be used in Temecula based on
negotiations.
Bill Bopf, Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated
the Economic Development Committee has recommended that the
Chamber Board encourage the City Council to preserve the
Redevelopment option. He stated at present the City has a
1987 tax incremental base. If the City were to start over on
this issue, it would lose that base. Mr. Bopf stated the
position of the Chamber is to provide support, even to the
extent of legal support.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Moore to refer this issue to staff for further
review.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mufioz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
5. Regional Park District
City Manager Aleshire introduced Paul
Riverside Parks Director, to explain
District Proposal.
Romero, County of
the Regional Park
Mr. Romero reported that growth is sky-rocketing in this area,
with the need for Parks and Recreation not adequately
addressed. Mr. Romero reported that in the past funding for
parks came from the state. He stated there is a need for a
new funding source. The proposed method of funding would be a
MinuteskS\IS\90 -9- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes
May 15, 1990
$30 assessment per parcel. City participation in the district
would obtain provide citizens with free access to any regional
facility. One property in question would be the Santa Rosa
Plateau.
Mr. Romero reported that at a public meeting on March 22,
1990, very strong public support was expressed. Mr. Romero
also stated results of a public opinion poll showed 46% of
public support the district, 23% are undecided. Mr. Romero
said he is trying to gain support from as many cities as
possible before the November election.
Councilmember Muhoz asked the following questions:
me
Why should the City want another government agency taxing
the people?
Why would only $25,000 be returned to this community of
a potential $500,000 collected per year. Why would City
residents contribute to this program and give 80% to the
County?
How will this be resolved if the City's voters choose not
to participate?
Mr. Romero answered as follows:
This is not an additional governmental agency, it is a
new agency replacing an old one. It would be creating an
agency with a set participation level. It is pioneering
a change in governmental structure.
The $30 assessment is apportioned 25% to the City, 25%
for Regional Benefit and 50% for open space conservation
and wildlife preserves. With the sky-rocketing price of
property, the time is growing short to be able to
purchase land for wildlife refuges.
If the City does not choose to participate there will be
no assessment, but there will also be no regional benefit
shared.
Councilmember Mu~oz requested that when this agenda item is
brought before the City Council again, it should be clear that
citizens will be assessed $30 a year.
Mayor Parks stated that if the City adopts the suggested
Resolution and then votes not to participate in the district,
should the measure pass County-wide the assessment will still
be levied.
Minutes~5\15\90 -10- 05/29190
City Council Minutes May 15. 1990
Mr. Romero stated there will be two issues on the ballot:
1. Are you willing to support the Regional Park District?
2. Are you willing to accept $30 per year assessment?
Mayor Parks voiced his support of this issue, stating it has
received support from the public, and asked the Council to
take a good look at it.
Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Mufioz seconded a
motion to continue this item to a future meeting and direct
staff to solicit public input on the District and on the
proposed resolution.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
6. Riverside County Department of Health - Contract for Services
City Manager Aleshire introduced Earl Tuntland, Environmental
Health Services Division to give a presentation.
Mr. Tuntland presented an offer to continue services in the
area of environmental health services. These services include
land use and water engineering. Mr. Tuntland described
contracts with Moreno Valley, Riverside, Lake Elsinore, Palm
Springs and Hemet, ranging from subdivision approval to
building permits. Mr. Tuntland said The Environmental Health
Services Division offers expertise in water supply and sewage,
and would be happy to offer services to the City after July 1,
1990.
Mayor Parks asked the City Manager if this issue has been
addressed. City Manager Aleshire reported that this will be
part of the budget process.
No formal action was taken on this issue.
7. Tract 23304 - Club Valencia
City Manager Aleshire recommended that the City Council direct
the City Engineer to conduct a traffic and drainage study of
Tract 23304. He reported that at the March 13, 1990 City
MinuteskS\l 5\90 -11- 05129190
City Council Minutes May 15. 1990
Council meeting, Mr. William Coghlan of IDM Corporation
answeredquestions concerning Tract 23304 and that the Council
asked for a traffic study.
On April 19, 1990 staff received a letter from IDM's 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 the City
Planning Director, requesting an extension of time on the
tentative tract map. The tentative map expired on May 10,
1990. The planning staff is recommending denial of the
extension for several reasons including inconsistency with the
proposed general plan, potential health and safety problems.
The City has received the final map which is being prepared to
present to the City Council. Staff recommendation is to
prepare a traffic study before a final decision is made on
this tract.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if it is normal procedure to ask
Willdan and Associates to do this kind of work or to go out
for bids. City Manager Aleshire reported that in cases of a
small traffic study, Willdan would normally be used. Mr.
Aleshire reported that in the case of final maps, the City has
a 60-day time limit.
Mayor Parks asked if the City has any recourse should the
study show a traffic hazard exists. City Attorney Fields
stated that when the study is complete, if it identifies a
traffic problem, it can address that situation and the cost of
the study can be recovered in mitigation fees.
Ronnie Crossland, 30632 Hollyberry Lane, thanked staff for a
very comprehensive report. She asked if a study will also
address density.
Mayor Parks responded that the Council could only address
health and safety issues when approving a final map. City
Attorney Fields stated, however, that the study would be a
traffic and drainage study.
Councilmember Mu5oz asked the City address the fact that the
density exceeds the guidelines of SWAP. City Attorney Fields
reported that unless it is a health or safety problem, nothing
can be done.
City Manager Aleshire reported that when a traffic study is
made, it may identify a correlation between traffic problems
Minutza~5\15\90 -12- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes Mav 15. 1990
0
and density.
It was moved byCouncilmember Mufioz, seconded byCouncilmember
Lindemans to accept staff recommendation and direct the City
Engineer to conduct a traffic and drainage study of Tract
23304.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mufioz, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Funding Request for the Temecula Valley Economic Development
Corporation
City Manager Aleshire reported this item is a request for
funding from the Temecula Valley Economic Development
Corporation for $75,000. He stated it is staff's
recommendation to refer this to budget hearings on May 22,
1990.
Bill Bopf, Vice President of Chamber of Commerce,
congratulated the City Council on hiring David Dixon, as
Temecula's City Manager. Mr. Bopf reported the Chamber of
Commerce unanimously supports the Temecula Valley Economic
Development Corporation and feels it is vital for the welfare
of the community.
Mike Perdue, 44028 Highlander Drive, Chairman of the Economic
Development Corporation, reported that this Corporation will
not operate as a function of the Chamber of Commerce, but as
a separate entity called the Temecula Valley Economic
Development Corporation. He asked that this corporation be a
private/public partnership with the City, funded by 50/50
matching funds. Mr. Perdue stated that the first year budget
is estimated at $150,000. He said the main function of the
corporation is to promote economic growth and development
within the City of Temecula and surrounding areas and to
improve business conditions in such areas to attract mediumto
large clean industry employers. Additional businesses will
create jobs as well as tax dollars for the City.
Mayor Parks asked what happens if the City funds this group
for Temecula Valley and Murrieta incorporates, possibly vying
for the same businesses? Mr. Perdue answered that the
Minutes~5\ 15\90 -13- 0~/29/90
City Council Minutes
May 15. 1990
Corporation would not get into a bidding war with a city or
organization. The City of Temecula is named because it is an
established City. He stated that Murrieta would be encouraged
to join and fund to the same extent. Mr. Perdue also observed
that whether or not an industry locates within the City
boundaries, everyone benefits from a major industry in the
region.
Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a
motion to continue this item to the budget hearing on May 22,
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
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember
Mufioz to extend the meeting until 10:30 PM. The motion was
unanimously carried.
Concept Btriping Plan for Rancho California Road Over 1-15,
from Front Btreet to Ynez Road.
City Manager Aleshire reported Item No. 9 is a request from
Bedford properties to consider a change in the median for
Rancho California Road.
Mary Jane Jagodzinski, Bedford Properties, spoke regarding the
total plan including striping and traffic mitigation measures
on Rancho California Road. Ms. Jagodzinski stated that
Bedford Properties valued the quality of life, and the
entrance statement to Temecula. She introduced Woody Woodard,
Infrastructure Consultant for Bedford Properties, to outline
plans for Rancho California Road.
Mr. Woodard outlined requirements placed on Bedford Properties
by the County as follows: Bedford is obligated to widen the
north-bound off ramp and the south bound off ramp, also to
assure by striping that there are two through-lanes, in each
direction and right and left turn lanes.
Mr. Woodard said to accomplish this, Bedford Properties had
to work with Caltrans using their specific criteria for
MinuteskS\ 15\90 - 14- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes May 15. 1990
approval.
follows:
Mr. Woodward outlined the proposed changes as
With the highest priority, signals should be installed,
and the off- and on-ramps and the signals at Front Street
and Ynez Road would be designed to be in sequence.
Removing the existing raised landscape medians on Rancho
California Road between Front Street and Ynez Road and
restriping the street to provide for two through lanes
and longer left-turn pockets at Front Street and the
freeway on ramps.
Ms. Jagodzinski stated Bedford was very much concerned with
the image of this community, outlining new landscaping going
around the hotel on the South side of Rancho California Road,
and the Tower Office Building on the North side including a
pond. She stated that the traffic problems in Temecula are
well known throughout the area and could hurt the Economic
Development Committee's efforts in attracting new business.
Councilmember Birdsall asked the following questions:
If the bridge can be re-striped right now, why has it not
been done?
Why is it necessary to take medians out, instead of
taking space from the sides of the road?
Why are the circle loops, funded through Mello Roos, not
coordinated with this program?
Ms. Jagodzinski answered that the widening of the road and the
signals are not fees included in the Mello Roos. This is
funded by developer fees imposed by the County.
Mayor Parks asked if the loop ramps are installed, would the
center median still need to be removed. Mr. Woodward stated
the median removal would still be necessary to assist the
traffic flow, but perhaps the entire length would not need to
be removed.
Councilmember Lindemans read the required provisions dated
June 2, 1988 as follows: Provide for the widening,
restriping, reconstruction of Rancho California Road to
provide six approach lanes at 1-15 with auxiliary lanes as
deemed necessary from Ynez Road to Front Street, carrying four
through lanes across 1-15, all as approved by the Road
Commissioner and Caltrans.
Minut~a~5\l 5\90 -15- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes
May 15, 1990
Councilmember Mu5oz asked, with respect to the 1995 criteria,
if the proposed Apricot Overpass was considered. He stated
the excess traffic that will be accommodated by taking out the
medians, could easily be absorbed by the Apricot Overpass.
Jim Allman, 43954 Gatewood Way, stated that "trees are
forever", expressed his opposition to the current plan. He
asked where the alternatives to this plan? He objected to a
plan that was missing loops, and all the objectives necessary
to meet traffic needs of the future.
Diane Jimenez, Box 1816, spoke in opposition to removal of the
medians, stating she moved to Temecula to escape the cement
jungle of Los Angeles. Ms. Jimenez said she felt there were
better ways to solve the traffic problems.
Jane Vernon, 30268 Mersey Ct., spoke in opposition to the
plan.
William Harker, 30031-85 General Kearny Road, spoke in favor
of the plan. Mr. Harker asked the community how much they
were willing to sacrifice for a few trees, emphasizing the
increasing frustrations of sitting in traffic on Rancho
California Road. Mr. Harker further stated the sprinklers in
the medians often spray cars and the road, causing chuck
holes.
Mayor Parks stated a letter was received from Susan
McPhillops, asking the Council to save the trees on Rancho
California Road.
City Manager Aleshire stated the staff recommendation is to
approve the plan, with mitigation considered to provide trees
along the side of the road. He stated the project complies
with the requirements that the County has set forth and
believes it will substantially improve the traffic condition
at that location. Mr. Aleshire stated that there is a need
for a more extensive study of traffic conditions on this road.
Tim Serlett, City Engineer, stated the developer has been in
an extensive review process with Caltrans. Mr. Serlett stated
that the County is funding the signals and if optimum traffic
improvements are not made, they would possibly reconsider
participation in funding the signals.
City Manager Aleshire reported that this is a very complicated
issue because it involves Caltrans. He stated the developer
has received Caltrans approval for the project. If changes
are made in the project, it is likely to create a delay of
many months.
Minut~s~5\15\90 -16- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes
May 15. 1990
Councilmember Mu5oz asked if this item is disapproved, will
traffic signals not be installed in the current time frame.
Mr. Aleshire answered that the current signal project is
approved and scheduled to be completed this year, but it is
unclear what happens if the widening the restriping plan is
not approved.
Mr. Woodward stated that the design of the signals cannot
proceed until a plan is approved.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if Bedford had put the signals
on hold, with the presentation of their plan.
Mr. Woodward stated that they have never postponed the signal
program, they have been working on it continuously. Mary Jane
Jagodzinski said that Bedford would never put these signals on
hold, that they desire the traffic problems to be solved as
much as the Council. She stated that Bedford has had to work
with Caltrans and the bureaucracy involved, and a change of
plan may delay installation of the signals.
Mayor Parks asked if it is possible to show how much of the
islands can be retained, and see if this will still withstand
the Caltrans test. He said he would like this continued for
two weeks and in that period of time, work with staff to look
at the loop ramp system to determine how this will affect
traffic in the future.
Mayor Parks stated that a signal system cannot be designed
until you know where every lane is exactly located. Until a
plan is approved, Caltrans will not approve the signal.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Muhoz to continue the meeting until 11:00 PM.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember Muhoz stated it has been established that the
1995 criteria used did not take into consideration an
overpass, which will greatly improve traffic problems. He
said that the quality of life that the medians provide is
something that cannot be replaced. Councilmember Muhoz
suggested seeking another answer to solving the traffic
congestion at this location.
Tim Serlett, City Engineer, stated staff will address an
alternative solution with Caltrans other than removing the
medians.
Minut~s~5',l 5\90 -17- 05/29190
City Council Minutes May 15. 1990
Councilmember Birdsall asked staff to look at the corner of
Rancho California Rd. and Front Street, to correct the water
run-off pot hole problems.
Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Lindemarts seconded
a motion to refer this matter to staff for further study.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Muhoz, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Aleshire reported that Wednesday, May 16, 1990, is
"clean-up day" in Temecula. Beginning at 8:00 AM, illegal signs
will be removed. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, will
coordinate the effort. The County Road Department will also be
present to help determine the legality of signs. Mr. Aleshire
further reported that tonight, May 15, 1990, the County will be
sweeping the City streets. Mr. Aleshire said that the median on
Rancho California Road at the Target Center has had the weeds
removed and will have flowers planted.
City Manager Aleshire reported that the KTRM-FM radio tower
relocation will be on the agenda soon.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Mufioz requested staff report on the status of a
resolution regarding the western ridgeline.
Councilmember Moore requested the inclusion of Diaz Road in the
sign abatement program.
Councilmember Birdsall thanked the public for their help in taking
care of 90% of the sign problem, and further thanked the owners of
the Target Center for removal of the median weeds.
Councilmember Lindemans requested staff look at the sign program
for housing developments in effect in the City of Hemet.
Minutes~5 \ 15\90 - 1 $- 05/29/90
City Council Minutes May 15, 1990
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Mufioz moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion
to adjourn at 10:58 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
Next meeting: May 22, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
Minutes~5\15\90 -19- 05/29/90
AB#
~TG
DEPT
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
TITLE:
PLOT PLAN NO. 11376
DEPT HD.~
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR ~
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File
Plot Plan No. 11376.
C~SE INFORMATION:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Existing Zoning:
Surrounding Zoning:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Background:
Plot Plan No. 11376
W. Wayne Collins, A.I.A.
W. Wayne Collins, A.I.A.
West side of Front Street
approximately 2300 feet
south of First Street.
The applicant proposes to
construct a two-story, 7992
square foot commercial
building with 40 parking
spaces provided on the
ground level.
C/P - General Commercial
North: C-P General
Commercial.
South: C-P - General
Commercial.
East: C-P - General
Commercial.
West: R-R - Rural
Residential
North: Vacant graded lot.
South: Existing Commercial
Building.
East: Existing Commercial
Building.
West: Creek Channel and
Park.
Plot Plan No. 11376 and Negative Declaration EA #34109 were
tentatively approved by the County of Riverside Planning
Director on March 26, 1990. Previously Lot Line Adjustment
#2559 had been approved in September of 1987 that
determined the parcel's configuration.
The project consists of a two-story structure with 40
parking spaces on the first level and 7992 square foot of
office on the upper level. The architecture is
contemporary and consists of a beige stucco exterior with
a red tile roof and recessed window panels.
!
!
I
I
I
The project meets the provisions of the zoning ordinance
and the architecture is compatible with the surrounding
area.
FISCAL IMPACT=
Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee:
Flood Control Mitigation Fee:
$1,015.00
$373.00
BUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File
Plot Plan No. 11376.
: , il
Ii jl
!
I
l!
CASE SUMMARY DATE: 03-26-90
CASE NO. PLOT PL~NNO. X1375, J~No. I E.A. No. 34109
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Construction of a 7,992 square
foot office building with subterrean parking located west of Front
St. and south of First St..
AREA: Rancho California / Temecula
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: #ithin the City of Temecula
GENERAL PLAN: Southwest Area Community Plan
a. LAND USE: "C" (commercial)
b. OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas Not Designated as Open Space
c. COMMUNITY POLICIES: SWAP Land Use Policies
d. ADJACENT: Commercial
ZONING:
a. SITE: C-1/C-P
b. ADJACENT: C-1/C-P
LAND USE/AREADEVELOPMENT:
a. SITE: Vacant
b. ADJACENT: Commercial Office Buildings, Vacant
MAJOR ISSUES: Liquefaction, 100 Year Floodplain, Subsidence,
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
REC~NDATION: AD0~TXC~Eof a Negative Declaration for E.A. 34109
and A PP~%OT~L of ~LOT PLaN ~O. XX3T6, AIk~ Mo. X, based on the
following:
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan
and Ordinances 348 & 460.
2. The proposal ~a compatible with area development
Environmental concerns can be mitigated at the development
stage through the conditions of approval.
W. Wayne Co111ns
18301 Irvine Blvd.
Suite lB
Tustin, CA 92680
CX~EDXTXO~8 CXFAPPP~TFAL
PLOT PXJ~NO. XX3T$, ~mmndedNo. 1
Project Description: A 7,992 Sq.Ft. Office
building with parking.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-110-027
District/Area: Rancho California / Temecula
me
e
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 7,992 square foot
office building with subrefresh parking.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims,
action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an
approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal
boards, or legislative body concerning PLOT PLaN NO. 11376, A~ended
No. 1. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of
any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside
and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding
or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date;
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated
by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that
as shown on plot plan marked Izhibit A, Al~u~ded No. 1, or as amended
by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of
one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Road Department's transmittal dated 02-01-90, a
oopy of which is attached.
~LOT PLiH NO. 11376, ~ Mo. 1
Cm~litl~ o£ Approval
~age 3
o
10.
11.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in
accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County
Health Department's transmittal dated 10-26-89, a copy of which is
attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside
County Flood Control District's transmittal dated 11-14-89, a copy of
which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate
section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Wardan's transmittal
dated 10-26-89, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Sacrich's transmittal
dated 12-12-89, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Building and Safety - Grading Section's transmittal
dated 11-29-89, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Riverside County Geologist's transmittal dated 02-26-90, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
CALTRANS transmittal dated 08-03-89, a copy of which is attached.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved
Landscape, Irrigation and Shading plans prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed
and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth
condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway
shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, six (6) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall
lest all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12.
The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348,
section 18.12 and include a =~ ~-o££ ~JevL~. Xn addition, the
plan will incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler
heads with incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage.
A minimum of forty (40) parking spaces shall be required in accordance
with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Forty (40)
parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the At&roved Exhibit A.
~Z,O~ ~Z,~I~ NO. 11375~ ~ No. 1
.... Co~U.t:i. oz~ of ,!tp~z*ov~l
· ~g~ ·
19.
20.
21.
22.
The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a
minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as
shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped
shall be identified by a pez~aanently affixed reflectorized sign
constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the
interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches
from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking
facility, not less than 17 inches by 22, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed
at or by telephoning ."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking
place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol
of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain
clearance and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department Riverside County Flood Control
Environmental Health Fire Department
Building & Safety - Grading
Mritten evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use
Division of the Department of Building and Safety.
Xf signage is proposed, a separate plot plan accompanied by the
appropriate fees as set foz~ch in Ordinance No. 348 shall be submitted
and approved by the Planning Department prior to sign installation.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in
substantial confozlaance with that shown on Exhibit M-1 (Materials
Board) and Exhibit M-2 (Color Elevations). These are as follows:
Use Material Color
Roof U.S. Clay Tile
Malls Stucco
Trim Tile
RED with 15% BUFF
Frazee #2227W
Cimone J331-945 (Home Depot)
~. P~ ~ NO. 11376, Ammz:d~! No. 1
~litioz~ of Apprml
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
$0.
31.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view.
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Screening
A total of one (1) trash enclosure which is adequate to enclose a
total of two (2) bins shall be located within the project, and shall
be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The
enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry
block and a gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscape ~creening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum
height of six (6) feet at maturity.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees
along streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of
Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to
issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of
Building and Safety, a geotechnical report shall be submitted for
review and approval. This report shall be based upon, but not be
limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical
conditions incorporating an analysis of potential for subsidence or
ground fissuring. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be
demonstrated.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply
with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by
Hhat ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the
provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the
fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee
required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County
ordinance or resolution.
A total of four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in
convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access Ho the project area.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in
amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls and fences in
accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the
planting for one year shall be filed with the Department of Building
and Safety.
PI,O~ PId~ NO. 113'76, ,]kmsm~l~ ~1o. 1
ComJ.'Lti, ona o£ Appz'ml
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape
planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The
plants shall be healthy and free of w. eds, disease or pests. The
irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working
order.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, L~t Line Adjustment No.
2559 shall have been recorded.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be
installed underground.
Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain
clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use
Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance
with Ordinance No. 348.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to
occupancy or any use allowed by this permit.
JA:jsa
03-07-90
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
February 1, 1990
P.O, ~:)x 1~
It~/T3t$~)[., c4uTol~J~ 92502
lttverside County Planning Cosmission
4080 Lemon Street
R~verside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen~
~S
(Office Building)
Plot Plan 11376 - Amend
Team 5 - SMD #9
AP %111-111-111-9
The Road De~nt has reviewed the ~raffic study for this
project. The study indicates a projected Level of Service 'C" at
Front S~reet and Santiago Road. The Comprehensive General Plan
circulation policies relative to Category II Land Uses states= "A
minimum of Level of Service 'C' is necessary for any new Category
II land use." As such, the proposed project ks consistent with
this General Plan policy.
The project proponent shall contribute to the traffic
signal m/tigation program for the purpose of reduction of
the project traffic impact upon ~he areawide circulation
system. Payment of fees prior to occupancy shall provide
satisfactory mitigation of this Portion of the ~raffic
~mpact.
With respect to the
referenced item, ~he
recomaendations:
conditions of approval for the above
Road Department has the following
Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this
perm/t, the applicant shall complete ~he following conditions at
no cost to any goverrm~nt agenc~s
0
No additional right of way shall be required on Front
S1Lt'eet since adequate right of way exists.
Prior to issuance of a building petit or any use alloeed
by this per./t, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Road Deparlment the sum of $1,015.00
towards mitigating ~raffic impacts for signal require-
This amount represents 0.58 acres x $1,750.00 per gross
acre - $1,015.00
COUNTY ADJ41hlSTRAIl'~ C:DqTT:R * 4080 I.ZNOH STRIZT * R!V!3tStlX, CAi.!FOtNIA 9ZS01
Plot Plan 11376 - Amend
February 1, lggo
Page 2
Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this pez~t, the
appl£cant ahall construct the following at no cost to any
government agency ~
0
Front ~t~eet shall be ~roved with concrete curb and
~utter located 20 feet fro~ centerline and ~a~ch up asphalt
concrete paving; reconsf~-uction; or resurfac£ng of existing
paving as deterSned by the Road Cce~as£oner within a 30
foot half width dochLcated right of way ~n accordance with
County StandArd No. 104, Section A.
Asphalt emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less
than fourteen days folloving placement of the asphalt
su~facing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per
square yard. Asphalt osmlsion shall conform to Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State Standazd Specifications.
Six foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along
Front Street in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and
401 (curb sidewalk).
l~prove~nt plans shall be based upon a centerlLne profile
extending a minimum of 300 feat beyond the project
boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
Riverside County Road Cm~nissioner. Completion of
road improvements does not imply acceptance for main-
tenance by County.
Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
®
All work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit.
10.
The single driveway shall conform to the applicable
Riverside County Standards and ahall be shown on the arrest
/~p~v~nt plans.
11.
The a/ngle entrance driveway ahall be channelised with
concrete curb and gutter to prevent "back-on* parking and
~nte~lor drives fz~xn ontering/e~Lting drlvmvays for a
m~n~num distance of 35 feet measured from face of curb.
12.
The street design and improvesant concept of th~s project
shall be coord~a~d with PII 20090.
13.
All l~lvate and public entrances and/or intersections
opposite t~Ls p~oJect shall be coord~ated with this
project and shoen on the street ~mpz~venmnt plans.
Plot Plan 11376 - Amend
February 1, 1990
Page 3
14.
LT~Jw
Any la~xlscaptng within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Deparim~n~ standards and require approval
by ~he Road Cos~lssloner and &ssurance of con~lnu£ng
maintenance though the establlslment of a landscape
~alntenance dimtrlct/main~enance aGz~t~ent or similar
mechanism as approved by t~e Road Cosmlssloner. Landscape
plans shall be sub~ttted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36'). Landscape plans shall be sub~Ltted
with the street Improvement plans and shall deptct glLlX
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed wl~tn the public road rights-of-way.
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
DEPT /~-~=
TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION=
PLOT PLAN NO. 11436
DEPT HD.~
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR~Z~
Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File
Plot Plan No. 11436.
BACKGROUND:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Existing Zoning:
Surrounding Properties:
ANALYSIB:
Plot Plan No. 11436
Benjamin Ramirez
F. Earl Mellott and
Associates, 1035 North
Armando Street, Suite S,
Anaheim, CA 92806
The East side of Mercedes
Street just north of Second
Street.
TO construct a two-store~
5,000 square foot office
building with 25 parking
spaces.
C-P-S Scenic Highway
Commercial.
The project site is
currently vacant and slopes
upward to the edge of the
freeway right of way. No
site improvements exist on
the property. The property
to the south is vacant. The
property to the North is
developed with a commercial
structure that is currently
vacant. The property to the
east is the freeway right of
way and the property to the
west is developed with an
auto repair facility.
Plot Plan No. 11436 and Negative Declaration Environmental
Assessment No. 34198 were approved by the County of
Riverside Planning Director on March 26, 1990. The project
consists of a two-story 5,000 square foot office building
with 25 parking spaces. According to the code, no yard
setbacks are required for a structure under 35 feet in
height. This structure is 25 feet in height and maintains
a 5-foot setback in the front. The architecture is an
adobe style building which is compatible with the
surrounding western style of the area.
-2-
FISCAL IMPACT:
Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee:
Flood Control Mitigation Fee:
$1,250.00
$345.00
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File
Plot Plan No. 11436.
i
I(
..~...".,".'.',','.'.',~'-': .'..]z'?~ ......:.'"
. ; ':.- ; II
'"'" ~"' :"" '"': ii '
'""::"'""'"''ir""'"-',"'"'-
!!,~[!!,,tl!:i :;! qa ,,,.+::: ~[I,'-:.-:.' :.- ~
· l" t,t*t.~- "[ lj= ,,;fi ~;:1 :;:[
i, ~[' "i['":*i.'-'.
~i[;[ I[;lj! ;11 :" ,.I,~111,. [] "":. .,..:_'... ,:::,::
[{:~!I l:~!ii t[; ili :,[ lit "~' :~ f. il ' ,::''"" '":
,t, -,!,.~ .:l ';f': '"': :
'"':""'" !i
'2tI&''',,~ ,
:~:j ~!i:~ [i['"':'"' ':
I!i, lii'~i -[, ,jiji:' ~. f
· ~l.~-x',-~:r Am,', ,,SS,l,=l~'r£s __..~l&. 1'..Z~. .
B11~N - RAltIIIIBZ ~ ILD(~.
I
·
EXHIB~ NO. ~
C,,a,$E NO. ~: ~ ~'
OATE '~'~ 5 GNATURE ~' ',.~___~__' '
CASE SU~3%RY DATE: 03-26-90
CASE NO. Plot Plan No. 11436, Ar!~'~ No. I E.A. No. 34198
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Construction of a two story, 5000 square
foot office building on 0.37 acres located north of 2nd St., and northeast
of Mercedes St..
AREA: Temecula
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: Within the newly incorporated City of Temecula
GENERAL PLAN: Southwest Area Community Plan
a. LAND USE: "C" Commercial
b. OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas Not Designated As Open Space.
c. CO~H~UNITY POLICIES: Southwest Area Community Plan
d. ADJACENT: Commercial
ZONING:
a. SITE: C-P-S
b. ADJACENT: C-P-S
LAND USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT:
/
a. SITE: Vacant
b. ADJACENT: Vacant, existing vacant structure
MAJOR ISSUES: Subsidence, Scenic Highway, Wildlife Habitat (SKR).
RECO~iENDATION: ADO~TXO~ of a Negative Declaration for E.A. 34198 and
~ of Plot PXu No. 11456, ~ NO. l, based on the following:
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and
Ordinances 348 & 460.
2. The proposal is compatible with area development
Environmental concerns can be mitigated at the development stage
through the conditions of approval.
Off JI~DVJLT~
Benjamin Ramirez
1913 East 17th Street
Santa Aria, CA 92701
PLOT PLAN NO. 11436, ~ No. 1
Project Description: Two story, 5000 square
foot office building on 0.37 acres.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-042-007
District/Area: Temecula
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a two story, 5000
square foot office building and accompanying parking.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims,
action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an
approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal
boards, or legislative body concerning PLOT PL~N~O. 11436, A~amd~d
No. 1. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of
any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside
and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding
or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date;
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated
by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that
as shown on plot plan marked ~it A, ~M~d Mo. 1, or as amended
by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of
one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Road Department's transmittal dated 12-14-89, a
copy of which is attached.
10.
11.
12.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in
accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County
Health Department's transmittal dated 11-06-89, a copy of which is
attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside
County Flood Control District's transmittal dated 12-20-89, a copy of
which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate
section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal
dated 11-08-89, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Departssent of Building and Safety - Land Use Section's transmittal
dated 12-22-89, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Building and Safety - Grading Section's transmittal
dated 10-26-89, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
CALTRANS transmittal dated 07-13-89, a copy of which is attached.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved
Landscape, Irrigation and Shading plans prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed
and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth
condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway
shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
The applicant shall incorporate the area between the western property
line and Mercedes Street in the landscaping and irrigation plans.
Installation and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the owner.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, six (6) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall
meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12.
The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348,
section 18.12 and include a ~ ~-o~ d~oe. In addition, the
plan will incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler
heads with incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage.
A minimum of 25 parking spaces shall be required in accordance with
Section 18.12, lt~verside County Ordinance No. 348. 25 parking spaces
shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking
PLOT P/,J~ MO. 11436, ~ Mo. 1
,a~ 3
area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum
depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
'19... A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as
shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicspped
shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign
constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the
interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches
from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking
facility, not less than 17 inches by 22, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed
at or by telephoning ."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking
place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol
of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
20.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain
clearance and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department Riverside County Flood Control
Environmental Health Fire Department
Building & Safety - Grading
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use
Division of the Department of Building and Safety.
21.
If signage is proposed, a separate plot plan accompanied by the
appropriate fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 348 shall be submitted
and approved by the Planning Department prior to sign installation.
22.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in
substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit M-1 (Materials
Board) and Exhibit M-2 (Color Elevations).
23. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view.
~' material shall be subject to Planning Depar%ment approval.
Screening
.... ~I,0'1' ~/,,iKN NO. 11436, ~ NO. ·
· ~ ·
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Prior to the final building inst~ction approval by the Building and
Safety Department, a six foot high chain link fence shall be
constructed along the eastern property boundry abutting 1-15. The
required fence shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the
Department of Building and Safety.
A total of ~ (1) trash enclosures which is adequate to enclose a
total of ~ (1) bin shall be located within the project, and shall be
constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The enclosure
shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a
gate which screens the bin from external view.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum
height of six (6) feet at maturity. Dense screening will be required
along the property and 1-15 interface.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees
along streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of
Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to
issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of
Building and Safety, a geotechnical report shall be submitted for
review and approval. This report shall be based upon, but not be
limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical
conditions incorporating an analysis of potential for subsidence or
ground fissuring. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be
demonstrated.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply
with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the
provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the
fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee
required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County
ordin~nce or resolution.
Prior to issu&nce of building permits, performance securities, in
&mounts to be dete~ined by the Director of Building and Safety to
guarantee the installation of plantings~ walls and fences in
accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the
planting for one year shall be filed with the Department of Building
and Safety.
PLOT i~LAH Me. 11436, Amended #o. 1
C, ot~LLt:.:LoI~ of Appz'ov.ul
32.
33.
34.
35.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape
planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The
plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease or pests. The
irrig&tion system shall be properly constructed and in good working
order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be
installed underground.
Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain
clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use
Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance
with Ordinance No. 348.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to
occupancy or any use allowed by this permit.
JA:jsa
03-21-90
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMI,~IONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
December 14, 1989
P.O BC~
~14)
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
(Office Building)
Plot Plan 11436 - Amend
Team § - S~D %9
AP #111-111-111-9
Ladies and Gentlemen:
With r~m~ect
referenced Item,
recommendationsl
to the conditions of approval for the above
~he Road DeparUnent has %he following
Prior to issuance of a building perm/t or any use allowed by this
$~rmit, the applicant shall complete %he following conditions at
no cost to any goveznment agency~
No additional right of way shall
Street and Second Street since
exists.
be required on Mercedes
adequate right of way
Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed
by ~his permit, ~he developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Road ~nt the sum of $1,250.00
towards mitigating ~raffic impacts for signal require-
ments.
This amount represents .50 acre at $2,500.00 per gross acre
- $1,250.00.
®
Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed
by ~his permit, and prior to doing any work within the
State highway right of way, clearance and/or an
encroachment permit must be obtained by ~he applicant from
the District 08 Office of ~he State Depaxl~ent of
Transportation in San BL-~mrd~O.
Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the
applicant shall construct ~he following at no ~ost to any
goYermnent agency ~
Plot Plan 11436 - Anend tl
December 14, 1989
Page 2
®
o
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
l~e~cedes Road shall be /mp~oved with concrete curb and
gutter located 20 feet f~om centerl/ne and match up asphalt
concz~te paving~ ~econs~ruction~ or resu~facing of existing
paving as determined by tl~ Road Coma/sslone~ wlth/n a 30
foot half width dedicated right of way In accordance with
County S~anda~ No. 104, Section &.
Second Street shall be Improved with concrete curb and
gutter located 20 feet fz~m cent~rlln~ and match up &sphalt
concz~te paving; z~conatruction; or resu~facing of existing
paving as detersctned by the Road Commissioner within a 30
foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with
County Standaz~! No. 104, 8action A. (Modified knuckle)
Asphalt ~uls£on (fog seal) shall be applied not less
than fourteen days folioring placement of the asphalt
surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gellon per
square yard. Asphalt e~ulmion shall conform to Section 3?,
39 and 94 of the State Standa_rd Specifications.
I~provement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
ex~ending a minimum of 300 feet beyond
~~les ac a ~a~ ~ alt~n~ as app~ ~ ~he
Rlvesl~ C~ty ~ad C~eslo~r. ~letl~ of
~d ~~~nts ~s ~t ~ly ~cept~ce for ~n-
t~ce ~
Ha Jot drainage is involved on this p~oJect and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road Coo~tssioner.
Drainage control shall be u per Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
All work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit.
All drive~ays shall conform
County Standards and shall
l~prove~nt plans.
to t~e applicable Riverside
be show on the atzeet
All entrance driveway~ shall be channelized with concrete
curb and gutter to prevent "beck-on' parking and interior
drives fz~ entering/exiting driveways for a minimum
distance of 35 feet m~ fz~m face of curb.
· he street design and l~~ent concept of this project
shall be coardinated with 866-.QG.
Plot Plan 11436 - Amend
December 14, 1989
Page 3
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Street l£ghtm shall be installed in accordance with
OzdLnance 460 and 461 at all ~ntaraectiona of goads
constructed o~ ls~rov~ within the develolment. ~he County
Service Area (CSA) ~t nistrator determines whether the
develol~sent is within an existing assessrant distr~ct. If
not, the land owner shall tile after receiving tentative
approval, for an ap911cation with IAFC0 for annexation into
or creation of a County Service Area in pursuant to
Governmental Code Section 56000 st. ~eq.
All private and lmbllc entrances and/or /nter~ectioas
opposite this project sha/1 be coordinated with this
p~oJect and sho~n on tha street l~pz~vm~nt plans.
The applicant shall co~ply with the Ca/trans r~comaend-
ations u outlined in their letter dated Aug. 31, 1989.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
cosq~ly with Road Department standards and requLre approval
by the Road Commissioner and usugance of continuing
~aintenance through the establish~ent of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as aleroved by the Road Co~aissioner. I~ndscape
plans shall be sub~/tted on standard County Plan sh-~ot
format (24' x 36'). Landscape plans shall be suh~/tted
with the street imp&ova -nt plans and shall depict 92L~/
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
Should this project lie within any usessment/benefit
district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make
application for and pay for their reapportion~ent of the
assessments or pay the unit fees in the hensfit district
unless said fees are deferred to building permit.
L J= ~w
truly you~,
Eng. Unit Supervisor
CITY OF TEHECUL~
~U~DELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF
PUBLIC
The Mayor states "This is the time for the Public Hearing on
Agenda Item # (Describe generally from agenda)· The
Mayor also explains the time limits on testimony.
The Mayor opens the Public Hearing by calling on the City
Manager for the Staff Report. (The City Manager will then
call on the appropriate staff member to give the report.)
Council Members may ask clarifying questions of staff.
The Mayor calls on:
A. The Applicant and Asks Them to State Their Name and
Address for the Record. (Time Limit - 15 Minutes)
B. Others in Favor of the Matter and Asks Them to State
Their Name and Address for the Record. (Time limit for
individuals is three minutes.)
C. Those in Opposition to the Matter or Concerned about the
Application/Project/Matter and Asks Them to State Their
Name and Address for the Record. (Groups are limited to
20 Minutes; individuals are limited to three minutes.)
D. The Applicant for Rebuttal (Time Limit - 10 Minutes)
E. Following each presentation, the Council may question the
speakers.
The Mayor states: "The issue is now before the City Council
for discussion."
e
The Mayor calls upon individual Council Members who request
recognition to speak.
Following discussion, the Mayor or any Member of the Council
will make a motion to:
A. Continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow
for further discussion or study; or
B. Close the Public Hearing and: [Do one of the following]
1. Approve the application/project/matter as sub-
mitted.
2. Conditionally approve the application/project/
matter with certain revisions.
3. Deny the application/project/matter.
4. Deny the application/project/matter without pre-
judice (this action will allow applicant to refile
without waiting a specified time period and without
repaying of the required fees)
The Council votes on the motion.
The Mayor then opens the next public hearing.
These guidelines apply equally to all other City Commissions.
MAY--$ 1 -- 90 THU t O = :36 P . O2
MASSARO A WEI,S!i
I~I(:H^RD O. M^,%'~^r'[O.
CIVIl_ ENGINEERS * PI.ANNERS · [.AND SURVEYORS
C~ty of Temecula
Plsnning Department
4~17~ Business Perk Drive
Temecula, California 923~O
Mr. Mark Rhoades, Planner
Re: Parcel Map H0. 24038
Location; Moreno Rd. in the City of Tam·cuba. CA
Dear Mr. ~hoades.
It is ~y request that Parcel Map No. 2403~ be continued off calendar
to consider the parcel map in conjunction with a development plan
when one is submitted for consideration to the City.
Vary truly youra,
~ichard Maeearo, Pro,cot ~n$~uoer
cc~ Dale Xerlim
John Beene, ~otel g
15;'2 North ~,¥at('rm0n Avr'nu~', Suit(' 5 · 5~'~n B('rlJrtrdino, C, alif¢~rntn 9-'~404 · (714) 883-9.~?-,n;
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
AB#: #s
MTG: 6/5/90
DEPT c. D.
TITLE:
RepoFt on BillboaFd Hor&torium
DEPT HD'~
CITY ATTY
CITY HGR ~
RECOMMENDATION
1. Conduct Public Hearing
2. Adopt Ordinance No. 90-
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TF~ECUL~, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
NO. 90-08 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(b) AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance placing a moratorium
on the construction of billboards at a regularly scheduled meeting
on April 24, 1990. At the time the urgency ordinance was adopted
the Council felt that additional time was necessary to establish
local goals and objectives as they relate to the visual and
aesthetic values of the community. The original urgency ordinance
was valid for a period of 45 days. Government Code Section 65858
allows a second extension of a moratorium effectively prohibiting
billboards for an additional 10 months and 15 days.
DISCUSSION=
The Council has stated they wanted their Planning commission to
review all of the sign standards contained in Ordinance 348 and
specifically address and make recommendations for the creation of
new standards. The first Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled
for June 4, 1990. At that time or shortly thereafter, the
Commission will begin studying the sign regulations.
Ordinance 348 requires that before the City Council can extend the
moratorium on the construction of Outdoor Advertising Displays
(billboards), a mitigation report must be submitted outlining what
actions have been taken to address the Council's original concerns.
FISCAL IMPACT=
Not determined.
..... RG:jsg
Notice of Public Hearing,
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92390
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the
matter(s) described below.
Consideration of an extension of Ordinance 90-08, establishing a moratorium on
Billboards
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may
appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of
hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The
proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City
Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM.
Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula
Planning Department, (714) 694-1989.
The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows:
PLACE OF HEARING:
DATE OF HEARING:
TIME OF HEARING:
Rancho California Water District Community Room
28061 Diaz Road
Temecula
Tuesday. lune 5, 1990
7:00 PM
ORDINANCE NO 90-
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE NO 90-08 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO TIlE
PROVISIONS OF CALWORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65858(b) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
WHEREAS, On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was established as a duly
organized Municipal Corporation of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the
requirements of California Government Code Section 57376, the City Council of the City of
Temecula adopted its Ordinance No. 89-01, thereby adopting, by reference, for 120 days the
Riverside County Code as the Ordinances of the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 348 of the
Riverside County Code, which contains the Land Use Regulations of the County of Riverside,
and which Regulations are currently applicable to the establishment of all uses and development
applications (including the allowance of signage) within the City of Temecula.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-04, the City readopted Ordinance No. 348
of the County of Riverside as the Land Use Regulations for the City of Temecula;
WHEREAS, As part of its review of new and potential development within the City of
Temecula, the City Council examined the Southwest Area Community Plan (S.W.A.P.) portion
of Riverside County General Plan as it has pertained to development in the City of Temecula.
Such examination revealed that said S.W.A.P. may not provide an appropriate development
scheme for the City of Temecula, and consequently, the City Council adopted the S.W.A.P. as
planning guidelines until the City could adopt its own General Plan. All action on development
applications since incorporation, as to required consistency with the adopted General Plan, has
taken place pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360.
WHEREAS, In recognition of the need for effective long range planning criteria, the
City Council commenced within the time limits prescribed for adoption of General Plan, the
study and formulation of a General Plan for the City of Temecula. A material pan of said
General Plan Study will be the review and development of effective criteria to regulate all forms
of signage within the City of Temecula.
WHEREAS, Ordinance 348 of the Riverside County Code (hereinafter referred to as
the "Land Use Code") currently provides for the approval and establishment of "Outdoor
Advertising Displays" within the City of Temecula. The Land Use Code defines an "Outdoor
Advertising Display" as "The advertising structure and signs used for outdoor advertising
purposes, not including on-site advertising signs as hereinafter defined",
Ordinance 01 1 05/31/90
WHEREAS, In the near future there could be certain applications for such Outdoor
Advertising Displays, the approval of which would not conform to the contemplated General
Plan scheme of development in the City of Temecula and would contradict the specific purposes
for the adoption of a unified General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan,
it is foreseeable that further outdoor advertising display proposals will be submitted for property
within the City which would contradict the ultimate goals and policies of the proposed General
Plan;
WIIEREAS, This Council is concerned about the maintenance of the visual aesthetic
quality of the City of Temecula, and with the creation of an orderly and balanced development
scheme within the City of Temecula. Accordingly, to protect the integrity of the ultimate
General Plan and to assure the continued development stability of property within the City of
Temecula, this Council finds that it is necessary to establish interim zoning policies concerning
such signage to allow staff the time necessary to investigate and formulate the ultimate plan of
development for the City of Temecula as encompassed within the terms and provisions of the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have
occurred;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth
above are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council further finds as follows:
The City of Temecula is presently developing a General Plan for
development of the City of Temecula. The ultimate goal of the
General Plan is to provide a balanced and unified plan of
development within the City of Temecula and will ultimately
upgrade the economic, social and cultural welfare of persons and
properties within the City of Temecula. A material portion of the
General Plan study will be the formulation and establishment of
regulations for signage, including primary signs, in the City of
Temecula.
(b)
There is the potential for certain applications for the establishment
of Outdoor Advertising Displays, the approval of which would
contradict the ultimate goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan it is foreseeable
that further such applications will be received which may further
Ordinance O1 2 05/31/90
contradict such goals and objectives of the General Plan; and,
Pending approval of the General Plan, and associated I. and Use
Code Regulations concerning signage, the approval of any further
sign location plans, plot plans, or other discretionary entitlement
for Outdoor Advertising Displays, would result in immediate threat
to the public health, safety or welfare of persons and properties
within the City of Temecula.
SECTION 3. The following interim zoning regulations are hereby adopted.
Pending the completion and adoption of the General Plan of the
City of Temecula together with associated signage regulation for
the Land Use Code for the City of Temecula, the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Displays is hereby prohibited and no
application for sign location plan, plot plan or other applicable
discretionary entitlement for a Outdoor Advertising Display shall
be accepted, acted upon, or approved.
The provisions of subparagraph 3 (a), shall not apply to any
application for:
Onsite Advertising Structures and Signs (Ordinance 348,
Section 19.5)
(ii) Subdivision Signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.6)
(c)
Other than as expressly provided in this Ordinance, all other
applications for signage shall be processed and acted upon pursuant
to the normal and customary provisions of the Land Use Ordinance
of the City of Temecula.
SECTION 4.
This Ordinance is enacted under the authority of California Government
Code Section 65858(b) and shall be of no further force and effect ten
months and fifteen days from the date of adoption of this Ordinance unless
the City Council has extended this Ordinance in the manner as provided
in said Section 65858(b).
SECTION 5.
This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure pursuant to
the terms of California Government Code Sections 65858 and 36937Co),
and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Ordinance 01 3 05/31/90
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 5th day of June, 1990.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
Onfinancc 01 4 05/31/90
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
AB#
MTG
DEPT ~
TITLE:
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5446
DEPT HD ~
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR ~
RECON~ENDAT ION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment No. 33728; and
APPROVE Change of Zone Application No. 5446;
based on the findings and analysis contained in the County
Staff Report.
CASE INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Existing Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Surrounding Zoning:
MDC - CALIFORNIA
Markham and Associates
West side of Ynez Road,
north of Winchester Road.
Change existing I-P
(Industrial Park) Zone to
CPS (Scenic Highway
Commercial) Zone on a 6.51
acre site.
I/P- Industrial Park.
CPS - Scenic Highway
Commercial.
North: I-P Industrial
Park.
South: MSC - Manufacturing
- Service Commercial.
East: MSC - Manufacturing -
Service Commercial.
West: MSC - Manufacturing -
Service Commercial.
ANALYSIS:
Background:
This Change of Zone application was originally submitted
for the County of Riverside's consideration on March 31,
1989. It was considered by the Riverside County Planning
Commission on August 2, 1989 and September 20, 1989 and
ultimately recommended for approval by the Commission on
November 29, 1989. The application was forwarded to the
City of Temecula on April 3, 1990.
Summary of County Analysis:
The County Staff and Planning Commission originally were
most concerned about inconsistency with the Southwest Area
Community Plan. That issue was resolved at the November
29, 1989 meeting.
Other issues, including area development, surrounding and
adjacent zoning, future impacts, and the environmental
constraints of the area were evaluated. Findings were made
in the positive and the application was recommended for
approval.
COHPLI~,NCE WITH CURRENT CITY POLICIES~
Southwest Area Community Plan
The City Council has adopted the SWACP as a policy guide
until an Interim General Plan or new General Plan is
adopted. The SWACP designates the subject site as
Commercial, which is consistent with the requested Change
of Zone.
Change of Zone Policy
The City Council recently decided that plot plans would be
required of new Change of Zone applications on a temporary
basis. Staff's understanding is that this would generally
be required of new submittals, but not necessarily required
of those applications previously considered by the County.
The City Council maintains the authority to consider zone
change proposals as desired. Customary legal time
limitations do not apply with Change of Zone Applications.
SUMMARY
The County of Riverside staff report, findings, meeting
minutes and exhibits are attached for review. The ultimate
use of the site as an industrial or commercial development
appears highly likely. Whether the City prefers it in
either capacity is a policy decision with a similar level
of impacts and required improvements. Staff is
recommending that the City Council ADOPT the Negative
Declaration for the application and APPROVE Change of Zone
No. 5446 as recommended by County Staff.
First and second readings of the Change of Zone Ordinance
will occur in subsequent meetings of the Council if the
application is approved.
Notice of Public Hearing
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92390
A PUBLIC BEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the
matter(s) described below.
Case No: Change of Zone No. 5446
Applicant: MDC - California
Location: West side of Ynez Road at the terminus of County Center Road
Proposal: Change existing IP zone on 6.51 acre site to CPS
Environmental
Action: Negative Declaration
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may
appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of
hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public heating(s) described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The
proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City
Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM.
Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula
Planning Department, (714) 694-1989.
The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows:
PLACE OF HEARING:
DATE OF HEARING:
TIME OF HEARING:
Rancho California Water District Community Room
28061 Diaz Road
Temecula
Tuesday. June 5. 1990
7:00 PM
~ L~IID ~ ~ M:OE.~eOR$ fd~lX CLODS)
ell,
I -1 5
App. llIC-CaLIFIlIIA ~ e,
Ibo I'"P 10 L"'-P-S
f
I -1 $
~. I"I)C-CAL lFOIN I A
I}.e I-P TO C"P'S
41.,,am I"I.NIIIETA 4MI[&
$e~. Doer.let.
$0c' IYER$1DF.. CDU~T¥ PL^N~INC DEPA~E~','T
imp
.v o~
C
.L.!
//
1141
A
'il C D
// I
/ I
/ I
I
I
I
% I
SUBMI'R'AL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TEMECULA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: The Planning Department SUBMI'R'AL DATE:
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5446 - MDC
REQUEST: I-P to C-P-S
- CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Planning Commission and Staff Recommend
AnC~PTI~N of a Negative Declaration for E.A. Number 33728 based on the
findings incorporatedin the environmental assessment and the conclusion that
the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
APPROVAl of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5446 from I-P to C-P-S in
accordance with Exhibit 2, based upon the findings and conclusions
incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated November 29, 1989.
J(~ph A~/Richards, Planning Director
PROJECT LOCATION:
Western side of Ynez Road, north of Winchester
Road, adjacent tg Interstate 15.
BACKGROUND:
Change of Zone No. 5446 is an application to
change the zoning on a 6.5 acre site from I-P to C-
P-S. The site is the northern portion only of a parcel
which totals 13.85 acres.
ItlVE~SIK COUtrrv PLMNING OOI~ISSION KilttriES
IIOVENKR Zg, 1989
OF I~KIPONEHT:
Izzf (M~khim & Assoc., 4X?S0 lttnchester Rold, TIBeCUl&) Concurred lfith
rKmmmnditlo, If apl~oval. NO one else viahad to camant.
· is closad it 0:26 I.u.
FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS: CamriSe If Zone.No. SSIS ts in Ip_plt.citton to change
the zone me 31 acres frml R-A-S to R-3, surrounding zonl~ lS RoA-S,
It-3, C-P-S C-I/C-P; the prope~y tn ~tstton ts curren.tl~ vacant;
uses tnclude ham corrals, am11 colaerClal Ilses, matered
es Land Use Planntng A~I; land u.se pal.totes .ull for .future
.thin d~valopment occur adjacent to the Pure1 center; TM I~OjeCt 1s also
wtthtn the Te~ttorles Cmmuntty Plan ~tch designates the
to Spectftc Plan No. .hfch calls for mlt(-fmntly
denstry If 20 dye1 ts per acre, and close to approved Plot Plan No.
10284, ~tc~ ts in sentor. ctttzen aper.tmnt canplax it a 'denst~y of
13.S dwlllng untts ;and, envtromental concerns tnclude floodplains,
peleontolfitcal resources d' too~ $. ChinBe If ZoN No. SS2S ts consistent
vtth the C(mprehenstve hner.I1 lan arid the approved Southvest Area CamlJri~t.y
Plan; 1s tempetibia vtth area lopmerit; and, tim envtromentll concerns vtll
kava to be litigated it tht ttm developant.
MOTION: Upon morton by Conantsstonet
and uMntmusly cirrtad,
Declaration for EA 34017 ~ Cmmtsst,
appr.oval
per. E~htbtt 2, based on the above
seconded by Comntsstoner. kadltng,
rectumrended adoptton of the Negittve
of Zone SSSS from R-A-Sto R-3
s Ind conclusions.
AYES: ComtsstoMrs Turner, lioNhoe,
I, Idolf end Smtth
GE OF ~ 6446 - EA ~37Z8 --NX:-Ciltfomta - Ilurrletl Area - First
~ll.~ltordsorlal tittrier - 6.k ic~et, earth of ¥taclmster lid, trust wf hez ad -
C-P-S. etc. (Cent. ~ 9AK)/I~) (DICJ
3
STAFF ~~ND&TXON: Adoptton of the Nqittve Doclaritton for f,A 33728 and
#p~oval of Change of Zone aM6 bised on ~he flndtMs BM conclusions Itstad
be II~ff Npo~t. St4f¢ roytied that ~hts tt4n ms continued ~o allaM ttm for
the Southwest Area Pl&n to k approved, end ntd that the_P1a~.
/M team of kpt~vtso~s ~ts~e~dly. The SourMast Area floe
subject stUu cemerctel end the proposed zontq ts conslst4nt
dean Keller (IMr~hin end Assoc., 4~7S0 ¥tnchester Raid, Teucula) brought on
ecet~ showtee be S~AP destgMttoM for that iTM. SM Utd th_~t she us tn
co~cu~ence utah the ~ecomneWtto~s of PlaMtng I~ff. io aM else ~shed to
Gallant.
The h#~tng ms closed it 9:33 i.e.
FINDINGS M~ CONCLUSIONS: Chon0e of Zone S,6 ts a pr~osll ~ Winge ~e
~t~ ~ a 13.85 ic~ ~el; ~ ~.~ ts ~ntl~ :o~ Z~ aM ts
·eunt; ~nd*~ zont~ ticlugs I~. C-Pea. HoSC e~ sm R-R; ~
11es ~,n be Sourest Te~t~r~ ~ Use Plenntng Am; ~ ~o]e~ stte ts
htqo~ II cmrctal; end. [nvt~ntal ~sessmnt ~. 33728 ms ~ne for
this ~oJeR aM ~. nvl~n~ ts~es ~dress~ ~tn ~11 k ~ttgated.
~n~ ~ Z~ ~6 Is ~nsts~nt ~ ~ ~~st A~a ~,tV Plant ts
~tlble ~ i~l Mvelo~nt& led, onvt~ntll ~ce~s Mn M ~tt~ted
slgntftMnt ~fect ~ ~ envt~nt.
NOTION: Upon morton by Cemmtasloner Tu~Mr. secoruled by ComulsstoMr DoMhoe
end uMntmously ca~ed. tAe C(mntaston recoanended adoptton of be Negettwe
Declaration for [A 33728 imf approval of CMnge of Zm, aM6 fl*em I-P to C-~-S
tn ecco~dince utah [~htbtt ! end blsed on tM above mimed ftndtnge and
AYtS:
Conntssloners Turner. DoMhoe. BMdllng. Ik)lf IM kltth
SEPTINBER 20, 1989
KIYERSID[ COUNTY PLANNING COWItZSS~ON ~NUTES
land; ~tte ts zoned R-R; $urr~ndtng zontng tnclude$ R-R, R-Z, C-P-S and
C-1 stte 11es vlth the urMntzt~ co~t~r ~fe~nced tn t~ land use'
~1tctes ~ut~st Te~J~ Land Use Planntng~a; t~ a~a ts
Z~ ~t~ and ~ ~ect ts co.latent ~th thts
Categ~ mats ~or~ IX ~t~nttal land use c~te~l; ~he
r~e
st~'s ~ntatt .red land use ~st~atton on ~ ~t~t A~a.
~nt~ Plan ts ~/ac~; and, t~ tntttal s~ ~r
~s~mnt ~. .~cated ~ fo11~ conce~ Y~lt h~a~,
s~btlt~, ~ologlcal a~haeologtcll ~sou~es. T~ ~oposed ~3ect ts
~tstent th ~ ~d ~ut~st Te~~ ~nd Use Poltctes
and Ca~o~ II crt~rla, ~ ~th t~ Generl~ Plan; ts ~pa~tble
~ ~ 1~al ~t~ o~ iv ~veto~ent~ and, ~ en~menta~ ~ncer~ can
~ mitigated ~ a level of silicate, t~fo~, t~ ~posal ~11 not
~u a st~tftcanL effect on
~TI~: ~n rotton b~ ~t sKon~d b~ ~tsstoner
hr~ance, and unantmousl~ cartted, ',~tsston rK~en~d ~ the Board
adoptton ~ ~e aegatt~ Declaration k 33429, approvet of ~ange of Zone
S360 f~ R-R to R-Z tn accordrice ~th btt 2, and ~prova~ o~ Tentatt~
Tract No. 22656, bengal No. 2, ~bJect to con~ttons of ~proval as
~en~d thts ~e and ~sed u~n t~ a~ ftn~ngs and conclusions.
~LL ~L ~TE ~LT~ ~ ~~:
AYES: ~1sstone~ Tu~er, ~nahoe, ~adltng, once and
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(AGENDA IT~ 2-5 - Tape ZB) . .
CHANGE OF ~I:)NE 6446 - EA 33728 - IK)C California - 14u~rteta Area -Ftrst
Supervisortel Dtstrtct- 6.5, acres, noah of ¥tnchester Rd, vest of Ynez Rd -'
I-P to Cop-s, etc. (Cont. frm 8/2/80)
BoaHag ms opened it :~0:39 &.n. and ues continued to g:30 aJ. on
govmd~r 29,
Tbts 1tan was cunttnued t~m the August Snd beartag tn order to a110~ time for
P- ~011t an ~he Slt~ la3aCanT, To Tnei& ~ nor~n
esC- S ng
a~)Sd. Staff had originally I~OpeSed approval of this project, as a camaro_to
ase en the stte uould be crapetibia ~th an.tat.trig ,la.n.d uses In.
gould be consistent ~tth the current kneral fain. novever,
i~proved Southuest Area Plan destgnatos the stte es Light Zndu. s_trlal, T~
cur?ant l-P zontng of the stte ts cunslstent vlth the I~OpeSeO southeast Area
· ele~.~.~t~.or., u~11e the 1~op~sed ¢-P-S zo~.~ng u~u~ be tnco~s~,se.e~,~. ~.h t.~
...... ItIVERS~DE COUNTY PLANNING COI414ISSION #ZNUTES $EPTE)4BER 20, 1989
designation. Staff continued to recommend approval of the proposed change of
zone based on the ftndtn~s and conclusions 11seed tn the staff report.
TESTZlIDNY OF PROPONENT:
~Tlan Keller (#&rkhan and Assoc.. 41750 Oaflarson Road, Teaecula) satd that the
last ttme she ~s before the C...tsston she gave a lengthy .xplanaUon:as to
t~y she felt that tht s zone change .as ~pp~oprtate. She mated to ..p~astze
that Planning staff, vhose profession It ts to datarathe the appropriateness of
& pre~ect, has determined and recemaended that this pro~Ject ~s compatible 1Math
&res development and consistent Mth the current General Plan. The staff
requtred to make coaststoney ftndings based on the extst4ng General Plan. She
asked tf Planntng staff ts requtred to make such findings, then ts not the
Planning Commission also requt~ed to do the sane. As for the tentatively
t~reved Soutl~est Area Plan, that plan ts currently tn the heartag I~OCeSS and
cleslgnatton may change.
Cennlsstoner Turner asked staff tf anythtng has changed. 14s, ~ohnson $atd that
tn constricting the current General Plan, staff felt that the request for
con~erctal was appropriate, but conceded that the proposal ~ls Inconsistent
vlth Sk~AP. Cena~tsstoner Turner said that he dtd not have & problm Mth the
proposed use. Zf the applicant was vtlllng to take s chance on the $VAP and
consistency zontng, then he vould not have a problem vlth the applicant's
proposed zone change.
#r. Vtckers adv4sed that thts !s a legislative action only, and the Cmmtsston
does ~ot have to move' thts ttm on at thts time. One of the problms ts that
the case ts proceeding before the S~AP ts finalized. Xt lay be that
C-P-S now, then haytag to come back later and fezone the property to X-P, vmuld
subject the County TO some 11abilities based on downzoning. if they placed the
case on hold, pending the STRAP betng approved, and tf the applicant uere
Successful tn haYtag the Sourthrust Area Plan changed, then the Ccmntsston ~ould
be clear tn their recmenendatton. He did not see uhere apprOVal to C-P-$ at
thts point ess gotng to help the County. Commissioner Purrlance satd that he
suspected from prevtous testimony that the applicant nould prefer a continuance
to · denial.
Rs. taller satd that she multi prefer a contfnuance. She asked County Counsel
unit the basis for dental of the proposed change of ~one gould be, stnce the
proposal ts coapittble vlth area develolment and ts consistent vtth the current
General Plan. Nr. Vtckers advtsed that. as a legislative actton, the
Caeeta$ton could ricanBend dental of a none change vimthat or not Jt ts
nststent. The CaBal. as. Ion Is~ it tMs potnt, coast. dart_nO sanething that.may
or ~ n?t be .consistent. lie satd that the Boars uould be unhappy to have
the Caamss~on act on sanething that uould appear,to Predatesthe'U hat the
Board vents to 4b Mth SIdAP. He uould be reluctant TO beys saNthtng go
4~o..~va~ u~ch say tte the 6oa.~d's kinds on SkfAP.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COIOUS$ION 14ZNUTES SEPTE]qBER 20, 1989
IOTIMI: Upon soUon by Caratsstoner Turner, seconded by Cm~tsstoner
Purvtence, and unanimously cartted, the Caratssion continued Change of Zone No.
5446 to Novmbe~' Z9, 1989 at g:30 a.m.
ZTEX 2-5 - Ta~ lB)
OF ZO#E S409 - £A 33609 - Tcmlslav, G&brtc & Associates - Sedco/Vtldomar
Area rst Supervisortel Otstrlct - 2.94~ Kres, northwest corner of Palenat
St and neon blth IM - R-R to C-1/¢-P, e~. (Cone. finn
8/16/89 be ieUverttsed)
Rovmber
..ned at 10:50 a~. and ds continued to 9:30 a.m. on
9.
STAFF i:
tierile1 of Change
the staff .report.
acres, locged at the
Road, from R-R to C-1
log house currently
Adoptton of the Negattve Declaration for EA 33609 and
5409 hsed. on the ftndtngs Ind conclusions 11sted tn
I~Oposal ts an epp31catton to change the zone on 2.94
corner of Palomar Street and C11nton ICetth
Surrounding Zonlng ts R-R and C-1/C-P. A too:st. ory
the project stte. Surrounding land uses tnclude
stngle flatly residences ehomes (some vlth horses) and vacant parcels.
The pro,act ts located te Southwest Area Camuntty Plan and the~e ts no
$pectftc policy for thts area. sane constraints to g~ovth tnclude
lncreued burdens on publtc :1es and services, and envtromenta~
constraints. Staff datemined area _ts Category Ill, due to the rural
character of the area and the extsl large ]or stzes. The proposed change of
zone ts, therefore, Inconsistent wt 6erietel Plan Land Use designation and
ts tnccmpittble Mth exlsttng land uses. The SI~AP p~an deslgnges the stte as
Pestdenttal, 2-4 DU/acre, and therefore proposed zone change ts also
tKonststint wtth the proposed S~JAP plan.
In ensver to Canmtsstoner Purv~ance, stiff
posttton to thts proposal wro attached to
· ~ohnson idylsad that the letters tn question
the folioring change of zone (C;Z 5409 ind CZ 5411).
to the ImCket for Change of Zone 5411.
~d that the bo letters tn
staff report tn error.
tn opposition to thts and
the letters are attached
Pie 011ve~(Tautslev, GabfiG & Assoc., 8:7gZg Front St.,
that. the people vim sutnltted the tuo letters In opposition
of thts IrOposal. She $etd that she had the orlgtnal letters
did lot ken coptes. Stiff tdvtsid thit they had not )It race1
California) sald
no~ tn support
but
bid
satd
be &pp~oved. She set~ th&t thts you, d be a lo91ca~ e~tensto'
htters, end Its. 01fNr give the letters to staff. She set d that
&_lread~ stated Mty ~ feet that the careereta1 ms appropriate.
that en the September Sth keartng of the SidAP plan, tlKy asked that
prepe~ty be designated for camerctal zontng, end felt confident that
request M11
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMIdISSI~ MINUTES August 2, 1989
closed at 11:30 a.m.
the
Flood
~shuba advtsed the Con~tsston regarding the dratnage dttch that wt~ be tn
of the lot wlth the offset betng near the property 1the. fie satd the
wt~] leave thts situation up to the applicant.
Iqr.
the lot.
&d no I~Ob]em wtth the dratnage dttch betrig located tn the back of
FI#DINGS AND JSI~S: Tentative Tract No. 13165 ts a p~oposal to subdivide
&ftve acre ~to stx 0.69 acre lots, tn the Padlay area; the p~operty ts
zoned 000 vacant; su~oundtng zontng tncludes R-A-20,000, A-lb
~nd A-1-4; the 1es vrithtn the Jurupa Cmmuntty Plan; the land use
designation ts Rural Re~ entta~ 3A, 0.4 - 2 du/acre (2~ - ~ acre ~ots) and ts
trl~htn the Jurupa Protec~ Sphere; adjacent lots stzes are ½ to 1~
acre and Environmental No. 33525 was done for thts p~oJect and the
· nvtronmental tssues addres :he~tn wtll be mitigated. Tentative Tract No.
13165 ts consistent wtth the )a Comuntty Plan and Equestrian Sphere
policies; tentative Tract No. ts compatible wtth a~ea development and
environmental concerns can be mttt ed through the conditions of approval.
gOTION: Upon motton by Chat~n
unanimously carrted, the CO~ts$ton
Declaration for EA 33523 and approva~ of
based on the ftndtngs and conclusions tn
of the Flood Control.
ecoadad by Cemmlssloner Purvtance and
.nded adoptton of the Negattve
~attve Tract No. 13165 , Amd. ~!
and subject to the ~evtston
ROLL CALL RESULTED AS FOLLD/S:
AYES: Commissioner Turner, Donahoe, Beadling,
,ca, $=tth
NOES: None
ABSEKT: None
(AGOIDA ITEH 2-5 - Tape 2A)
CHANGE OF ZONE 5446 -EA 33728 - goC - Coltrolla - fiu~rleta Area -Ftrst
S~pervtsortal Otstrtct - 6.5~ acres, north of Ntnchester Rd, ~est of Ynez lid -
I-P to C-P-S, etc.
lleartng opened at 11:31 a.m. and ~as continued to 9:30 a.m. on September 20,
1989.
STAFF I~~TIOII: Adoptton of the Negative t)eclaratton for Envtromnental
Assessment No. 33728based on the conclusion tMt the pre3ectwt11 ~ot have a
~tgntflcaat ~'fecton the environment &rid approval of Change of Zone M46 from
I-P to C-P-S based on the prevtous ftndtngs and conclusions. The applicant ls
p~Dpostng to chan~e the zontng on 6.6 acres from I-P to C-P-S. The proposed
:Fro3ect ts ]~'.~:e~ ~r~ ,of kinc~e~ ~, e~ cf 1-15 ~d ~: of Inc: Ro~d
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING ¢OH~4ISSIOH MINUTES August 2, 1989
tn the Fturrteta area. Currently the Stte ts zoned Z-P, surrounding zoning
tncludes Z-P, C-P-S, I~SC and some R-R. The subject site consist of a portion
of a 13.85 acres porcel that ts currently vacant. The land uses in the area
tnclude vacant parcels, offtce buildings &rid comerctal. The project 11es
withtn the Southwest Territory L~nd Use Planntng Area which indicates that
there is en urbentztng corrtdor ·long the Z-15 freway. Staff advised that the
land use designation on the stte ts C~tegory Z]. The project ts also located
within the proposed Southmst Area ;ommntty Plan which was tentatively
approved by the Planntng ¢omtsston on ,luly 12, 1989. The proposed land use
designation ts L-%-Ltght Industrial. #htle the proposed ch. ange .of .zone is.
Jnconststent vdth the tentatively approved SWAP, staff ftnas that the project
is consistent with the current Southrest Territory Land Use Planning Area and
therefore consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the project is
ccxnpmttble with the extsttng land uses. An initial study for EA 33728 was
completed and the concerns addressed will be wittgated at the time of
development. Commissioner Purvtance expressed concern with the proposed
project not being consistent vrith the SWAP that is betng proposed, but it is
consistent with the existing General Klan and staff is recommending approval;
he did not agree with this logic. Co,,,tsstoner Donmhoe stressed this may be
the opinion of one of the Supervisors but not all, it ts her understanding that
those cases that are in conflict with the existing General Plan should not be
sent up to the Board. C~mmisstoner Purvtance replied the case in question is
consistent with the existing General Plan but it All be inconsistent with the
SWAP tf it is adopted by the Board.
TESTZHONY OF PROPONENT
dean Keller (~rkhmm & Associates), 27715 ~efferson Avenue, Suite 201, Tenmcula
representing the applicant concurred ~th staff's recommendations.
go~tsstoner bonahoe inquired where is this project in relation to the home
Improveant project that ms wtthdrm~m. Ms. Keller said the home Improveant
project is to the north and the reasoning behind the withdrawal of this project
resulted because of the type of use proposed in this area (commercial}.
Because of the comnerctal use on the home t~rovement project, it was
determined by the Planning Director that this type of use on this project ~ould
be inappropriate for this piece of land.
Tigre l~s ~o one present in fevor or in opposition to this project.
Mr. Vtckers advised this gmse is consistent with the SWAP plan, it can be sent
foryard. Cmmntsstoner Smtth stated they hive heard from two Supervisors tn the
area and they hive both given their opinion of what they would 1tie to see done
and whether or not there is · Board opinion, he did not know. Commntsstoner
Turner sItd be did not hive any problems with the pro;}ect.
Mr. klys advised that the Board of Supervisors 1i aware of the conflicts and
the~fo~e s~thtng amy be forth coming to resolve these problem.
~c~.~i$~ione, Do.~hoe seid she ~Id ~ r~luct~t t~ ~:,~,'"~¥~ So.~hf~; thP_t is
11
~VERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~ISSION MINUTES August 2. 1989
Ns. Keller $atd tt ms her understanding tf the case ts consistent ~tth ~hat
extst no~, then that ts ~hat tt should be Judged on because there ts no u~y of
lmc~tng ~hat the future wuld be on the S~AP. She personally felt since thts
rise ts consistent vtth the adopted 6eneral Plan is It ts no~, thts case should
be considered tn thts linttar. C~mtsstoner Purrlance asked ~hat Is the t~rry
for this area to be zoned ¢~merctal stnce there are & lot of c~merctal
kroJects Prtsently tn thts Irea. Rs. Keller replted thts case ms submitted on
rch 31 Ind It his gone for several ~onths and the c11ent muld like to
Ikvelop the property.
#r. Vlck~rs advised tf this p~oJect ls dented today, tt vd11 he filed vtth the
Board and tt vt11 prebably ~ ml)Pealed by the oppltcant. He stated he spoke
ldth the Planntng Dtrector find out tf there yes some vmy to expedite the
SIMP coming back to thin (meant rig the resolution) for thetr ftnll Ipproval and
get tt to the Board as fast as posstble so that some of the Problms can be
rlso1 veal.
NS. Keller commented she spoke ~Ith Brta~ Beck of the Souripest Area Tern
regarding thts area hetng sho~n is Industrial on the SkIAP m~o and the reasoning
Mas Ix~ause tt ts already Z-P zontng. She noted that up unttl Decotuber 1987.
the zontng on thts proper~y yes C-P-S.
Ns. Keller Nent on to elaborete on the Problm of c11ents ~th projects along
the freev~y corridors. She idvtsed that those c11ents Ntth Projects along the
freev~y frontage hive htgher lease rates.
kcluse of the aboYe discussion of thts case tn regard to the S~AP outtree, the
Commission ~oreed to continue thts case.
NOTION: Upon morton by Cmntssloner Turner, seconded by C~mlssloner Boed~lng
and unanimously carried, t~ C~1sslon contt~ed Change of ~ S~ ~
~pt~r ZO at 9:30 a.m.
2-6 - Tape 2A) .
~:HANGE ~: CASE 4933 - EA 31632 - Charles Ooner - Lakeland Vtllage Area
Ftrst Su I&l District - 60~ icres, rest of Nlchado, list of Plmis St -
R-R to .
TRACT IMP ~937 - g8 6(~ acres - Schedule A
opened at I1:92
closed at 1:02
STAFF IE~NI)ATZON: Adoption of attve Declaration for EA 31632 based
en the conclusion that the I~oposed v111 iGt k4ve i $1gntflc&nt effect
en the environment end Ipproval of Chlnge No, 4933 ffm RoR to
R-Ao20oOO0 tn accordinca ~th Exhtbtt 2 Ind el of Tentative Tract No.
12
Zontn~ Area: #urrleta
Supervisortel District:
E.A. #umber: ~$728
Reglon&l Te~m No.: One
Ftr$%
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 6446
Plenntng Commission: 11-29-89
C~m~_~.~ ~:z~: 9-20-8~, 8-2-89
KTVERSZDE OCIJNTY PtANNZNG DEPARTNENT
STAFF REPORT
2.
3.
4.
10.
11.
12.
1~.
Ap~ltoant:
Engtneer/Rep.:
Type of Request:
Location:
Exlattng Zontng:
Surrounding Zontng:
Stte Charec%erlsttcs:
Area Charactertat. Ice:
Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
Land Dtvtslon Data:
Agency Recommendations:
Letters:
Iphere of ZnfluenM:
NDC - California
N~rkhlm and Aasocte%es
Z-P to C-P-S
North of #tachester Road, east of I-
lS, ~estofYnezRoad
Z-P
Z-P, C-P-S, H-SC, end R-R
Vacant parcel vhlch tmd some grading
tn the recentpast. Gomgrassy areas.
Zndustrtal park, some coglgercta],
81ngle-fimlly residential
Lind Use:
lndustrlal
Density: N/A
Open Space/Cons.:
Total Acreage:
Tot&l Lots:
DU Per Acrs:
Propesed #tn, Lot Size:
8N Let%er Di~ed:
Road: 4-3-89
M&l%h: 4-14-89
Flood: 4-28-89
FI re: 4-2~-89
CALTRANS:
O~poitne/$up~orttng: None
Not vtthln ·
C&t. egory ]:! - Cm~erctal-
Areas Not. Designated
6.51
Parc of 1 lot
N/A
N/A
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 6446
~t,~ff
I,~e2
Jintral Plln Colls1atency/Are~ C.~-t16111ty
The project 1tea wtthtn the ~ou~h~eat Territory Lend Use Plenntng Area, vhtch
lndtc&tes tl~t there ta &n url~ntztng Gorrtdor elo~g the Z-15 ¢reevay.
Staff h~s derstained that t, he project ta C~tegory Z! (roemercia1 lencl use
cleatgr~t 1on.
Exlsttng 1end uses In the erea tnclude v&¢ant parGels, some offtee buildings,
and some commercial uses, Including a f&at-food restsurest.
The DroJect la e11o located wtthtn the Dropo~ Soughvest Area Community Plan,
vhlch was ten%attvely &DDroved by the Pl&nnlngColmt$slononJuly 12, 198g. The
proposed land usa designs%ton ls L-I - Light Industrial.
&~lff has determined the% the proposed change of zone ta consistent vtth the
current Mneral Plan designation. However, the proposed C-P-S zontng 1s
Inconsistent wtth the proposed Oeneral Plmn designation of Lt~ht Zndustrtal.
Due to the fact that $t&ff ta required to makm consistency findings blsed on the
current ~ener&l Plmn, $tmff finds the proposed C-P-$ zone to be ~onststent with
the Oenerml Plan, end compmttble with the existing land uses in them ires.
~nvtror~en*-l'A~lvats
An tntttal Itudy for EnvironmentAl Assessment No. 33728 was completed. The
Envtronmentml Asseswent ta atticbed tO this report,. The concerns iddressed in
the E.A. will be ilSteated it develolment.
me
thanes of Zone No. 6446 11 & propo#l t~ thence the zoning on · 6.5 ecre
Itte frei %-P to ¢-~-$.
The $1te Gonititi of the ~eat, ern Iwrtton of · lS.86 I~il.
The proplrty tl ~urr~ntly zoned %-P end li violaS.
~urroundtng zontng tncludea :Z-P, C-P-8, N-SC, ~cl sale R-R.
The project lies vtthin the loutMist Territory Lind Use Pllnntng Are&.
The I~roJ~'~ llto tm Oiteeory Z! ~x.~rct~'l.
C~ANGE OF ZONE NO. 6446
~tlff Report
Page 3
!~NCLU~IONS:
Chlngl of Zonl No. ~446 16 consistent wtth the currant ~outtwmst Territory
Land Usa P]&nning Area.
Ctmnge of Zone No. 6446 t$ 4f~ent4a~en~ consistent wtth the proposed
$outl~mst Area Community Ptan. (Amended P.C. 11-29-89)
3. Ctmnge of Zon~ No. [H$46 is compatible with area d~velopment.
®
The environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of
~pp rova 1.
RECOI~DATION:
~OPT]:ON of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33728, based
on the conclusion that the project utll not have a significant affect on the
environment; and,
APPROVAL of the CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5446 from l-P to C-P-S, based on the previous
findings and conclusions.
DK:BJl
7-19-89
(~IGE OF ZONE NO. 5446
Staff Report
Page 4
FURTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATZONS:.
September 20, 1989
Change of Zone No. 5446 was continued frm the August 2rid publlc heartrig
to allou ttme for the proposed Southwest Area Ccxmu~tty Plan to be
approved. The change of zone proposes C-P-$ zontng on a stte adjacent
to the 1-15 and ~ust north of Winchester Road. Staff originally proposed
&pprova] of thfs pro~ect, as a cm~erctal use on the site ts c~mpattble
frith extsttng land uses tn the area,' and a c~merctal use ts consistent
wtth the extsttng 6eneral Plan. Hm.~ver, the tentatively approved
Southwest Area Plan designated ~he stte as Ltght Industrial. The current
I-Pzontng of the stte ts consistent wtth the Southwest Area designation,
whtle the propsed C-P-S zontng ts inconsistent wtth the Southwest Area
designation.
DK:bc
8/30/89
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
AB#: ~
MTG:
DEPT: c.'~.
TITLE:
APPEAL NO. 1
PLOT PLAN 11607
DEPT H~'
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR .".,~4~ /
Recommendation
The Planning Staff recommends:
That the City Council UPHOLD the appellant's APPEAL, subject to the
recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer, based on findings and
analysis contained in the County report, and
APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis and findings
contained in the County staff report, subject to the conditions of approval
as revised in APPEAL No. 1.
Case Information
Date Appeal Filed:
Case No.:
Appellant
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
Zoning:
Surrounding Zoning:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Project Information:
April 6, 1990
Appeal No. 1, Plot Plan No. 11607
Opto 22, the Engman Family Trust.
Howard Oxley, Howard Oxley Associates.
An appeal for relief from a condition of approval placed
on Plot Plan 11607, by the Riverside County Road
Department.
North of Rancho California Road, east of Business Park
Drive.
M-SC/Manufacturing Service Commercial
North: M-SC Manufacturing Service Commercial
South: M-SC Manufacturing Service Commercial
East: M-SC Manufacturing Service Commercial
West: M-SC Manufacturing Service Commercial
North: Vacant
South: Industrial Development
East: Vacant
West: Industrial Development
Proposed 12q,000 square foot engineering facility on
approximately eight (8) acres.
ANALYSIS
Project Backc~round
Plot Plan No. 11607 is a proposal for a 12q,000 square foot electronics engineering
facility on approximately eight (8) acres in the Rancho California Business Park.
The project was tentatively approved at the County of Riverside Planning
Directors hearing on January 8, 1990. The appeal for relief from County Road
Condition No. 1 was filed with the Temecula Planning Department on April 6,
1990.
APPEAL NO. 1
PLOT PLAN 11607
Area Settin~
The project site lies within an existing industrial park development. The site has
been rough graded.
Project Description
The proposed building is divided into three (3) major functions, manufacturing,
warehousing, and offices. Parking has been adequately provided. Landscaping
constitutes 52.5 percent of the site. Employee amenities are provided which
include picnic areas and a recreation facility.
APPEAL
The applicant is appealing County Road Condition No. 1. County Road Condition
No. 1 states:
"Prior to the issuance of building permits or any use allowed by this
permit, the applicant shall submit a signing and striping plan for the
Rancho California Road/Front Street intersection providing the following
lane configuration on Rancho California Road,
Northbound - One left turn lane; two through lanes;
One right turn lane,
Southbound - Two left turn lanes; two through lanes,
The applicant shall provide any widening necessary to implement such plan
as approved by the Road Commissioner, all at no cost to any government
agency."
A typographical error was made when the Road Department letter was prepared.
The requested improvements apply to Front Street and not to Rancho California
Road as stated. City engineering staff concurs with this interpretation.
The Appellant has proposed three (3) possible courses of action based on the
appeal application:
"That the revised report (traffic) be acceptable to the City of
Temecula.
That Opto 22 be relieved of the responsibility to construct said
improvements and instead voluntarily contribute an amount of money
into a road benefit fund created by the City of Temecula.
APPEAL NO. 1
PLOT PLAN 116O7
If item number 2. above is not Ix~sible, the City of Temecula waive
the County Road Department's requirement that ':Prior to the
issuance of building permits or any use allowed by this permit, the
applicant shall submit a signing and striping plan for the Rancho
California Road/Front Street interrotation ...... "end inroad allow
same to be required prior to building occupancy, thus allowing us
to pull out building permits considerably ~ooner than would
otherwise be possible."
The Appellant's third item is quoted from the second traffic study. The second
traffic study states, "Restripe Front Street at Rancho California Road to provide
the following: Southbound; two left turn lanes; two through lanes."
The City Engineer has evaluated the Appellant's traffic study, and his
recommendations are attached.
Summary
The Planning Staff recommends:
That the City Council UPHOLD the Appellant's APPEAL, subject to the
recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer, based on findings and
analysis contained in the County report, and
e
APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis and findings
contained in the County staff report, subject to the conditions of approval
as revised in APPEAL No. 1.
CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERS REPORT
APPEAL NO. 1
PLOT PLAN NO. 11607
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council REVIEW and CONSIDER a policy for addressing conditions
of approval for traffic reports for new development projects.
BACKGROUND
The County of Riverside currently requires any development project that
immediately impacts an intersection past the level of Service C (level of Service
D at the peak hour) to be burdened with the total improvement of the
intersection. This policy has resulted in the first development adjacent to an
impacted intersection to be burdened with the full costs associated with
improvements. In some cases the cost of these improvements would make the
proposed development economically infeasible. In addition, the County~s policy
has also created numerous projects with the exact same conditions of approval for
improvements. The County's policy does not recognize any relationship the level
of impact to the level of improvements. It also does not create an equitable fair
share basis to assure the improvements get constructed.
For these reasons, Staff recommends that the following policy be adopted to
address County approved projects which have been conditioned with specific
mitigations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The applicant post a performance bond equal to the cost of improvements
listed in the mitigation requirements in the Traffic Study, prepared for the
project at the time a building permit is issued.
At the time that a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the applicant is
required to deposit an amount of $10,000.00 to a newly approved City Road
Benefit Fund. The Development Impact Fee Study currently being
prepared by Willdan Associates will determine an equitable fair share of the
developer's cost of improving the intersection based on the number of
vehicles which will be generated by the project.
When the Development Impact Fee schedule is adopted by the City Council,
the developer will either pay additional funds or receive a refund equal to
the difference between the Development Impact Fee amount and the amount
of deposit.
Notice of PubU¢ H~.nri~
THE CITY OF ~ULA
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the
matter(s) described below.
Case No: Appeal No. 1
Appellant: Opto, 22
Location: North of Rancho California Road, East side of Business Park Drive
Reason: To appeal a condition place by the Riverside County Road Department on
Plot Plan 11607, to construct lane improvements at Rancho California
Road and Front Streets.
Environmental
Action: Negative Declaration previously adopted.
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may
appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of
hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The
proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City
Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM.
Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula
Planning Department, (714) 694-1989.
The time, place and date of the heating(s) are as follows:
PLACE OF HEARING:
DATE OF HEARING:
TIME OF HEARING:
Rancho California Water District Community Room
28061 Di,, Road
Temecula
Tuesd~. June 5. 1990
7:00 PM
.VICINITY MAR
VICINITY MAP
NORTH
CASE SUMMARY
CASE NO. FTA 036-89
I10. 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION:
electronic engineering facility.
REA: Temecula
GENERAL PLAN:
a. LAND USE:
ZONING:
a. SITE: M-SC
b. ADJACENT: M-SC
LAND USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT:
a. SITE: Vacant
b. ADJACENT: General Office/Warehouse
MAJOR ISSUES: Liquefaction, flooding,
through the Conditions of Approval.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
DATE: January 8, 1990
E.A. 34521
PLOT PLAN #0. 11607, NIERDED #0. 1, PI.MINING CORRECTION
To construct a 123,910 square foot
Southwest Territory - Southwest Area Community Plan.
Light Industrial
and traffic impacts will be mitigated
~ECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of FTA 036-89, PLOT PLAN #0. 11607, AMENDED NO. 1,
ALINING CORRECTION I10. 1 and ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for E.A.
4521 based on the following findings and conclusions:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 348 and Ordinance 460.
3. The project is consistent with the zoning on the parcel on which it is
located and meets the development standards of the zone.
4. The project is compatible with surrounding derelopement.
5. The project has no significant environmental effects and a Negative
Declaration may be adopted.
JC:gs;sc
[/04/89
PLANNING DZRECTOR'$ HEARING DATE: ~ANUARY 8, 1990
OPTO 22
15461 $prtn~Jale Street
Huntington Beach. CA 92649
FTA 036-89, PLOT PLAN lB. 11607, MEI)E3)
lB. 1, PLNIIIIS ~Oil lB. I
Project Description: Construction of in
elec%ro, Jc englneertng f&ctllty
Assessor's Pircel No.: g210020-06S-3
Arel: Temcule
0
The use hereby permitted by thts plot plan ts for & 123,910 square foot
electronic engineering fac111ty uhtch tncludese lobby (4.855 sq. ft).
offtce (20,250 .sq. ft.), mr.house (45,520 sq ft), end a Inufac~urlng
(53,285 sq. ft.)
The pen, tttee shall defend. Indemnify. end hold h&r~less the County of
Riverside. 1rs Igents. officers. end e~ployees from in). cl&tm. Ictton. or
proceeding &gatnst the County of Riverside or 1rs Igents. officers. or
el~)]oy~es to Ittack. set &stde. votd. or annul, In eppr~val of the County
of Riverside. 1rs &dvtsory &genctes. appeal boards. or legislative body
concerning FTA 036-89, PLOT PU~ BO. 11607, MEI)ED lB. 1, PLMNI#G
I:MU~CTZOII NO. I . The County of Riverside wtll promptly nottry the
ln.tttee of such clltm. Ictton. or procudtng &gatnst th.e ~un..ty of
verstde .rid ~ to
cooperate fully tn the defense. If the County Tilts
promptly nottry the permittee of e~y such cl&tm, &ctton or p~oceedtng or
f&11s to cooperate fully tn the defense, the permittee shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, tndenntfy, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
Thts Ipproval shall be used ~tthtn t~o (2) years of &pp~oval date;
otherYise tt sh&11 becoM null tad votd end of no effect uhitsoever. By
use ts mant the bogInning of substantial construction contomplited by
t~ls approval ~thtn the bo (2) ~ear ~ertod uhtch ts thereafter
dtltgent?~ Imrsued_ to cmpletton. or the beginning of substlnttll
uttllntlon cont,,plated by thts Ipprovel.
The daveloire. at of the pre~Ises shill confore substlnttelly ~lth that is
$hmm on plot pll~ m~ed ~tbtt A, Mn~d ~. 1, Planntng ~ctton '
~. I or es mn~d by ~e cmdltlo~. (~nded ~r Dt~cto~'s ~rtng
on U8/ )
In the event tke ~se hereby permitted ceases operettoh for a pert od of one
(1) ~eir or ire, this &pprovel shall become mll end votd.
AKY outstde 11ghttng shall be hooded end dtrected so is not to shtne
d!rectly upon &dJotntng proper~ or Imbllc rights-of-May, end shall comply
~lth Ordinance No. 655.
PLOT PLAR BO. 116O7
NKI)ED BO. 1
CoMtttons of Approvsl
Page 2
e
8,
10.
11.
'12.
13.
14.
1S.
16.
The applicant shall comply vlth the street 1spray·merit racomrenditions
outltmed tn the County Road Department transMttal dated 12/2_7/89 a copy of
tfhtch ts sat·chad. (Mended per D~rector's IJeartng on
IMter and say·rage dtsposal facilities shall be Installed tn acco,dance
vtth the p~ov~stons set forth ~n the R~verstde County Health Department
tr&nsmtttal dated 12-7-89, I copy of ~htch ts attached.
flood protection ·be11 be provtded tn accordance'vdth the Riverside County
Flood Control Dtstrtct transmittal dated 12-21-89, I copy of uhtch ts
attached.
Ftre protection shall be provtded tn accordance wtth the appropriate
section of Ordinance 546 and the County Ftre ~rden's trans·late1 dated
1/8/90 a copy of ~htch ts attached. (Amended per Director's Heartng on
1/8/90)
The applicant shall comply vtth the ~ecommendattons set forth tn the
Department of Butldtng end Safety Land Use Sectton transmittal dated
12-18-89. a copy of ~htch ts attached,
The applicant shall comply wtth the reconnendatlons set forth tn the
Department of Building and Safety Gradtng Sectton transmittal dated
12-20-89, s copy of uhtch ts attached.
The applicant shall comply vtth the recommendations set forth tn the
Riverside County Geological Report No. 601 end is stated tn the
Geologist's transmittal dated 7-3-89, a copy of vhtch ts attached.
The sppltcant shall comply vtth the recomuendattoos set forth tn the
Eastern Iqunlctpal Natmr Otstrtct's transmittal dated 12-8-89, 11-30o89, a
copy of vhtch ts sttached.
The &ppltcant shall comply u lab the recommndatlons set forth tn the
Department of Butldtng and bPety - Plan Check tramsadttal dated 12-8-~J,
· copy of tlhtch ts attached.
All landscaped areas skill be planted Jn accordance vlth spproved
landscape,_trrSgittc~ ~d ·bedtrig plans prtor to the tssuance of occupancy
peaIts· M MmlittC Sprintlet system shall be Installed end ill
11~dSCilmd &r~s sl~_e11_ be ·mint·tried tn e_ vlable grovth condition.
fl~tfng v4thtn ten (10) feet of an an_try or exlt drtvevay ·hal 1 not be
Imruttted to grov htgher than thirty (30) Jnches.
PLOT FLM BO. 116O7
Ceedtttons ef
Fame 3
17.
18.
Prtor to the tssuance of gradtag or butldtng pereta, 8the (g) coptes of a
Parktag, Landscaping, Irrigation, and ShadingPlans $hall be sulmttted to
the Planntng Departeat for &pproval. The 1,ca,ten, number, genus,
spectes, and con,ether slze of the plants shall be sho~m. Plans shall
meet &11 requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Sac,tone 18.12, and shall be
&ccompanted by m ftltng fee as set forth tn Sac,ten 18.37 of Ordinance No.
348.
A total of 196 parktag spices shall be provided tn accordance ~th Sac,ten
18.12, Riverside County ~dtnmnce No. 348. A~ Pa~tng s~ces sha~ be
p~vtd~ is sh~ on the ~p~oved Exhtblt A, Mnded No. I. The parktn9
I~a sha~ ~ su~lc~ ~th upha~ttc conc~te Paytag ~ I mtntmm depth
of 3 taches on 4 taches of Cliss II ~se. (~nded ~r Director's ~artng
on 1/8/90)
lg. A total of stx (6) handicapped Parktag spaces shall be provtded as show
20.
on Exhtbtt A, Amended No. 1. ~mch Parktag space reserved for the
handicapped sha~l be 1den,tried by a PenMnently afftxed retqectortzed
stgn constructed of porcelain on stee], beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The slgn shall not be smaller
than 70 square tnches In irma and sha~] be centered it the tritertar end of
the perktn9 space it a mtntmum hetght of 80 taches from the bottom of the
stgn to the parktn'g space ftntshed grade, or centered it a mtntmum hetght
of 36 taches from the Parktag spice ftntshed grade, ground, or stde~alk.
A stgn. shall &1so be posted tn a conspicuous p~ace, at each entrance to
the off street Parktng facility, not less thin 17 taches by 22 taches tn
stze ~tth lettering not less than ! tach tn hetght, ~htch clearly and
conspicuously states the fall,,ring:
"Unauthorized vehtcles not displaying distinguishing placards or
11cease plates tssued for physically handicapped persons may be to, ed
I~ay at o~ner*s expense. TMd vehtcles amy be reclaimed at
or by telephoning .'
In &ddttton to the above requiremats, the surface of each parttrig place
Shall have · surface 1den,trice,ten stgn duplicating the symbol of
&ccesstbtltty tn blue Patna of et least 3 squirm feet tn stze.
Prtor to the 1stance of I buildtag persalt. the eppltc&nt shall obtetn
clearmace amS/or Immtts fKm the felleying agencies:
Road Department Riverside County 1flood Control
Envlrormentel Health Ftre Department
County Geologist Eastern Iquntctpal triter Mstrtct
Atr ~ual tty Control Bo&~d.
Butldlng and Safety - Land Use and Gradtag
¥rltten evtdence of campit&ace shall be presented to the Lind Use Dtvtston
of the Department of lutldtng end Safety.
~LOT PLAN NO. 116O7
ME]~ED NO. 1
Cendtttons of Approve1
I~e 4
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Butldlng elevations and floor plans shall be tn substintt&l conformance
vtth that shorn on Exhtbtts
I~tertals used tn the construction of all buildings shall be tn
substantial confonmnce ~th that shmm on Exhtbtt I~l(Color Elevations)
and Exhtbtt I~Z (Nateft·Is Board). These ere as lollors:
Extertor Kal 1
Boors Frames and
adjacent valls
¥tndov $ysten
Sandblasted Concrete
Pathted Natal
IM~r'al Color
Rust
Ttnted Glass Bronze
Roof-mounted equtpmnt shall be shtelded from ground vte~.
mterta] shall be subject to P]anntng Department approval.
.Screening
A 10 x 30 foot trash enclosures ~htch ts adequate to enclose a total
three btns shall be centrally located ~thtn the project, and shall ~
constructed prtor to the tssuance of occupancy peTerIts. Each enclosure
shall be s~x feet ~n height and shall be made v~th masonry block and an
opaque gate vtth a self-latching device ~h~ch screens the b~ns from
external vte~.
Landscape screening shall be destgned to be opaque up to a mtntmum hetght
of stx (6) feet at mturtty.
All street 11ghts and other outdoor 11ghttng shall be shovm on electrical
plans su~ttted to the Department of Butldtng and Safety for plan check
&pproval and shall cmply Mth the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County comprehensive General Plan.
Thts project ts located vtthtn a Subsidence Report Zone. Prtor to
lssuance of uny butldlng pemtt by the Riverside County Departmnt of
lutldtng Indsafety, · California Ltcensed Structural Engtneer shall
carttry that the tntended structure or butldtng ts safe and structurally
Integrated. Thts certification shall be based upon, but not be 11mtted
to, the stte spectftc sttslrlc, geologtc and geotechntcal conditions.
klhere hazard of subsidence or ftssure development ts determined to extst,
Ipproprtate adttgatton measures lust be demonstrated.
I)rlor to tssulnce of gredtng per·fits, the &ppltcent shall colply vtth
Ordinance No. 663 by plytrig the fee requtred by that ordinance vhtch ts
based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development.
Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the p~ovtstons of · Hlbttat
Conservation Plan prtor to the payment of the fees requtred by O~dtnance
PLOT I)LM gO. 116O7
fUI~ED BO. 1
Condittoes of Approval
IMge 5
30.
31.
32.
33.
#o. 663, the applicant shall pay the the fee requtred under the Habttat
Comserv~tton Plan as Implemented by Coun~ ordinance or resolution.
A mtntmum of nine (9) of Class I b?ke locker or Class II btcycle racks
shall be provided tu convenient locations to facilitate btcycle access to
the project a~ea.
Prior to tssuance of occupan~ Perutts, Ill rtqutred landscape planttng
and Irrigation shall have been ~nstslled and'be ~n a condition acceptable
to the Dtroctor of Butldtng and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and
free of ~eeds, titsease or pests. The ~rrlgatton system shall be properly
constructed and tn good uor~tng order.
All utilities, except electrical 11nes rated 33kV or greater, shall be
t nstel led underground.
Prtor to a~y use allowed by thts Plot Plan, the applicant shall obt~tn
clearance from the Department of Butldtng and hfety - Land Use Sectton
that the uses found on the subject property are tn conromance wtth
Ordinance No. 348.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complted wtth prtor to occupancy
or any use allowed by thts Permtt.
,,]C: gs ;sc
1/04/90
JAN 81 90
RIVI'~t"JE t;OUNTY
'~LANNING DEPARTMENT
2?, 1.~89
!tiversXde County Planning
4080 Lemon
P~LverlXde, CA 92501
(~ng.tne~z~.tng ~,ac.tl Lty ) ·
1"~ #036-89
pcl 8 of Fll 19580
#111-111-111-9
ladies and ~en~leamn~
x-ecc~mendat ions t
to the conditions of appz~val fo~ ~he above
the Road ~t has the follov£ng
S~aff b~- reviewed the L~vlsed traffic It'uc~y fo~ the above
referenced project. ~he traffic studlf has been pz~pa~ed in
&ccordance v£th ~CC®l~c~d ~raff[lc emglnee~lng st. anda~ts and
p~ac~lces, utilizing County &ppz~ved quidelines. ~e generally
concur v£',.h t~e findings z~lative t.o traffic
The study lndica=es a projected I~vel of Service 'C' on
~ancho California Road at l~ont Bt.r~= vl?.h ~tt£gation. The
Comprehensive ~ral Plan cal&tion policies
~ r~cessary fo~ any ~e Cat~9ory Zl land ~ll.' &s such, the
proposed proJ~c~ is consist~nt vith t.h..ts ~eneral ~lan policy.
~he folloelag ccadltloa o! approval provides for the
~ec~ssary to ~chiev~ o~ ~tntain the ~ level o£ ~lce~
Bood/~ St. reet l,n~ezJocr..I, on l:X~:~2.a.tng tam following lane
~orthbound - O~e left ~tn'a 1L~e~ two tJ~'ough Lanes~
- lob turn lanes; t~o through ~anes.
CXlOh"~ ~TI~ (~ri'!l · 44~0 L!:N~ STIIFF * IJV!:113~ ~ Y~1OI
aPlot.P1an 11607 - Mnd #1
Decmr LU, 1989
applicant roball i~covlde any vidon~ug nocossary to
much plan as app~ by tho Ro~d Cosm~tsaloa~r, all at
to any govarmmnt &gsn~.
Prior to issuance of a bulld~ pernit o~ any use allowed by ~his
petmir, the applicant shall compl®~e tho following condl~ at
~o cost to auy gov~qmamt &9~n~
2. No odd~tional right of vey roball bm z~qulz~d on Bus~nems
Pa~k D~lve aln~a mdmquat~ right of Ry e~L~.
Prior to issuance of m building pro.mir ar any use aIlowsd
by this pmz~tt, the dmvmlop~ shall' deposit vith the
Itlve~slde Cour~cy Road lMt~rCmont the sun of $15,452.50
tov&rdo mitigating traffic lmpac~o for signal z~luiz~-
Th~s auount represents 8.83 ac~es at $1,750.00 pe~ gross
acre - $15,4S2.50.
Prior to occupancy or any use alloecd by this permit, ~
applicant shall consi=uct t~] following at ~o cost to any
4. i hiness Pazk D~lvm shall be l~provmd vith 34 feet of
asphalt concrete l:~mm~mt within a _45 foot pa~ width
dedicat~d right ,~f way In accordance vlth County Standazd
in. ( 8'/39
Asphalt ~ulilon (fog seal) shall be applied
than foulmen days foll~g 91~~t of
m~iac~ ~ m~11 ~ a~llg at a ra~ of 0.05 gallon
m~ y~. ~lt ~ls~n 8~1 ~~ ~ ~~
~m~olutlon shall be ~s ~ ~ t~Lm pro:Joct and
the Ro~d Cca~Lss~o~.
Ea'ai~mg~~l~lbe a~ ~ Oz~ZL,~a,-m~ 460, lect. tcm
,11.1.
All vo~k done within County zight of way shall have an
enc~oac]~ent $1z~lt.
q~lot. ¥1sn 11607 -
Dec:mr 27, 1989
Fsge 3
10.
.1.1.
12.
13.
.1.4.
%5.
ZO.! dz%vevaym wl~mll
Cottory ataw~-,~ and ~hall
~o ~he applicable Riverside
be ahoun on ~ mtr~et
Tbe wt.m~ dewXgn'mnd %a~vmen~ oorac~el~ of this
mhall be ~t~d vA~b 1~ 19580.
S~roet lighting mhall be zequLrod An accordanco vAth
Ordinance 460 and 461. She County Service ~ (~)
~~a~r ~~s ~r ~m ~s~ ~lifies
~ ~ ~et~g ama~~t ~mtri~ or ~t. Xf mr, ~
c~ation of a 'Liqht~q ~em~nt D~Act' ~ ~~ce
~l~ ~n~ ~ ~tAon 56000.
~11 prAva~e and lmblAc entrances and/or int&rmectAons
opposite t~Am project mhall be coordinated vi~h this
pro:Joct and ohoen on the mt~wet ~u~rovemont planre.
Any landacapin~ vifJ~n public x~ad rights of ray shall
m~t~e ~gh ~ es~lAm~n~ of a %~ca~
fo~t (24' z 36'). ~ca~ ~1 ~ ~~
vl~ W s~t ~~t pl~ P~ ~lct ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
AB#
MTG
DEPT e.~.
TITLE:
APPEAL #2, TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 21'769, REVISED NO. 1
~MENDED NO. 2
DEPT HD. ~
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff recommends:
That the City Council Continue the Appeal for Revised
Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769, Amended No. 2, to the June
26, 1990 meeting, in order to allow Staff additional time
to review the project and analyze the appeal.
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Appellant:
Reason for Appeal:
Project:
Location:
Zoning:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Zoning:
SWAP Designations:
Project Statistics:
Tentative Parcel Map No.
21769
Ranpac, Inc.
J. C. Resorts, Inc.
See attached application.
Revised 4-lot subdivision of
91.37 acres.
West side of Rainbow Canyon
Road, immediately south of
the Temecula Creek Inn.
R-R Rural Residential.
R-2 Multi-family Residential
Vacant hillside property.
Rural Residential.
Residential - 8-16 dwelling
units per acre, OC - Office
Commercial; R-S Resort
Commercial.
Number of Lots: 4
Number of Acres: 91.37
Notice of Public Henr~r~
THE CITY OF ~A
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92390
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the
matter(s) described below.
Case No: Appeal No. 2; Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769
Appellant: Won Yoo
Location: Northwest of Rainbow Canyon Road, South of Pala Road
Reason: Appellant suggests map not consistent with area development; that the
project could significantly affect the environment; that the design of Street
'A" constitutes an impact not assessed; that no analysis supports required
general plan findings, that the project has been improperly conditioned,
that ridgelines and water courses, oak trees and rock outcroppings will be
lost through project implementation grading measures, that pertinent
information is lacking on the tentative map and that the environmental
assessment failed to address total impact of this project on the
environment.
Environmental
Action: Negative Declaration recommended for adoption at Planning Director's
Hearing.
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may
appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of
hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public heating(s) described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The
proposed project applicabn(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City
Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM.
Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula
Planning Department, (714) 694-1989.
The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows:
PLACE OF HEARING:
DATE OF HEARING:
TIME OF HEARING:
Rancho California Water District CommuniF Room
28061 Di~7 R~d
Temecula
Tuesda~y. June 5, 1990
7:00 PM
Tracy Louvat
26201Ynez Road
Temecula, Ca 92390
714-694-0227
, HAY 1990
May 31, 1990
Dear Frank Aleshire and City Council Members:
I am contacting you today as the recently crowned Miss Temecula
Valley. I would like to take a moment to tell you about my
forthcoming competition in the Miss California U.S.A. Pageant
and put forth a proposal. I realize your time is valuable, so
here is my request in three paragraphs. You may read the details
later on.
In order to compete in the Miss California U.S.A. Pageant, candidates
require the support of businesses and organizations in the
Temecula Valley, along with other corporate sponsors. In recognition
of their support, all sponsors will be represented in the
official Miss California program book, of which 3000 copies will be
printed. In 1989, the contestants competed before a standing-room-
only crowd of 5000. The show, produced by Guy Rex and viewed by
millions, held one of the top five slots in the Neilson ratings
for the month of August and was nominated for two Emmy Awards.
My entrance/registration fee for the pageant is $1100.00. The
Temecula Chamber of Commerce and Erickson and Associates have
already offered their support and feel confident in my opportunity
to succeed. What I am requesting from the City of Temecula, is
a $500.00 sponsorship to put towards my registration. In order
to discuss this in greater detail, I am also requesting a few
minutes to be represented at the City Council meeting taking place
this Tuesday.
I have attached information about myself and details about the event
on page two. Thank you for taking the time to read through this
proposal, I look forward to speaking with you very soon.
Sincerely,
Tracy M. Louvat
Miss Temecula 1990
RESUME OF ACHIEVEMENTS
-Director of Aerobics, Gold's Gym Temecula
-Fitness Consultant, Gold's Gym Anaheim
-Certified through IDEA(International Dance Exercise Association)
-Choreographer of dance and music for community events, i.e.
Hot Time in The City, Temecula Middle School, April 1990.
-Graduated Summa Cum Laude and Valedictorian of The Fashion
Institute of Design and Merchandising, June 1989.
-Associates degree in the fiels of Marketing and Merchandising,
June 1989.
-Experienced community representative at Chamber of Commerce
functions, City of Santa Clarita, 1989.
-Miss Frontier Belle, Canyon Country Frontier Belle Pageant 1989.
-Secondrunner-up, Miss Santa Clarita Valley Pageant, 1988.
Business owners who sponsor Miss California candidates reach
a sizeable audience they might not otherwise attract. This
audience consists of California and Nevada residents, and
affords the ability to greatly affect sales and public awareness
of products and services. I would be happy to answer any
questions you have regarding sponsorship opportunities and
benefits.
The 1990 Miss California U.S.A. Pageant will take place August
loth and 11th in Palm Springs, California.
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
AB# I! TITLE: FY 1990-91 BUDGET REVISIONS DEPT HD ~
DATE: 6/5/90 FROM MAY 29, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTY
DEPT: FINANCE CITY MGR~
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the revisions to the
Proposed FY 1990-1991 Budget that were made pursuant to the City
Council meeting held on May 29, 1990.
DISCUSSION: Attached is a schedule of the revisions made to the
Proposed FY 1990-1991 Budget in accordance with Council's direction
of May 29, 1990.
You will notice we made the specific reductions of appropriations
in the departments of Planning, Building and Safety, Public Safety
and City Council, as well as, an approximate reduction of five percent
in total Personnel Services plus Operations and Maintenance.
Please note that no reductions were made in the City Attorney or
Engineering departments, as the proposed appropriations consist of
mainly consulting services. Also, no reductions were made in
the City Clerk's proposed appropriations. Upon the review of the
City Clerk's department budget, the City Clerk's office felt that
their budget was already at a minimum level to attain the required
objectives of the 1991 budget.
A reduction of the rental payment for 1991 was based on our discussion
with Harry Clark of Muni Financial Services, Inc., who is working
on the financing for the purchase of the new City Hall.
City of Temecula
Proposed Annual Budget 1991
Adjustments per Council Direction
Proposed Appropriations 1991 (May 29, 1990)
Reductions:
Planning
Building & Safety
Public Safety
City Council
$ 192,570
492,282
200,000
125,000
$ 13,188,999
City Council
Other Outside Services
Meetings in Town/Mileage
City Manager
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Employer Taxes
Finance
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Employer Taxes
Personnel
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Employer Taxes
Information Systems
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Employer Taxes
Nondepartmental
Rent
Total Adjustments
Proposed Appropriations 1991 (June 5, 1990)
2,000
3,000
13,172
3,951
191
14,066
4,220
204
2,927
878
43
9,431
2,829
3O
25,000
(1,091,794)
$ 12,097,205