HomeMy WebLinkAbout031092 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 28816 PUJOL STREET.
March 10, 1992 - 7:00 PM
EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:30 PM - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) and (c) to discuss potential litigation.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-04
Resolution: No. 92-14
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding
Invocation
Pastor David French, Temecula United Methodist Church
Flag Salute
Councilmember Mu~oz
ROLL CALL:
Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks, Birdsall
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC FORUM
This is a portion of the City Council meeting unique to the City of Temecula. At the
meeting held on the second Tuesday of each month, the City Council will devote a
period of time (not to exceed 30 minutes) for the purpose of providing the public with
an opportunity to discuss topics of interest with the Council. The members of the City
Council will respond to questions and may give direction to City staff. The Council is
prohibited, by the provisions of the Brown Act, from taking any official action on any
matter which is not on the agenda. If you desire to speak on any matter which is not
listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with
the City Clerk.
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.
2/egenda/O310e2
03/06/82
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
2
3
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
2.2
Resolution AoorOvinQ List Of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitle~h
Approve the minutes of February 25, 1992.
Approve the minutes of February 26, 1992.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4
Award of Contract for the Construction of Street. Storm Drain and Traffic Sianal
Imorovements on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Maraarita Road
(Project No. PW 91-03 - Rancho California Road Benefit District)
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Approve award of contract for construction of street, storm drain, and
traffic signal improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez
Road and Margarita Road (Project No. PW 91-03 - Rancho California
Road Benefit District) to Oliver Brothers for $499,716.85.
21egertda/031012 2 03/06/92
Agreement for Prooertv TaX Audit and Information Services
6
8
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the agreement with Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates for
Property Tax Audit and Information Services.
Award of Professional Services Contract to NBS/Lowrv for a Preliminary Route Design
for the Western Bypass Corridor
(Continued from the meeting of February 25, 1992)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $19,810.00
to NBS/Lowry for a preliminary route design for the Western Bypass
Corridor and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
Notice of Comoletion - Sam Hicks Monument Park, Curb and Gutters
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Accept Sam Hicks Monument Park Curb and Gutter Project as 100%
complete.
7.2
Authorize final retention payment to R. J. Nobel Company, Contract No.
0276, to be released pursuant to Section 9-3.1 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction.
7.3
Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion.
Release of Public Imorovements Subdivision Warranty Bond for Parcel MaD No. 23264
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Authorize the release of subdivision warranty bond for street, water and
sewer systems.
8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer.
21egendd031012 3 03/06/e2
9
Comoletion and Acceotance of Emoire Creek Removal of Sediment and Restoration
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Accept the restoration and removal of sediment in Empire Creek, from
I-15 to Murrieta Creek, as complete;
9.2 Authorize the release of performance bond;
9.3 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion;
9.4 Authorize the release of the construction retention 35 days after the
filing of the Notice of Completion;
9.5 Authorize the release of the material and labor bond seven (7) months
after the filing of the Notice of Completion (if no liens have been filed).
10
Acceotance of Public Imor0vements in Parcel Mao No. 23561-1
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
Accept the Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 23561-1;
Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds;
Accept the subdivision warranty bond in the reduced amount;
Authorize the release of the subdivision monumentation bond;
Approve the subdivision agreement rider;
Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
11
Award of Professional Services Contract to J.F, Davidson Associates. Inc. for Land
Surveying Services on Rancho California Road Benefit District Project (PW 91-03)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Award e Professional Services Contract in the amount of $10,500.00
to J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for land surveying services on the
Rancho California Road Benefit District Project (No. PW 91-03);
11.2
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.
2/egendaK)31092 4 03/06/92
12
Authorize Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract No. 23304
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water faithful performance
bond amounts;
12.2 Accept replacement faithful performance bonds in the reduced amounts;
12.3 Approve an extension of time to January 10, 1993 for the subdivision
agreement for TR23304;
12.4 Accept a one time settlement of $103,000.00 from Investment
Development Management (IDM) Corporation for construction of certain
street and storm drain improvements;
12.5 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences
delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
13
Vestino Tentative Tract Mao No. 25004 and Change of Zone No. 5611, Overruling of
Airoort Land Use Commission Denial
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Overrule the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission's denial of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25004 and Change of Zone No. 5611.
14
2/egertdd031082
Change of Zone 5631 - Tentative Tract 25320, Bedford Prooerties
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Continue Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320 to April 14, 1992.
6 03/06,~2
15
Antenna Uraencv Ordinanc~ Adoorion
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Read by title only and adopt an urgency ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING
CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA
REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF
ANTENNAS
COUNCIL BUSINESS
16
17
18
Status Reoort on French Valley Airport
(Continued from the meeting of February 25, 1992)
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Receive and discuss.
CFD 88-12 Sales Tax AQreement Between City and Tomond Prooerties
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Approve and Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached "Agreement
Between City of Temecula and Tomond Properties, a General
Partnership, Regarding Sales Tax Revenues of Community Facilities
District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor)" in substantially the form presented,
subject to approval by the City Manager and City Attorney as to the
final form of the Agreement
Discussion County Health Department Services
(Placed on the Agenda by Councilmember Mufioz)
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
2/~gendN031012
03~6~2
ADJOURNMFNT
Next regular meeting: March 24, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol
Street, Temecula, California
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00)
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
President Ronald J. Parks
DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mur~oz
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should
present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state
your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
1.1
Approve the minutes of February 25, 1992.
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:
Next regular meeting March 24, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21egenda/O310112 7 03/06/12
TEMFCUi:A I~DEVELOpMENf'AGE~CY'MEETiNg" " " ' ....
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson J. Sal Muf~oz presiding
ROLL CALL:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~ioz, Parks,
Moore
PUBLIC COMMENT:
AGENCY BUSINESS
Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a
completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you
are called to speak, please come forward and state your name
and address for the record.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of February 25, 1992.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting March 24, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21lgendd031092 8 03/06/92
ITEM
1
ITEM
2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at PM in the Temecula
Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall
presiding.
PRESENT 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Muftoz,
Parks, Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk
June S. Greek.
EXECUTIVE SFSSION
Mayor Parks declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section
54956 (b) and (c) to discuss potential litigation at 5:42 PM.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:06 PM in regular session by Mayor Birdsall.
INVOCATION
The invocation .was given by Father Edward Renner, St. Thomas Episcopal Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Moore.
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Barbara Tooker, representative of the County Library Advisory Committee, presented the
annual report. Ms. Tooker announced that the official opening of the new library will be May
3, 1992. Ms. Tooker introduced Beth Ziegler, Temecula Branch Librarian.
Ms. Tooker asked that the City aid the County Library Advisory Committee in obtaining
permits for Iocator signs so the public will be able to find the new library. She also announced
her resignation from the County Library Advisory Committee and thanked the Council for the
opportunity to serve.
Mayor Birdsall asked that the matter of choosing a representative for the Library Advisory
Committee be placed on a future agenda.
Minutee~2%25\92 -1 - 02128/92
- CiW Coundl Minutes FebNerv 25, 1992
Mayor Birdsall read s certificate of Appreciation for Marilyn and Buel Pettit recognizing their
outstanding contribution to the senior citizens in the Temecula Valley. Mr. Buel Pettit
accepted the certificate.
Mayor Bi~dsag presented Seen- Dzikonsky · special achievement award for' obtaining Cub
Scouts highest award, The Arrow of Light.
Mayor Birdsall asked the Council, staff and community for their support in expediting City
Council meeting business. She asked that Councilmembers be prepared at Council Meetings,
that groups of citizens have one spokesperson and have the remainder of the group stand in
support or opposition of the issue, and that citizens adhere to the time limit for individual
speakers. She announced she would ask to delay any unfinished items until a future meeting
at 9:45 PM.
City Manager Dixon presented special Certificates of Appreciation to members of the City
Council for their service in their various capacities as Mayor, Mayor Pro Tam, President of the
Community Services District and Chairperson of the Redevelopment Agency.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Joseph R. Tarrazes, 31160 Lahontan Street, asked that the City Council obtain competitive
bids on all projects. He also questioned the purchase of property on Front Street, stating he
feels it is too costly.
Ralph L. Brownell, 41487 Zinfandel Ave, requested that the City Council enforce the
requirement of developers to protect downstream properties.
James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, representing Citizens for Responsible
Watershed Management, requested the City Council take measures to stop silt flowing off
new developments in the City and causing flood controls problems. He suggested inviting the
State Engineers to come and make recommendations to solve the problem.
Mr. Marpie suggested that a Design Contract for the Ynez Corridor incorporate a study of the. -
feasibility of building a flood channel under the road West of Murrieta Creek and incorporating
a truck route. He stated Federal Funds can be obtained for such a project.
CONSENT CAI ;NDAR
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemsns requested the removal of Item No. 9 from the Consent
Calendar, and stated ha wished to vote "no" on Items 11 and 12.
City Attorney Field requested that Item No. 13 be removed from the Consent Calendar
for clarification.
Nirtutes%2~25%92 -2- 02128/92
City Cem,~ Mimatee Febmerv 26. 1992
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem 'Lindemans to
approve Consent Calendar Items 1-8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 16, with Mayor Pro Tem
Lindemans voting "no" on Items 11 and 12.
The motion was. cagried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks,
Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
Minutes
2.1
2.2
2.3
Resolution AOOrOVino Listj of Demands
3.1
Approve the minutes of February 4, 1992.
Approve the minutes of February 5, 1992.
Approve the minutes of February 11, 1992.
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Status Report - Maroarita Villa43e Soecific Plan
(Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans)
4.1 Receive and file status report.
IVinutee\2%25%92 -3- 02/28/92
c~v coum, ~an.m
5. Relenea of Mon:-nent Bond for Tract No. ~ 1673-1
Februerv 25. 1992
5.1
5.2
That the City Council authorize the release of Monument Bond for Tract
No. 21 673-1
Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
6. "Speed Checked bv Radar" Signs
6.1
Approve the installation of thirteen (13) "Speed Checked by Radar"
(R48R) signs at various locations throughout the City of Temecula.
Reomdetorv end Advanced Warning Sions
7.1 Authorize Staff to purchase regulatory and advanced warning signs from
Central City Signs as the lowest responsible bidder.
10.
11.
Award of Desinn ~ontract for I endscaBs Architect Services in Conjunction with the
Ynez Corridor (CFD 88-12)
8.1
Award a Professional Services Contract in an amount not to exceed
~21,800.00 to the Alhambra Group to provide landscape architectural
design services for the median islands and replacement parkways to be
constructed within the Ynez Corridor as part of Community Facilities
District 88-12.
8.2
Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
Final Vesting Tract Mao No. ~3142
10.1
Approve the Final Vesting Tract Map No. 23142, Amended No. 1,
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
Revised Vestino Final Tract Mao No..~3~67-~
11.1
Approve Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-2, subject the
Conditions of Approval.
Minutee%2%25%92 -4- 02128/92
Ciw Ceuneil Minute Febme 25. 1992
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Mufioz, Parks, Birdsall
NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
12. Final Vesting Tract MaD No. ~6861-~
12.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 26861-2, subject to the
Conditions of Approval.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Mufioz, Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemens
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
14.
Exec,rtion of 17th Year Community Develooment Block Grant Suoolemental Agreement
14.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Supplemental Agreement for the use
of Community Development Block Grant Funds.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
15. Old Town Historical Boundary Fxoansion Ordinance
15.1
Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
EXPANDING THE OLD TOWN HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
Minute,~,2~,25%92 -5- 02128/92
City Ceumil Minute r-dmaev 26. 1992
16.
Ordinance Amending Chanter 1 ~.08 Reaarding parkina in Front of Fire Hydrants
16.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING CHAPTER 12.08 AT SECTION 12,08,223 REGARDING PARKING
IN FRONT OF FIRE HYDRANTS
Award of contract to NBS/Lowrv -Westem Bvoass Corridor
Mayor Pro Tem Lind.mane 'requested this item be continued for three months until this
issue is addressed in the General Plan.
City Engineer Tim Serlet stated this study is necessary to preserve rights-of-way and
there is no intention to build the road at this time.
Councilmember Muf~oz asked if a cost benefit analysis should be completed before a
design. Mr. Serlet stated this would provide an alignment study that the City Council
could adopt. He stated it is more of a feasibility study. He stated $10,000 is being
funded through Community Block Grant Funds, with the City's participation at only
$10,000.
Councilmember Moore stated she is in favor of the study because it is necessary to
secure lands for road rights-of-way.
Councilmember Parks stated he is in favor of conducting this study since a Western
Corridor is needed in this area and the study will benefit the general plan process. He
asked if this subject will be discussed at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission
meeting on the February 26th. Planning Director Gary Thornhill stated he would
contact the consultants and asked that it be discussed.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
continue this item to the meeting of March 10, 1992. The motion was unanimously
carried.
13.
Memorandum of Understandinn - Bedford Prooerties Regardino Amendment to
Develooment Agreement Paloma Del Sol
City Attorney Field stated that figures contained in the staff report on Page Two, 2(b)
are incorrect and should be consistent with those contained in the Memorandum of
Understanding. He also stated that in the Memorandum of Understanding, Section 7,
Minutes%2%25%92 -6- 02/28/92
~Courdl Minute Februev 2S. 1992
Page 9, there is a problem with the language regarding park improvements being
dedicated to the City for maintenance. He recommended approving the MOU, subject
to staff developing a revised Section 7, accepting dedication pursuant to regular
pr.ocedures of the Community Services District,
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem I,indemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Paloma del Sol,
subject to staff developing a revised Section 7, as outlined by the City Attorney.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mut~oz
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Mu~oz said voted in opposition because he feels the Quimby Fees
should be assessed at the original 65 acres instead of the reduced amount listed in the
Memorandum of Understanding.
RI:CFSS
Mayor Birdsell called a recess at 8:00 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the
Community Services District Meeting at 8:16 PM.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
17. Vestina Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie Marqarita Village
18. Vestina Tentative Tract 93373 - Buie Maroarita Village
City Attorney Field stated the applicant does not agree with the Conditions of Approval
contained in the staff report and is agreeable to a four week continuance to the
meeting of March 24, 1992.
Mayor Birdsall asked if those who submitted a request to speak slip would be willing
to speak on the issue at a later point.
David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of the Villages Homeowners
Association, asked that the concerned parties meet and work out a solution prior to
the night of the Council Meeting.
Minutee%2~25\92 -7- 02/28/92
~ ~ Minutee ~.ebruev 2E. 1 ~2
Councilmember Muf~oz removed himself from discussion due to a conflict of interest.
Loree Santsmoro, addressed the Buie Margarita Village maintenance yard, stating that
maintenance of this property has been neglected and other requirements have not been
met.. She stated lamaits have expired end this pose~&health and safety issue. Mayor
Birdsell stated this item is not on the agenda but asked staff to look into this problem
and come beck with a report.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans asked that when an item is continued, public comment not
be taken because it is unfair to the applicant who does not have the opportunity to
respond.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue Items 17 and 18 to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The motion was carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz
19.
20.
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Condemnation of Prooertv (AP No. 991-300-006)
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue this item to the meeting of May 12, 1992.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz
Councilmember Muf~oz stated he abstained to avoid the appearance of a conflict of
interest.
Ordinance to Reouire Fire Resistive Roof Coverings
Tony Elmo, Chief Building Official, presented the staff report.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing st 8:35 PM.
Minutee%2~25~92 -8- 02128/92
City COgNail MiOgte8 FebNew 25, 1992
R. Jane Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, spoke in favor of the roofing ordinance but
requested that an addition be made restricting the planting of new Eucalyptus trees
within 50 feet of homes, since this was one of the greatest contributing factors of the
Oakland fires.
City Manager Dixon stated the Fire Department has addressed this issue and advised
a new provision cannot be added at this time without beginning the process over. He
suggested approving this ordinance and having a report from Jim Wright of the Fire
Department at a later meeting.
Mayor Birdsall asked that Chief Jim Wright address this issue on a future agenda.
Mayor Birdsall closed the' public hearing at 8:37 PM.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457,
'UNIFORM BUILDING CODE' ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, BY AMENDING SECTION 3203 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING
FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF COVERING.
The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING
FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS
BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCE
NO. 457, 'UNIFORM BUILDING CODE' AMENDING SECTION 3203 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REQUIRING FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF COVERINGS ARE
REASONABLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA
The motion was unanimously carried.
Minutee\2~25~92 -9- 02/28/92
Citv Courmil Minute Febfuarv 25. 1992
21.
Plot Pan No. ~4~ -Tentative Parcel MaD ~666at- Coastline Faulty
(Business Park Drive and Rancho Way)
Director of Planning .GaW Therehill. presented the staff report.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:40 PM.
Ida Sanchez, Markham and Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Ste N, representing
the applicant, stated she concurs with staff recommendations.
James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallon Way, objected to the negative declaration at this site.
He asked that this site be conditioned to catch rainfall on site.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindomens requested that Mr. Marpie meet with him to explore
creating an ordinance for this purpose.
Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 8:47 PM.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
21.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 242.
21.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 242 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF THREE {3)
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALLING 104,577 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO WAY AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
The motion was unanimously carried.
COUNCIL BUSINFSS
22 Community Services Funding Reauests
Finance Officer Mary Jane Henry presented the staff report.
Lynda Adriance, 24574 Calls San Viceate, Club Director of Boys and Girls Club of
Temeculs Valley, spoke in favor of funding for the Boys and Girls Club.
Minutes%2%25%92 - 1 O- 02/28/92
City Coundl Minute Februe 25. 1992
23
Joan Waklig, 45505 Olympic Way, spoke in favor of funding for the Boys and Girls
Club.
Jim Miley, President of Boys and Girls Club, 42106 Via Reso del Sol, spoke in support
of funding for the Boys end Girls Club..
Jeanie Miley, 42106 Via Reso del Sol, spoke in support of the Boys and Girls Club
funding.
Bill Bopf, 41707 Winchester Road, representing the Temecula Valley Playhouse,
thanked Council for support last year, and requested continued support.
John Huneman, 28715 Vie Montezuma, KRTM Radio, requested Council consider
funding for KRTM-FM, a non-profit organization.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 9:08 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:09 PM.
Mayor Birdsell asked that City support, given in the form of waiving fees end providing
police services, be listed on the Community Services Funding Report.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to
approve the ad-hoc committee recommendations for the Community Services funding
requests.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Operation and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities Servina Tovota of Temecula
City Attorney Field presented the staff report.
James Marpie, representing the Green Belt Committee, 19210 St. Gallen Way,
Murrieta, asked that the Council consider the storm drain facilities under the freeway
as a potential pedestrian route and consider altering this project for a multiple purpose
use.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve
staff recommendation as follows:
23.1
Adopt · resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
REGARDING AUTO MALL PROJECT
Minutes\2%25\92 -11- 02/28/92
Citv Cotsmall Minutes Febfuarv 25. 1992
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Uncleroans,
Birdsell
None
None
Moore, Mufioz, Parks,
24 Stat, ,a Reoort on the French VAlley Airoort
(placed on the Agenda at the request of Councilmember Mufioz)
Planning Director Thornhill stated he has received a request from the Friends of French
Valley Airport to continue this item.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans to
continue this item to the meeting of March 10, 1992. The motion was unanimously
carried.
CITY MANAnER REPORT
None given.
CITY ATTORNFY RI:PORT
None given.
CITY COUNCIL R;PORTS
None given.
Minutes~2~,2~92 -12- 02128fl2
City Coundl Minute. Febmaw 25, 1~92
ADJOURNMI:NT
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at
9:30 PM to a meeting on February 26, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temeculs City Hall, Main Conference
Room. Tha motion was uaanimously ca~.ried.
Patricis H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
IVlinutes~2~26%92 -13- 02128/92
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AND THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD FEBRUARY 26, 1992
A joint meeting of the Temecula City Council and the Temecula Planning Commission was
called to order in the Main Conference Room, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive
at 7:05 PM, Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding.
ROLL CALL
Temecula City Council
PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks
ABSENT: I COt3NCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
Temecula Planning Commission
PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Planning Director Gary Thornhill and City
Clerk June S. Greek.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Karel Lindemans.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were offered.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
GenerBI Plan Proaress RePort
Planning Director Gary Thornhill made introductory remarks and introduced Jim
Ragsdale of the Planning Center who gave a brief General Plan overview report which
outlined the methods the Planning Center has util'ized for preparing the land use and
policy options in the defined opportunity areas.
Minutes\ 2~26\92 - 1 - 02~27/92
City Council Minutes Febmaw 26. 1992
Presentation of Lend Use {~nd Policy Ootions within Primary OPPOrtUnity Areas
Randy Jackson and Don Arambula of the Planning Center detailed the primary
opportunity areas that have been identified, along with specific plan commitments and
existing land developments.
Discussion of Land Use and Policy Ootions
ODoortunitv Area One
Mr. Jackson outlined the two schemes possible for this area which is located in the
northwest corner of the City, north of Winchester Road, between Jefferson and the
proposed Western Bypass Road.
Commissioner Chiniaeff pointed out the potential for increased traffic problems if the
Public Facility were to be placed east of Diaz Road.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans stated a preference for some residential included in this
8rea.
Councilmember Parks expressed concern with the noise generated by stadium/arena
use and did not feel this would be compatible with residential uses.
After discussion consensus was reached that scheme "B" is preferred, with the uses
to be reversed, designating the Public Facility on the west side of Diaz and the Single
User Business Park on the east side of Diaz.
ODOOrtUnitV Area Two
Mr. Jackson described two schemes, one showing the bypass corridor in place from
Highway 79 South and one showing a bypass beginning north of Rancho California
Road.
Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans stated concern that the circulation element should be
prepared first before determining the appropriate land use in this area.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the mixed uses shown on the west side of the freeway
represent a change from the present industrial concentration on the west side and
residential on the east side of the freeway. Mr. Jackson responded that a mix of uses
is being suggested for both sides of the I-15 to create a better balance.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if there is consensus that there will be a village concept
developed in the Old Town section and that the Western Bypass corridor will be
planned from Highway 79 South extending the length of the City.
The Council indicated that such a consensus did exist.
Minutes~2~26\92 -2- 02127/92
City Count1 Minutes FebNew 26, 1992
ODDOrtUnity Area Three
Four schemes were described by Mr. Jackson, who said the Planning Center
recommends scheme "A".
By consensus it was agreed to accept scheme "A" with the tourist/commercial
designation at Highway 79 and Anza Road deleted.
Oooortunitv Area Four
Four schemes were presented showing the future alignment of Pale Road. After
discussion, the consensus was that scheme "A" was the best concept.
Oooortunitv Area Five
Council and Commission discussed three concepts, and reached consensus that
scheme "C", with some modifications, should be prepared for this area.
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall declared a recess at 8:37 PM, the meeting was reconvened at 8:48 PM:
Oooortunitv Area Eiqht
This area was discussed as it relates to area five. City Manager Dixon suggested that
if the Date Street interchange can not be built, the City of Temecula might wish to look
at an overcrossing to the south at Cherry Street. After discussion of the two schemes
proposed, consensus was reached that the best concept is scheme "A".
ODoortunitv Area Six
After the presentation of three concepts and discussion, it was the consensus of the
Council and Commission that scheme "A" is the best solution.
Opportunity Area Seven
City Manger Dixon requested that the Planning Center provide him with any studies
that are available showing the mix of industrial/commercial development from
approximately the Sun City area south to Temecula.
Councilmember Parks stated he feels an overview of all of the surrounding area needs
to be looked at before any final decisions are made for this opportunity area.
Minutes~2\26~92 -3- 02127192
City Counuil Minutes Febmew 26. 1992
ODDOrtUnitY Area Nine
After discussion of the two schemes presented, it was consensus that the airport is
desirable in this area and the policy will be that the area be developed with a business
park/industrial center around the airport with support commercial, uses'permitted.
Review of Next Joint PC/(~C Workshop
Bob Davis, of the Planning Center responded to questions on the circulation element
and specific problem areas within the City. He advised that the present traffic on
Front Street is exceeding its capacity. He also advised that the proposed Western
Bypass will divert large volumes of traffic (approximately 20,000 vehicles per day)
from the freeway and other surface arterial streets, if the road is property constructed.
In response to a question from Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans he advised the bypass is
projected to be a four-lane roadway.
Mr. Davis also discussed the proposed extension of Butterfield Stage Road from
Highway 79 South, to Highway 79 North (Winchester Road). He stated this will create
a limited access roadway that will intersect the eastern side of the City and will create
further benefit by diverting some of the southbound traffic from the Winchester/I-15
intersection~
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Dixon announced that the next joint meeting of the Council and Commission on
the General Plan (Selection of preferred alternative land use policy and circulation map) will
be on March 25, 1992.
COMMISSION REPORTS
No reports presented.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
No reports presented.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to adjourn
at 9:51 PM to the next regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 PM on March 10, 1992,
Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was
unanimously carried.
IVlinutes%2%26%92 -4- 02127/9 2
City Council Minutes February 26. 1992
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to adjourn to a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on March 16, 1992, at 6:00 PM in the
Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula California. The motion was
unanimously carried with Commissioners Fahey and Hoagland absent.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JOHN E. HOAGLAND, CHAIRMAN
JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK
Minutes\2\26\92 -5- 02~27~92
ITEM
3
RESOLIYrION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN
EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been
audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of
$697,023.47
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 10th day of March, 1992.
ATYEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3~Re. sos 241
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
crrY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution No. 92- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecuh on the 10th day of March 1992 by the following wll call vote.
COUNCILlVIElVIBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILlVIBMBERS:
COUNCILIV[EMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
CITY OF TEMECULA
US'I' OF DEMANDS
02/19/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$19,247.95
02/25/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
02/28/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$224,162.78
02/27/92 TOTAL PAYROLL:
$93,788.10
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 3/10/92 COUNCIL MEETING:
$997,~3.~
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL
019 TCSD
029 CAPITAL PROJECTS-TCSD
PAYROLL:
001 GENERAL (PAYROLL)
019 TCSD (PAYROLL)
$595,701.22
$45,059.15
$2,475.00
:$75,866.76
$17,921.34
$93,788.10
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE
I, MARY JANE HENRY, FINANCE OFEI~R
,.
MA ' OCH~E,E~DUSZKO, ASSIST CITY MANAGER
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Fiscal '~'ear: 1972 Cnec,: Register
Check Date YenGot Name
Invulce Date PlO
Date De~:ri~tion
Discount
02/19/92 APNA APNA
021192 02/11/92
00009332 02119/V2 CALIFORfi CALIFORNIAN
021dd 02103192 10424
10903 02/041t2 10424
02/II!92 WORKSHOPI315192tTS,DS,AC
Check Totals:
07101191 LEGAL WOTICESI2131V2
07/01/91LEBAL NDTICESI214192
150.00 0.00 1~t.%
150.00 0.00 15{.0(-
27.88 0.00 27.8S
29.43 0.00 29.4~
02/!9192 CHESNER CHESHER, RUTH
021192 02!11/92
Check Totals:
02111192 REFUND/TAP & aAZ CLASS.
57.31 0.00 57JI
31.00 0.00 31.00
02/19/92 CLUB THE CLUB
021192 02/II/92
02!192-I 02/!1/92
0~199-~ 02f!I/92
Check Totals:
02111/92 80% CONTRACT CLASS/CONT. DANC
02/11192 80% CONTRACT CLASS/SKI LESSON
02/11192 80~ CONTRACT CLASSiBALLR~ DC
31,00 0,00 31,00
168.00 0.00 16E.00
!05.20 0.00 I03.20
~0S.00 0.00 503.00
Check Totals:
000093~ 02/19/92 COUNTYAD COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
020492 02/04!92 02/04192 FISH AND SAME IMPACT FEE
579.20 0.00 579.20
1,275.00 0.00 1.27L00
00009536. 02/19/92 "A"'~N DAVLIN
89-23:152 02105i92 10942
Check Totals:
09127/91 AUDIO/VISUAL FEB 3, 92 PLAN
975 O0 0.00 1.27E.00
139.20 0.00 15~.20
00009357 02/!9/92 FEDERALE FEDERAL EXPRESS
455120513 02/05/92
Check Totals:
02103/92 1339-!I07-3!I!22I~2 DROP
139.20 0.00 !;~.20
13.00 0.00 '~
Check Totals:
000095~5 02/!9/92 FLOODPLA FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ASSOC
021192 02/1!192 02/!1/92 CONFERENCE/4!g&4/IO/TS
13.00 0.00 13.00
105.00 0.00 I05,00
Check Totals:
00009539 02/!9!92 6LENNIES 8LENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
8962~-rj 021!0/9'2 11264 02i0~/92 BINDERS
Check Totals:
00009340 02/19!92 INTERPER INTERNATIONAL PERSONNEL MGMT
021092 02/10/92 02/11/92 DUES/ME~BERSHP !992 LR
105.00 0.00 105.00
280.96 0.00 280.96
280.96 0.00
204.00 O.OO 204.00
00009341 021!9/92 MEYERjOH MEYER, JOHN
020792 02/07!92
Check Totals:
02/07/92 ADVANCEiCONFERENCE/2/20-2/21
204.00 0.00 204.00
150.00 0.00 150.00
00009342 02/!9/92 MMAEg
020792
Check Totals:
HUNICIPAL MBHT ASSIST. OF S.C
02i07/92 02/07/92 SEKINAR/212OIMO
¢2/11/92 02/!I/~2 SEHINAR/2/20/92/~j.SY.G~
150.00 0.00 !SO.O0
13.00 0.00 !3.00
~,00 O.OO Z:,O0
02/12/92 RETiREHE.'T PAYMENT
52.00
~.~
G,¢{,
0.00 !~,~'~;.~3
Chezi: Oats V~do~ ~a~e Invoice Date
,,~ 0000544 Q2/!~/~2 PETERS P PERRY PETERS
021!92 02/11R2 Q2/1!/92 REFUN~/lRIP CANCELLE~
O000Si5 02;IW72 PDLLARDD POLLARD, DON
021192 02/11R2
Check Totals: 7~.00
02111!92 SOl CONTRACT CLAS~/COUNI'RY DC 560.00
0,00
O.OC 560.00
Check Totals:
00007346 02/lWg2 RAN-TEC RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP ~FB
00a754 02/0~R2 1124B 01/1~R2 NA~EBAD6ES & NAfiEPLATES
550.00 O.O0 560.00
1~.07 0.00 !%07
0000547 02!!9!92 ROWLEY
C21172-I
CATHERINE RONLEY
02/!I/72
Check Totals:
02/1!/92 80; :ontract class/~aton
1~.07 0.00 !~.07
57.60 0.00 57.6C'
Check TotaXs:
0000~3~ 02f1~/72 q~ CAL-2 SO.CALiFORNIA T=~:P~nNp CO.
57.60 0.00 57,60
67.07 0.00 67.C7
0000~34~" .... q'~ TAYLOE. MARLEEK
:.,~..,~. TAYLORHA .
021172 ~'~'Q~
~'~:i~_i A5!~1/~n
~7.07 0,00 ",
o;.,.,
160.00 v.O~,
200. OC O. O0 'v.' ,' ".
.,.~.
ChmcK iotais:
000~:~, C2.;I?/~'2 TEMVLYT). TE~ECULA VALLE~ .....
C2ii?2-i 02.':i/~2 , ;L~SS/TAEKUOND;
-550. O(i 0.00 36:.';. C ::
53 ~. O0 cj. rj (: :>,.
0000~35L r ..... ~ .........nn
~,'i~:~ ~,~;~.: USA TODAY
C~eck Totals:
...... ~t~ =" ~EE)',S :u::':"':'TTnN
Check Totals:
.... ~, ,o,, S0% CO~:TRA',' CL¢~SSIKiNDEP BY~':
Fz,54 0.00
544.00 O.OO
........ VR~GHT. ~n ,,
Check i..~.~:
,,~ ~i~ ~ SO~ CONTRAST CLASS/CALLiS~APH
54~.00 0.00 5~.00
360.00 0.00 560.00
Check Totals:
360.00
Pepoft Totals:
!9.2~7.75
0.00 !~.2i7.~5
DESC~!PTIO~
0~% O009~;~Z 02/:9R2 APNA
OC: ^n~-'-- CALIFORNIAN
001 G¢0091~2 02119192 C&LIFORHIAN
COl 0~00~$6 ~2119/~ D~VLI~
0~ 0~009~7 02/!9/92 F~DERAL EIPRESS
001 00009,1~8 02119192 FLOODPLAIN tlAGEHER] ASSOC
001 00009S39 02liBlea GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
001 00009340 02119192 INTEilAT!OHI. PERSOleiB. fiGHT
001 00009341 021!9/r2
001 0000~S42 02/19192 NUNICIPAL NGHT ASSIST. OF
001 00009342 021191f2 Nt!NICIP~L !~T ASSIST, OF
001 00009143 02/!~!92 PENS E~LOYF. ES' RETIREENT
001 00009543 02119192 PENS BPLOYEES' RETIREI(ENT
001 00009343 02119192 PENS EHPLOYEES' RETIRBLcNT
001 00009~5! 02lIB/t2 USA TODAY
~OR[SHOPI~ISR21TS,D$,AC
LEGAL NOTICESI21;R2
LBAL NOTZCSSI2/41t2
AUDIO!VISUAL FEB ~, 92 PLAN
t.139'tlO7-311122R2 DROP
CONFERENCEI419&411OITS
BINDERS
DUESI~NBERSNP I992 LR
ADVANCEICONFERENCE!2120-2121
S~INAR!21201~
S~INlII21201921H,I,GY,GR
RETIREENT PAY)lENT 21!~192
Notes1PIR:0211~I92
RETIREENT PAYNBIT 211~192
52 NEEDS S~SCRIPT[ON
!3,GG
280,q5
201.00
253,17
92.5:
OOL
I:.~54.;7
019 000095~5 02119192 CHESNER~ RUTH
0!9 00009~34 02119192 THE CLUB
019 00009;;4 02119/92 THE CLUB
019 OOO0%"1& 02119192 THE CLUB
019 00009~4~ 02119/~2 PERS EeLOYEES' RETIRE~
019 00009344 02119192 PERRY PETERS
0!? 00609345 02/19/92 POLLARD~ OON
019 001)093~ 02119192 RAN-TEC RUBBER STA~P tiPS
019 00009347 02119192 CATFZRINE RONLEY
0~9 0C00~348 02!19/t2 SLCALiFDRNIA TEL~HONE
019 00009~49 02119/~2 TAYLOR, ~ARLEE~
0!9 00009349 02/!9t92 TAYLOR~ HARLEEN
019 00009350 02/19192 TEECULA VALLEY T~
019 00009~52 02119192 WE CA~ DO
019 00009~55 02/!9!92 IRISHT, EDNA
REFUND/TAP & 3AI CLASS i1.0~
80% CONTRACT CLASS/BALLRH DC
80~ CONTRACT CLASSICONT. DANC !&[.O0
80; CONTRACT CLASS/SKI LESSON
RETIRENENT PAYHENT 2/13/92
REFUND/TRIP CANCELLED 7~.00
SO~ CONTRACT CLASS/COUNTRY ~C 5~G.O~
NAHEBADSES & RAHEPLATES IT.07
GOZ con~r8ct chss/ba~on
71~-7~5-8550/F~L 7 _.~7,OT
80~ CONTRACT CLASS/SENIOR DNC C,CO
eO~ CONTRACT CLASSINESTERN DN
80~ONTRACT CLASSITAE~NO!~O
SO; CONTRACT CLASSIKINDER GYR
80Z CONTRACT CLASSICALLISR~DH 3aO,O0
029 00009135 02/19/92 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FISH AND BAHE I~DACT FEE i~2t.00
19.2r/ .V5
..~ ..... ~)S~LUTE ,~ ~ ASPHALT
02111192 11257 01i2W92 ASPHALT PAT:H:PUE, WORKS 154,0~ O,OC 454.0:
Check Totais:
02/25/~2 AGRICP!D ABRICRE~!T ACCEPTANCE CORP,
020192 02/01R2 02~0 10/01/91 LEASE PAYRENT FOR HARCH ~2
846.02 O,OO 8(a.02
00009~57 02/25r92 ALLIED ALLIED E~RRICAOE
L20788-00 02106112 11267
I~805-00 02107192 11267
120805-001 02/07/92 111~1
Check TotaXe:
011~1/~2 SPECIAL SIBNSIHN~)NARE/INSTAL
01Rlli2 SPECIAL $ISNS/HRRDWRRE/INSTAL
01/021~2 OPEN ACCOUNT;~ISC, HERCH.
B~b.02 0.00 846.02
561.6b 0.00 5~!.66
17~.~7 0.00 173.57
72.49 0.00 72.4g
Check Totals:
00009358 02/25R2 AHERICBU AHERICAN BUSINESS FDR~
50508~ 02/10/92 11211 01/15/~2 CHANGE TO BLDG, PERMIT
807.72 0.00 807.72
554.~0 0.00 554.50
00009359 02/25/72 CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN
(642017424 02t01192 10920
Check Totals=
10/0219! ADV.ENPLOYENI POSITIONS;H.R.
Check TataZs:
00009~60 02/25192 COPYLINE COPY LlfiE CORPORATION
74897 02101/72 11295 01/31i92 SERVICE ~ALL:FAX ~ACHINE
70166 02/01/92 11126 ..... TONER FOR RICOH COPIER
554.50 0.00 554.50
42.50 0.00 42.50
42.50 0.00 42.50
174.40 O.O0 !74.40
7~2,70 0.00 7Z2.70
Chec~ Totals:
00009361 02/25192 CTYCLERK 1992 CCAC CONFERENCE
.,..:~ ~ u.,~. ,~ 02t13/92 SE~INP~'.I4/2BtSJ
907,10 0.00 907.10
100.00 O,O0 !00,00
Check Totals:
nOnn%6~ 0~"~'e~ FRANKL!~ FRAN[L!N SEHI~ARS
6751218 02/05/92 !!2~7 01/29/~2 DAY PLANMER)
100.00 0.00 100.00
87.22 0,00 87,22
0000936~ 02125/92 HOL!OAYI HOLIDAY iNN
021392 02/I~/92
Chec~ Totals:
02/13/92 RESERVATIDNSI412g-5111aG/SJ
87.27 0.00 37.22
392,00 0.00 592.00
00009364 02125/92 OOgSAVAI JOBS AVAILABLE
203075 02/10192 11276
Check Totaks=
02105/12 RECRUITRENT AD;HAINT.SUPERVSR
3t2.00 G.O0
67.60 0.00
00009365 02!25192 NARTINI
1705
Check Totals:
RARTIN ! HOUR PHOTO
02t03/92 11114 12/0;/91 PHOTO FINISHING & FILH
67,60 0.00 ~7.60
~5.49 0.00 15.4g
00009Z66 02/25192 PER3
Check Tctais:
PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREH!Ufi~
02/0?1~? 021~7/92 INSURANCE PRENIU~/FE~ 92
35.49 0.00 35,4q
!9,62B.iq 0.00 19,625.49
~00~9367 92/2~'~2 PETTY2
:ETT':'
~ vmv,'
!7.1; O.OC i7.!5
F:;ci: :'ear: .... Chec~ Re;!st;r Statlon: ~:-
Chsc~:
Invoice Dots P/C
4861 02/05/92 10898
Date DescrZption
10/¢1/91JANI.SUPPLIES.:PARK
Check Totals:
02/25R2 ROBERTBE ROBERT 8EI~, ~. FROS~ & ASSO
1-120~CR 02/OIR: 0186 07101191 CREDIT
1-12022 o21ollrz o186 o7101191PROF SBV. DEC. 1~fl
Bross
37,70
54.8~
301.05-
311.00
D~count
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
Net
57.70
~01.05-
311,00
00009~/0 02/251~2 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
08256 02101192 0~011f2
0~76 02104192 021041~
42626 02104192 02104/92
07736 02/04192 02104192
08726 02104/92 02104192
Clack Totals:
!)Nt
47~9-0200-0001-082~1DEC, Crib
47~902HeO01HOTIJRN CHGS
47~802000001426213RN r2
4798020000010775104N CHB
4798020000010872/3~N DiS
9.95
193.87
158,74
42.62
435,12
291.51
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
9.95
19~.87
158,74
42.62
435.12
291,51
Chock Totals:
000~9~71 02125192 SO CAL-2 SO,CALIFORnIA TELEPHONE CO,
345-74256 02107192 02107/9.2 714-S4~-742513AN CHGS
$45-74218 02107192 02/07/92
349-34586 02/25/92 02t25192
~4934596 02107192 02107/92
34934166 02107/92 02/071r2
34574226 02107192 02107192
714-345-7421RAN CHH
714-349-34~813AN CHGS
714349$4391aAN CHGS
714~49~4~6/0AN, CHBS
7143457422/~AN CH~S.
1~!21.86
6!.98
155,72
4~.18
57.84
108.87
C.O0
0.00
0,00
O,O0
0,00
0.00
0,00
1,121.8~
&l.SS
155.72
43.18
57.84
103.87
00~0~375 02/25192 80UTHCED SOUIHEIN CALIF EDISON
B-7&6797B 02/01/~2 02!01/92
2080784136 02101192 02101192
6-7~55196 02/01/92 02101/92
856420796 02/01/92 02/01192
2083620756 02/01Ir2 02/0!/92
2088~04256 02/07/92 02/07/92
3085176776 02107192 02107/92
~085176788 02107192 02107/r2
203009275G 02/01/~2 82101192
20~009275F 02/01R2 02/01/~2
857&85496 02/10/92 02/10192
PB0!OB3i2B 02/06!~2 02i06/92
9826029~OG 02106/92 02/0&192
N170!26288 02/04/q2 02104192
881~8258 02/01192 02/01192
Y367100116 02/01/92 0Z!01/92
856745086 02/01192 02101/92
857678106 02/01192 02/01192
85747Z966 02/01192 02/01/92
857473%66 02/01/92 021giI92
309202706 02104192 02104192
3083432756 02/II/92 02/11192
3084654206 02/13/92 021!3/92
856945748 02/12/02 02/12/~2
508~2~221B 02112/~2
709C2:15~ 02112/72
S5~8~4~88 02/12/~2 02.'121~2
2084500~f8 02/14/q~ 021z~/92
Ni05186828 02/011~2 02/01/92
957~32918 02/01/~2 02/0!/92
20~:~?~EG C2/QI/~2 ¢21CI/82
Check Totals:
121!2-1111192
12112191-01111192
12112191-01111192
01/17/92-1/29/~2
1/17/~-1/29/r2
54778286404020002101106-0210~
54772826503020002811106-02103
54778286505020000101106-0210~
5977799409302000~112/I0.-01110
5977799~08~020009111108-12/I0
557712&0500020004-01106-02/04
55778!82104010004-01/08-02/01
557781~11200S0004-01/0~-02/01
5177905!802010004-121~0-01/29
6977678X&51020002-12126-01127
6677585806701000(-~2120-01/21
67778639414020002-12120-OU22
4~77077650002-11/~0-12/31
4S770775~5002-11150-121~1
4377077535002-10131-11/30
5177~05010!020003-12/)0-01/29
56777559900020007-01107-02105
~577z267543010006-0110~-02104
577756509340200~4-01/0~-02/06
57777B0874005000~-01y0~-02i0~
577756b~32~02.,0095-0!19~-0210~
57777802489030007-01/,}~-02t0~
59777992358038005-0!/I0-02/I0
437?078.m15?02/12/3!-1/31
4377077650501/~/19-I/31
(177077515902112/5!-1/%
561.55
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.60
19.49
8.40
8.40
g.SO
9.60
B,70
993.59
72.28
271.26
271.10
29.48
27.31
75.49
8.82
8.70
B.'-.C
9 .;0
:..~..51
48 .~;
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
O.OO
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
O.O0
0.00
0.00
O.O0
561.55
9.00
8.60
8,60
19,49
8,40
8,40
9
9,60
8,70
349,42
993,59
72,28
271.2&
271,10
41,9S
29.48
27.3!
75.49
8.32
B.70
8,iC
E.40
~8.5:
Check
2025~5~ ~2i01R2 ¢21~!!92
N!OGi~GaG5 02101192 02101192
85~745078 02i01/92 02/01/92
8585179~ 02101R2 02101t92
855?21558 02101192 02101192
206435559 02101192 02101192
20843454~8 62/01/r2 021011r2
]0847~&LS 02112192 02112/92
j084045296 02112192 02112192
85a806~36 02112192 02/12191
20~]559576 02/06/92 02106192
208~669406 02/05/92 02106192
R57590~6 02/11/r2 02111192
857647906 02/14192 02114/92
85851780 02/04192 02/04192
SUaTS128 02/0b!92 02106192
2084~45~G 02/0&192 0210&192
4~770775~4702!L2~!-11~!
4;770775~42021121~>1120
~7077527002!~2/3!-I/20
4~7707'752591~21~1-1120
4S7707751~2021~21~1-1131
4377077516002/12!~1-I:$~
577TZGOE7420SOOOTIltG-21&
5T77555570N200021119-216
37775&58020500091119-216
L17700066590S00071112-211
5,177800~2~02000Ul12-211
557TI5519750100051117-215
597741~008002000311110-2110
517790~90010200051121~0-1129
5~7~1~20102000U~21~0-21~
5~TI90014010200001112-211
3~.45
$4.7~
S7.11
39.82
38.28
8.40
8.40
6.40
9.00
9.00
41.20
188.79
257.55
!9~.6~
$12.4~
~ .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1!4.!5
~4.79
39.82
8.40
8.40
8.40
tOO
9.00
41.20
188.79
257.55
Z12.41
OOO09Ub 02125192 SPEEDYOI SPEEDY OIL CHANGE
6157157; 02103192 11254 02/0U92
01~719~; 02/1U92 ~1279 02104192
0571799 02112/92 11258 02~04~92
Check Totals:
REPAIR & I'~INT. VEHICLES! CS;
REPAIR & NAINT. VEHICLES;hi.
REPAIR & NAINT.C~TY VEHICLES
~,391.10
22.4;
70.98
~2,14
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
4.:91.!0'
22.49
70.98
22.14
00009U7 02125192 STATECO~
~'ti[HA.~ 01/02192
~KOT.~S 01/02/92
~[~.64 01tlU92
~iKCL.65 01115192
3~K~A.55 01118192
~KOT,55 01/1~192
SM[CL.~S 01/30/92
5tKOT.~& 01/30/92
C22&97 02/25192
Check Totals|
STATE COHPENSATION IriS. FUND
01102192 0!/02/92 Nor. Payroll I/2/92
01102192 Nor. Payroll 112192
01/02/92 Nor, Payroll 1/2/92
01/IU~2 Vo~dl~anua! Check
01115192 ~or:al PIR~ 1115192
01/15!92 Norlal P/R. !11&!92
01/!&/~ Normal PIR~ 1/15192
01/~0/92 Norul PIR~O!I3OR2
01/30192 Notes1P/R~011~O/~2
011~0/92 Normal P/R,01/~O/92
02125192 FBRU~Y 92
!25.&1
27;.98
532.20
168.99
285.27
2J99.~
277.29
2.4~8.59
S$4,71
~!4.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
125.61
275,98
2,555.9b
552.20
189.99
285.27
2,498.55
5~0.~]
277.28
2,458,59
5~4.71
~14.79
00009~78 02/25192 TE~ PIPE TEHECULA VALLEY PIPE
22388 02101192 11079 11112191
22290 02101192 11079 11/12/ti
2248~ 02/01192 11079 !1/12/9!
2i562 02101192 11079 11112191
222:8 02101192 11079 11112191
227~2 02/01/92 11079 !I/12/9!
Check Totsis:
IRRIGATION & MISC. EOUIP.CSD
IRRIGATION & ~ISC. EgUIP,CSD
IRRIGATION i NISC. EOUIP.CSD
IRRIGATION & HISC. EQUIP,CSD
IRRIGATION i NISC, EGUIP,CSD
IRRIGATION & MISC. EQUIP.CS
10,428.73
21.4~
20.42
15.56
108.14
1~ 7e
IZ.95
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2!.4~
20.42
16.56
108.14
!5.79
I? 05
00009U9 02/25192 TE~CULAT TENECULA TONNE ASSOC
e..~n~:~ 02104192 n?'7 07101791
Check Totals:
FEB. CHG
194.29
540,00
0.00
0.00
194.29
54~.00
E7715702!4 02114R2 03~1 12110/~I
:,~...~ui~i 02/01R2 0331 !2/10R!
STTIS?02O? 02/07/?20;Si 12/I0/9!
E772570!~! 02/01/72 11190
Chs:k T ta's:
UN!FOR~ RENTAL/2/i4/~2
UNIFDRH RENTAL!I/51/92
UNIF~Rffi RENIAL/C2/O?/~2
UNIFDRH RENTALS/I/!!/~2
12.50
12,50
O.O0
0.00
O,OO
O.OC
!2.50
12.50
12.50
!I.15
~ate Venc~r
Znvo:ci his PIO
;772~7~207 0~i07/92 I;:80
9772570214 02114/92 11180
2042917 02/G~/92 091
2H29!7-1 02103192 11180
~2110/9!
~2/13/91
UKIFC~ RENTS. S!02107/92
UNIFOPJ~ RENTALSI02114/92
UltiFORd RF. XThLI213192
UNIFORH REKTAL/2/$/r2
00009381 02/251r2 USCI~ .
2PTRT ,&& 01/301~2 01/~01r2
2PTRT ,&7 02113/92 02/1~/r2
$PTRT,&7 02113/92 02/131r2
Check ~otals:
liarall P IR,01130192
liOrMl Pli,Oll:$Olfl2
Normal P/?.:02113/92
Mortal PIR:02/13192
00009332 02/251t2 iIASTE!FaH HASTE RANAGEHEKT IIIC.
000347 02/01/92 021011fl2
Check Totals:
8918801FENi:UIIY ~2
O000t3B& 03110192 3ENNA~ ~ENHACO
021092 02f10t92 03~1 12119/91
Check Totals:
~NITG9XI. SERV, F1J, !912
00009387 0;/101.F2 ~EINr"E~~ KLEInPER
702C23 02/01/92
02101/92
Check Totsis:
SEIWZF. S 1211-1r31
00009~88 03110192 ORANSE
O01tSb&
Check Totals:
ORANGE COUNTY S~ZPING S~VIC
02112192 03~' 011291r2. ~ PAINTIN6; PAVEENT NRKG
02/12/~2 0353 01129/r2CURB PAiNTIll; PAVcJENT ~K6
00009~99 03/10/~ RAHTEK R§HTEK
~8~ C2/01192 0282 10/14/9!
3927 02101R2 0350 01129192
Check Totals:
STLEE'T ~AINTI1212R2
STREET NAINT/CDF BURN
00009390 03/10/q2 tTLLDAN MZLLDAH ASSOCTATES
400420b 02101192 02/01/92
~00417A 021011t2 02/011t2
40042~ 02101/92 02101/97
400420~-I 02/12/~ 02112/92
4004200 02101/92 02101/~2
4004166 02101It2 02101/f2
400420&~R G2101192 02101/92
Check Totals:
ENGZNc.~IN6 DECL'T~ER 9!
COUNTY TRAKSFERIc-NSINE~TNG
ENTfllEERIK6 PLAN CKICOUKTY TR
PLAN CH.c, CglDEC~9~
DECE~BF~ 911B & S
!tOV~BFR 911B&5
CREDIT HE~OIBiS/~-:C,91
Check Totits:
Report ~o~a~s:
I:,50
12.50 O.O0 ::.F~--~
60.55 O.CO
60.,~ O.OO
194,69 G,OO 194,&9
I2.35 O,O0 32.35
~2,35 0.00 32,~5
24&~96 0,00 24~,98
149.~3 0.00 149,53
14V.53 0.00
I~621.68 0.00
4~000.00 0.00 4~000.00
4~000.00 0.00 4~OOQ.O0
L9~5.00 0.00 1.9~5.00
4~:~2,00 0.00 4~302,00
4~7f7,40 0,00 4~7~7.40
&&,55 0.00
175~0~8,47 0.00 175~0~8.47
~7,~2.90 - 0.00 ~',212...90
9G~70b.57 O.00 98~70~.57
&~17~.00 0.00 &~171.00
158,00 0.00
~lb.00 0.00 ~1~.00
14~T/4.~2' 0.00 14~T/4.92-
302,9"~8.02 0.00 302,f3~.02
35%r24.bg 0.00
CHECK NUMER CHEC~ DATE VE~!D5~ NAME DESCR!PTIOK A~OU~Z'
ODI 00009355 02/25192 ABSOLUTE A~PHALT ASPHALT PATCH:PUB. WORKS
_001 00009357 02/25/92 ALLIED BARRICADE OPEN ACCOUNT;MISC. ~ERCH.
901 0000V357 ¢2/25R2 ALLIED BARRICADE SPECIAL SIBNS/HA~NARE/INSTAL
OOl 00009553 02/25192 AHERICAN BUSINESS FOR~S CHANBE TO BLDB. PERHIT
001 00009359 02/25/92 CALIFORNIAN ADV.ENPLOYNENT POSITIDNS:H.R.
001 00009560 02/25f92 COPY LINE CORPORATION TONER FOR RICOH COPIER 7:2.70
001 00009~60 02/25192 COPY LINE CORPORATION SERVICE CALL;FAX NACHINE
001 00009561 02125/~2 1992 CCAC CONFERENCE SE~INARI412815~
001 00009363 02125192 HOLIDAY INN RESERVATIONSli!29-5IIIJBISJ 392.0(-
001 00009364 02/25!92 3OJS AVAILABLE RECRUITNENT ADINAIMT.SUPERVSR 67,&6
001 00009~5 02/25/92 HARTIN I HOUR PHOTO PHOTO FINISHI~ & FILN 35.4~
001 00009566 02/25/92 PEPS (HEALTH INCUR, PRE~IUH) INSURANCE PRENIU~/FEB 92 15~65&.2!
001 00009367 02/25/92 PETTY CASH REINS 560.~7
001 00009569 02/25192 ROBERT BEIN~ NH, FROST & ASSO CREDIT NEHD 50t.0~-
001 00009369 02/25!92 ROBERT BEIN, NN. FROST & ASSO PROF SERV. DEC. 1991 3!1.00
001 00009570 02125/92 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 47900200000142&2/aAN 92 42.62
001 0000~370 02/25/92 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 479BO20000010BO7RAN CHGS 21.S
00I 00009570 02/25!92 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 479B-O200-OOOt-OB25/DEC. CHG
001 0000~370 02/25i92 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 479802000001077~/JAN CH~S 411.7~-
00! 00009370 02/2~/92 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 479BO2OOOOO!OBOllJA~ CHGS 137.2!
001 00009570 02/25/92 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 479BO200000iO7~/JAN ~HGS 23.33
001 00009371 02/25/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 7143(93439/3AN CHSS 43.1B
001 00009571 02/25/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 7i4-345-74211JAN CHGS 155.72
00i OOnO°~7i n~/~sf9n SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 714-34~-343B/OAN CHSS 155.%
001 00009~7! 02/25/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 7!43457422/JAN CHGS. I08.8T
00! 0000937) 02/25/92 SO.CALIfORNIA TELEPHONE C8. 7143495436/JAN. CHSS
OOl 00009371 02/25/92 gO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 714-345-T425/JAN CHGS 61.93
00! 000FJ937~ 02~25/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6677585B06701000A-12/20-01/21 444.31
001 00009376 02/25/92 SPEEDY OIL CHANGE REPAIR & HAINT.CITY VEHICLES ~2.14
001 00009576 02/25/92 SPEEDY GIL CHANGE REPAIR & ~AINT. VEHICLES~P.L 70.9~
001 0000937? 02/25/92 STATE COHPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R.O1/3OR2 19.76
00! 0000~377 02/25/92 STATE CO~PENSATIDN INS. FUND FEBRUARY 92
00I 00009377 02/25/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payro!! 1/2192 20(.99
001 00009377 02/25/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUnD Voidt~anual Check 1BB.99
001 0000~377 02725192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Norma! PIR.OlI~Ot92 10.80
OOl 00009577 02/25192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUH~ Normal P!R, 1/!6/92
00! 0000957? 02/25/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUN~ Normal P/R.01t30/92 109.7?
001 0000957? 02!25192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R, 1!16/92 277.95
0 , STATE COHPENSATION INS. FUN~ Nor. Payroll
00! 00n~37? 02125./92 ,, . 131.3~
^%'~=~9~ STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R, 1/16/92 54&.2Ci
001 0000937? u~ ~; ~ .
001 00009577 02/25192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUN~ Normal P/R,nl!30/92 141.5{~
001 00009577 02/25192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P~, 1/16/92 6.62
O01 OOOOq3Tl ~;le~ STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND FEBRUARY 92
001 00009577 02/25/92 STATE CO~PENSATID~ INS. FUND Nor. Payroll 1/2192
001 000{!~7! no,~5~o~ STAT~ CO~PENSATIOH INS FUND Normal P/R,O!/50192
00! C000957~ 02/25/~2 STATE CDHPENSATIDN INS. :UND FEBRUARY 92
,'~.::~i0000937: 02/25/~2 STATE CO~PENSATiDN INS. PUN~ Nor. F'avrotl I/2/~2 2(.21
AF~i 0000~77 An/~51Q~ STATE COM~ENSAT!O~ INS FUN? N~rma! PIR,01/30i?2
00! 0000~577 02/25192 STATE COmPENSATiON INS. FUND Nor. Pavrol! I/2/92 6.9~
00! 00(!09577 ~2/25R2 STATE CD~PENSAT!DN INS. FUN~ Nsrmai P/R, 1116/92
F"ND
f~r,~ 000097? ~'2/25..'02 STATE CONDENSATION INS. u FEBRUARY 92
(:"j: 0000937? n~.'~/o~ ~ ....CD~ENSAT~3i~ "" U
..... . ....... ,.i= ;,tS. ~cr. F'avrol!
!301 ~'j')f3?~:~ ":2':5'92 STATE C~E(SCiON iNS. FU~: :EBRUA~Y ~: i.~:.
C>Oi 0900937= :-2..25i02 STATE 'CC>:F'ENSAT!Dt; ItiE. FJND Nor, Pa.'rzl! 1/2/92
.... ~,,~ STATE CD~PENSAT!ON INS. FUND FEbrUARY 92 20B.3i
00! ,)OOrJ?~77 C2.,25!~2 STATE C~;'E~SAT!O)~ INS, FUND Nor. F'avrol! I/2/92 5~.05
001 000..q9377 02/25R2 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND FEB~UAR~ 92 4.03
(it!! 0000937: r,~,~,Q~. 5TALE ~n~DcN~AT~Du TNc FUND Normal P/R, I/!~.~2 462.5z
FUND CHEC[ NUmBEr CHECK DATE VENDOR NA~E DESR:F'TiO~: ~.':j-'
001 00007;77 02/25192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND FEBRUARf ~2
'COl 0000~377 02/25i~2 STATE CO~PENSATIOl; INS. FUND Nor. Payroll I,'2i72 ::
001 0000937? 0215/~2 STATE COMPENSATZOH ZNS. FUND Normal PIR.OUSOIt2 "'~.0:
'~Oi OCO(,~;; ~2/25~2 STATE COHPENSATION INS. ;UND FE~UAR'f 72
001 0000t;77 02!25/~2 STATE COi~PENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Pavroll I/2/92
0~1 0000°.';7? 02125!92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal WR,01150192 .%~.4~
001 000¢9377 02/25R2 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R, IilaR2 I&O.E
OCI 0b00~577 02/25/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal PIR:O!/5OR2
OO! 00009.177 02l~1Y2 STkTE COHPENSATION INS. FUND N~rma! PIR~ !/I&R2
001 00009~77 02125/t2 STATE COIiPENSATIDN INS. FUND FEBRUARY 92
001 00009577 02/25R2 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payroll 1/2R2 512,4(
00! 0000S77 02/25!92 STATE COMPENSAT!DN !MS. FUND Normal PIR,OlI~OI92 95.Bt
OOl ~00~377 ~'~='~ STATE COMPENSATION IHS. FU~ Nor. Payroll !!2172
GCI 0000S77 02/25/~2 STATE COHPENSATZON iNS. FUN~ Normal PIP? I/l&/~2
00:0000~;77 02/25!t2 STATE :OMPEfiSATION INS. FUnD Normai P/R.CI!$O/?2
,~,: ~O~F'E~SATiO~ INS. FUI~ ~or. F'avr~i! I/2!~2
r!,,~ .....~? ~'"'~ COMPENSATION I~S. FUND Nor~ai P/R. 1/l~R2 ~.2'
,,,, ...... 02/25!92
c:'.. OCOOS77 CW~,'c~ ="~: ~n"=c"SA?'D~ INS. FUND ~ormal ~ el/~n~"°
001 O00O!TT7 ~2/~L~2 STATE gOMP. E~SATION INS. FUND ~or. F'avro11 i/2/92 2~.~
.... 000:!7377 n~,~=~c~ STATE CS~PENSAT!DN v,,~
.n=. FUND hersel F'/R.O!/30/92 ~.
00! 000{,%77 02/2E/~2 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R, 1/16!92
¢01 0000%% 02/25/% STATE CQ~PE;~SATION INS. FUN~ FEBRUAR? ~2 ~.51
0~I fi~AAO~7? ~nyng~Q.~ OT^T-
...... . .... · ..... ..: EDMPEHSATIDN INS. FUND Nor. Pavro!) !/2/92
00! OOnnc'~?~ r,' ,~.~ T=.=~i!i ~ TD~iE AS~OC FEB. r~ 54G.G~
00Z ~000%8t~ ¢2/25/!2 UN!iOS RE~tAL SERVICE UKIFOR~ REKlAL/i/5!/92 12.~i
U ........RENTAL/2/S/92
001 O00O93S(s 0~.'25,'~2 UNITOS RE"TAL SERV!CE uNT:n~ ~.5;
n(,1 r~OO(!%B0 n? ,'~ '~' UNiT~ ....
.............. ~:r.,; SERVICE Ur4FCR~ ~ENTAL!02/07/92 12.5~
00i OO0(~SDO 02!25/~i UfilTO~ RENIA~ SERVICE ~jXlFOR~ RENTAL/2il4!?2 112.5!
CO! 009!3~S1 ~n~:.-~ USC?: Nor~:!! F'/R.Ol/30/~2
{~i A370~;~I ..... ';~ Uqr~ Normal P!~QI/50/S2 2¢.0
nn; 000093Bi 0~:~''~ USCfi Normal P/R:02/I5i~2 147.~
OOl O000~3BI ......~q~ USD~ ~or~i P/L01/50/~2 ?.5
vz,~,.Z .
001 00009~88 OSilOi92 3ENNACO ~ANiTORIAL SERV. FEB.
001 OO009~87 ill.'i':!'~2 KLEiii:E.SEP SERV!ZE~ '~'~ "' O
~J.-./;i
00i 0000~558 05/!('/9Z ORAhOE 3OUf~TY STRIP!N6 EERViC CURB PAIi4TXN8; PAUEMENT MRK8 4.~02.0
n~ Oq00?l~ ~' ~ ....~ ..... 66.5
.. ...... .,.: :_ RAMTEK STREET ~I~;T/CDF BURN
001 (,O!j!)93'BS 05/!0/~2 RAXTE' STREET HA!NT/12/2/92 4.797.4
'.!L:i~ ,. ,..., ... · ..~.~/;t ,' l~
t.A: 000CiO;tO n%,i~,~oo .-,: .......:cnm"T:~ PLAN CHECK/DECEMBER 6.171.0
....... W~,~ ........... ENGii4EER!N6 PLAN Cij/D~U~;
00i 00009>0 OSq'):'~2 WILLDA!, ASSOCIATES EIGI~EERING ~ECEMBER 9! 175.~8.4
C(:i 0{:~0%°~', rx ....0- ~ILLDAh ASSOCIATES COUNTY TRANSrER/Ei~EINEERi~ 17 ~.9
O01 0000950(; ~T',5.'~ WiLLDAN ASSOCIATES DECEMBER ~'/~ & S 158.0
00: OOOOSS~O 05/I"jS2 W!LLDA~, ASEOSIATEE CREDIT ~END/B&S/QEC.?! I4J74.9
:::!~'tO,:,:;'T. 5: C..:/25 :~: AGRiL.:zEDN ACCEPTANCE CDRF'.
C-!-.'('::.:::,:':L: C2/2:"'-':2 Fr-<:~!::-i', EE~'=-:?.':''
{15 (:':":'::'::..:! ..... :" :;:: '~E<Tr 'r'-'!,.:. ;-;.E~-'.I,j~.-
' '.'-'-:.:r;~;'; ". ': .'2. 1:,~_~.'.'
.......... .. . _ · .......
::i> (::.'-: :.TT" .2 'Z :' EEL-"."
u> :.(,:'::.'-TS. (:i.:=..':.Z E.;;T~.-'R:-
,:i!? O'..'.::':.:.T,[.::1;2>-7Z EO~jT~:EF:!: .... E;iEON
r,-c. ::,(,:,C,=TTF .'--,--.; c-. ECL-;TuEc": Ci.:i: E".'!,-'D~;
::'L:'(,"",' '-'.'~:--,'.~:'2:~:''' c_r. UrHB;'t ::'~.T: EDISON
01~ O0009U~
01~
019 e00057~
0!~
Ol~ 0000937~
01~ OUOO~U~
019 O000~US'
019 00009375
019 0000~75 -
019 0000~375
01q
0!~ 0000~375
o1~ ooOogU~
~19 0o0o~?~
01~ oooo~U~
o!9 oooo~u~
o~9 oooo~3~
o19 oOoo~u~
o1~
0!9 00009375
Olg 000037~
O!q 0000~S7~
,'J!? 0000S7~
(!!~ O000gS7~
019 0000~375
01~ 0000~375
0!? 0000S75
0!~ O000~U5
019 0000?375
019 0000S75
01~ 00009575
0!? 0000957~
019 00009375
Olq 00009375
019 0000S75
019 0000~375
0!9 00009575
0!~ 00009:75
019 O000~U5
c,,o 00009376
n.~ 00009377
r. ia 00nn~577
0!? 0000~377
019 0000S77
(;I~ 00009377
· ':~ 0000?377
C,:?
.. .....,*.:.
:)!~ 00('0938C
01~'
!':!~' 0000S8¢
02/25R2
C2;25t92
02125R2
02/25R2
~2125R2
02125R2
02125R2
02725/92
02125/92
02/25/92
02125R2
02125192
02125/92
02/25/92
02/25R2
02/25/92
02:'25I~2
¢2/25/~2
02~25!92
02/25/92
02/25192
02/25/92
02/25192
02/25i92
02/2~/92
02,'2~/92
02/25R2
¢2/25R2
02/2~/92
02/25i92
02/25/92
02/25/92
02/25/92
02/25/~2
02/25/92
02/25192
02/25f92
02/5/92
02/25192
02/25/92
02/25192
02i'25/~2
02;25/92
02/25.-'~2
C2:'25/92
C'2-'25.~92
('2":5,92
:'j2,25,'92
¢2;25/92
02i25i92
?E4:C-'R NAE
SOUTHERN CALiF EDISON
SO~THER~ CALIF E~ISO~
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN ~ALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
S05ffHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN C~LIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN C~LIF EDISO~
SOUTHERN C~LIF EDISON
SOUTHER~ C~LIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CAL!F E~ISON
SOUTHERN ~ALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN SALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN C~LIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN OALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN C~L!F EDISON
SOUTHERN CALI~ EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN ~ALIF EDISON
SOUT~ER~ CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF E~!SON
SOUTHERN CA~I~ EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALF EDISON
SPEEDY OIL CHANGE
STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND
STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND
STATE COMPENSATION INS.
STATE COMFENSATIDN INS. FUND
STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND
STATE COMF'ENSATIOR INS. FUND
STATE COM:ENSATIO!; INS, FURL
STATE COK°ENSATIO~ !N~. FUND
TE~ECUL~ VALLEY ~IPE
UK:':i :E'TAL SERVTCE
H,,:T:ii SERVICE
........ RENTA~
UNIT3~ RECITAL SERVICE
U!.LITG5 REi!TL SERVICE
USCK
577756E~324020005-01/09-02106
&777B&59414020002-12!20-Ol122
12/12/9!-01/11/92
5477282&503020002811108-0210;
5677755!97501000511/7-2/5
59777994083020009111108-12110
5977416008002000Ul110-2110
69776781651020002-I2/2~-01/27
5777780874003OOOO-OllOO-OE/Oa
12112-1111192
4377077554202112131-1/20
577756509~020004-01109-02106
57775656802030009/119-2/b
011~71~2-1129R2
577779024890~0007-01/09-02/0S
51779050101020003-12/50-01129
5~77828&50502000010!/0~-02/03
5~77800!401020000/i/2-2/I
!2/!2/9t-01/11/92
4377077138302/!2/51-!/51
5!779059001020005/!2/30-i/29
437707752~9/12/31-1/20
5177905!8020!0004-!2/30-01/29
5577813210401000~-01f03-02/01
4377077535002-II/30-12/31
457707753q02!!2/3!-I/51
53778006~59030007/II2-2/1
~577077515902/!2/3!-1/51
4U7077~50002-11/30-12/31
437707751~202!!2/51-i/51
~577077515702/I2/51-I/51
4377077527002/12/31-1/20
4577¢77516002/12/31-1/~I
S7777808742030007/1/9-2/6
5977799~083020009/12/10-01/10
53778!3320!020003112/30-211
55771260500020004-01/06-02/0~
~37707755002-10/31-11/30
4377077650601/8/!9-1/3!
55778006235020003/i/2-2/1
5377813!!20030004-01/03-02/01
57775~56701020002/1/~-2/6
56777559900020007-01/07-02/05
REPAIR & HA!NT. VEHiCLES~ CSD
Nor. Pavro!1 i/2/92
Norma! P/R, 1116/92
Nor. Pavro!i I/2/92
Normal P/R, !/18/92
Norma! P/R.01/30/92
~or~ai P/R, i/i6/~2
FEBRUARY 72
i,~rn~! F'/R.OI/SO/~2
iRRISATI?: ~ ~!SS, EeU:F.CSF
UHiFOR~ REKTALS/i/Si/?2
UN!FOR~ RE~TALS/O2107/?2
UNiFGRE RENTALS/{,2/i4/?2
Nor~) P/R,O%/50/92
41.2~
8,40
B,4O
312,43
72.2S
349.42
114.15
9,60
40,~
~8,51
~,40
~,.-
27 ~'
8.92
22.!~
30.15
~2.7c
974.62
01~ 00007~81 02125R2 UBC~ Norel! P1~:321~1~2 2~,~i
'el? 0000~$BI 02/25R2 USCll ~ormai
01~ 0000~82 02/25R2 t~STE ~NA~E~ENT INC. B~IBB0/FE~UARY ~2
12,77~.iE
02128192
Fiscal Year: 1992
Check Date Vendor Ilia,
Invoice Date PIO
CZty of lHecuka
Check Register
Data Description
Gross
Discount
PaHe:
Station:
Net
00009384 02124192 LiT LUNCH & STIFF CATEDI~
022492 02124192 02124192 IIItER FOB COIMCIL!2125192
Clmct Totals:
02120192 ANtlUll FOB 10 PEOPLE
Check Totals:
00009393 02/20192 ALElANK ALEIAIBB HANILTOB IIIgTIT.IIIC
021892 02118192 0211BI92 PERSOle. IIMIdE1.
00009394 02128192 JiLLlED ALLIED BARRICADE
120879.-00 02/14192 11267
Check Totals:
01151192 SPECIAL GI6N~IIBRliAREIINGTAL
00009:595 02/28192 AT&T A T & T
0225921F 02125192
Check Totals:
02125192 7~2069603400011;lAN CH6S
Check Totals:
00009~96 02128/92 BIRDSALL BIRDSALL, PATRICIA
020192 02101192 02101192 REII~ PHONE/FEB
00009397 02128192 LSN SPO h"l( GPI~T8
D179501 02113192 11272
D177528 02110192 11203
D100403 02117192 11272
Check Totals:
02/04/92 CARE CLDCT,; PRODALL TABLE TOP
01102192 TEllHIS TABLES ETC.TEEN rENTED
02104192 ~ CLOCIr.; PROk~LL TAI. E TOP
00009398 02/28192 CADET
614175
CADET OBIFOBI!
02114192 10625
Check Totals:
06109/91 CLEAN HATS ETC.12114/92
00009399 02128192 CALIFOBll CALIFORNIAN
0096911024 02119192 10626
02190 02/14192 10626
Check Totals:
07/01191 NOTICES/2/20192
07101t91 ilOTlrESI2/14
Check Totals:
OO0O9400 02/28192 CANLmLRR CARL MARHEN &
021292 02112192 02112192 FILE MO 91011
00009401 02/28192 CHEVRON
020592
Check Totals:
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.
02105192 02105192 79207722531aAN CHGS
00009402 02/28192 CITYIBLY CITY OP BLYTHE
022592 02125192
Check Totals:
02125192 COBFERENrEI3/14
00009403 02128192 ~TA CHTA
020592 02105192
Check Totals:
02105192 fiBBERSHIP
tO.O0
90.00
80 .OO
80.00
62.95
62.95
853.38
853.38
30&.52
30&.52
21.29
21.29
108.33
900.70
68.3O
977.~
26.25
26.25
17.43
62.75
80.16
196,13
196.13
126.03
126.03
18.25
18.25
75.00
O,O0
O.OO
O,O0
O.OQ
O.O0
O.O0
Q.O0
O.O0
Q.O0
O.O0
Q.O0
0.00
Q.O0
O.OO
O.O0
O,O0
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.O0
90.H
~.~
9.9
~.OO
~.95
853.38
8H.38
3h.52
3h.52
21.~
1O8.~
800.70
9~.~
26.~
26.25
~.43
~.l&
196.13
1~.13
126.03
18.25
18.5
75.00
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Staff off: 5569
Check Date Vendor hoe
Invoice.. Date PIO Date Description
6ross
Viscount
Net
00009404 02128192 COBB THE COBB 6ROUP
022~92 02/21192
hick Totals:
02/21/92 SUBSCRIPTION REHEUAL
hick Totals:
00009405 021281V2 COPYLTHE COW LIHE CORPORATION
69117 02101192 11289 01101192 ~EIWICE-CALLIRICON 5HOIPOklG
76530 02101/92 11264 01151/92 SEllVICE CALL; POLICE STATIGN
00009406 02128192 CPAS
022992
hick Totals:
CERTIFIED PUBLIC R__r~d__.aITMT$
02129192 02/29192 RET~ERGNIPIIU
000O9407 02126192 C9A145 CSA143
021292 02112192
hick Totals:
021~2192 N. LSTAR SOFTBALL PWO6P, NA
Check Totals:
00009408 02/28192 CTYCLERK 1992 CCAC CONFERENCE
021592 02115192 02115192 REGISTRATiON 4/27-5/1Sa,H
00009409 02128192 RAVLZN DAVLIN
8%25:150 02101192 11287
Check Totals:
01/01192 AUDIOIPUBLIC SAFETYIll25192
· hick Totals:
00009410 02126192 FEDERALE FEDERAL EXPRESS
456470102 02117192 02117192 EXPRESSIDEL. 1151192
hick Totals:
00009411 02/26/92 6RAFFITI 6RAFF[T! REROVAL SERVICES
44~8 02101192 0~05 10/01191 6RAFFIT) REI~OVALlaAll 92
00009412 02128192 6RDA
61452
Check Totals:
GNRA PUBLICATIONS
02111192 11265 01/51192 DESIGN GUIDE TO 1991
0000941~ 02128192 6TEDILL 6TE
6941969F 02101192
I&2-5595F 02116192
162-6043F 02/16/92
Check Totals:
02101192 714-694-199913ON CH~
02116192 714-162-5595/FED. BILLfIG
02116192 714-1~2-&O451FF-9 DILLINS
00009414 02128192 RAFELITH THORAS MFELI
0212~2 02112192
Check Totals:
02112192 RILEAGE REI~1215~2112
00009415 02/26/92 IES-APA IES - APA
022692 02126192
Check Totals:
02126192 SE~IRAR!41101921DU
Check Totals:
00009416 02128192 INSTITUT INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION
021192 02111192 02111/92 1992HE~DERGNIP DUES
Check Totals:
75.0O
96.00
376.H
140.00
140.00
~16.25
516.25
390.00
1~0.00
20.50
41~ .00
41~.00
58 .ff
2,315.93
5,817.34
6,677.87
52.0B
52.08
125.00
t25.00
155.00
155.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
O.O0
0.00
0.00
O.OO
O.O0
O.O0
O.O0
O.OO
0.00
O.O0
O,O0
O .OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.~
126.~
126.~
96,N
~6.~
140,~
130,~
)
2~.~
"H,W
2~345,~
514.~
5t817 ,H
6~677,~
52,~
52,~
125,~
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 3369
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date PIO Date Description
- 00004/417 02/28192 INTEPJIAT I~TEINATL CORF. OF DLDS. OFFL
022492 02124/92 02124192 SERINARI4161AE,CV,atPS,]R
Gross
325
Discount
0.00
Met
325.00
Check Totals:
00009418 02128192 INTERTEC INTERTECH TELECONMilCATIOMS
104837 02101192 02101192 UPSRARE OF fix SOFTMME
325.00
781.00
0.00
0.00
325.00
781.00
Check. Totals:
00009411 02/28/92 KIDSPART KIDS PARTIES,ETC.
021892 02/18/92 02/18/92 ENTERTAINlalT FOR i!OliNY & HE
00009420 02126192 KIRkAPE KIRK PAPER CO.
022192 02121192
Check Totals:
02121192 LARIMATE TEEN ZD CARDS
503,84
0.00
0.00
503
Check Totals:
04409421 02128192 I~C6AVRAR LORRI ANN RCGIWRAR
021492 02114192 02114192 REIIDIEIPEMSEIRILEAGE
503.84
114.64
0.00
O.O0
553 .N
114.64
Check Totals:
00009422 02126192 RCGRATH HCORATH, JR, JOIN [.
O21O92 02110192 02110192 REFUNDIPER~IT
114.64
38.40
0.00
0.00
114.64
36.40
00G4)9423 02128192 HISSION NIDSIOR POOLS
020192 02101192
Check Totals:
02101192 REFUNDIPEINIT
38.40
266.25
0.00
0.00
266
Check Totals:
00009424 021281920~SONIDS FILIAL TOUCH HARiET
038419-92 02101192 0339 02101192 PROROTIOLAL PROGIFEB 92
0384121-92 02101192 0339 02101192 PROHOTIORAL PROURMI WAR. 92
0384/642 02/01/92 0339 02/91/92 PROnOTIONAL PRO6/FEB 92
038413-92 02101192 0339 02101192 PRONOTIONAL PROG.III6,113,213
0384/31-92 02/20/92 0339 02/01192 PRDHDTIORAL PN)GRAHICHG DPJ)!I
26~ .25
1,750.00
16,214.76
9,667.04)
5,500.00
5,000.00
100
e00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26&.25
1,750.00
I&,214.Y6
9,667.69
5,500.00
5,000.00
Check Totals:
00009425 02126192 PARADISE PARADISE CHEVROLET
T92096CH 02/01/92 11178 12/15/91 CREDIT OR LICENSE FEE CHSED
T92096 02/13/92 11178 12/15/91 S-10 EXTENDED CAD PiCK-UP
38,131.76
395.00-
19,721.04
0.00
0.00
O.O0
38,131.76
,395.00-
19,721.04
00009426 02126192 PEABODY
022892
Check Tota)s:
THE PEABODY ORLANDO
02128192 02124192 CONFEREMCEiGI21-6124 &)
19,326.04
359.64
0.00
0.00
19,326.04
359.64
00009427 02128192 PETROL. AN PETROLNIE
550751 02120192 10995
Check Totals:
10121/91 FUEL/FED
359.64
5,3.48
O.O0
0.00
00009428 02128192 PETTYC PETTY CASH
022492 02~24~92
Check Totals:
02124192 CASH REIHDICITY
53,48
164.75
0.00
0.00
164.75
00009429 02~28~92 RAN-TEC
'006875
Check Totals:
RAN-TEC RUBBER STANP MFG
02125192 11292 02111192 ~6HETIC CLIPS FOR ~d)6ES
164.75
377.13
0.00
0.00
164.75
377.13
Check Totals: 377.13 0.00 377.13
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 336:
Check Date Vendor Name
Iovoice late P/O
-00009430 02128192 REDLMH BEDLDNH rANERA
18HO0-O0 02/11192 11250
00009431 02128192 SC SIAl6 SC 816Ma
12131191DR 02/01192 0355
010192 02101192 0355
1231919R 02101/92 0355
Date Description Gross
01123192 AIUIOREI CASEiRABAR EOUIP. 15~.54
Check Totals: 153.54
02101192 POSTIll Sl61ElPOB.Irditlll NTC 90.00
02101192,1M IlLLIMa 450,00
02/01192 POSTIll SI6llIPUB,HEMIll. KTC. 45,00
Discaunt
O.O0
0.00
~et
15~.54
90.00
450,00
45.00
Check Totals:
00009432 Q2128192 SCCEA SO CALIF CITY CLERKS RSOOC
022ff2 02120192 0212QI92 CCAC BEEfill/3/20192 J6
545.00
25.00
0.00
O .00
545.00
25.00
Check Totals:
0000949 02128192 SO CAL-2 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEIq!OIE CO.
9294020F 02107192 02107192 714-292-4020/FEl. BILLING
3jIS-7419F 02/07192 02107/92 714-345-7419/FEB BiLLIRa.
HS-741OF 02/07/92 02/07/92 714-HS-741IIFEI. BILLIll
HS-&005F 02/07192 02/07/92 714-345-booS/FED. BILLING
77.97'
49
61 .el
2~.51
0.00
0,00
Q.O0
O.O0
25.00
77.97
49.32
81 .Bl
288.51
00009434 02/28192 SOUTHCRE SOUTH CREEK HALL
022492 02124192
Check Totals:
02124192 LEASE/TEEN CENTER
497.61
18,~/4.95
0.00
0.00
497.61
18,374.95
Check Totals:
00009435 02/28/92 SPEEDYOI SPEEDY OIL CHANGE
01671946 02118192 11254 02103192 REPAIR & MINT. VEHICLES; CSO
01671950 02/16/92 11279 02/04/92 REPAIR & HAllIT, VENICLEG;P.N.
Check Totals:
0000947~ 02128192 STRACHOT STRACHOTA IMaIJRANCE
11010713 02/24192 02124192 PACtArE ENGOIGENENT
18,374.fi
~.19
~.49
71.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18,374.95
60.19
82.68
71.00
00009437 02128192 TARGET TARGET STORE
022592 02125192
Check Totals:
02125192 SLIDE CARDSEL
71.00
38.75
0.00
71.00
38.75
00009438 02~28~92 TUCKERR TUGKEN, RMK
021392 02113192
Check Totals:
02113192 REFUND/APPEAL NO 19
38,75
351
0.00
0.00
38.75
~51.00
Check Totals:
00009439 02128192 UNI6LOBE U~IGLODE BUTTERFIELD TRAVEL
10022 02/25192 02/25/92 LEAGUE CA CITY/3/26-271~,P!
351.00
196.00
0.00
351.00
196.00
00009440 02128192 UNITED
2UNIT,66
2UNIT.67
Check Totals:
UNITED MAY OF THE INLAND
01130192 01130192 kraal PIR, 01130192
021131~2 02113192 Normal PIR:02113192
196.00
113.00
O.O0
0.00
196.00
113.00
113.00
Check Totals:
00009441 02128192 RESTPUB lIEST PUBLISHIll CORPMIY
61509198 02101192 02101192 CA ,]UD CSL FIIS 921PUBLICATION
Check Totals:
00009442 02128192 MINDSORi MINDSOR PARTERS-RARCHO IND
0~0192 02/28/92 02/28/92 NARCR RENT
226,00
23.18
23.18
25,383.62
0.00
O.OO
0.00
0,00
226,00
23.18
25,383.62
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: ~369
Check Date Vendor I~ee
invoice Date P/D
Description
00009443 02128/92 XEROX-I XERQX
146183852 02114192 11280
Check Totals:
021O6192 MHITE TABS$CITY COUNCIL AONNA
00009444 HIH!92 ZE
~1~2~
Check Totals:
ZEE IIDICAL SERVICE
02107192 11235 01129192 STMIilID FIRST All KITS
00009445 03/10/92 ALFAI ALFAX
T08690-1(10 02111192 11190
Check Totals:
01102192 TABLES;CHAIRS; C~ RECREATION
00009446 03110192 ALLCITY
1254
Check Totals:
ALL CITY IIAM6EIIEIIT
02111192 0293 10108/91 TRAFFIC CONTROLIll26-218
Q0009447 o3/1o/92 ASSESSOR CQONTY AS~ERS(X~
022192 02121192
Check Totals:
02121192 APR 9220230201PRORATE PROP TI
00009448 03110/92 BRONNS8 ~ & BIGELM
5476RS6-(~ 02101192 10789
Check Totals:
02101192 CITY SEAL PINS
Check Totals:
00009449 03/10192 CALlFLAIl CALIFORNIA LAI(DSCAPE
308511113 02101192 10961 12101191 REPLACE FLDNERG IN EDIANS
00009450 031L0192 CORONA
10697
Check Totals:
CORONA CLAY COfiPNIY
02121/92 11265 01122192 80 TONS OF AllGEL NIX
Check Totals:
00009451 03110192 LENISVLY LEVIS VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC.
5513 02124192 0352 02101192 INPiRE CREEl(
00009452 03110192 IIAHRCDIIS RAHR CONSTRUCTION CO
DEC 31 02101192 0289 10101191
Check Totals:
SPORTS PAR/(/DEC CHGG.
00009453 03110192 RANTEl( RANTEl(
3939 02118192 0350 011~192
3938 02118192 0350 01129192
3941 02/18192 0350 01129192
3940 02118192 0350 01129192
3943 02118192 0350 01129/92
3944 02/18/92 0350 01/29/92
3942 02/18/92 0350 01/29/92
Check Totals:
ROUTINE STREET NAINTI2111192
ROUTINE STR ~AINT!2111-2112
ROUTINE STREET ~INTI217-2111
ROUTINE STR NAINTI218192
ROUTINE GTR HAINTI 2/10-2112
ROUTINE 5TR HAINTI2112-2114
ROUTINE 5TRI218,2111,2112
00009454 01/10/92 SYST~ SYSTER SOURCE, INC.
51048 02101192 10761 09106191
51048CR 02/01192 10761 09/06191
Check Totals:
SHELVING & SORTERS
CREDIT OVERCHR6
Check Totals:
Gross
25,:~.62
619.29
619.29
26~.72
2,134.08
2,134.08
3,~2.70
3,662.70
1,253.71
1,25171
7,996,29
7,996.29
1,240 .OO
1,240.00
2,41160
2,413.60
52,778.70
52,778.70
1,200.00
1,200.00
~58.50
2,784.24
1,016.78
1,826.41
2,109.49
12,368.87
2,138.11
22,602.40
3,977.05
94.82-
D~scount
0.00
O.O0
O.O0
Q.O0
O.O0
0.00
O.O0
0.00
0.00
O.O0
O.O0
O.O0
O.O0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
LOG
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.O0
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.00
Net
25,383.62
619.29
619.29
263.72
263.72
2,1M.08
2,134.08
3,U2.70
3,662.70
1,2~.71
1,2.~.71
7,996.29
7,'6.29
~,24o.oo
1,240.00
2~41~.60
2,413.60
52,"6.70
52,778.70
1,200.00
L,200.00
358.50
2,784.24
1,016.78
1,826.41
2,109.49
12,368.87
2,138.11
22,602.40
3,977.05
94.82-
~,882.23
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check kqister Station:
Check Date Vendor Nee
Invoice Date
00009455 Q3110192 TEARING T.E.A.M., INC
022192 02/21/92
Date
lescriptioe
02121192 CS FUMDIE
Check Totals:
02128192 GILLID-I C. II. 'flAX' 6ILLIS
123191 02101192 OYa6 02101192 ECEIDER SERVICES
,MII 92 02101192 02101192 JRII 92 ~ EIPBISE
DEC 91 02101R2 0210ii92 WIDEIS ClIP EXPEWE
NOV 91 02101192 02101192 lIElENS COI~ FIBlUll 10V
FB. 92 02101R2 0210il92 FEZ. 92 ~ ~ EXPBISE
Check Totals:
Report Totals:
Gross
1,&03.13
1,603.13
4,800.00
160.78-
168
126.00-
208.34-
4,i27.25
DiKmmt
m
0.00
0.00
O,OO
O.O0
O.O0
O.O0
O.O0
Met
1,603.13
4,800.00
168.78-
168.79-
126.85-
208.34-
4,127.25
224,162.78
Report Mdker CHEC[ LISTING BY FLIIG) Station: ~:
FUND CHEC[ NUI~ER CHECI: DATE
o o
- 001 0004~4 02124192
--*-. 00104049393 02128192
001 00009394 02128192
001 00009395 02128192
001 00009396 02/28192
001 00009:598 02/28192
001 00009399 02/28192
001 00009400 02128192
001 00009401 02/28192
001 00009402 02/28/92
00104049403 02128/92
001 00009404 02/28/*92
0010400940,~ 02/28/92
001 00009405 02/28192
001 00009406 02/28192
04~ 00009408 02/28P)2
001 00009409 02/28192
O0.t 00009410 02/28/92
001 00009411 02/28/*92
001 04009412 02/28/*92
041 00009413 02/28/*92
041 0000941:5 02/28192
04104009413 02/28/92
04104009414 02/28/92
041 00009415 02/28192
041 00009416
041 00009417 02/28192
001 00009418 02/28/*92
· 001 00049422 02/28/92
041 00409423 02/28192
041 00009424 02/28192
041 00009424 02/28192
041 00009424 02/28/92
001 00009424 02/28/92
001 00009424 02/28/92
041 00409425 02/28192
001 00009425 02/28/92
0410400~42& 02/28/*92
001 00009429 02128/*92
001 00009430 02/28/92
041 0040943/. 02/28192
041 00009431
041 00009432 02,f28192
041 000094~ 02/28192
041 004094~ 02/28192
001 OO009435 02/28/92
041040094~ 02/28/92
001 00049437 02/28/92
00104049438 02/28/92
001 00009439 02/28/92
00/. 00009440 02/28/92
~ 041 00009440 02/28/92
OOt 00009441 02/28/92
00104009442 02/28/92
001 00009443 02/28/92
041 00009444 02/28/92
VENDOR NANE
LUNCH & STUFF CATERINO
ALEXANDER HANILTON INOTIT.INC
ALLIED BARRICADE
AT&T
BIRDSALL, PATRICZA
CAUET UNIFOR!i
CN. IFguNZ AN
~..IFGMIIAN
CARLMAOR~&CR,
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.
CITY OF BLYTHE
THECOBBOROUP
COPY LINE CORPORAI'IUN
COPY LINE CORPORATIUN
CSrrIfiED PUBLIC KCOUNTANTS
DAVLIN
FEDERN. E~RESS
GRAFF[TI ENOVAL SERVICES
6RDA PORLXCATSUNS
6TE
6TE
THUNAS RAPELI
[F.S - APA
INSTITUTE OF TRNISPORTATIUN
~TEfNATL CUNF. OF m,H. OFFL
IIITERTECH TELECOffigiHICATIDNO
KC6RATH~ ;R~ JOHN [.
F,1SSIOR POOLS
FINN. TOUCH
FINAL T_m~H BARgET
FIE TOUCH NUtKET
FINAL TDU~
FINAL TOUCH RAIU(ET
PARADISE CHEVROLET
PARADISE CHEVROLET
THE PEANODY ORLANDO
RAN-TEC RUSE STANP ~6
RE)LANDS CAERA
SC 816NS
SC SIN
SO CALIF CITY CLERKS
SO,CRLIFORNIA TELEPUUNE CO.
SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPNOE
SPEEDY OIL CHAN6E
STRKNOTA INSUi~CE
TAG6ET STORE
TUCL'E:R,
UNIDLODE BUTTERFIEU) TRAVEL
UNITED ilAY OF THE INLAND
UNIIED MAY OF THE INLANG
NEST PUBLISHINO CUNPANY
MINOSOR PARTHERS-RANCHO
XEROX
ZEE ~DICAL SERVICE
DES~IPTZON
DINNER FOR COIN:ILl2125192
PERSONNEL HANOEL
SPECI~ SIMSIHANUNAGEIINSTAL
732069603400011JAN CHDS
REI~ PNOHE/FEB
CLEAN HATS ETC.12/14192
NOTICES!2114
NO1'ICESI2120/92
FILE NO 91011
79207722~1~AN aIS
COlFEEl//3114 PR
HEW. RSHIP
SERVICE CAU. IRICOH 55401POLIC
SEWICE CNI; POLICE STATION
RERBERSH[P/Ig
R~61STRATIUN 4127-5/1 H j6
AUDIO/PUBLIC SAFETY/I/2:5/92
EX~ESSIDEL. 1/:51/92
6RAFFITI RBOVAL/JAN 92
DESIGN GUIDE TO 1991
714-162-55951FEB. B[LLINO
714-&94-1969/3AG CHDS
714-162-604:5/FF.B BILLING
RILEHE REIRB/2/3v2/12
SE~INAG/4/IO/92/DU
1992 HENOERSHIP DUES
SEHINAR/4/&/AE~CV, fib ePSjR
UPORAIE OF PNI SOFTWARE
REFUNOIPE~IT
EFUNO/PERItlT
PRONOTIUNN. PROS/FED 92
PROHOTIORAL PRODRAN/CH60RH1
PRONOTIONAL PROD/FED 92
S-10 EXTENOED CAB PIC[-UP
CREDIT OR LICENSE FEE CHGED
C(XD'EREKEIDI21-6/24 KJ
RAGETIC CLIff FOR BAHES
~ CAGE;RAGAG EOUIP.
JAN DILLINO
POSTING SIDNS;PUB.HEARINO NTC
CEAC BEETINOI :5/20/92 ~6
714-~45-7419/FEB SIttING
714-345-&OOS/FED. BIi.LINO
REPAIR & RAIMT. VEHICLES;P.M.
PACKHE EHDORSEENT
SLIDE CARDSEL
REFUNO/APPEN. NO 99
LEAGUE ~A CITY/:5/2&-27/PU~P9
Norell P/R:02/13/92
NorIll PIRvO~/30/92
CA JUO CSL FRS 92/PUBLICATION
HARCH RENT
iIHITE TABS;CITY COUNCIl. ADNDA
STMIDARD FIRST AID/ITS
AROUNT
62.9~
30~,5:
21
26.2:
&2.?:
17.4:
196.I:
126.0:
18.2~
75.m
12&.8~
280.51
9&,O~
140,~
20.5~
514,b
2,345.9:
125.04
155,0.
325,0
781,0
~8.4
266.2
5,500.0
16,214.7
9,~7 .O
5,04)0.0
1,750.0
19,72X.0
395,0
$77.1
15:5,5
450,0
25,4
49.3
22,4
71.0
38.7
196.e
99,C
2~,1
619.:
2(~.1
Report iriter
CHECI~ LISTIN6 BY FUND
FUND CHECK ~JNBER CHECK DATE VENDOR flARE
001 O000fi4& 03110P/2 ALL CXTY MflA6BENT
' 001 00009447 031101r2 COUIITY liSSESSOIt
OOt 00009448 03110/~ BROIJN & BI6ELON
001 00009451 031101~ LEMIS VALLEY IONTRACTORS INC.
001 000094~ 03110192 RilNTEI
001 000ff45~ 031101T2 MNTEK
OOl 0000q453 0~110/92 RiTE
001 000094~ 03110192 MItrE[
00~ 0040945.3 03/lerR2 ~
001 000094H HI10192 RITE[
001 000094F~ 03110R2 RNITEI
001 OOOO94H 03110R2 SYSTEll SOLItCE, 11:.
001 00009454 03110192 SYSTE!t SOURa, life.
001 00009455 ~llO!fl2 '[.E.A.8., INC
001 000094F~ 021281f2 C. IL 'HAl' 6ILLIS
001 00009456 02128192 C. It. "flAl' 61LLIS
00100009456 02/281TZ C. II. 'flAl" 61U.[S
001 000094~6 0212BI92 (:. II. 'lIP 6ILL1S
001 00009456 02/281f2 C.R. 'HAl* 6ILLIS
DESCRIPTION A~IOUliT
TRAFFIC CONTROUII26-218
APII 9220234201PRORATE PROP Tl 1:2~,:
ROUTINE STREET flAINTI2/IlITZ 358.
ROUTINE STe/2n,2/li,2n2 2,238.]
ROUTINE STR MINT/2/11*:2/12 2,784.:
mrrxRE m tmrr/2m92
ROUTINE STREET MINTI2/7-2~II
ROUTINE STR MINTI 2110-2112
ROUTINE $TR MINT/2112-2/I~ 12,368,1
SHELVlN6 & SDRTE!I$
JM ~ ilON(COHP EXPENSE
9ECF. JRER SDVII:ES 4~800.l
IORKRENS COIl* DPENRE DEC ~
O01
196,291.89
019 O000T~I 02/2~192 N/TRY, 6L:NE
019 000ff397 02128192 fill SPORTS
019 0000fi97 02126192 9SH SPORTS
019 OOOO9397 02129192 ; SPgRTS
019 00009407 02/28/~ CSA143
01~ 00009419 02/29192 KiDS PARTIES,ETC.
0It 0000~420 02128192 gIRl: PAPER CO.
019 00009421 02129192 LORRI ANN RC6A~M
'019 00009127 02/2B/92 PETROLARE
019 00009428 02,'28/92 PETTY
Olt 000094~ 02128192 SO , CALIFOIUIIA TELEPHONE CO.
01~' 000094T~ 02129192 SO,CKIFORSIA TELEPHSHF. CO,
019 000094:$4 0212BI92 SOUTH CREEK
019 000094:55 021281rl2 SPEEDY OIL CHAN6E
019 00009440 021281rl2 UNI'IT.9-~Y OF THE 'JIlLlIND
019 00009440 021261t2 UNITED NAY OF THE INLAND
019 00009445 03110192 ALFAX
0It 00009449' 0:$11019"Z CALIFI)R!fiti LANDSCAPE
019 0000t450 03110192 COR{NA CLAY CIMPANY
ADIfiS$IOM FOR 10 PEOPLE 80.i
6AllE CLOf~; PROflALL TABLE TOP 108.:
TENNIS TAN./S ETC.TEEN CENTER 800.~
M CLOCI:; PItOIN. L TABLE TOP
ALLSTAR SOFTIN1 PRO6Rtl
BTERTA]IgglT FOR RORNY & RE 50.~
I..AISINATF... TEEN l) CARDS
REIfiBIEIPENGJI~LEA6E 11q
FUEL/FEB
CASH REIRBIC[TY
714-:545-741elFEB, BILLIll6
714-292.-4020/FEI, BILLIll6 T)','
LEASE/TEEN CENTER
REPAIR & flAilft. VEHICLES; (:fi 60.:
Normal PIR,01/30192 14.~
Norsal PIR:02113192
TABLES;CHAIRS; I:59 RECREATIll 2,1;54.~
REPLACE FLOEItS ill REDIMS 1,240.~
eo IoNS oF IbN6B.. fill 2t41~j.4
029 00009452 03110192 HAHR CONSTRUCTION CO SPORTS PAIKIDEC CRSS, 1,200,~
224,162.78
ITEM
NO.
4-
APPROV/~T.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
March 1 O, 1992
Award of Contract for the Construction of Street, Storm Drain and
Traffic Signal Improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez
Road and Margarita Road (Project No. PW91-03 - Rancho California
Road Benefit District)
PREPARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve award of contract for construction of street, storm drain, and traffic signal
improvements on Rancho, California Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road
(Project No. PW 91-03 - Rancho California Road Benefit District) to Oliver Brothers for
$499,716.85.
e
Appropriate $549,688.54 (bid amount plus 10% to allow for possible change orders)
from the Development ImPact Fee Fund to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-665-
44-5864.
BACKGROUND:
On December 17, 1991, the City Council authorized the Public Works Department to advertise
a notice inviting bids for the iconstruction of street, storm drain and traffic signal
improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. The notice
requested two (2) bids (the base bid, and the base bid plus additive bid). The base bid
consists of improvements for the Margarita Specific Plan. The additive bid was for the cost
of the improvements adjacent toaTract 23304 (IDM Corporation).
-1- pwO2%egdrpt%92%O310%pw91-O3 030592
On February 6, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. the bids were publicly opened and read. The bids received
were as follows:
BIDDER
Southwest Construction
L.R. Hubbard Construction
J.D. Stine
Southland Paving, Inc.
Fishers Grading and Excavating, Inc.
E.L. Yeager Construction
Summit Grading & Paving, Inc.
Laird Construction Co., Inc.
Matich Corporation
Oliver Brother~
BID $ AMOUNT
Base Bid 456,046.08
Additive 65,089.31
be Bid 608,992.06
Addbe 86,249.05
Bale Bid 580,974.87
Addbe 94,825.13
Bale Bid 554,758.13
Addbe 76,820.88
Bale Bid 461,187.66
Addbe 75,516.70
Bale Bid 448, 162.94
Addbe 74,708.38
Base Bid 498,677.59
Aclditive 68,684.66
Bale Bid 646,329.42
Addbe 86,304.41
Bale Bid 508,843.94
Additive 83,972.96
be Bid 431,175.57
Additive 68,541.28
DISCUSSION:
Staff recommendation is to award the contract to Oliver Brothers for the total sum of
$499,716.85 with a completion time of 70 working days. Liquidated damages for this
contract are one thoueand dollars. ($1,000.00) per calendar day beyond the completion date
of the contract.
Grading and drainage easements are required from three separate property owners for off-site
grading on the south side of Rancho California Road to implement the construction shown on
the plans. Staff has been in negotiation with adjacent property owners for more than three
-2- pwO2~egdrpt~92%O310~pw91-03 030592
months and have obtained two of the three required easements. The remaining property
owner, Imocal Inc., has refused to grant the required easements. Therefore, Staff is currently
modifying the plans to construct a retaining wall within public right-of-way to retain a small
slope (400 ft. varying up to 3 ft. in height) to remove the need for the slope grading. A
modified drainage structure will be designed with the wall to capture off-site drainage flows
from ImocaVs property and. accept them. into the public storm drain. These costs will be
partially off-set by reduction of grading quantities. The remainder will be within the
acceptable change order limits and presented to Council for authorization.
FISCAL IMPACT:
On November 12, 1991, the City council approved an agreement (Agenda Report attached)
with the developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (Bedford Properties, Marlborough
Development Corporation, Margari.ta Village Development Company and TAYCO) to reimburse
the City of Temecula for construction of improvements required by the Margarita Specific
Plan. The cost incurred by the City of Temecula for surveying, soils, inspection, and
construction for the base bid shall be reimbursed to the City through the approved agreement
at the building permit stage.
The additive bid includes the improvements adjacent to Tract 23304. The City of Temecula
will enter into an agreement with IDM Corporation (Agenda Report to follow) to provide funds
necessary to construct such improvements adjacent to their property.
It is necessary to appropriate funds from the Development Impact Fee Fund to Capital Projects
Account No. 021-165-665-44-5864.
-3- pwO2%egdrpt~92~O310~ow91-03 030592
ITEM NO.
5
APPROV/~x,.
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
March 10, 1992
SUBJECT: Agreement for Property Tax Audit and Information Services
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the agreement with
Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates for Property Tax Audit and Information
Services, and transfer ~11,800 from the unappropriated General Fund Balance to
cover the start up cost of this contract.
DISCUSSION: Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates currently provides
information to the City on current and projected sales tax information for all
businesses in the City. Recently, Hinderliter, De Llamas has expanded their services
into the area of property tax analysis. Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates will
perform an analysis to identify and verify, in both the City and within Redevelopment
Project Areas, parcels which are misassigned by Tax Rate Area. This service will be
invaluable when the City is preparing revenue estimates and the budget. In addition
to providing the City with up to date information, this service also includes
researching the County of Riverside's records to ensure that the County has
accurately classified each parcel of land within the City. If the Consultant uncovers
a discrepancy in County records, then the City agrees to pay the Consultant the
equivalent of 25% of the City's first year revenue for this parcel.
This service will allow the City to continually monitor the County for the accurateness
of property tax information and has the potential to provide the City and
Redevelopment Agency with additional revenue property that is located within the
City but is inaccurately recorded at the County of Riverside.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of this contract is $11,840 plus 25% of the first
year of revenue for any parcels found by Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates. A
transfer from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to account number
001-140-999-42-5248 is requested to fund this service.
PROFF-~SIONA t, SERVICF-~
This Agreement was made and entered into this 10th day of March 1992, by and
between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Hinderliter, De Llamas
and Associates, a California Corporation hereinafter called(*Consultant*).
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
2. Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the
best of his ability, experience and.talent, perform all tasks described herein.
3. P~ment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set
forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This
amount will not exceed $11,840 for the total term of the Agreement unless additional
payment is approved by the City Council; provide¢l that the City Manager may approve
additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Agreement; but in no event more
than $10,000.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual sexyices performed. Invoices shall
be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the
previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice.
4. Amendments. This Agreement may be mended so long as such amendment is
in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs,
drawings and notes prepared in the course of pwviding the services to be performed pursuant
to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or
otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days prior to the
termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services
AGR-O5 t~vised 1/22/92
7. lndenmi~t~fion. lbe Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Temecula, its officen, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and
all claims, demands, losses, clefease cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City,
its office/s, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them
for injury to or death of persons,. or damage to propa ty arising out of Consultants acts or
omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole
negligence of the City.
8. Status of ConsuitorS. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in
the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City for
any purpose. No employee benefits shah be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be
liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of
performing services hereunder.
9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on March 10, 1992, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than
June 30, 1993.
10. Subcontracts. The Consultant shall not enter into any subcontracts for services
to be rendered toward the comple~ion of the Consultant's portion of this Agreement without
the consent of the City. At all times, Consultant shall be primarily responsible for the
performance of the tasks described herein. Upon such notice, the City shall have the option
to immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's
sole compensation shall be for the value of service rendered to the City.
11. Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not
performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of
the City. Failure by the Consultant to w. ak~ progress in the performance of work herP..under,
if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the
Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be
resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et
2~I. City .and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
12. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service
on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of
the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. city:
Attention: City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates
2220 East Alosta Avenue, Suite 205
Glendon, California 91740
The notices shall be deemed to have been given .as of the date of personal service, or
three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal
13. l~-ntire Agreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or rcfatcd to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or in~dental
hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement
shall prevail.
14. 1-iability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries,
wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City.
City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or
sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents, employees, and representatives for all clai.'ms or losses the City may suffer
resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant.
Consultant shall secure workman's compensation insurance. Upon request of
Consultant, the City shah add COnsultant to the City's workman's compensation policy and
the Consultant to the City's workman's compensation policy and the Consultant shall
reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums.
15. I icerises. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to City Business Licenses.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above
HINDERLITER, DE lLAMAS AND ASSOCIATES CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Pawicia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
AGR-05 ~zvised 1/22/92
P. XI41R1T A
TASKS TO RF. PF. RFORMP~
The Consult. nt shall peffox~ the following services:
A. Property tax and economic analysis
Annually after the fien date roll becomes available, Consultant shall establish a special
dam base which will include, for each parcel within the city boundaries, the assessed
values for the secured and unsecured ~ tax rolls. The major property owners
and propca ty tax payers listings shall be provided on an annual basis. Tracking and
trend analysis of properry transfers, use type comparisons, pre Prop 13 assessment
parcels, new construction activity, multiple owned parcels, absentee owner parcels and
other information will be provided to assist staff in fiscal, economic and community
development planning.
Each year, after the lien date roll is available, Consultant shah up-date reports
identifying property transfers. Additional reports using the dam bases will be
prepared to identify errors, analyze city tax rate areas and taxing agencies and provide
comparative information. Printouts, graphs and comparative data will be pwvided on
a quarterly basis.
Consultant shall provide a reconciliation of assessed values (secured and unsecured
lien date valuations) to county records which will be used to project annual property
tax figures for the City's use in revenue forecasting.
Consultant shall pwvide the base year values by tax rate area for all redevelopment
pwject areas, and verify that all redevelopment parcels are correc~y assigned to tax
rate areas and taxing agencies. Tax increment projections based on net assessed
values after factoring for base year values and exemptions will be furnished.
B. Analysis and Identification of Misallocation Errors
Consultant shall conduct an analysis to identify and verify, in both the City and within
Redevelopment Project Areas, parcels which are misassigned by Tax Rate Area (TRA)
and will provide the correct TRA designation to the proper county agency. Typical
eftors include parcels assigned to incorrect tax rate areas within the City or an
adjacent city, tax rate areas allocated to wrong taxing agencies, and parcels missing
from redevelopment project areas.
2. Consultant shall reconcile the annual audiwr-controller assessed valuations report to
the assessor's lien date rolls and identify discrepancies.
3. A review of parcels on the unsecured roll will be lx~formed to identify inconsistencies
such as valu~ r~iuctions, Vain~s ~ r~podal to a ro~ilin$ IKtdr~ss rather than the
sims address, and errors involving tax rate areas.
4. Prolmty transfers and new construction completions will be tracked to determine
whether reassessment is performed within a reasonable time frame. The City will be
notified of parcels which have failed to be re~.~sexsed.
5. Contractor shall review and analyze RDA fiscal agreements for the purpose of
verifying tax increment pxojections, pass through monies and developer tax increment
guarantees.
6. Consultant shall utilize City Building Department data, including building permits with
assessor parcel numbers and project completion dates, to identify non-residential
parcels with new .construction activity and shall provide reports for use in the City's
preparation of Prop 4 and 111 State Appropriation Limit calculations.
C. On Going Consultation
During the term of the contract, Consultant will serve as the City's resotur~ staff on
questions relating to p~ tax and assist in estimating property tax revenues for
proposed redevelopment project areas.
D. Optional Services
The following services are available on a time and materials basis:
Analyses based on geo areas designated by the City to include assessed valuations and
square footage computations for use in redevelopment and community development
planning.
Generation of specialized reports which would require additional programming or the
purchase of additional data not necessary to carry out services in Sections A and B.
Any research with county agencies for which Consultant does not have a current
database.
CITY MATERIALS AND SUPPORT
City agrees to provide the following information:
Current city map and zoning map
A copy of reports received by the City annually from the Auditor-Controller's office
detailing Ass~ss,-d Values (Secaxred, Unsecured and Utilities), as well as UniUtry Values
for reconciliation analysis.
Parcel listing and maps of city or redevelopmerit pitteel annexations since the prior lien
date roll.
A listing of completed new construction projects and map book, page and parcel numbers
for proper identification and tracking for two years prior to the date of this contract. If
the data does not include the APN information, Consultant will research this information
at an additional cost.
A listing of the city levied assessment districts and direct assessments.
Redevelopmont agreements including fiscal agreements, parcels comprising the RDA,
maps, and all other information critical m understanding the obligations of paxties
involved in projects within th~ RDA.
F.X'HmIT n
PAYM~-NT SCI-II~.I3U~ .~
A. Consultant shall establish the property tax and analysis dam bases and shall provide
quarterly updates, as outlined under SERVICES - Sections A-C above, for an annual fee
of $10~800, invoiced as foHowr.. For the first year, 199~-92'1ien date roll, 50% of the fee
will be billed after the delivery of first reports and initial audit and 25 % each with the
delivery of quarterly reports. For cities electing to receive 1990-91 property tax data,
the services will be provided for an additional quarterly payment ($3,600) billed after the
delivery of reports.
Consultant shall be paid 25 % of misallocated revenue recovered in the initial year's
audit. Consultant's shall separate and support said reallocation and provide City with an
itemized quarterly invoice showing all formula calculations and amounts due as a result
of revenue recovery or reallocation. City shall pay audit fees after Contractor's submittal
of evidence that corrections have been made by the appropriate agency. Payment to
Consultant shall me made after City receives its first remittance advice during the fiscal
year for which the correction applies.
Fees charged for optional work or specialized work for cities as outlined above in
SERVICES - Section D shall be billed on a time and materials basis at a rate of $75.00
per hour or as negotiated by both parties under a separate agreement.
Above sums shall constitute full reimbursement to Consultant for all direct and indirect
expenses incurred by Consultant in performing analyses and audits including the' salaries
of Consultant's employees, and travel expenses connected with contacting appropriate
county department representatives.
ITEM 6
CITY NANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
March 10, 1992
Award of Professional Services Contract to NBS/Lowry for a
Preliminary Route Design for the Western Bypass Corridor
PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $19,810.00
to NBS/Lowry for a preliminary route design for the Western Bypass Corridor and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
BACKGROUND:
In late 1991, the Staff of the Department of Public Works solicited qualifications from
interested engineering firms to provide the City with information to establish grade, alignment,
and traffic capacity criteria to be used in establishing the location of the Western Bypass
Corridor. It is envisioned that the end result of this project will be used to condition local
development for the purpose of constructing a street along the to-be-adopted alignment. This
project consists of developing a traffic study and preliminary design from the intersection of
Front Street and State Route 79 South, across Murrieta Creek, proceed northerly across
Rancho California Road to the northern boundary of the City.
Eleven firms responded to the Request for Qualifications and the responses were evaluated
by Staff. The top three firms were interviewed and NBS/Lowry was selected as the most
qualified firm. A Contract with a defined scope of Work and fixed budget of $19,810.00
have been negotiated.
It is expected that the project will take three months to complete. The preferred
recommendation is scheduled for a public hearing to obtain input with the City Council prior
to a hearing at the City Council for final adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This effort is being funded from a $10,000.00 Community Development Block Grant allocated
for the Fiscal Year 91-92, and $10,000.00 from Account No. 001-164-000-42-5248
(Consulting Services).
!m, Ol'~qdrpt~92',(Bl~.wbc 0218~2
ITEM
7
APPROVAL J
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
MARCH 10, 1992
NOTICE OF COMPLETION - SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK
CURB AND GUTTER PROJECT
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
That the Board of Directors:
Accept Sam Hicks Monument Park Curb and Gutter Project as 100% complete.
Authorize final retention payment to R. J. Nobel Company, Contrac.t No. 0276,
to be_ re. leased pursuant to section 9-3.1 of the Standard Specifications for
PubF, c Works Construction.
Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND: This project consisted of installing curb, gutter, asphalt, sidewalk,
and lighting improvements along Mercedes Street and Moreno Road adjacent to Sam
Hicks Monument Park.
Final inspection of the project was conducted by the City's Public Works Department
on January 3, 1992. The project was found to be 100% complete and in accordance
with plans and specifications. The Finance Department has been notified of the
completion of the project for Financial and Risk Management purposes.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project was jointly funded with Fiscal Year 1991-92
Community Development Block Grant and City General Funds. The total construction
cost was $ 127,303. This project was completed within approved budget limits
authorized by the Board of Directors.
RECORDINQ REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TEMECUI. A
43174 binam Park Drive
Teme~ula, CA 92590
SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR
RECORDER'S USE
NOTICE OF COMPLETfON
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described.
2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590.
3. A Contract was awarded by The City of Temecula to: R. J. Nobel Comoanv to perform
the following work of improvement: Sam Hick Monument Park street imorovements.
4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was
accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting theredf held on March 10.
1992.
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: Sam Hicks Monument
P~rk.
6. The street address of said property is: 41970 Moreno Road. Temecula. CA.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 111;h day of March, 1992.
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California do hereby certify under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF
COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Riverside by said City Council.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 111;h day of March, 1992.
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
Forms~CIP-O01 Rev.
TO:
FROM:
June Greek
Kevin Harrington /.
Development Assistant
DATE: February 7, 1992
REFERENCE: R. J. Nobel Company
R. J. Nobel Company has successfully completed the Sam Hicks Park Street
Improvement Project. Attached are the required waiver and release forms.
Please prepare and record the Notice of Completion. I will notify the Finance
Department to release final payment upon notice of recordation.
CC:
Gary L. King
Shawn D. Nelson
Attachments: 8
3~lrnemo./khl3.mmo
JAN ?., 2 1992
UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT
[Calil0rnia CIvil Cede §3262(d)(4)]
The undersigned has been paid in full for all labor, services, equipment or material furnished
to R. J Noble on the job of County of Riverside
located at Sam Hicks Park
(Jol; Oelcriptioe)
and does hereby waive and release any right to a mechanic's lien, stop notice, or any right against a
labor and material bond on the job, except for disputed claims.for extra work in the amount of
o
$
Dated: January 17, 1992 ; ~i~. Str~p~n~ Service, Inc
Stephen J. Hei~t~,' Vice President
NOTICE TO PERSONS SIGNING THIS WAIVER: THIS DOCUMENT WAIVES
RIGHTS UNCONDITIONALLY AND STATES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PAID FOR
GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS. THIS DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST
YOU IF YOU SIGN IT, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT
BEEN PAID, USE A CONDITIONAL RELEASE FORM.
NOTE This form of release complies with the requirements of Civil Code Section 3262(d)(4).
USE REVERSE SIDE AS RELEASE FOR INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING LABOR FOR WAGES
~NQLCOI'rS FORM 3262.4--UNCONDITIONAL WNV~R AND RELrr. ASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT--Rm~. 1-85
Ipme ross 7-2)
1985 WOLCOrTS mC
CONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON
FINAL PAYMENT
Upon receipt by the undersigned of a check from
in the sum of $ ~) 7'(~ ~ "~"*'
(Amount of Check)
(Payee or Payees of Check) ~
(Maker of Check)
payable to
and when the check has been
properly endorsed and has beer~ paid by the bank upon which it is drawn, this docu-
ment shall become effective to release any mechanic's lien, stop notice, or bond right
the undersigned has on the job of
located at
This release covers the final payment to the undersigned for all .labor, services, equip-
ment or material furnished on the job, except for disputed claims for additional work
in the amoupt df $
Before any recipient of this document relies On it, the party should verify evidence of
payment to the undersigned.
Dated:
X 53Z
Unconditional Waiver and Release
Upon Final Payment
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE'SECTION all (d)(4)
The undemgned has been paid in full for di h, bor, services. eqmpment or mitere1 fumiled
to Moore Electrical ContractinK
~ I mff Cxa/omfr#
on the iob of cir, y of Teme,,Cul m
I fJt~ter~
located at Sam Hick' s Park lI, Temecula
and does hereby waive and release any right to a mechamc's lien. stop nonce. or any right a~amst
a labor and material bond on the job, except for disputed claims for extra work in the amount
of $ -0-
Dated: January 15, 1992 C.L. Pharris Ready Mix
Holly Ross, Credit Assist.
( Title #
NOTICE TO PERSONS SIGNING THIS WAIVER: THiS DOCUMENT
WAIVES RIGHTS UNCONDITIONALLY AND STATES THAT YOU
HAVE BEEN PAID FOR GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS. THIS
DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST YOU IF YOU SIGN IT,
EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN
PAID, USE A CONDITIONAL RELEASE FORM.
NOTE: CIVIL CODE 3~,,6~,(d)(4) PROVIDES: Whert the ci,mant u rtmared to execute a wamer and re/ease ,n
ezchanee for. or tn order to ,nduce ~a~trnent of, d final ma.ument and the clamumt auerts Ut the wamer tt luu. in
fact. been r~aid the fmai pa.mnent. the wawer and release shall follow substantially the iorm set forth above.
BIC~ r-OllM e-O IIqEV. 2/87s
~iJ~jl~~j,,- WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO.
18626 SumM Ro~d - Complon, Calilornla 90221 o (213} 6.28-(3484 · (2131 6a6-1101
RELEASE FORM
FINAL PAYMENT
RELEASE FORM. 3
CONDITIONAL WAIVER AND REI.EA~E UPO~
FINAl. PAYMENT
RELEASE FORM 4
¶INCflNDITIONAI- WATVER AND RET.EA.~E UPON
FINAl. PAYMENT
Upon ff.c~ipt by t!~ undersigned of · chick in II~ sum of
S payable io Wtite4 Whol~ Electric Co. and
mad when ~h~ check has be~n
pml~dy ~.~do~ :~d Its ~ paid by the ~ upon ~hich it is
d~w~, this alex:umbra s!~ll I~ eff~ve m izis ixo m~to* any
mcc!~ic's llc~, stc~ noti~ or bond fight ~c uRd~sigKd h~! on
~c job of loo:l~l at
m tl~ following exlenL This releas~ covers tl'~ final paynient to I~
up-~esigned for tit malr=risls furnished on the Job except for
d. .ted claims for additional work in I1~ amount of $ ·
Balm any s~:ipi~nt of Ibis dceumcnt ff. lle. s on Tk Ii~ party should
verify ~videnc~ of payment to Ihc ,~mde. nigned. If payment is by
check, ~he reJeas~ is effective ~.)nly when Ih~ check is paid by the
b.~' upon which it is d~wn
WAt.TERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO.'
For so much; for as much as may b~; as far as it go~s.
lad doff4 h~feb)' wtive and I~1~,1.~ mech~llic'l lien.
stop notice, or any right agtin:t i talx~' ~nd materiti bond en ~ejab.
;ccpt J'of .d~or extrn work in ~e amount of
WAL; ALE ELEC'rRIC ~CO.
1~ :.
NOTICIi TO PERSONS SIGNING THIS WAIVER: THIS
DOCUIvlI~I~'TWAIVF-q RIGI'f['S UNCONDITIONALLY AND
STATF~ THAT YOU HAVE-BEEN PAID FOR GIVING LIP
THOSE RIGHTS, 'lifts DO CUI, fl~IT IS ENFORCEABLE
AGAINST YOU IF YOU SIGN IT, EVEN IF YOU HAVE~NCrl
BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID, USE ~
CONDITIONAl- RELEASE FOIkM
'.U, .2_, -3:'~:2.~ jAN ''~ 2 1992
RELEASE FORM 4
UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE
UPON FINAL PAYMENT
(Civil Code §3262(d)(4))
The undersi~.ed has been patdin full 'for ait labor, services, equipment or
material furnished to
'. R. Jl;: NOBLE
(Your Customer)
on the job of c~ oF Tz~ctr~
o (Owner)
· located at
HERCEDES AND MORENO RD.
(job Description)
'and does hereby 'waive release any fight to a mechanic!s lien, stop notice, or any fight
again.st a labor and material and bond on the job, except for disputed claims for extra work in
the amount of $ -0- . ..
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT WAIVES' RIGHTS UNCONDITION,~IIY AND
STATES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PAID FOR GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS. THIS
DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST. YOU IF YOU SIGN IT, EVEN IF YOU
HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID, USE A CONDITIONAL
Note: This form of release complies with the requWements of Civil Code Section §3262(d)(4).
CONCRETE RODUCtS
TELEFI.~ONE: (714) 835-2~31 ~ OFFICE BOX 15326
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705
UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON
FINAL PAYMENT
Dated: 1 - 2 :~ -9 2
The undersigned has been paid in full for all labor, services, equipment, or material
furnished to P.E-S LUE CONS TRUCT Z ON
on the job of
HORENO & HERCEDES, TEMELe~T,>A SAN HICKS PARK
located at
and does hereby waive and release any right to a mechanic's lien, stop notice, or
any right against a labor and material bond on the job, except for disputed claims for
extra work in the amount of $ '0-
STANDARD CONCRETE PRODUCTS
NOTICE TO PERSONS' SIGNING THIS
Name)
~SDOCU~=~~~M~NT
WAIVES RIGHTS UNCONDITIONALLY AND STATES THAT YOU
~HAVE BEEN PAID FOR 'GIVING 'UP THOSE' RIGHTS. THIS
DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST YOU IF YOU SIGN IT,'
EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN
PAID, USE A "CONDITIONAL RELEASE FORM."
ITEM 8
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
,d4~Depart.~of Public Works
March 10, 1992
Release of Public Improvements Subdivision Warranty Bond
for Parcel Map No. 23264
BY:~Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
PREPARED
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of subdivision warranty bond for street, water
and sewer systems, and. DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer,
BACKGROUND:
On February 12, 1991 the City Council entered into a subdivision agreement with:
Bedford Development Company
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
for the one-year warranty period for streets, sewer and water systems. Accompanying the
subdivision agreements was a surety bond, issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company
as follows:
Bond No. 3S 743 878 00, in the amount of $38,500.00, to cover subdivision warranty
for street, water and sewer improvements.
The required public street, sewer, and water improvements were satisfactorily completed prior
to City Council approval of the Parcel Map. A bond for the guarantee or warranty for the
completed work was posted and accepted by the City Council on February 12, 1991.
-1- pw02\agdrpt\92\O310\PM23624 030292
The one-year warranty period has passed with no maintenance required. Therefore, it is
appropriate to release the subdivision warranty bond in the amount of $38,500.00. The
affected streets are a portion of Ynez Road, Rancho California Road, and Rancho Highland
Drive.
Attachment:
Vicinity Map
-2- pwO2\agdrpt\92\0310\PM23624 030292
NO'F TO
ITEM 9
~PPROVAT.
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFI~_ER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
March 10, 1992
Completion and Acceptance of Empire Creek Removal of Sediment and
Restoration
PREPARED BY: ~Brad Buron, Maintenance Supervisor
RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council ACCEPT the restoration and removal of sediment in Empire Creek, from I-15
to Murrieta Creek, as complete, AUTHORIZE the release of the performance bond, DIRECT the
City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, AUTHORIZE the release of the construction
retention 35 days after the filing of the Notice of Completion, and AUTHORIZE the release of
the material and labor bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice of Completion (if
no liens have been filed).
BACKGROUND:
On January 14, 1992, the City Council awarded · Public Works Construction contract to
Lewis Valley Contractors to restore and remove sediment from Empire Creek, from I-15 to
Murrieta Creek. The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications, and it is now appropriate for the City to accept the project and file
a Notice of Completion.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The contract was awarded for $58,643.00 (the City's total cost being appropriated from the
Public Works Drainage Facilities Account No. 165-5401 ).
pwO2\egdrpt\92\O310~empcrk.ecc 030292
ITEM 10
FINANCE OFFICER~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AG-ENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
· + City Council/City Manager
,1~5 De.,~~nt of Public Works
March 10, 1992
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 23561-1
PREPARED BY:
~Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 23561-1,
AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the subdivision
warranty bond in the reduced amount, AUTHORIZE the release of the subdivision
monumentation bond, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk
to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
On June 13, 1989 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Bedford Development Company
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
for the improvement of streets and installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying
the subdivision agreements were surety bonds, issued by Lumbermans Mutual Casualty
Company as follows:
1. Bond No. 3S 740 091 00 in the amount of $1,138,000.00 to cover street
improvements.
2. Bond No. 3S 740 091 00 in the amount of $102,000.00 to cover water
improvements.
Bond No. 3S 740 091 00 in the amount of $74,000.00 to cover sewer improvements.
Bond Nos. 3S 740 094 00, in the amount of $657,000.00 to cover material and labor.
Page 1 pw02~agdrpt\92\O310\PM23561-.1 022792
Bond No. 3S 740 092 00 in the amount of $8,000.00 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
The following items have been completed by the developer, or his engineer, in accordance
with the approved plans:
Required street, sewer, end water improvements.
Required subdivision monumentation.
The affected streets are a portion of Jefferson Avenue, Sanborn Avenue, Madison Avenue,
and Beucking Drive.
The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the
City Staff, and the Department of Public Works recommends the reduction of the subdivision
improvement bonds and the release of the subdivision monumentation bond. Therefore, it is
appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows:
Streets: $1,024,200.00
Water: $ 91,800.00
Sewer: $ 67,050.00
The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for '-
one (1) year guarantee period as follows:
Streets: $113,800.00
Water: $ 10,200.00
Sewer: $ 7,400.00
TOTAL $131,400.00
The developer has submitted subdivision warranty bond No 3S 744 730 00 designating the
City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of this bond will permit the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors to release the faithful performance bonds for these items of work·
It is also appropriate to release the subdivision monumentation bond in the amount of
$8,000.00. The Material and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council
exoneration.
AC:clh
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Subdivision Warranty Bond
Subdivision Agreement
Page 2 pw02\agdrpt\92\0310\PM23561-.1 022792
, \
//
/
///
/ - .iN~
/ -
1/~o.. ..;I/
N.T.S.
VICINITY MAP
SECTION 26
S.B.B.M.
AGREEMENT REGARDING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
COMPANY,
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the
CITY OF TEMECULJK, hereinafter called "CITY", and BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT
hereinafter called ,,CONTRACTOR"-
WIT NESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONTRACIOR
have entered into · aeries of agreements and CONTRACTOR has
aubmltted · series of bonds in connection with consideration by the
County of Riverslde of final map approval :
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on
December 1, 1989;
WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the
acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CITY has
permitted subdivlders to use the existing County Subdlvlslon
Agreement end Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms:
tNHEREAS, certaln references in the County forms
incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions:
NOW, THEREFORE- it is agreed between CiTY and
CONTRACTOR as follows:
1. All references to the "County of Riverside"
contained in of the documents between CITY end CONTRACTOR
concerning Tract 23561-1 are now defined as referring to the
"City of Temecula".
2. All references to the "Riverside County Road
Commissioner' contained in any documents between CiTY end
CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 23561-1 are now hereby defined
to refer to the "City Englneer'-
3. All references to any other Riverside County offices
or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 2 3 5
now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions.
Dated J,?Jqk By:
BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONTRACTOR'S NAME
ore's Name)
Greg Erickson
CITY OF TEMECULA
Dated
RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR
Dated
APPROVED AS TO FORM
JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK
SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY
State of California
County of Riverside
On January 2, 1992 before me, Renee D. Gentry ,
personally appeared Greg Erickson ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ~Q. i~'
(Seal)
~~ enee D. Gentry
IRR oct
~ ec/BND1063 0
BOND NO: 3S 74~ 730 00
PREMIUM: S3,128.00
CITY OF 'I'~!~CUIA
SUBDMSION WARRAMTY BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, State of California
(hereinafter designated as "City'),
and Bedford DeveloPment Co. (hereinafter designated as
'Principal') have entered into an agreement whereby
Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated
public improvements, which said agreement,
dated 19__, and identified as
ProJec~ Parcel MaD No. 23561-1 , is hereby referred to
and made a par~ hereof; and
WHEREAS, Principal is required to warranty the work
done under the terms of the agreement for a period of one
(1)~ year following acceptance thereof by City agains.~ any
defective work or labor done or defective materials
furnished, in the amount of tan percent (10%) of the
estimated cost of the improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, we the Principal andxn~a~ ~/RRL CASUAL~
as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of
Temecula, California, in the penal sum of $131,400. 00 ,
lawful money of the United States, for the payment of such
sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs,
successors, executors and adminis~rators, Jointly and
severally.
-1-
~ec/BND10630
The condition of ~his obligation is such that the
obligation shall become null and void if the above-bounded
Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
successors, or assigns, shall in all things stand to, abide
by, well and truly keep, and perZorn the covenants,
conditions, and pravisions in the agreesant and any
alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their
par~, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner
therein specified, and in all respects according to his or
their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save
harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, agents, and
employees, as therein stipulated7 otherwise, this obligation
shall be and remain in full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in
addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall
be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees,
including reasonable attorneY#s fees, incurred by City in
successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as
costs and included in any Judgment rendered.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no
change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the
terms of the agreesent or to the work to be performed
thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall
in anyway affect its obligations on this bond, and it does
hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time,
-2-
S1RTE OF C~T.Tm0RNIA, ) SS.
COUNTY OF Los AnSeles )
, On this 5TH
day of DECEMBER
personally a~
I I
[ i
19 91 , before me ~:ATHRYN K. POSTST,
WILLIAM L. COTE
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evi~nce) to be
the person whose name is subscribed to tb~ instrument as the Attorney-in-Fact of
LUMBERMEN MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY ~_ and acknowledged to me that he (she) subsc_~-L~d
t, he name of said ccn~y thereto as Sure=y, and his (her) own name as Attorney-in-Fact
State of California
County of Riverside
On December 9~ 1991 before me, Renee D. Gentry ,
personally appeared Mohan Vachani ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Seal)
Renee O. Gent7
liD VARY M. aLIC - CALIFORNIA
It~l.~i COUNTY
,,,o_,.,..o..,. ,,
alteration or addition to ~he terms of ~he agreement or to
the work or to the specifications.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has. been duly
executed by the Principal and Surety above named,
on ~ -~ , 19ql ·
(Seal) (Seal)
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
( Name )
~iTTORNEY- IN-FACT
(Title)
PRINCI PAL,
sy: 4
Mohan Vachani
Bedford Development Co.
(Name)
Vice President
(Title)
(Name)
(Title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SCOTT ~./FIELD
City Attorney
-3-
I,L~F. RMENS MUTUAL CASUAI, TY COMPANY
Ikme Of~los: Long Grove, IL 600~.9
POWER OF ATTO~
Know All Men By These Presents:
That the Lumbersans Hutsel Casualty Calmany, a oor~orstion organized and existiq under the laws of the State of
Illinois, and having its principal oftlee in Long Grove, Illinois, deem hereby rampoint
Vill~ea L. Cote of 1as A4eles, Caltfoz~ia AAAAAAAAAAA ~
Its tr~e and lafuL slant(a} and attmmey(s)-ln-faot, to' sake, axeouts, semi, and deliver during the period
beginning with the date of issuance of this mr and endlnl Dams,tar Its- 1993, unless sooner revoked for sad on its
bdmlf as s~rety, and ms Lta sat and deed:
T~OUB-J. ND EOLL~S (:;.50i0,000.0~) AAA AAAAAAAAAA&A
EXCEFTION: NO AUT!tO~ITY is granted to .eke, exempts, ml and deliver say band or undertaking .hich gusrsataes the
payment or eolleatLon oi any prmslasory note, ~mak, draft or latter of oretilt.
This authority does not ~erait the m obligation to be s~llt into two or sore bonds in order to bring each such
bond within the dullmr limit of authority 8s set farth heroin.
This' 84~ointment amy be revoked at say tiara by the L,' ~sremM Hutual CaMIty Costsay.
The execution of such bonds and undertakings In arm of these presents stall be as binding mean the said
L~' ~erBens H~rtuml Casualty Casesay as fully and ely to 811 intents and Wrposes, 8s If the same had bess duly
exerted and acknowledged by it8 regularly elected officers at its prin~tlml office in Long Grove, Illinois.
THIS APPOINTNENT SHALL CEASE ~ TaMfINITE ~'rHOUT NOTICE AS OF DECENtER 31, 1~3.
This Pater of Attorney is axemuted by authority of a resolutinn
Direafore of aid L.' to_mane Natural Camlty Colasay on February 25, 1988 8t Long Grove, Illinois, a true Bed
seats easy of which is heroinafter set forth and is hereby certified to by the undersigned Secretary as being
fuZl false and elfwar:
"VOTED, That the Chairlmn of the Iomrd, the President, or say Vloe President, or their appointsos dustgnat
writing and filed with the Sworetory, or the Secretary sh~Ll hove the power and authority to 8~Woint agent
attorneys-in-riot, and to 8uth~rJ~m ttma to exeaute on behmlf mf the CosSony, wd mttwa~ the seal of the Co~.,.any
thereto~ b.nds and undmrtakinls, rea~lntzsnaes, ~tr~ts of lndeemity end other .firings, obligatory in the rmtu~e
thorsol, ~nd say s~ offl~,~rs of the Coapsay amy e~moint agents for a¢~el~tan~e of Oro~ll.ff
This Power of Attorney is sl~ned, seeled end ~ertified by fsoaJaile unda- and by authority of the follo. ing
resolution eted by the Exe~utive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Coa~mny at · .rooting duly ~aZZed sad
heZd an the 2Srd dey of Fobruary,
"VOTED, That the sigrmturw of the C~airwan of the Bomrd, the President, say Vise President, or their appointees
design. ted in .tiring w~d flied with thw Secretary, and the signature of the Ssoretmry, the seml of the Coopsay, and
¢ertift~tions by the Se~retary~ may be affixed by f~stmlle on say power of attorney or bond executed pursuant to
~esoZutton ad~pted by the Executive Cm.aittam of the ~omrd of Dlrsotors on Fobrulry
executed, sealed end ~eFtified with resident to say bond or undertaking to .blab it is attm~hed, shall oonttnue to be
valid and binding u~.n the Cammany."
Zn TestlB.ny llhmFeof, the L~ ~8rk,ns Hutuml CaSualty Cornpony has oausad this lnstr~went to ba signwd and its
corl~ormte semZ to be affixed by its 8uthorizad offl~ers~ this I~ day of
Attested and Certifiedt
F.C.H~Culle, Sews-wispy
by
LUIIIEItI4ENS IIUTUAL CASUALTY COI4PANY
J.S-Xmr,lXl,Sonior Vioe President
STATE OF ZLLZNOZS SS
.~OUNTY OF LAKE
· Grace E. Condon, a Notary Publie, do hereby certify that J. S. Keeper· ZZZ and F. C. HoCuZ10ugh personally known
to Be to No the Beam persons uhOBe names 8re resPe~tivelY as Senior Vloe PrBeZdent and Secretary of the Lumberames
~utual CasuaZty Coalany, 8 Corporation of h State 01 Zllino/e, subsaribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared
before Be this day hi person and BevertLly 80knowlodged that they being thereunto doly authorized signed· sealed wixh
the oorlsorste sss~ end delivered the ssld instrtsmnt as the free end voluntary sot of ssld oorpors4clon and 8s their
own tm and voluntory. ao4 for the uses and purpose 4~rein set ~or~.
My mission expires:
6reoe E. Condan, Notary
CERTX~ICATION
X, N. J. Zarada, Seoref4ry ot the L,' L~rmtns flufuLL CamJ~ty Company, do hereby r4rtity 4hat the st,ached Power pt
Attorney doted Selpteedmr 4, 1~1 ' on MZf of the personis) ms listed on the reverse side is a true a~d
~"'rre~t mY and that the same hid been in fuzz fore/and elfeat line the da,e thereof and is in full foroe impel
/foot on the ckate of thLs oerttfioateJ and Z do/urther oertify that the said 3. S. Keeper, ZZZ arMS F. C. HoCkkLloulh
who executed the Power of Attorney am S~nior Vt~e President and Seararefy respeotivezy were on the dote of 4~e
examation of the attmahed .Pw of Attorney the duZy ~Le~ted Senior Vies President and Sesretary of the LumberaNme
HutuaS CasuaXty Company~.
ZN TEST])4ONY WHEREOF· X have hereunto subseribed ay name and affixed the sergerate ewe1 of the Lumberruns Hutual
CasuaXty Coapany on this 5TH doy of DECEMBER , 19 9 ]
~Y
This Power of Attorney limits the Bets ot those named therein to the bonds end undertakings s!~itioally Areled
therein, and they have no authority te bind the Coapany except in the rammar and to the extent herein stated.
fA 562-8 S-92
Power o~ Attorney - Teem
PR:ZNTED ZN U. S, A ·
ITEM
11¸
/~PPROV~v.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AQENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
March 10, 1.992
Award of Professional Services Contract to J.F. Davidson Associates,
Inc. for Land Surveying Services on Rancho California Road Benefit
District Project (PW91-03)
PREPARED BY:
Jack L. Hodson, Senior Public Works Inspector
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council award a Professional Services Contract in the
amount of e 10,500.00 to J.F. Davidson. Associates, Inc. for land surveying services
on the Rancho California Road Benefit District Project (No. PW91-03) and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
Appropriate $10,500 from the Development Impact Fee Fund to Capital Projects
Account No. 021-165-665-44-5864.
DISCUSSION:
In January, 1992 the Department of Public Works solicited qualifications from interested
engineering firms to provide the City with construction staking for the Rancho California Road
Benefit District Project (No. PW91-03). Eleven (11 ) firms responded to the Request for
Qualifications No. 004 and responses were evaluated by Public Works Staff. The top four
firms were interviewed, and J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. was selected as the most qualified
firm. A Contract with a defined Scope of Work and an hourly budget, not to exceed
$10,500.00, has been negotiated.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is necessary that funds for this work are to be appropriated from the Development Impact
Fee Fund to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-665-44-5864.
pwO2~agdrpt%92~0310%rfq004.ewd 030592
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19_,
between the City ~f Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City" and ~1. F. Davidson Associates, Znc,.hereinafter referred to as "Consultant".
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the
schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to
the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described
herein.
e
PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates
set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the
above tasks. This amount will not exceed ~ Z0,500 for the total term of
the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council;
orovided that the City Manager may approve additional payments not to
exceed ten percent (10%) of the Agreement, but in no event more than
$10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month,
for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within
thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The
City may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this Agreement, or
any portion hereof, 'by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days
prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides
otherwise. Within thirty-five (35) days after receiving an invoice from the
Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant for work done through the date
that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this
Agreement su¢h suspension, termination or abandonment shall not
make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT. !n the event that Consultant is in default for
cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation
or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after
2/formslARG-04 Rev 8123/g 1
- 1 - pwO 1%agrnTl~'nasTerf,04 091691
the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described
herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure
by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder,
if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or
negligence of the Const~ltant, shall not.be considered a default.
if the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant
defaults in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this
Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the
default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it
of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory
performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default
within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate
this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any
other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this
Agreement.
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on , 19 , and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but
in no event later than ,19 .
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or
breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's
decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of
three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services,
Inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et se~l. City and Consultant
shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the
event of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all
original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of
providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise
disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times
remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor
any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct
of the Consultant or any of the Consultant's officers, employees or agents,
except as herein set forth. The Consultant shall not at any time or in any
manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in
any manner officers, employees or agents of the City.
21formslARG-04 Rev 8/23/91 -2- pwOl~agrnt$~'nesters~04 091691
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection
with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation
to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not
be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or
sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of
State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant
to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply
with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees,
shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant
to comply with this section.
lOj
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on
the other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified
mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the City
Manager of the City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California 92590 and the Consultant at 3880 Lemon Street
Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92502 unless and until different
addresses may be furnished in writing by either party to the other· Notice
shall be deemed to have been served seventy-two (72) hours after the same
has been deposited '.in the United States Postal Services. This shall be valid
and sufficient service of notice for all purposes.
11.
ASSIGNMENT· The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the
prior written consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation
shall be the value to the City of the services rendered.
12.
LIABILITY INSURANCE. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable
to the City in full force an effect throughout the term of this contract,
against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may
arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by
the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Beets' rating of no less than
A:VI!. The costs of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid.
The Consultant shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance:
A. Minimum Sco0e of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73)
covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services
21formslARG-04 Rev 8123191 -:3- pwOl~,agrnts~rtasters%O4 091691
Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive
General Liability; or Insuranc~ Services Office Commercial General
Liability coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001 ).
Insurance Services Office form no. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA
0025.
Workers' Compensstion insurance as required by Labor Code of
the State of California an Employers' Liability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of
insurance no less than:
General Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence
for bodily injury and property damage.'
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per
accident for bodily injury and property damage.
Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers'
Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per
accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance. $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of
$1,000 must be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract
shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except
after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City via United
States First Class Mail.
General LiabiliW and Automobile Liability coveraqes. The City of
Temecula, its officers, officialS, employees and volunteers are to
be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned,
occupied or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, lease,
21ferm$1ARG-04 Rev 8123/91 -4- pwOl\agrntm%rnaaters~04 091691
hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain
no speclalt limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the
City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
With regard to claims arising from the Cons~Jltant's performance
of the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Consultant's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers officials,
employees or volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Worker's Comoensation and Emolovers Liability Coveracje. The
insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the
City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers
for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the
City.
Verificatiqn of Coveracje. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of Insurance effecting coverage required by this
clause. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed
by a person authorized by that Insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. *The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City
and are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish aeparate certificates for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject
to all of the requirements stated hereln.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved!by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self insured
retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials and
employees; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses.
2/formslARG-O4 Rev 8/23/91 -5- pwOl't:.grnts~rnester$%O4 091691
13.
INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless
the City of Temecula, Its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from
and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of
any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death
of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent
performance under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability
arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
14.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior
writing in respect to the subject matter hereof.
in the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of
this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of
thi~ Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVEDATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective
from and after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This
Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be executed the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
: .
Vice President
.By ,
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
2/forrnslARG-04 Rev 8123191 -6- pwOl%agrntst~nesters%04 091691
Mr; Douglas'M, 'Stewart
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive ·
TemeculB, CA 92590
SURVEYING ' LANDSCAPE ARCH iTECTURE
Re: RFQ 1004, PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAND SURVEYING
*. CONSTRUCTION SURVEY FOR law 91-03 RANCHO CAUFORNIA ROAD
Dear Mr. Stewart, '-
We are pleased to offer the attache proposal for construction SUNey services for
Improvements to Rancho Califomla Road. As you are aware, J.F. Davidson Assodates,
Inc., has provided similar servides to public and private clients singe 1923.
Enclosed you will find a brief description of our project approach,. resumes of key
indivldu.aL_s, description of the ~rm's capabilities, and a Scope of Services and Fee..
Schedule. ': .
We look forward to working with you on this .artd other projects, Should you have any
questions, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you.
'Sincerely, -:
'J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Vice President
OJK:km;X~:bg5 '
RiCk' Garcla: JFD,
-George Prine, JFDA
EXHIBIT "A'
Corporate He~ * ~ Lemon Street, Suite 300 · P.O. Box 493 * Riverside, CA 92502 * 714/686-0644 · FAX 714/686-5954
e~IF PRWrED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITI[ OF TEMECULA
RFQ t~)04, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PW 91-03, Rancho C.!;t'ornia Road
CONBTRUCTION 81YRVEY8
PROJECTAPPROACH
As with any construction project, co,nm,~n~cafion and advanced plannln~
are the keys to success. Upon notlt~cafion to proceed, J. F. Davidson Associates,
Inc., Project T_~m will ~n~i~_~te the follow~n~ seqllence of events:
Review of pl,n_. and site visit to ascertain existix~ conditions.
Meet with Resident En2ineer for instructions, clarifications, and
establi.hln_~ a procedure for comm~n~eation
Pre~compute 2rade sheets and stakin2 data.
Referonce existin2 mon,~m~qtetion.
Provide stakin2 for it,_ms listed in the Scope of Services, as scheduled and
directed by the Resident ~1-n2ineer.
Re-~nn~_~ll mon,,mentetion, prepare and file corner records.
Submit F~n~l Report to the Resident En2ineer.
All ~dd work will be reviewed by J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc.'s Project
ManaZer with.in 24 hours of execution. Copies of all field notes will be provided
to the Resident En2ineer ~mm~_f]~AteIy al~er review and approval. Of course, any
unusual items, errors on ,~nForeseen conditions will be reported 'immediately.
As Vice President and Shareholder of the firm, Mr. Kipper will be
responsible for _~fi pl~ms~y COn~ Odmln~etratiOn and assur~_~ce of project
objectives.
He will be kept h, Curmed of sll -ssignment activity by the Project Manager
and will be available to participate in meetings with the City staff. His
involvement insures attainment of the overall goals ~f each assignment.
Mr. Steve O'M,I!~,my. P.L.$, Field On., v~,a Supervisor
Mr. O~lalley will be responsible for the direct supervision of the field
survey parties and also be the *on-site* supervising licensed Land Surveyor
when the sssignment _,'~alla for t_.M_a requirement.
SURVEY PARTIES
J. F. Davidson Associates, he, is currently fielding 6-7 survey parties. Our
field stadiums 10 Ce~_'_0ed Party Chiefs, ,ha trucks and equipment to field
15 fully outfitted crews. All survey trucks contain the latest Geodimeter 440
Total Stations, V~xld levels,. radio COmmllrFiCati0ns with ottr of~ce St~J~F, and hn-d-
held radios for job-site commm,nlcation.
Survey parties ~n be provided within 48 hours of notification.
(Jrrl[ OF TEMEa]IA
RFQ t~)04, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PW 91-0S, R~ncho CAlifornia Road
8COPE OF SERVICE8
Construction Surveys
J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc., a2rees to provide one set of stakes for
each of the foliowin2:
1. ROUGH GRADINC..
A. Reference existing centerline mon-ments within the project.
B. Mark pavement saw cut lines for removers.
Ce
Install offset stakes at 50 foot intervals along the right-of-way
for rough grading. Grades to reference topo of curb. Where cut
or ~11n exceed 3 feet, slope stal~es will be set
De
Upon completion of rough grading in the area slope staked, set
offset stakes for verification and finishing curb grade.
FEE: ,325O
e
STORM DRAIN FACrLFflE8
Install offset stakes at 50 foot intervals, B.C.'s, E.C.'s and
control peinte for construction of storm drain lines 'A" through
"D" grades to reference flow line of pipe.
B. Install offset st~lres for the constv,_ction of inlets.
FI : mso
CURB AND G~TrRf, EDGE OF PAVE1WENT
Install offset sta~s at 25 foot 'intervals for construction of
curbs and gutter and edge of paving. Grades to reference top of
curb or finish paving grade.
Install one offset stake at the center of each curb outlet.
STREET T,TGHT STANDARD8
A.
Install one ~ffset stake at each light standard location. Grades
to reference top of curb.
FEE: $1300
o
MONU1VtE-NTATION
Upon completion of final paving, reinstall centerline
mon-mentation disturbed during constructio~ Prepare and file
comer records.
FEZ: $ 8oo
Items 1 through 5 include field party supervision and support,
checking of field notes and coordination with the resident engineer.
trOTAL FEE: $10.5oo
Invoicing to be monthly, based on percentage completoc~
ASSYJMPTION8 AND EXCLUSIONS:
The above costs are based on the assumption that each item will be
accomplished in a con~nuous operation, Phased or partial construction will be
considered outside the scope of this fee proposal.
The following services are available, but excluded ~rom the scope of this
proposal:
Restakizlg
Staking for brow ditches and down dr~_~-a
8f~k~,~ for pavement sub-2rade
S~_~k~-g for utilities, fire hydrants, or other facilities not addressed in the
Scope of Work
Invoicing for services outside the Scope of Work will be based on ~me and
materials expended, as follows:
2 Person Survey Party .....................................................................$12~Hour
3 Person Survey Party .....................................................................$160/Hour
Supervj~n~ Surveyor ........................................................................$ 8r~Hour
Mileage ..............................................................................................$0.31/Mile
Supplies ......................................................................................Cost Plus 20%
ITEM
12
NANCE OFFICER
TY MANAGER 'l~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Council/City Manager
/~Department of Public Works
DATE:
March 10, 1992
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
Authorize Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract 23304
~'~' uglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORITF the reduction of street, sewer and water faithful
performance bond amounts, ACCrPT replacement faithful performance bonds in the reduced
amounts, APPROVE an extension of time to January 10, 1993 for the subdivision agreement
for TR23304, ACCEPT a one time settlement of ~ 103,000.00 from Investment Development
Management (IDM) Corporation for construction Of certain street and storm drain
improvements and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer.
BACKGROUND:
IDM Corporation recorded a final tract map in the City of Temecula in July, 1990 (TR23304)
for the purpose of constructing apartments along Rancho California Road. As a condition of
recording the map, the City of Temecula required IDM COrporation to procure bonds for water,
sewer, flood control, street and storm drain improvements. These bonds were issued by
Pacific States Casualty, bond number 4349. These .bonds were administered through a
subdivision agreement between IDM Corporation and the City of Temecula with an expiration
date of January 10, 1992. The bonds were issued in the following amounts:
1. Bond No. 4349 in the amount of ~237,500.00 to cover street improvements.
2. Bond No. 4349 in the amount of $136,500.00 to cover water improvements.
3. Bond No. 4349 in the amount of $59,000.00 to cover sewer improvements.
e
Bond No. 4349 in the amounts of ~118,750.00, ~68,250.00, and $29,500.00
respectively, to cover material and labor.
-1- pwO2%egdrpt%92%O310%TR23304 030292
DISCUSSION:
IDM Corporation began work on the project in 1990, but due to economic difficulties has
temporarily stopped construction, The City of Temecula is currently preparing to award a
Public Works contract (PW91-03) to widen Rancho California Road in the vicinity of the IDM
Corporation's project. The 18-month period, during which IDM Corporation was to perform
public improvements under the City Subdivision Agreement, has now expired. City staff has
negotiated an agreement with IDM Corporation for payment of $103,000,00 to the City for
certain improvements not constructed by IDM Corporation as part of TR23304. The City may
with these funds now construct the improvements set forth below, and extend the
Subdivision Agreement through January 10, 1993 for the remaining improvements.
The improvements the City will construct are detailed on the attached Bid Sheet and include,
and are limited to: street widening, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, storm drains, and fire
hydrant relocation ("street widening"). The attached Proposal Bid Sheet is directly from the
additive bid for the Rancho California Road Benefit District Project (PW91-03). IDM
Corporation will be responsible for the remainder of the items approved for construction with
TR23304 in July 1990. By way of example, IDM Corporation will construct street lights,
street trees and other items.
To accomplish this, Pacific States Casualty will pay to the City One Hundred Three Thousand
Dollars ($103,000.00). These monies will cover the construction of the attached items, City
inspection, geotschnical testing, surveying and City administration of this construction. Upon
receipt of said money, IDM Corporation and Pacific States Casualty will be released of all
responsibility for construction of the street widening as shown on the attached bid sheet.
Should the City be able to complete the work for less than ~103,000.00, the City will retain
the difference; Should it cost more then $103,000,00, the City will be responsible for the
overrun. Eastern Municipal Water District (sewer) and Rancho California Water District
(water) have also agreed to 50% bond reductions for work already completed by IDM
Corporation, Upon receipt of the ~103,000.00, the City authorizes the following bond
reduction:
BOND % RELEASE BOND AMOUNT AMOUNT OF
RELEASE
Water 50 $59,000.00 $29,500.00
Sewer 50 $136,500.00 668,250.00
Flood 0 ~229,863.00 ~ 0
Street and 80 $237,500.00 8190.000.00
Storm drain
TOTAL $287,750.00
1
-2- pwO2%agdrpt%92%O310%TR23304 030292
The remainder of the bonds; sewer - 50%, water - 50%, flood - 100%, and street and storm
drain - 20% will be recommended to the City Council, upon completion of the work for further
reduction to the 10% warranty level only. Subsequent to release of the remaining 10%, a
one-year warranty period for the improvements is required after which the developer may
request complete bond exoneration.
Therefore it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows:
Streets: $190,000.00
Water: $ 68,250.00
Sewer: $ 29,500.00
Faithful Performance Bond amounts to be retained in effect are as follows:
Streets: 847,500.00
Water: $68,250.00
Sewer: 6~9.500.00
TOTAL: $145,250.00
The developer has submitted a Faithful Performance BOnd designating the City of Temeculs
as obligee.
City staff recommends that the Faithful Performance Bonds as reduced be maintained until
all work is satisfactorily completed, the City Council accepts these improvements, and
authorizes the initiation of the one-year warranty period.' Material and Labor Bonds will remain
in effect pending City Council exonerstion.
The Developer has also posted a Subdivision Improvements Performance Bond with the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the amount of
$229,863.00 for the installation of flood control facilities. The District will not permit
a partial reduction, nor initiate a warranty period, until the District accepts the completed
improvements. Thus, this bond remains at full amount and in full effect st this time.
AC:clh
Attachment:
Bid Sheet (PW91-03)
-3- pwO2~gdrpt~92%O310%TR23304 030292
PW 91-03 RANClIO CALFORMA ROAD BENEFIT DISTigCT
BID SH!iT
ITEM
NO.
SIA-1
SIA-2
SIA-3
SIA-4
SIA-5
SIA-6
SIA-7
SIA-8
SIA-9
SIA-10
SIA-11
SIA-12
SIA-13
SIA-14
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVAIX)N AND FILL 2, 113
CONSTRUCT CLASS 2 BASE 434
CONSTRUCT ASPHALT PAVEMENT 621
OVERLAY EXISTING A.C. (14NCH MIN.)
FURNISH AND APPLY FOG SEAL
CONSTRUCT TYPE 'A-8' CURB AND
GUTTER PER RIV. CO. STD. #201
CONSTRUCT TYPE 'D' CURB PER RIV.
CO. STD. 1204
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
APPROACH TO R/W PER RIV. CO. STD.
1207
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PER RIV. CO. STDS. 1400 AND 401
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE ACCESS
RAMP PER RIV. CO. STD. ;1403
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CROSS-
GUTTER 1,315 PER RIV. CO. STDS.
1209 AND 209A
RELOCATE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
PER 2 R.C.W.D. STD. #RC-377.3 AND
RC-380.1
ADJUST EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
TO GRADE
ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVES TO
GRADE
19,761
54, 213
1,136
120
672
6,507
1,315
3
3
3
C.Y. $2.85 $5,599.45
C.Y. $18.00 $7,812.00
TON $27.00 $16,767.00
S
S.F. $0.30 e5,928.30
S.F. 80.01 $542.13
L.F. $6.00 $6,816.00
L.F. $5.00 6600.00
S.F. $1.85 $1,243.20
S.F. 11.35 18,784.45
EA. 1100.00 1200.00
S.F. 63.25 64,273.75
12,900.00 $8,700.00
EA. 1325.00 1975.00
TOTAL 4;68.541.08
ITEM 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~
FINANCE'OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Banning Department
March 10, 1992
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25004 and Change of Zone No. 5611,
Overruling of Airport Land Use Commission Denial
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
OVRIUIF The Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commiseion's denial of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25004 and Change of Zone No. 5611.
BACKGROUND:
On October 15, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposal and
approved Change of Zone No. 5611 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25004 by a vote
of 3-1.
On November 13, 1990, the Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Map were considered by
the City Council. The only discussion at that hearing pertained to slope maintenance and
Quimby Act requirements. The project was approved by a Council vote of 5-0.
One of the Conditions of Approval for the tentative map required the applicant to garner
approval from the Riverside County Airport Land Usa Commission, (A.L.U.C.) prior to
recording the map. The A.L.U.C. denied the project, stating that the lot sizes were too small
(less than two and one half acres each).
DISCUSSION
Zone ChanQe
Change of Zone No. 5611 was a proposal to change the zoning of the subject 59 acres from
R-R 2 ~ (Rural Residential), which requires a two and one half acre minimum lot size, to R-1
(Single-Family Residential), which permits s 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. The
proposed density of 2.3 DU/AC is consistent with the 2-4 DU/AC SWAP designation.
S%STAFFR~i~25004VTM.CC
Tentative Tr,,ct
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25004 proposes to subdivide the subject 59 acres into 135
single family residential lots and four (4) remainder parcels. The proposed lot sizes range from
7,200 square feet to 17,825 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 8,800
square feet. This proposal is consistent with Change of Zone No. 5611.
Senate Bill 2'55
Senate Bill 255 established a mandatory framework for counties in the State of California to
formulate specific land use policies for airport areas, and to review those projects within
airport influence boundaries. The County has not yet finished its own plan. In the interim
the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission has adopted the State Airport Land Use
guidelines which include a two mile radius requirement for project review. The radius of the
influence area only allows residential lots with a minimum size of 2½ acres. Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25004 pr,0posing 7,200 square foot lot sizes is located 1 ~A-2 miles
from the airport. Riverside County A.L.U.C. denied the project on July 18, 1991 based on
S.B. 255 and the findings required for that action. Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code
allows that if the A.L.U.C. disapproves an application, the City may overrule the A.L.U.C. by
a two thirds vote if it makes findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes
of the Public Utilities Code pursuant to A. LU.C. provisions. As pointed out by the City
Attorney, if the City is not the operator of the airport, the operator becomes immune from
liability for damages to property or porsonal injury for the City's decision to proceed with the
particular project. The City Council must make specific findings in order to overrule the
A.L.U.C. decision. Pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commisaion's recommendation for this
project, two different airport analyses have been completed. In addition, a third airport
consultant has expressed concurrence with the studies.
Height Obstruction
According to the studies prepared for this report, no height obstruction problems are
anticipated to occur if typical residential units are built on the site. Staff concurs with the
assessment that structures on the site will not intrude into the flight surfaces, because
development will be residential construction with a maximum height of thirty-five feet.
Safety/Accident Probabilitv
According to the studies, the safety impacts relating to an analysis of crash and accident
probabilities from flight operations at the airport are "considered quite low" and well within
acceptable levels. Staff has no reason to doubt or question the accident probability results
in the study.
Noise
The study has shown that the proposed project is located well outside of the 65 Community
Noise Equivalent Value Area (C.N.E.L.) which the County of Riverside and the State of
California Division of Aeronautics use as a standard for minimum outside noise levels in a
residential area. The outside C.N.E.L range for the project is 50-54 dB. Standard residential
construction techniques will reduce the noise levels well below the Environmental Protection
Agency standard of 45 dB for interior noise levels.
S%STA!:FRPT'~V"I~CC 2
Future runway or airport expansion will not increase the previously mentioned figures. Both
of the studies were conducted using ultimate airport expansion figures.
Staff is in concurrence with the recommendations set forth in the airport studies which were
submitted. In addition, based on the findings and data contained in the studies conducted by
J.J. Van Houten and Associates and Aviation, Systems Associates Inc. as well as the
recommendation from airport consultant Gerald M. Dallas, Staff is of the opinion that the
proposed project will not be adversely impacted by the French' Valley Airport. In addition, the
project will not restrict the future expansion of the airport.
FUTURE RESIDENT DISCLOSURE
As a result of the projects proximity to the airport, public disclosure will be required to be
given to future property owners within the subject tentative tract. The standard requirement
for issues such as this is a disclosure statement in a "WHITE" report which is required by the
State Department of Real Estate. In addition, the applicant has voluntarily formulated a
notification which would be handed to prospective home buyers. This handout would further
ensure proper notification.
ENVIRONMENTAL
A negative declaration was adopted at the time the project was initially approved. No further
environmental determination is required at this time. The proposed action is exempt from the
CEQA guidelines.
FINDINGS
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission is making substantial progress
toward the completion of the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan required by State
Law.
There is reasonable probability that the Change of Zone No. 5611 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25004 will be consistent with the plan being considered by
the Airport Land Use Commission, because the airport studies prepared for the site
indicate that airport related impacts would be negligible, and meet the requirements
of all Federal, State end Local Laws.
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
Future Adopted Airport Land Use Plan if the action, regulation, or permit is ultimately
inconsistent with the Future Adopted Plan, because of the existing, previously
approved and expanding nature of residential development which lie between the
project site and the airport facility.
According to studies prepared for the site, the residents of this proposed residential
subdivision will not be exposed to excessive noise because expected noise impacts
from operations at the French Valley Airport will not exceed generally accepted noise
standards applicable to residential uses in the vicinity of airports.
S~TAR:RPT~5OO4VTM.CC 3
8
The subject property is a relatively small site which is pert of a larger area that has
already been approved for end is being developed for residential uses similar to this
proposed residential subdivision. Because of the significant amount of residential
development which has already been approved and which is taking place in the vicinity
of the project site, the subject project cannot reasonably be expected to impact the
orderly expansion of the French Valley Airport.
The orderly expansion of the French Valley Airport and the interests of the prospective
purchasers of homes within the proposed residential subdivision will be further
protected by burdening the subject property with an avigation easement for the benefit
of the French Valley Airport.
The proposed residential sulxlivision will not result in the construction of structures
which would interfere with navigable airspace.
According to studies prepared for the site, the probability of an aircraft operation at the
French Valley Airport resulting in the cdlision of an aircraft with any portion of the
proposed residential subdivision is so remote as to be insignificant in terms of risk to
the public health, safety or welfare.
The City Council, having considered the appeal of Dix Development, Inc., with respect
to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission decision denying Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25004, and having considered all the evidence offered with
respect to the appeal, finds and determines that good cause exists for overruling the
decision of the Airport Land Use Commission. The City Council further finds and
determines that overruling the decision of the Airport Land Use Commission is
consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of
Chapter 4 of Part I of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Cede.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4o
Resolution - page 5-
Sample Disclosure Statement- page 9
Summaries of Airport Studies - page 10
Airport Land Use Commission Letter denying Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25004 - page 11
Minutes from November 13, 1990 City Council - page 12
Staff Report for Tract 25004 and Change of Zone No. 5611 -
page 13
$%STAFFRPT~6004VTM.CC 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION
S%STAFI::RPT~S004VTM.CC 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-,_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OVERRULING THE AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION DECISION DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 25004 TO SUBDIVIDE 59.0 ACRES INTO 135
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5611.
GENERAL LOCATION OF SAID MAP BEING THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF RITA WAY AND SERAPHINA ROAD.
WHEREAS, Dix Development, Inc. filed an Appeal of the Airport Land Use
Commission decision denying Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25004;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21675.1 of the Public Utilities Code, the
City Council considered said Appeal'on March 10, 1992, at which time interested persons had
an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the City Council hearing, the Council overruled
the decision of the Airport Land USe Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Findings
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings in overruling the Airport
Land Use Commission decision denying Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25004.
The Riverside County AirpOrt Land Use Commission is making substantial progress
toward the completion of the French Valley Airport Land Use Ran required by State
Law.
There is reasonable proba~bility that the Change of Zone No. 5611 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25004 will be consistent with the plan being considered by
the Airport Land Use Commission, because the airport studies prepared for the site
indicate that airport related impacts would be negligible, and meet the requirements
of all Federal, State and Local Laws.
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
Future Adopted Airport Land Use Plan if the action, regulation, or permit is ultimately
inconsistent with the Future Adopted Plan, because of the existing, previously
approved and expanding nature of residential development which lie between the
project site and the airport facility.
4. According to studies prepared for the site which portion of said studies are
incorporated herein by reference, and attached hereto, the residents of this proposed
residential subdivision will not be exposed to excessive noise because expected noise
impacts from operations at the French Valley Airport will not exceed generally
accepted noise standards applicable to residential uses in the vicinity of airports.
5~
The subject property is a relatively small site which is pert of a larger area that has
already been approved for and is being developed for residential uses similar to this
proposed residential subdivision. Because of the significant amount of residential
development which has already been approved and which is taking place in the vicinity
of the project site, the subject project cannot reasonably be expected to impact the
orderly expansion of the French Valley Airport.
The orderly expansion of the French Valley Airport and the interests of the prospective
purchasers of homes within the proposed residential subdivision will be further
protected by burdening the subject property with an avigation easement for the benefit
of the French Valley Airport.
e
The proposed residential subdivision will not result in the construction of structures
which would interfere with navigable airspace.
According to studies prepared for the site which portion of said studies are
incorporated her.in by reference, and attached her.to, the probability of an aircraft
operation at the French Valley Airport resulting in the collision of an aircraft with any
portion of the proposed residential subdivision is so remote as to be insignificant in
terms of risk to the public health, safety or welfare.
The City Council, having considered the appeal of Dix Development, Inc., with respect
to the Riverside County Airport Land Uses Commission decision relative to Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25004, and having considered all the evidence offered with
respect to the appeal, finds and determines that good cause exists for overruling the
decision of the Airport Land Use Commission. The City Council further finds and
determines that overruling the decision of the Airport Land Use Commission is
consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of
Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code.
SECTION 2.
Environmental Compliance.
A negative declaration was adopted at the time the project was initially approved. No further
environmental determination is required at this time. The proposed action is exempt from the
CEQA guidelines.
SECTION 3.
S;TmSO04VTM.CC 7
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of March, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL MAYOR
I HEREBY CBTrlFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecule at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of March, 1992, by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEIVlBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
S%STAFFFFT~26004VTM. CC 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
SAMPLE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
S~STAFFRPT%25004,VTM. CC 9
NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BUYERS
TRACT 25004--CITY OF TEHECULA
The homes constructed within this Development fall within an
imaginary two mile radius of the French Valley Airport, owned and
operated by the County of Riverside.
All homes being built within this two mile radius are now being
reguired to provide the CoUnty with Avigation Easements. Should you
decide to purchase one of our homes your Deed will likewise be
subject to such an easement.
Duri,~g ~:he Approval process of the Development the builder obtained
an Aercf~autical Impact Study addressing the potential Impact the
French Valley Airport may have on this project. The conclusion of
lindings was that the impact hazard is negligible and the noise
assessment determined levels well within acceptable standards of
all f'ederal, State and CoUnty Regulations.
Attache~l find a map showing the proximity of this project to the
Airport. Copies of the Impact Study are available upon request.
:?:h,:,uld Vou have any questions you may contact the builder or his
onsite representative.
Sky PerA'
11
ALTA
MURRIETA.
IRIINI~!INIIT ,t t d i my
AT I,OqI!ILBq' RANCH
I#
· 17
ZIP CODE
AUTO
SUMM~
~TTACHMENT NO. 3
i, RIES OF AIRPORT STUDIES
swrAm,-, ,,,soo4vracc 10
SU]~!~I~Y OF FINDINQS
Based on the foregoAng analyses and conclusAons of Sections
II-IV, TentatAve T~act 25004 As ~n complete complAance wAth
the relevant heAght compatAbAlit~and noAse/land use standards
and the risk of an aA~craft accAdent As quAte low. Hence,
there As no reason to regard the project as portending any
derogation of publAc health, safety and welfare or of the
orderly expansion of the aA~poz~c. ~s such, At does not
conflict with the purpose of Section 21670 of the California
Public Utilities Code and there As no reasonable evAdence that
Tentative Tract 25004 should hedisapproved as a land use for
the site.
GARY NIXEL ~r~.EN, PH.Dt J.D.
'- DANIEL TENOLD
AVIATION SYSTENS ~SSOCI~TF~, INC.
23430 H~NTHORNE BLVD., SEYPARE 3, SUITE 200
TORRIdICE, C~90505
' (3!0) 378-3299
The aircraft noise exposure of S0 to 54 dB at Tract 25004 due to
flight activity at French Valley Airport is well below County,
State, and Federal standards. He conunity reaction is expected
from this level of expos'are. With windows closed, the interior
noise exposure within the homes will be 15 to 19 dB below the
County and Federal standLrd of 45 dB. However, if desired, the
interior aircraft noise exposure level my be further reduced by
using sound rated glazing assemblies throughout the project.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at
714/978-7018.
Ver~ truly yours,
J..~. VAN HO~ & A~SOCiATES, INC.
Copy to:
Mr. Richard Berg
C~4 Engineering
41593 Winchester Road, Suite 210
Temecula, CA 92390
3
J.J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES. Inc.
CONCLUSION=
Since the proposed project conform to the recommendations of the
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics
'Airport Land Use Planning Handbooks, in the areas of height
restrictions for air safety, aircraft noise compatability and
safety to persons on the grounds it is reasonable to conclude
that, the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan when finalized,
should indicate the proposed project will be consistent with
the plan and that the proposed project will not affect
aeronautical activities at the French Valley Airport;
nor will the airport operations affect this project.
5TUD"F
May 16, 1991
C,c ac ucTe&D i
To:
Mr. Gary R. Dix
Dix Development, Inc.
22865 Lake Forest Drive
E1Toro, Ca. 92630
Gerald M. Dallas
Airport Consultant
25242 Derby Cr.
Laguna Hills, Ca.
Subj.: Airport land use considerations of proposed residential
project in relation to the French Valley Airport,
Temecula, Ca.
27° 1992
TO:
H~. Gary R. Dlx
D]x Development, Inc.
22865 Lake Forest Dgive
S] Toro, CalifOrnia 92630
Gerald H, Da3]al ~~,
~irpo~t Consult. an~
25242 Derby C~.
[.aguna H~I[s, Ca. ~3653
SuI,j:
Review of "x S~ud~ of &erona~ical Impact Po~entia)
~t Tentative t~ack 25004 ~rom Airc=a~ Opera~ion~ at
French Velle~ Airpork"
reviewed hhe repor~ ana can eapport all the findjn,;s and
rec,,iT~,'..nda~iona contained in the documen~.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
LETTER DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25004
S~S~AR="m'~SOO4VTM.CC I I
ALUC
OCT 2 5 199l
CM.EA - TEM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ,
34,99 Tenth Street Rive:side, C~li[ornia 5)2501 (714) 788-9770 (714) 788-1415 [FAX]
October 22, 1991
File No.: :FV-91-127
Case No.: ~TM 25004
CM Engineering
41593 Winchester Road, Suite 210
Temecula, California 92590
Dear Sirs:
SUBJECT= RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
On October 17, 1991, the Riverside County Air o ti
p r Land Use
Commission (ALUC) denied your proposed project based on a
determination of inconsistency. The project was denied based on
the following, as identified in Section 21675.1 of the Public
Utilities Code:
1)
2)
The ALUC is making substantial progress toward the
completion of the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan~
There is a reasonable probability that the project 'will be
inconsistent with ther plan~ and ;
3)
There is a probability of
interference with the plan,
inconsistent with the plan.
substantial detriment to or
if the project is ultimately
The project is located just inside the Area II-Area III boundary.
Staff notes that this project proposes less than the ALUC 2 1/2-
acre residential lot size minimum and that the entire site is
located under the south end turn-out pattern for Runway 18/36.
This area is sure to experience noise and ancillary affects from
aircraft at the airport, as well as exposure to aviation safety
hazard potential.
Should you 'have questions, please contact me at (714) 369-9577.
Sincerely, ~_
Marlene Hagman
Development Specialist
MH: sa
fv91127. inc
cc:
Mark Rhoades, City of Temecula Planning Department
Dix Development
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
3499 TENTH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
David K. McElroy, Secretary
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION (ALUC) to consider the application(s) described below.
Any person may submit written comments to the ALUC before the
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to
the project at the time of the hearing. The proposed project
application may be viewed at the Economic Development Agency, 3499
Tenth Street, Riverside, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until
4:00 p.m.
Place of Hearing:
Riverside County Economic DewaloDment A~ency
3499 10th St.
Riverside. California
Date of Hearing: Thursday. October 17. 1991
Time of Rearing: 9:30 a.m.
HEMET-RYAN AIRPORT
HE-91-103 - Unland Associates - Tract Map and change of zone of 15
acres located southwest of Eaton and Palm Avenues in Riverside
County.
BEAR CREEK AIRPORT
BE-91-142 - Temecula Land Consultants - Parcel map and change of
zone for 4.93 acres southeast of Dawn Wood and Jenny Streets in
Murrieta.
RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
RI-91-232 - IDM Corporation - Tract map and apartment conversion at
4291 Monroe Street in Riverside.
RI-91-233 - Raleco Co. - Twenty lot tract map for five acre site
located south of Colorado and north of Duncan Avenues in Riverside.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 13, 1990
CITY COUNCIL
s~'rN=Rw'n, ao~v'rM. cc 12
City Council M4nutes November 13. 1990
PUBLIC HFARING
14. 7one Chanae 5611, Vesting Tentative Tract Man No. ~5004
Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, stated this is a request for approval
of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25004, to subdivide approximately 59
acres into 135 single family lots. He said accompanying this application is a
zone change request from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential. He
reported the Planning Commission approved this item on October 15, 1990, on
a three to one vote. He said their concerns related to the compatibility of this
project to surrounding residential developments, the slope concerns and the
Water District Easement through the property. He stated these concerns were
resolved to the Planning Commission's satisfaction.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked about the property which contains a Metropolitan
Water District easement. Mr. Thornhill explained the property in question is
owned by the applicant but the Water District has an easement; He sited ..-.; '-
previous applications where the City has acquired similar property. He
explained this property could be used as part of a City-wide Trail System.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked if this property would be improved. Mr. Thornhill
answered that staff would prefer to utilize the Quimby Fees at a more usable
site and obtain this land unimproved.
Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:00 PM.
Gary Kuontz, CM Engineering Associates, representing the applicant, stated
that he agrees with all conditions as submitted, but would like to discuss Item
No. 24, which relates to the Quimby Act Fees, and Item No. 21-I, which relates
to dedication of lots for open space. Mr. Kuontz stated the applicant has no
problem dedicating the easement and adjacent properties but since 18 acres is
being dedicated he requested an appraisal of this land be done for consideration
in the establishment of the fees.
He stated Condition No. 29, states that prior to occupancy, Lot 141 shall be
conveyed to the homeowners association. He explained this property is a slope
easement for the access road along the southern property line. He stated the
applicant has discussed with CSA maintenance of this slope, and they have
agreed in concept. He asked, therefore that wording be added "or landscape
maintenance district" to Condition No. 29.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked for staff's response on having the land appraised.
Gary Thornhill stated that staff feels that the applicant should not receive credit
ntnutes\11\13\~O -6- 12110/f0
C4 tv Co'r1~34 ~ M4 rtu~:es NoVember' ! 3, ~ 990
for this property for several reasons; one, that the applicant is obtaining a
rezoning of the property Which grants higher density; and second, the value of
the land is considered in terms of its development potential.
Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, stated the City. is in great need
of developed, active recreation areas. He said this project will generate 350
new residents, and he supports Planning ataff's recommendation that areas be
set aside for recreation opportunities.
City Manager Dixon stated that recently Bedford offered an easement much like
the one in question to the City, with no Quimby credit being received, and
suggested that all easement property should be handled in the same manner.
Councilmember Birdsall qSked if there is any problem with CSA maintaining Lot
141. City Manager Dixon stated he felt the City should have the option; To
designate the homeowners association or the TCSD.
Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 7:50 PM.
It was moved by Councilmember Mui~oz to approve staff recommendations
with the addition to the conditions of approval No. 29, to add the wording "or
offer for dedication to the TCSD".
Mr. Thornhill stated the City Attorney would like to add a condition that prior
to issuing occupancy permits, the CC & R's be approved by the City Attorney
to ensure that Lot #141 is properly maintained.
In order to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to a new condition,
Mayor Parks reopened the public hearing at 8:10 PM.
Mr. Kuontz, asked if a homeowners association is not established, what action
would be taken. City Attorney Field answered that a "dormant homeowners
association" would be established. Mr. Kuontz stated he understood this
condition and did not have a problem with it.
Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:11 PM.
ninutes~,l 1%13%90 -7- lZ/10/90
city Counc~3 M~nu~es November ~3. ~990
Councilmember Mu~oz amended his motion, Councilmember Birdsall seconded
to approve staff recommendations with the addition to the conditions of
approval No, 29 to add the wording "or offer for dedication to the TCSD,
subject to City Attorney Approval of the CC&R's to ensure Lot #141 is properly
maintained as follows:
14.1 Adopt Negative Declaration.
14.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY
IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5611, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL,I TO R-I [SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALJ ON ..-:
PROPERTY LOCA TED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SERAPHINA
ROAD AND RITA WAY
14.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-109
A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25004 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 59 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 135 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY
SUBDIVISION A T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SERAPHINA ROAD
AND RITA WAY
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mur~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:15 PM. The meeting was reconvened following a
Community Services District Meeting at 8:40 PM.
Iqinutes\11\13\~O -8- 12/10/90
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
STAFF REPORT FOR TRACT MAP NO. 25004
AND
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5611
s~rN=err~sx~vn~cc 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTOI~TEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
November 13, 1990
Change of Zone No. 5611
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2500~
PREPARED BY:
Mark Rheade
R ECOMMEN DAT I ON:
Adopt Negative Declaration
Adopt Ordinance No. 90- Approving Change of
Zone No. 5611
Adopt Resolution No. 90- Approving Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 2501)~
APPLI CATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Brent Dtx
REPRESENTATIVE:
C-M Engineering
PROPOSAL:
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500~ to subdivide
approximately 59.0 acres into 135 single family lots,
and Change of Zone from R-R to R-1.
LOCAT ! ON:
Northeast corner of Seraphina Road and Rits Way.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R ( Rural Residential )
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP ( Specific Plan )
R-R [ Rural Residential )
R-R-2 1/2, A-A-10
R-R, SP ( Rural Residential,
Specific Plan )
PROPOSED ZONING:
R-1 ( One-Family Dwellings)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
- STAFFR PT\VTM2500~ 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
BACKGROUND:
North: Vaunt
South: Vaunt
East: Single Family
West: Vacant
Number of Acre:
Minimum Proposed Lot Size:
Minimum Permitted Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Density:
~2.~
7,200 sq. ft.
7,200 sq.ft.
2.3 units/acre gross
2-~ units/acre
Zone Chancle
Change of Zone No. 5611 is a proposal to change the
zoning of the subject 59 acres from R-R [Rural
Residential ), which require a one-acr~ minimum lot
size, to R-1 (One-Family ReidentiM), which
permits a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. The
proposed density of 2.3 DUIAC is consistent with
the 2-4 DU/AC SWAP designation.
Tentative Tract
Vesting Tentative Tract Map-No. 2500~ proposes to
subdivide the subject 59 acres into 135 single family
residential lots and four (~) remainder parcels.
The p, oe, ov:- d lot size range from 7,200 square feet
to 17,825 square feet, with an average lot size of
approximately 8,800 'square feet. This p,opos~l is
consistent with Change of Zone No. 5611.
Change of Zone No. 5611 and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 2500~ ware first taken to Planning
Commission on September 17, 1990. The item was
continued because of the Commission concerns with
slopes, deign guideline, and park space.
On October 15, 1990, the Planning Commission
considered the applicarrt's pruF,---I and approved.
Change Zone No. 5611 and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 2500~ by a vote of 3-1.
The Commissionts concerns relative to deign
guideline were mitigated by the applicant updating
the submittrot guideline. Slope concerns were-
addressed by a slope cross section analysis
submitted by the applicant. The park space issue
was mitigated by the applicxnt4s offer of dedication
of proposed lots 137, 138, 139, and 1q0. This totals
approximately 18 acre. The applicant will still be
required to pay Quimby Act fees because of the
proposed park spacers limited usefuinMe I MWD,
STAFFRPT\VTM2500~ 2
SCE easemere area).
The final issue raised by the commission concerned
airport impact. The project ham been conditioned so
that if it is determined that the project wlthin an
airport impact area, potential property owners will
be notPried.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
MR: ks
A ttachmerrts:
1'-
2.
3.
5.
The Planning Department Staff re~.,.,.~nds that the
City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Change
of Zone No. 5611 and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 2500q.;
ADOPT Ordinance No. 90- approving
Change of Zone No. 5611, bamed on the
analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2500q,
based on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Exhibit
Ordinance
Resolution ~
Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Staff Reports
( September 17 and O~ 15, 1990 )
Planning Commission Minutes
(September 17 and October 15, 1990)
~ STAFFRPT~VTM2500~ 3
~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKL|ST
CASE NO.: VTTM 2501R
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
I Quimby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility -
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of ADDroval
Condition No. 23
Condition No. 2~
Condition No. 57
Condition No. ~
Condition No. 21 .a.
Condition No. -12
Condition No. 11
PLANNING\M~3
!i
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 5611, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R IRURAL
RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SERAPHINA ROAD AND RITA WAY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF~THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, Public h._e~'.ings have been held before the Planning Commission
and City Council ~f the City; of Temecule, State of Califmmia, pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning law of the State of CaliforniB:,. and the City Coda of the City of
Temecule. The application led use district as shown on the attached exhibit is
hereby approve and ratified ias part of the Official Land Use map for the City of
Temecula as adopted by the City md as nmy be mmend~ hm-uftm' from tim to time
by the City Council of the Cityof Temecula, and the City of Temeculm Official Zoning
Map is amended by placing in act the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone
No, 5611 and in the above tl~la~f~, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and
incorporated herein,
SECTION 2, Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the
City Clerk of the City of Temecule shall certify to the !d,p--tion of this ordinance and
cause it to be posted in st least three public places' in the City.
SECTION $, Taking Effect, This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the
date of its adoption,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1990.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST
June S. Creek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
S~rAFFRpT%VTT2501~ -,
RESOLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 2S00q. TO SUBDIVIDE A 59 ACRE PARCEL INTO
A 135 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SERAPHINA ROAD AND RITA
WAY.
WHEREAS, Brent Dix filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2500~ in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning. Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Vesting Tentative Tract
Map on November 13, 1990, at which tim interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council
approval of said TentatiNe Tract Map:
NOW, THEREFORE', THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1_~ Findinc~s. That the TemecUla City Council hereby makes
the fol Iowin9 findings: -'
'A. Pursuant to Governmen( Cede Section 65360. a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of tim. the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistmTt with the
general plan, if all of the following requi, e.,,z, ds are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The planning acJancy finds, in approving projects and
taking ether actions, including the issuance of building
permits. each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action p, upo3cJ will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\VTM2500~ 1
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the "
plan.
[c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requi, c.,~,' ,13 of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Am Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the .incew i.a. eLlon of Temecule as the General Plan for the
southwest portio t of Riverside County, including the eras now within
the boundaries of the City, At this tim, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan !guiddinas while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan,
C. The iprcq-:st f Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and atomsi the requi,~.,_ ,t.t set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan,
(2) The City Council finds. in approving projects and
taking other lotions, including the issuance of building
permits. pursuant to this title. each of the following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative' Tract Map No. 25001& pn>kcs_.l will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable tim.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirc,.c-,ts of state law and
local ordinances.
D, PurSuant to Section 6,5, no Tentative Tract Map may be
approved unlessi the applicant dc.e,.,=b at_as the p, op~ -,* use will not
be detrimtsl tO the health sdety and welfar~ of the community, and
further, that mY Tentative Tract Map-approved shall be subject to
such conditions as shall be ,,c .... :f to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety end wdfar~ of the
community.
STAFFRPT~VTM2500~ 2
SECTION 2._~ Environmental ComDliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measure described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION. 3_=. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approve Tentative Tract
Map No. 2500q for the subdivision of a 59 acre parcel into a 135 unit single family
subdivision located at the northeast comer of Seraphina Road and Rita Way subject
to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of November, 1990.
RONALD J. PARKS
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly aduFrt,J by
the City CouncU of the City of Temecule at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
13th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNC I LMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
STAFFRPT~VTM2500~ 3
A PPL I CA NT'S A C K NOWLEDGMENT
! have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval sat forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 2500~.
DATED: By
N~me
Title
STAFFRPT\VTM2500~
A PUBtIC 'HEAlrING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to cottsider the
Case No:
Appnnnt:
Environmental
Action:
Vesting Tentative Map 25004, Zone
Cho~e ~611
C-M~n~'I~
NarthamtCornarofSm'aphinaRd. audRltaWaY
Applkat~mn to chan~the Zone on ~9 acres from R-R to
R-1 and subdivide ~9 acres into 13~ single family lots
Negative Dechrafion
Any person my submit written comments to the City emntcil before the hearing(s) or may
appear and be hutd in support of or opposition m the approval of the project(s) at the time of
hearing Xf you cbnll~n~e any of the projects in court you my 'be limited to raising only those
Hail, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday form 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM.
Questions conznting the project(~) may be adtbnn:l to.Mark Rhoades, City of Ternecula
Planning Department (714 ) 694-454(X)
PLACE OF ttAR3~G
DATE OF t!EARYNG
TIME OF HF, ARD~:
Temec. in ~-ommuni~ ~'enter
98816 P~ol Rh~et
3~ll4~y. November 13. 1990
7:00 PM
r CITY OF TEMECLILA
CC)NDITIONS OF APPROVAL
vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500~
Council Approval Data:
Expiration Date:
Plannincl Deliarim·at
The tentative subdivisi n shell comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all t~?:equirements of Ordinance q60. Schedule A. unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative mp will expire two years after the City
Council approval date. s4anless extended as provided by Ordinance
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
~60·
The subdivider shall submit one colmy of a soils report to the Riverside County
Surveyor's Office and ~wo copies to the Depart of Building and Safety.
The report shall eddre[~ the soils stability end geological conditions of the
site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance g60 shall be provided from the tract
mp boundary to a Cotinty maintained road.
All road -_v-_.w nunta shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until ithe governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be frue from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easement·, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final frump if they ere located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication end conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing. including any l-fcr: xd u,,,,,~,, open space are
improvement phesing.~ if applicable. shall be subject to Planning Department
approval· Any propoled phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase. and shall substantially confore to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Departmonths transmittel dated May 23. 1990. a
copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Flood Control Diatrict~s letter dated April 11, 1990, a
copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temacula Land Division
Ordinance ~60, appropriate fees for the con~on of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvenmnt fcc4N,,,,,-- ,dations outlined
in the County Fire Departmonths letter dated September tL 1990. a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the rm;c.,.,4ndationa outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land LIes Sectlongs transmittel dated April 13. 1990.
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the r8;t~,,_.~,,dations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Sectionta transmittel dated May 1. 1990. a
copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Tachnolagy, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The applicant shall comply with the r;;~,,k,4 ,dations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittel dated May 9, 1990, a copy 'of which is
attached; ..
Lots created by this subdivision Shall comply with the following:
a. Lots created by this subdivision shell be in conformance-with the
development standards of the R-1 (Single Family) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be mintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building end Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas end irrigation systems until such tim as thor operations
are the responsibilities of other pro'ties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed ~-.-.,~.b open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect. and shall provide for
- STAFFRPT\VTT2500tl 2
the following:
a.
de
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
All utility service ereas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with ,,landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, ies approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition in. to the primary use ares of the site. Landscape
elements shill include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Murriata Hot Springs Road. Weedan fencing shall not be allowed
on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down
from the let shall be provided with gates in the wall for
maintenance access.
ee
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
f. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shell be planted outaide of the road right-of-
way.
g. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
h. All existing, specimen trees end significant rock outcroppings on
the subject, property shell be shown on the project's grading
plans and shall note those to be removed, ralocated and/or
retained.
i. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shell be steel staked. -'
Prior to the issuance dining permits, a qualified poleontologiet shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential poleontological i,,,~ t,. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pro-grade meeting b_twlt, the Fxdeontotegiet and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When nF_ _ f, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily dive-t, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
STAFFRPT\VTT250011 3 -~
21.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
ae
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer4s succe~-or's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
enginw to estab|ish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to q5 Ldn.
All building plans for ell new structures shall inco, h~- -t&, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
de
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Depa, b,~__A approval.
The plans shell eddres, s. all arem~ and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including. but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
ee
All dwellings to be constructed within this 'subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant [ Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire irahal.
-Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision. however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shell be permitted with Planning Dep_ b..e~t approval.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from vie of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten I10) feet.
i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
ke
Applicant shall obtain necessary clearances from the County of
Riverside Airport Land Use Commission. If necessary, the applicant
shall file a White Report with the Dap~- b..~,.t of Real Estate advising
future property owners of potential airport impact. (As amended by
P.C. on 10-15-90.)
STAFFRPT\VTM2500~
22.
Lots 137, 1:30. 139~ and lq4) shall be dedicat~d to the City as unimproved
park space. (As ;mended by P.C. on 10-15-90. )
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant must submit either a
latter from the Depmmnt of Fish and Game which state that the identified
habitat are will not be affected by the proposed development, subject to the
approval of the Planning Director.
,
23.
25.
26.
27.
28,
29.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinancq No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee sat forth in
that ordinance. Should:Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Consentaden Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663. the; applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby Fees iin accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinanc~ q~O.
Final landscepa plans shall substantially conform to the deign guidelines
submitted April, 1990.
Prior to issuance of building p_ ,,,its mppli~..,~ shall comply with agency letters
identified end dated:
County Health Department, May 23, 1990
County Flood Control; April 11, 1990
EMWD, May 9. 19g0
County Geologist~ March :30, 1990
A 1990
County Health Dqoartment, pril 5,
County Fire Dep,: b.., ,t, April 11. 1990
County Romt Department, April 2~, 1990.
Prior to issuance of any occupa~.cy permits, the applicant shall obtain
approval from the Planning Directar, the Temecula Valley Unified School
District, end the City Engineer, of · safe walking path between the subject
tract and Nicolas School. (As amended by P.C. on 10-15-90. )
Any and all signage end/or sign malntanarmm proposed for this tract shall be
by separate p~rmit. subject to the approval of the Planning Director. i As
mended by P.C. on 10-15-90. )
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, mal,~t~.~aa,u for Lot No. 1M shall
be conveyed to the }~,,Jmwn~rs ~,~iwtion. (As amended by P.C. on 10-15-
90.)
Enclineerirm Degm'tnmnt
The following are the Engin~ng D-p b,~l ,t Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completmy at no cost to any Cov_. ,,,,~_ d. Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning o' the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
STAFFRPT~VTM2501R 5 .~
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their mission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
30.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act.
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
31.
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district:
City of Temecula Fire Burs;
Planning Department:
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department: and
CATV Franchise.
32.
33'.
35.
36,
37.
The final map shell be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~d).
All parkways, open mama, and landscaping shall be p_ ,,,m,ently maintainact
by a homeowners association or other means acceptal~e to the City. Such
proof of this maintenance shall be submitted tp. the Planning and Engineering
Department.
Murrieta Hot Springs Read shall be improved within the dedicated right-of-
way in accordance with-Riverside County Standard No. 100 '(86~1110').
In the event that Murrieta Fiot Springs Road is not constructed by Assessment
District 161 prior to final map. reco, Jarion, the developer shell
construct/bond. for the improve.,,g,,Ls to provide for improvr.,g~,t= per
Riverside County Standard No. 100 186'1110').
B. C, D. and E Streets, "H" Court, and Sandpiper Lane shall be improved
within the dedicated right-of-way in a~c6. J,,~ with Riverside County
Standard No. 10~, Section A I~0'leO).
"F" and "G" Streets shall be improved within the dedicatecL righ{-of-way in
accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Sectjon A lq~'166').
39.
Seraphins Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt conm pavement
within a 36 foot dedicated rigi A. uf way roemuted from the west tract boundary
line, in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A
"A" Street shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within
a 60 foot full width dedicatedright-of-way in accordance with modified County
Standard No. 10~. Section A ( qO160 ).
- STAFFRPT\VTM2500~ 6
The subdivider shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction
of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City
standards.
a8
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks., drive approaches, street lights. signing,
striping, and traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Store drain faciliities.
Landscaping I street and parks).
Sewer and domestic water systems.
The subdivider shall !provide bonds and agreement clearances from all
applicab|e agencies and pay all fees prier ~to the approval of the map.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
City Engineer.
Prior to recordslion of the final map, the developer shell deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum established per lot as mitigation for a
traffic signal 'implet.
Should the devMoper choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may inter into a written age .~.,~e ,t with the City deferring
said payment ~o the'tie of issumCe of a building permit..
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geelogical
conditions of the site.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with the
the a v ,.s ,t right-of-w,, as provided
in the Subdivisien Map Act. the developer shall enter into an atje ,-'-,,' A with
the City for the acquisition of such e' ~ .,e.~t st the develop--- 's cost pursuant
to Gov;J ,~,,,l ~t Code Section 661162. S. which shall be at no cost to the City.
A hydrology study sh I be submittact to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilitJas~rabll be installed as required by the City' Engine.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-d-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained frowrthe City Enginewas Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
STAFFRFr1'%VTM2580~
7
50.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees sad street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Enginee sad approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an t~,cj ~ .k,,ir_,t permit.
Final plans and profiles shell show the Ic,:ation of existing utility facilities
within the right-of-way.
51.
The subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to
De.velop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards prior to issusace of
Certificates of Occupsacy.
52.
Corner cutbacks, in conformsrice with City Stm,d,, J No. 805, shall be offered
for dedication and shown on the final map.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT:
53.
55.
56.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Depa, b,.e ,t. The piss shall comply with the Unifom Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~' x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Depm b,.,~,t prior to
cc,,,,,,encane~ of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage awelea
independent of say other Jot.
A permit from the County Floed Control District is required for work within
its right-of-way.
PRIOR TO CERTIFICAT.E OF OCCUPANCY:
57.
58.
59.
Developer shall pay say capital fee for road improvmneYtx sad public facilities
imposed upon the property or project. inctuding that for traffic sad public
facility mitigation as required under the EiR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect st the tim of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which the developer requests its building permits
for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the'
Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee. a copy of which has been
provided to the developer. Developer unck- st~,,de that said Agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimatad (assuming
benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) sad specifically waives its
right to protest such incr-mq.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to. curb sad
gutter. A.C. pavement. sidawelk. drive approaches, parkway t~ sad
street lights.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
-- STA FFR PT\VTM2500~ 8
Asphettic emulsion Iron. seal) shell be applied nat less then 14 days following
placement of the asphal-. surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shell conform to Secti~on Nos. 37, 39, and
9q of the State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Enqineerina
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
61.
A signing and striping plan shell be dea[gned by a registered traffic
enginw, and appreved by the City Engine for all streets 661~ or wider
and shall be includacl in the street imp,-~vement plans.
62.
Prior to designing any of the above plus, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria,
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
63.
65.
All signing end stripiqg shall be installed per the City standards end the
approved signing and striping plan.
Left turn pocket on Murrieta Hat Springs Road, for Street "C", shall provide
for 100: of storage ~,~ .'ity, if not included with A--;-x,~.A District No. 161
improvements.
Prior to issuance of Fancy permits, if the ultimate ci~:~ulation system has
nat been constructce~:uiwith Vesting Tont. at, ive Tract No. 23~28), this
development will be responsible for the following:
I ·
a. Widen Nicolas ROad to ~ku,,,,~J~te a 200: minimum, centered. left turn
pocket for Joseph Road or for Primary access point.
STAFFRPT~VTM2500~ g
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Cue No.: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 251X)Q
Change Zone No. 5611
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLI CANT:
REPRESENTAT IVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT I ON:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Pavilion - JLD Ventures
C-M Engineering
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25004; to subdivide
approximately 59.0 acres into 135 single family lots,
and Change of Zone from R-R to R-1.
Northeast corner of Seraphins Road and Rite Way.
Rural Residential )
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP ( Specific Plan )
R-R' ( Rural Residential )
R-R-2 112, A-A-10-
R-R, SP ( Rural Residential.
Specific Plan )
R-1 ( Residential Agricultural )
Vacant
North: Vacant
Seuth: Vaunt
East: Single Family
West: Vatant
Number of Acru:
No. of Buildings:
Minimum Proposed Lot Size:
Minimum Permitted Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
0
7,200 sq.ft.
7,200 sq.ft.
2.3 units/acre gross
STAFFRPT\VTT250NI
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project was originally filed at the Riverside
County Planning Deportment on September 26, 1989.
The file was transferred to the City of Temecula in
May, 1990. Since that time Staff her met with the
applicant on several occasions to amend the map
configuration.
Zone Change
Change of Zone 5611 is a proposal to change the
zone on S9 acres free R-R ( Rural Residential ) to R-
1 ISingle Family Residential). The project is
surrounded by A-1-10 (Agricultural, 10 Acre
Minimum) and R-R-2 112 to the east, R-R to the
south and west. To the north and northeast are
Specific Plan arm. The Specific Plan arm contain
lot sizes everaging approximately Q,500 to 5,000
square feet. This is substantially lower than the
density of the proposed project. The Specific Plan
is Winchestar Properties and is located in the
County.
The SWAP identifies this area er residential, 2-~
dwelling units per acre. The proposed Change of
Zone is conslatent with this designation.
Tentative Tract
Vesting Tantativi Tract No. 2SIX)~ is an application
to subdivide 59 war into 135 single family lots.
The density of this project is dependent on the
approval of Zone Change No. ~611;
Lot Size
The minimum proposed lot size is 7,200 square feet.
The maximum lot size is 11,31)0 square feet, with an
average let size of approximately 9,000 square feet.
The minimum lot size in the R-1 zone is 7,200 square
feel.
There are 6 lots which will be created era result of
easement dedications. The largest of which are lots
135, 137, and 138 for the Metropolitan Water District
Aqueduct and Southern California Edison. Lot 138
also centsins a Stepbarite Kangaroe Rat Habitat
Pflll, v/ion are. A total of 16.6 acres are token
by the eminent lots.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~
2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DET ERM I NAT I ON:
ACCESS
~ccess will be provided off of Nicolas Road via
Joseph, Rite, ·nd Seraphin· Roads. The applicant
will be required to construct road improvements to
Nicoi·s Road. Access will also be taken off of
MurHeta Hot Springs Road. Improvements to
Murrieta Hot Springs Road will be constructed by
Assessment District 161. All mainten·no· and slope
areas outside of Lots 1-135 will be menrained by
County Service Area No. 1~3.
Architecture
Currently there is no product slated for this
project. When the housing product is proposed, a
plot plan will be presented to the City.
Gredincl
Approximately 380,000 cubic yard· on ~2.~ ere
proposed, with no export. Some substanti·l 2:1
slopes axe·t. however. the majority of the slopes are
located on ;wr_-,..~,,,t lots.
The Land Use Designation exhibit from the
Southwest Area Community Plan targets this ·re·
for rasiclentiel development at 2-11 unit· per ·cre.
This amp proposes · density of 3.5 units per ·cre.
The SWAP has bean adopted as · policy guide by the
City of Temecula.
The project is consistent with lot standards of the
,~rGp,og'u,J zone. Probability of consistency with the
City~· future General Plan is considered .likely by
the Staff. The Planning Commission and the City
Council maintain the ·uthority to determine whather
projects mrs likely to be con·aslant with the future
General Plan. end each project considered by those
bodies must be considered on their own marit until
· m General Plan is adopted.
A preliminary environmental assessment was
formed by the County of Riverside Planning
Department prior to transmittal of the case to the
City of Tomecull. That i-wivf~e~t was complatod
by the City Planning Staff. The following areas of
potential impact wer~ reviewed in detail.
STAFFRPT\VTT2SOIR
3
Traffic Imlmacts
A Traffic Study was performed for the project by
Kunzman Associates in October, 1989. The Study
ham been accepted by the City end appropriate
mitigation memsuram included in Conditions.
Btoloov
A Biological Study warn conducted i.n August, 1989.
The Study identified the existence of the Stephen's
Kqmroo Rat on a portion of the site. A habitat
conservation ·re· ham been preserved on the
tentative map as approved by the United States
~t of the Interior, Fish end Wildlife
Service,
Environmental Conclusion
Staff ham concluded that no significant impact on the
environment will occur as · result of site
development, and · Negative Declaration has been
rs~:.,,,.w,~ded for adoption,
FINDINCa:
A basic level of u~aeble and total open space
ham been provided on individual lots to meet
the needs of future re.·dante.
There is a reasonable probability .that Vesting
Tentative Tract No, 2501~ will be-consistent
with the City's future General Plan, which
will be completed within · reasonable tim in
N:~:m'dmnca with State Law.
There is not · likely probability of
i
substantial detr merit to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
iraone··tent with the plan·
The prc,~=led use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to 'w'~m.,,,~-Jste the
proposBd land um in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, circulation
patterns, m: :we, and density,
STAFFRPT~VTT2501R
10.
11.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500;4 is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the are.
The project as designed and canditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
· Study for this project.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
will have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar ponatration in winter and shecling in
SUm ·
The design of the subdivision. the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that-they are not in conflict with
n:,w ..,.ts for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, end environmental documents
associated with this application are her·in
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Delaa, b,~L,t Staff r.zJ~,,,.znds that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Vesting
lentalive Tract No. 251X)q end Change of
Zone No. 5611, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Initial Study and
Staff Report: end,
APPROVE Chenc3e of Zone 5611, .based on the
analysis end findings contained in the initial
Study end Staff Report: and,
STAFFRPT\VTT250(R,
5
APPROVE Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2501)~.
based on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
MR: ks
AttachmentJ
STAFFRPT~VTT2S4X)~
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backciround
1. Name of Proponent:
Pavillion - JLD Ventures
e
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
23181 Verduoo, SD. 105A
Lacluna Beach, CA 92653
8-23-90
CITY OF TEMECULA
Vesting Tentative TractMap No. 2500~
and Chmnqe Zone No. 5611
Location of Proposal:
Ncrtheeat Comer of the Intersection
of J'oieoh Rcecl and Seraphin,
II
Environmental 'linDacts. -'
I Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe- answers are provided on attached
sheets. )
Yes Mayb~ N_9o
1. Earth. WIll the proposal result in: '
de
STA'FFRPT\VTT2500~
Unstable earth conditione or In
allangee in geologic substructures?
DIsruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or evm-~vwing d the soil?
Substantial dlatge in topography
or ground surface rdlef fmure~?
~cation of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any eubstantiml ii,c~ .:~., in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
X
X
X
X
Changes in deposition or erosion
of b-sch sands, or changes in
siltation, depoeition or erosion
which my modify the channel of m
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
ExpOsure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. SubStantial air missions or
qdtuituale~tiyo~ation of ambient air
The creation of objectionable
odors?
change in climate, whether Iocal|y
or regionally?
W/tar. Will the p, ~l-os T I result in:
SubStantial r. hanges in curt.ants, or
the Course or direction. of' water
mOvements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
SubStantial change in absorption
ratls, drainage patterns, or the
rata and amount of surfKs runoff?
~or'. d~rs' dissolved oxygen
Alteration of the directloft or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe N_~o
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT%VTT2S001 2
he
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise eveliable for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the pmpoaal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of say native species of
pleats (including Uses, shrubs,
grass, crops, end aquatic plants ) ?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare. or sadangered species
of plsats?
Introduction of new species of
pleat& into sa ares of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
-Substantial reduction in acreage
of say agricultural crop?
Animl Life. Will the p, ~p:a I result
in:
be
~ in the dimity af specie,
or numbers of say specie of animals
l birds, lafid saimals including rep-
tile, fish and shellfish, benthjc
organline or insects ) ?
Reduction of the numbers of say
unique, rare or sadangered species
of saimals?
Datorioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe N_,~o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTT250(R
3
10.
11.
WII~ the proposal result in:
Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Land Use.: Will the p,~l~isal result in m
substantial altarstim of the present or
planned lend use of sn area?
Natural Rlseurcss. Will the propsi
result in:
Risk of Upsst.
involve:
SQ
Will the p,
'A ri' k of an explskm m' the release
of ~zardous substance I including,
but ;not limited t=, ~il, pesticldes,
chemicals or radistkm ); in' the event
of an accident or upset conditionS?
PosSible interference with an emerg-
Pepulstlr. Will the propesal miter
the Icatlen, distributkm, density, or
grmeth rm of the huron pepulatien of
an area?
existing dl'~ou~sl~ or create s denand for
addltbnd, housing?
Transpm, tationl Circulstion. WIll the
pq-* i.:
e. Cenerstl~ of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe N_.~o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTT2SOIR ~
15.
be
Ce
de
fe
Effects on existing perking facili-
ties. or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upan existing
transportation systemS?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
end/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne. rail or
air traffic?
Increase in trd~c hazards to motor
vehicles. bicycleate or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will ti~e proposal have
substantial affect upon. or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
micas in any of the following areas:
e. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools? ·
Perks or other recreational
facilities?
ee
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other gore_ ,_..,.tal services:
Energy. Will the p.~p~cel result in:
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
be
Substantial Increase in demand
upon slating sources of energy.
or require the develolxnent of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
m need for new systems. or substantial
miterations to the foilroving utilities:
m. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTT2S0011. 5
17.
be
Communications systems?
Water?
Sew,r or septic tanks?
store water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?'
Huron Health. Will the
result in:
be
Cre*tion
pot-nti·l ~amnlt~ health hazard or
I
hmzmrd|exc uding
health ) 7
f~el~p~u~:z~ar~x~?le to potenti·l
Aesthati~. Will the prqx}sal result
in the obstruction of an s¢~,ic vim
or view open to the public. or will the
proposal: ult in'the ore·tim of an
Nsthaticar?ly offensive site open to
public view?
of exiati.ng .recrsation·l. ~unitiea?
Cultural Resources,
Ce
WIll !the proposal result in adverse
physical or ~ic effects to ·
preqistm-ic or hi mtk. t~ building.
Doe the proposal have the potsnti·l
to cause · physical chmlge which
would offact unique ethnic ~ultural
WIll:the I.~qq~eal restrl~ existing
bntli~ml or sacred uses within the
impact mrwB?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTT2SO0~ S
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
specie, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal-or
eliminate important exmqales of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
Does the project have the Potential
to achieve short-term, to the
diseclventage of long-m, environ-
mental goals? I A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of tim while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
X
de
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? IA project's
impact on two or more separate
resource~ my be relatively all,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
iS significant. )'
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on an beings,
either directly or indirectly~ _
X
X
~ STAFFRPT~VTT2500~ 7
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.s.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1.e.
1.g.
for this project. However, a
conceptual mess g' ing pie for the project was sppraved by the City
Engine and desi~nrn~ in ausrdanee with Temeculs's standards and the
Conditions of Approval.
Yes. All develop~mnt disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil di'421lr. meent, croupaction, and ovorcovoring. This
impact is nat cons dared significant.
No. The mass g-8cling effort wee designed to adhere to the gross
natural topogrepqy of the sits in its original condition. While
substantiBI gredi ~g and recontouring of this sits will occur in the
immediate area, tie overall plan is intended to promote preservation of
site topography.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction p'h~se and remain high until disturbed arm are
replanted. The wind erosion impact;is consiclfie~d significant but will
be mitigated through minimal grgdinq, retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding of
disturbed areas .after rading. After the project is completed,
inc~'-Ted water ~run-~d~ during floods may occur. Water will be
channeled to drs~age easements and streets. Appropriate drainage
control devices Will have to be Naproved by the City Engineer and
designed in -;~r. ~bn. ca with Temecule's standarch and the Conditions
of Approval.
No. Sinco the project site is not adjacent to any creek or Stream bed,
the propose praject will not cause erosion of or deposition into any
No. The sub ' ~ is designated ee subject to liquefaction and
mitigation measures addressed in the Conditions of Approval.
Air
2.I-c.
No. The propold project will not significantly impact the at,o's sir
quality.
Wltar
3.a,d-e.
No. The propaled project will rmt impact my marine or fresh water
bodies. The : project will incrementally effect the quantity end
quality of run"efflnlnlnPe-a~fN wa~weter in the City,
14o. The proposed project will inhibit the absml~ion of water into the
ground through the construction of impam,sable surfaces on the site.
Run-off will increase but not substantidly.
STAFFRPT~VTT2SOa4
3.c.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3,i.
Vecmtr,.ion
t~.d.
Wildlife
S.a-c.
6.a-b.
No. Floed waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels.
tie. The p,~sed project will net significantly affect the flow or
quantity of greund waters.
No. The proposed project will nat impact the public water supply.
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require
proper design mad installation of drainage c=nveyanco devices.
No. No sensitive vegetetional sseciations or species were identified
on-site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
No. A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat p,~: .id for this project
analyzed biolegic raseurces an-site. Individuals of the Stephen's
Kangaree Rat ware found. renditions of Approval and habitat
prmrvation measures have been included in the Conditions of
Approval and on the Tract Configuration.
No. Analysis indicats that the project site may be exposed to
significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Murrieta Hat Springs
Road. Howaver, it is concluded that the project design, when
propesed, will camply with the interior neise expesure standard pieced
on residential censtructlen by the Ceunty of Riverside and the State~s
raise insulation standards.
It is further raceamended that the final engineering design of the
praject be reviewed by · recegnized aesustical engine to ensure
~plimae with tl~
Lioht mad Glare
7. Yes. However, the project he bee conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting ~-
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Am C= ..... vnity Plan.
Natural Resources
g. rb. Ik. This Ix~jct italf will m signifi~tly into t)~ ~ta of use of
natural ~m. ~km m~adda mad Ix~l~ p~dufa will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
STAFFRPT\VTT2SO01~ 9
Risk of Upset
1O.s-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substlnGes nor will it interfare with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Pooulation
Yes. Altheugh the project prepesel to increase the density from one
dwelling unit to '35 units, the proposed project is consistent with the
City Land Use D,signation (according to SWAP).
Housinq
12. No. Since the proposed project will create housing, the proposed land
use will not create s demand for additional housing.
T FansDeflation I Circa letion
13.a. Maybe.
13.b-e. No.
13.f. Maybe.
Public Services
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
ded~ addressed potential traffic impacts and has
that the .Cumulative impacts will not be
significant.
Enercly
15.a-b.
No. The prolxmed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services other than parks and recreational facilities.
No. The. proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
inc, .~'--I in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
Human Heslth
17 .a-b.
No. The preposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
humane. ,
Aefthetice
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the lurreanding neig)lbortlaod, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Because the preposed project :will not be removing my facilities
currentJy used fir recreethmal puem .
STAFFRPT%VTT2500q
10
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
21 .a.
21 .b.
21 .c-d.
No. The ~ c~og ed project will not have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife specie. However, if a project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephenas Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees
P
for the StmphentS Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation lan.
No. The H, ~n:ed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental
affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
either directly or indirectly.
~ STAFFRPT~VTT2500~ 11
ENVIR!ONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On tha basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the prepesed pr~) COULD NOT have a significant
effect on 'the environment, ~j~da NEGATIVE be
DECLARATION will
prepared. ,
ther~ will net be a aigni-
ticant
ticant effect ,n this case bec' use the mitigation mum
described on att~t~td sheets and in the Cmtditlens of Approval
have been added to the prgject.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ;WILL BE PREPARED.
X
I find the ~ project ' Y have a aignifi~mt effect on
the envir~nmnt. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
requirud.
Date
Far CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT~VTT250(R 12 ~
Pl.ANNING COMNrSS|()N NINIr'}'.:.~ SEP~'JqRTdR J'/. '!9~O
· 1. ~
14. :m
Property ~s toe. sEed at the .~ntersection of Nicholas and
Joseoh Roads.
Or. TVRR Wlg3TeR oresented the state reDorE on this item.
Hr. Mu~tc8 stated that Condition No. 22 should be mod~E~ed
to resd s.~ foJJnws: "Prior to issuance of any arad~na
permit, t. he applicant must su~ e~ther , Letter [rom
th~ I~eeartment .~f Fish and Wild]i~e which states tha~ the
proposed deveJoome~t o~ RhRJJ obta)n a ]OR Dam)t,
sub~ec~ to the aDOreVIi Ot the PLlnntnq D~rec~oc.
CONM1SSTONv. I~ WOAGLAND auestxoned the ESndinas of the
environmental impact oE this DroPact. OLIV~t ~UJICA
stated ~t was a Neastive Declaration. COle(ISSIONER
HOAG~MID stated that the Resolution ~ndicates that
no environme. tat in~sct will occur, when in tact an
environmental impact will occur however, it w~ll be
'm~i~sted. Commissioner Headland felt that the
NeQative Declaration and the Resolution should be.
consistent. sod suggested that the Resolution state
that an environmental impact will occur however,
it w~ll be mitigated to the extent that a NeQstive
Declaration can be tile~. State stated that they
would modity the Resolution to be consistent with
the Neqative Declaration.
CGI~ISBIONBR HOAGLAND asked it Condition No. 60 a.
would include siqnals at Sicelse Road or any type
of traffic control.
TOt( 20it~lTI~O, Traffic gnatnear, stated that they
did reautre this ~ro~ect to install s traffic
signal as a result ot the traffic stud~.
wIN. 91171 me
-12-
9121190
PT,ANN f Nfi CONMISSION N fNtl'rES ~[:Pq'F3qI~Elt I '1, 1990
~,J~RY K()OR'rT,. C-N ~:na.~ neeri na A.q.encl ares, 4] 593 Wlncnester
Rf)~l~. '~pdUl.~. s~a~ed tha~ ~ts~ and W~tdttfe has
and ~hat ~.ney fence ~t off. He stated that the amml~can~
~$'w~lJ3na to fled I condition that ]ors
be ~enced on the ~orth and sou~h boundaries as aeucoved
~y SCE and NWD, as wej l Is the AandscaDina of ln~s 140
and A4L. He s~tated that the aDet~cant concurs =ith ~he
Co,d~tjnns ot A~DFOVRJ Jet ~orth
~XSSXONg ~RD asked iE ~o~ ~37 would also be included
in the eond~tiOn to ~ence o~f the easemnts. G~Y K~NTZ
stated that they would aQcee to include Lot ~37.
~ISSZ~B ~D SuaQest~ that the apDlicant miQht
submit a request to SCE and ~O for the open areas to
be used as par,ks.
G~Y DXX, amm]~icant, 25~42 Rxrch Drive, Dana Point,
stated that as, o~e~ they would be very ha~py to deed over
the land to the city to ~ used for a park.
BXLL ANDRWa, 3~515 Lietar R~d,. Tmecula, stated that
he o~ned. Droneray ajonQ the els~ si-de of .these easements
and Dreterr~ that they not be improve,
DTAMA WALTZIt, 42682 Loam Petrels, Tamscala, stated that
she also owned property alonq these easements and
preferred to see them asked at both ends.
GARY THORSHILL indicated that due to the small amount ot
land that would ultimtely be dedicated. it miaht be in
the city*s'beSt interest to accept the tees in lieu ot
the land.
(XXeIItSIOIKR CIIJIIAEFF suegeared conditioning the map
to get an irrevocable otter of dedication and the city
could determine it they wanted to use the land tot pack
space. GARY THORNHILL stated if the city accepted the
land, then the applicant could be reimbursed tot the
lll.tllTIPe
-t3- 9121190
PF,ANNING dCNt4.NISSION M [NII'Ph:S SI-"',P'Ph:.u,4Rt3'..N t 7. I 9'90
~aj,l. ne..~ fit' Ou3mqv ~pe."q. I,OLS P~(')f4AP,,K px~rm.,,qAecl. 4 dQrtt'~rn
t~r ,~,tmttlnfi aq tqltl~ i!111t nn tnq:-: tvr,- nt ~nn~qtl~fl aT~(l
SI.II3q~,,e~I".eQ f.n~r, t~l~ (Tr)lldl I" 1 r)ll tlp~c,P, I*.n r)~. fl~IQ~'~.,e,.qeft very
C~MISSTO!iER HOAGLAND suestinned' the aesiqn au]eelznes
enclosed ~n their DecKsees as they relate to the Dro4ect.
· ne Commission indicated ~here were 3nconsistenc~es jn
what they received and what was presented.
CONMXSSIONER ~J~l~moved to not close the eubl~c hearinn
and continue Vestinn Tentative Tract No. 25004 and Zone
Chanae of 56~Z ~o the Plannlna Coff~nission mee~2ng ot
October L5, ~990. GARY KOOfrZ asked what issues stai[
wouJd be addressinq, ~ THORNIIILL stated that they
wotzLd be look~nQ a~ the followinq issues: use o[ the
easements, the aujde)jne standards which relate to the
mmoo ~he dedication ot easements, look at Lot Z37 as pa~k
space, as well as Lot ].380 check the cons3stency of the
verbaQe ~or the tanGscene tot ~ae tront yards and the
me.insensate with whir is pronosed in the Condjt3ons o[
ADOroval, the well DrODOSOd between Lot 149 and Lot ZS0
end obtajn~na a section qrade tot the Commission to
ceview-~ COMNISSIONER fORD seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
CONNISSION~RS:
BIn.it,. fahey,
ford, Hoaq~and,
Chiniaef~
MOll: 0
COIOtXSSIONERS:
None
Ill. 91 l? I H
-14-
~121190
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 15, 1990
Prepared By: irk Rhoades
Case No.:
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500~
Change Zone No. 5611
Recommendation: 1. Adoption of .Negative Decla~,~ion
2. Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
.- LOCATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Brent Dix
C-M Engineering
Vesting Tentat v· Tract No. 2500~ to subdivide
i
appreximately 59.0 acres nto 135 single family lots,
end Change of Zone from R-R to R-1.
Northeast corner. .or..Seraphine Road and Rite Way.
, *
Zone Chenae
Change of Zone 5&11 is a proposal to Rc~.!~n~:rha~
zoning of the subject 59 acres from
Residential ), which requires a one acre minimum lot
size, to R-1 ISingle Family Residential). which
requires a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. The
preject site is sUrrounded by A-1-10 I Agriazitural,
10 Acre Minimum) end R-R-2 112 to the east, and R-
R to the south and west. This project will provide
· buffer zone between the higher County approved
density to the rlm-th, and existing lower density R-
R zoning to the mouth. The Winchester Specific Plan
area, which is to the north end northwest, contains
lot sizes av ing approximately ~,500 to 5,000
square feet.er~T i· is substantially higher than the
density of the pror~ostd project.
The SWAP identifies this am as residential, 2-~
dwelling units per acre. The proposed Change of
Zone is consistent with this designation.
Tentative Tract
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 250(W is an application
to subdivide 59 acres into 135 single family lots.
STAFFRPT\VTT250(W 1
Four [~) additional remainder lots will be created,
two (2) of which will be considered for park
dedication (Lots 137 and 138). The proposed lot
sizes range from 7,200 square feet to 17,825 square
feet with an average lot size of approximately 8,800
square feet. The approval and density of this
project is dependent on the approval of Zone
Change No. 5611.
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
STAFFRPT~VTT2500~
At its regular meeting on September 17, 1990, the
Planning Commission continued Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25082 and Change of Zone No. 5611.
The Commission requested that the applicant submit
additional information regarding grading, design
guideline end park space.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing
Staff met with the applicant:s representative to
discuss the Commission's concerns. On September
28, lg90, the applicant submitted the additional
information.
The applicant provided the following information in
response to the Commission:s concerns:
1. Provide Cross Sections for Sloim Analysis:
Pursuant to StafPs raccw,,,~a:,dation, the
applicant identified three samples. The
sample represent worst case example of
grading cuts located on site. Staff has
reviewed the cross sections and has identified
the maximum vertical cut to be approximately
30 feet high.
2. Revise Desion Guiclelinss:
The revised deign guideline reflect current
lot and tract numbers. No change wore
me to the design criteria as they pertain to
development standards.
Park Spice I nvolvin{i MWD Easement Area:
Lots 137 and 138 represent 16.1; scree of
unbuildable land covered by Metropolitan
Water District end Southern California Edison
-.-y ,~.,qts. The applicant has offered to
dedicate this area to the City for future perk
space. Currently, Staff is only requiring
dedication and no improvements are
proposed. Howe/or, because the land has
limited usefulness as a pork, it is Staff~s
r;,za,,,..e.,dation that the proposed offor of
2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
dedication not be credited towards the
Quimby requirements as contained in
Condition of Approval Number 2~.
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Vesting
I entative Tract No. 2500g and Change of
Zone No. 5611, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the initial Study and
Staff Report: and,
APPROVE Change of Zone 5611. based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Initial
Study and Staff Report; and,
APPROVE Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500q,
based on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
MR: ks
Attachments:
3- Planning Cmm~ission Staff Report
dabrod September 17, 1990
~. Planning Canmission Minute of
Sel~~ 17, 1990
$ ~ Scale Pans
,+
STAFFRPT\VTT2501R
foJ
t~ m~nutes Octo]
BLA! and c
: RJa.~r.
:
[88 [I : HOaQ t a,
njae:
3
d DQ
Novem. 5,
YRM8
NO 8F 1
adv~ the t that
mtinu~ to ot 990.
coot Bul }~man,
alive Na i]
RY! : C0NNl :. Pshe
.ae~
NORa: O. NER8:
ARa]Q~: )
Ford
d
ed
PTIRT, TC RR&RIN~
4. CHANOIq OF It(leE IO. 561] and
5. VEStINn ?RIITATIVB TRACT NO. 25004
4.1
Proposal to chanae sone from R - R ]/~ to R-1 in
conjunction withVTTa 25004 on uroteet located at
east side of Joseph Road approximately 3,000 teat
north of NichoLas Road.
N/IUTB XQ/15/90 -2- 1QI24190
PX.ANN]'NCa 'C(MNIBBXOll MIM'fi'RH - OCTO~ltm .15, ] 990
5.].
Proposal to subdivide 42.4 acres ~nto 1.15 ainQte
~am~Jy )ot~ on Drn~e~t .tn~at~ Rt ~a~t ~ide of
JnseDh Road approximately J.,O00 teat nnrth nf
Nicheice Road,
OI, IVR~NUalCA oresanted the start report on this
i.r~m. He w~minded sta~ that this item was continued
frnm the P)annina Commission meetina of 8eDt~mber 37,
t. 990, ~o D~ovtde addi~tonaI intonation on the
Q~I3dP}jD~S US they reJ~te ~o the units and th~ easement
eASY THO!~IHgl,l, statmt that the Cmm~issi~n could require
an advisory notice to the future oreparty mmers that they
may be impacted by aircraft noise. &ssistant ~itV
Attorney JOHN C~VANAUCIH con~.urred,
frJMMZaStO!l~ !!0AflT, A!ID stated that he would like the
anv.~sory notice as an additions) condition,
Cr~MY88[r~Wt~!TW~At~F Questioned who woutd construct the
t~ridoe over the creek ad4acent to NiceIns Road. JOHN
MKDDL~ON stated that the Dwimarv access to the Dro~ect
wou]d be Nutriots Not 8prince R~ad; No stated ~nst he
had d~scussed.With the aDgtican~/buildjoe a sec'ondarv
a~.eess. lie stated that he thouaht Assessment nlstr~ct
1.61 would build the tmorov~nts over the creek as veil
aS the c~Dletjon of Nurrieta ffot 8Drinas Road.
(r)MMTBBIOMBRCKXMXABFF asked who would be maintaininQ the
lots in the deSianated 8KR habitat area, GARY THORHILL
stated that i~ those lots wore arceDted as dedication
to the City tot Dub)it Dark space, then the city vouJd
have to maintain it: however, it it was decided not to
accent the dedication, then the Jots would have to be
maintained by the Homeowner*s Association as covered in
Condition No, 30.
Pw,ARN~rRg COMMJSSJOR MXIIII~Rfl OCTOBIP:R .15, 1990
CO~T88TOIIRR C~[I[ARPP rexeat. toned the location o~ the
a~!(M[SSTOM~R C~TN[AKP~ opened the DUbtie hearinQ,
~ARY KOCRI~. CM ~no.~nperina. representinG toe RuD)icant.
nta~.ed that they had addr. essed the inRue nf the Itr.~or.t
i.~ it ~n ~-te~mtned Chit they 8~e in the airport ].and
,so ~.ooe. they wo, Jd have to =Hi a notice ja the CC&R'n
~R W~i RR ~h~ neoartW~..nt of. Real Estate DiAbLiC r. eoOr. t.
He also statue that the contract had b~en awar~ecl to
Mllrr3eta ~nt SDr~nas Roafi ~3IJ be eomD) eted dnvn to
W3. nehenter. Road. an watt is the b~idqe at General Kearnv
W~qPfi W~JJ ~rnV~de 9~enndmrv macesq. Re stareft that the
anDt~eant tn aware that it the Assessment District ~aiLs,
th~ ~re resDons~b.le for the secondary Recess. ~e added
that the entry monuments ~oi~owed county GuideLines:
nnwev,r. the ~es~on o)ans ca~ be moe~tled and the
aDoti. cant would be vitLinq. to vock vith start and we-
)orate the entry mommmnt,
T,RT~'TR FKXlClII, 30396 Hir. 8 Goma Ocive, ?emeeuta,
reer~..eent.~no the q'pmecu:l R Vm:l 1 e;V.P. nitj eel f;ehoo] D.i st rjct,
wen oresent to confirm the aoot{cmnt.'s Or.OOOSat to the
'.PVIISr) to .~fista:l] vaJki~o oathS-With rolled ISDha]t curbs
f.n ennu~.e the sat. err at-chitdren waLkinG to .O.ehool.
(~R? ~M~ORRR.T1.L stated tbs~ .qtatf"wou]d look .into a
condition to ensur.e hate vatkinG Paths awe imp Cemented
.in th.i.q protect.
CONN~88JO!IPrR PAllPrY a,estioned the Dotearia] o2 the BKR
hubStat area to be used as DiCk spree, GARY THORNHXLL
stated that the )and vouldb~.ideaJ to be ineJuded in the
cttv vide trail system,
COIINTMXOIBR lPaHrr cuestinned what wouJd be the primary
access into the protect, JOHN MtT)O[,tqTO!l stated that
Assessment DAstriet 363 was scheduled to bu~d Nurrieta
Hot 8wrillqm Road to Ntnehestec and the Dieteel was
conditioned for secondary access aJona Rite May thru
.q-
PhANNYNCJ COMNJf)f~JCM MINi]~*R8 0C~B~ .l 5, ] 990
Ni. eotas Road to JOseph. 0)MMTSHtOMICt FAH~:Y asked how
them Droiect tie~ into North nenern) Kenmay NaRd. State
COMN)eSXONRR RAMJOY moved tn e)o~, the Dub)~C hearth,
and adopt .the Neamti. ve Deeter. lti. on ~or VeMti. no
ChanQ, n( ZoneiNn. ~.1.1. and 8DDrnva Vestinq Tentative
· ract No. ~5004 suetact to the Conditions nf Approve)
as mibmi. tted hy state with the eotLowinq modifications:
prooar aDornvet process it iotated within the
~e~ianafed by t~he Airport Y,and:Use Cown~s,inn: a condition
I~VI. Sl. nQ D~osDeettve tend ommers of the possible noise
d,e tn the eJnMe Ornx~mItY of the Droieet to ~he airport.
~&R~ 9RORNHTL~'~dded that said notice be ~nctuded tn the
White ReDoft bY the 8tate T)eDsrtment of Rex] ~state be
~.netuded in that cond~tton us an advisory to ~he deed
owners. Assi 9tRnt C~ ty Artorder JlI!!l CRVRRAU(lll advi sod the
Cnmmi..qs~.nn that it the protect is not in the destoasted
Rr,R ~Y ~he A~ruort Land Use Commission, but sti]] close
~.n 9~nximi. tv, the Densresent ot Rear Rstate will reeuire
a Mh.~t~ .Resort be. Drewida1 to de~d earners, CCJMMIBaIONRR
~A~RY enntinued w%th her motion to toerude a condition
th~ SDDJlCant tO Work with the School District and
~.n~i. neertn~ D,~ar. tment to 9~evtd,'~ seen walk~nq 9ath to~
aee*MM ~'~ N~enJas ~ehnnJ.~' M'cOndition reduction the
de. di. eat~.nn o( lots 1.36,"'1.37, L38 end 1.40 unimnroved and
th~ Otlimby Act Peas to be Paid bv the developerr a
~O~dltiO~ arre~Q%!lQ tot the. maintenance oe the entr~.siQns
with the Discement sod desion o~ the siena aDDroved by
state. The mot:ionwes seconded bv CONNISaION~R HOAGLAND.
OANY ~)!O!eNHI&~:ouestioned the mmintenence ot the lot
ediecent to Street "&" (the ted ot ~ot 141). COMNISSIONER
FAHEY amended the motion to include that the maintenance
ot the lot should be Drovedad by the Homeownec's
Association or!that this lot be added to )or 135.
whichever start decided was umst enDrooftRee. GARY
~!!ONNHILr- asked tf Condition No. 30 Dertsinina to ·
~omeooners AssOciation should be deleted. COMNISSlON~R
FAN&"/stated tbst Condition 30 re~uirina m Homeowners
PT, ARRJR(1 eOMtqlfJB[O!l MXWgeYJqfi OCePOBIqR 3 S, 1990
Assoc~.a~ton would ~.e~l.n in the C, ondt~.on,q ot ADDVOVR{,
· ~ a~DJ~can~ adv~s~n th~ C~ss~on that Lot ]36 And be~n
purchased by the enu~f.v ~or the compLain. on ot Hurttara Hot
5=r~ne~ Road. ~N]88I~ ~ amend~H h~r motion to
1. fie~ild~ An RdVtRn~Y not.~.ee s~a~tnq tha~ r,nt. 1.36 only be
n~di~t~d ~f trip or~v3OuS eJRjm~ to thRt [,nt vere not
exerei. sed bY the eouxntv ~nd also. that the m~tntenance o~
J.~t :t4:t .~ ornvided ~v the developer nnt~) jt aJ~o becomes
98r~ o~ th, dedi.~a~on. C~[88TON~R ROAGT,AND seconded
the Rmendmpnt9 to the mot~nn. and the motion carr~e, a~
AYRR: 3
PahPv. Y'~oaQJ and.
NORS: 1. COHI4XSB[ON~R8: Btair
CONNISS]ONRRB: Ford
oo
.!
clat.~
Mr
Leeat
t DL'O'
a
the r~
the
sjon
Roa
th
e
the
ITEM
14
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER '
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
March 10, 1992
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
PREPARED BY:
Debbi~ Ubnoske
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council continue Change of Zone
No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to April
14, 1992.
ANALYSIS
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 were previously before
the City Council on October, 8, 1991, November 12, 1991, December 10, 1991, and January
14, 1992. These items were continued at the applicants' request. The applicant is once
again requesting a continuance to April 14, 1992.
vgw
/" S%STAFFRFT~631ez.d
ITEM
15
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEYR~
N
FINA CE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT:
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
March 10, 1992
TV/Radio Antenna Ordinance
John R. Meyer
ADOPT Ordinance No. 92-_, entitled:
"AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA
REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR
THE USE OF ANTENNAS."
BACKGROUND:
On January 8, 1990, the City COuncil adopted Ordinance No. 90-01, "a moratorium
on the construction and use of commercial talevision and radio transmitting
antennas," One year later, the City Council extended the moratorium to January 8,
1992. Because of the expired moratorium, this item has been noticed as an urgency
ordinance,
On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
TV/Radio Antenna Ordinance on a 40-1 vote. This item was reviewed and discussed
during several meetings of the Planning Commission. Most of that discussion
centered around how the proposed ordinance would affect local licensed amateur
radio operators and the status of legal non-conforming antennas.
S~q'~AI~P, Fa'~q'rBNNA.CCI
DISCUSSION:
During the Commission's review of the subject ordinance, staff met with
representatives of the local amateur radio operators club on two occasions to discuss
their concerns. The local club requested that amateur radio antennas be allowed up
to 65 feet tall without conditional use permit approval, subject to design and
performance standards. This provision is included in the ordinance forwarded from the
commission. The Commission also modified the ordinance to allow legal non-
conforming antennas to be grandfathered in without any amortization period.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed Antenna Ordinance appears to provide the City with balanced standards
that provide adequate use of television and radio antennas, while providing the
necessary control needed to ensure public health, safety and welfare. Since the
expiration of the moratorium, One application has been received by the Planning
Department to construct a 120 foot tall radio broadcasting antenna.
The antenna is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing radio broadcasting
antenna generally located on the southside of town, west of HWY 15, on the side of
the Santa Margarita Mountains. The proposal would be inconsistent with the setback
requiremanta contained within the proposed Ordinance. Under Section F. (f) and (g).
no commercial transmitting antenna may be located within 1,500 feet of Hwy 15 or
within 1,000 feet of another suCh antenna.
These provisions were included within the proposed ordinance to maintain an open
and un-cluttered view from the freeway and to avoid a potentially unsightly grouping
of antennas. Although the existing 105 feet tall antenna does not meet the minimum
distance from Hwy 15 it appears to have minimal impacts on the community.
Additionally it would appear that the placement of the antenna next to the existing
antenna would not result in increased impacts.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes the proposed TV/Radio Antenna Ordinance will serve the community
well. The local licensed amateur radio operator club supports the ordinance as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. However, as currently
drafted the ordinance would not allow the construction of an additional antenna on
the same site nor within 1500 feet of the freeway.
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 92-
Planning Commission Staff Reports
(dated December 16, 1991 and February 24, 1992)
planning Commission Minutes
|dated December 16, 1991 and February 24, 1992)
ORDINANCE NO. 92__
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section I - FINDINGS. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the
following findings:
1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City
shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During
that 30-month period of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a general
plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with
the general plan if all of the following requirements are met:
(a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
general plan.
(b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other
actions, each of the following:
(1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied
or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
2. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of
Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including
the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted
SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
A.CC1
The proposed land ese regulations are consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
(a) The City is proceeding in a timdy fashion with the preparation of the
General Plan.
(b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to
this title, each of the following:
(1) There is reasonable probability the Ordinance No. 92- will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable tim.
(2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
3. There is the need to control the location and design of antennas,
including Amateur Radio antennas, in order to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare and to maintain community design objectives.
4. The City of Temecula desires to allow amateur radio antennas in residen-
tial, commercial, institutional, and industrial areas of the City, subject to appropriate
regulation to prevent these antennas from creating a negative impact on neighboring
properties.
5. Pending approval of the General Plan, and associated Land Use Code
Regulations concerning antennas, the approval of any further plot plans or other
discretionary entitlement for antennas, would result in immediate impacts to the public
health, safety or welfare of persons and properties within the City of Temecula.
6. The City of Temecula desires to adopt antenna regulations that provide
for the regulation of both FCC licensed Amateur Radio and all other antennas within
the City in order to minimize aesthetic blight and to ensure proper location, attach-
ment, and structural integrity thereby protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
Accordingly, the City of Temecula hereby adopts the following:
Section 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to set forth the
development standards for the installation and maintenance of antennas within all land
use zones of the City. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design
and location of antennas are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic
objectives of the City, while providing the technical requirements of these antennas.
DFFINITIONS. The purpose of this Ordinance, the following
words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein.
Then consistent with the context, words used in the present tense singular include the
plural.
(a) "Antenna" means any systems of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs,
or similar devices of various sizes, materials and shapes including but not limited to
solid wire or wire-mesh dish, horn, spherical, or bar configured arrangements, used
for the transmission or reception of data, facsimile, television, voice or other forms
of telecommunications, including citizens band (CB) antennas. Any such system is
further defined to be external to or attached to the exterior of any building.
(b) "Antenna height or height of antenna" means the distance from the
property's grade to the highest point of the antenna and its associated support
structure when fully extended.
(c) "Antenna support structure" means a mast, pole, tripod or tower
utilized for the purpose of supporting an antenna(s) as defined above.
(d) "FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas" means an antenna its
associated support structure, st;ch as a mast or tower, that is used for the purpose
of transmitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur radio station
licensed by the Federal Communications Commission.
(e) "Commercial transmitting antenna/dish" means antennas used for
transmitting or transmitting television and/or radio and/or cellular telephone
communications.
(f) "Obstruction-free reception window" means the absence of man-
made or natural physical barriers that would block the signal between a satellite and
an antenna.
(g) "Non-commercial antenna" means any satellite dish or television/radio
antenna, other than in conjunction with an Amateur Radio station licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission.
(h) "Reception window"means the area within the direct line between
a land based antenna and an orbiting satellite.
(i) "Satellite dish antenna" means any apparatus capable of receiving
communications from a transmittee or a transmitter 'relay located in planetary orbit.
A.CCI
(j) "Vertical Antenna" means an antenna consisting of a single, slender,
rod-like element which is supported at or near its bass including but not limited to
whip antennas.
Section 3. RFGUI. ATIONS AND STANDARDS
A. PFRMIq'I~D AcCFSSORY USF. The following antennas are
permitted as an accessory use in the specified zoning districts and are subject to all
applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits.
(1) Satellite receiving antennas in non-residential zones on sites
not contiguous to a residential zone.
(2) Amateur radio and vertical antennas that do not exceed 30
feet in height in all zone.
(3) Amateur radio antennas that are between 30 feet and 65 feet
in height and comply with Section 4. D of this Orclinance, Amateur Radio Antenna
Development Standards.
(4) Common residential skeletal type radio and television antenna
used to receive UHF, VHF, AM !and FM signals of off-air broadcasts from radio and
television stations.
(5) Satellite Dish antennas in all residential zones.
R. CONDITF:)NAI I Y PFRMITTFD USE. The following antennas
shall not be erected or relocated except upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit
in accordance with Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 hereof. The requirements
of Ordinance No. 348 and of this Ordinance firat shall be construed in a manner to
make them compatible. When there is a conflict between the two, the provisions of
this Ordinance shall control. may be allowed subject to Planning Director approval, in
the specified zoning districts.
(1) Two (2) or more Satellite receiving antennas in nonresidential
zones on sites contiguous to a residential zone.
(2) All antennas that exceed 65 feet in height, in all zones
including but not limited to amateur radio and vertical antennas.
C. DEVFI OpMFNT AND OPFRATIONAI STANDARDS
(1) Location of Non-Commercial Antennas. Non-commercial
antennas may be established in all zoning districts as accessory uses and then shall
conform to the regulations contained in this Ordinance.
(2) Location of Commercial Transmitting Antennas. Not-
withstanding any provision tQ the contrary in this Ordinance, no commercial
transmitting antenna shall be established or expanded except in the M-SC, M-M and
M-H zoning district, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and then shall
conform to the regulations contained in this Ordinance.
(3) Design and Performance Standards for Non-Commercial
Antennas.
(a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to
maintain their supporting structures at least five (5') feet from any side property line;
ten (10') feet from any rear yard property line; and fifty (50) feet from any front yard
property line on lots greater than an acre in size.
(b) NO antenna or its supporting structure shall be located
in the area between the front property line and the dwelling on any lot less than an
acre in size.
(c) Within residential developments, no antenna shall be
higher than thirty (30') feet above grade level, except satellite dish antennas which
shall not exceed fifteen .(15') feet in height.
(d)
lot, except as provided for
antennas.
A maximum of two (2) antennas shall be allowed per
under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio
(e) =All roof-mounted satellite dish antennas within
residential developments are prohibited.
(f) Within non-residential developments, no antenna shall
be higher than the maximum height permitted in the zone, measured from grade level,
except as provided for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas.
(g) Within non-residential developments, no antenna shall
be roof-mounted except on a flat portion of the roof structure with parapets, and/or
architecturally matching screening plan.
n. AMATFUR RAnlO ANTFNNA nFVFI OPMFNT STANDARDS
The following standards shall apply to Amateur Radio Antennas installed within the
City of Temecula.
1. Antennas in excess of sixty-five (65) feet in residential zones subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Banning Commission.
Any amateur radio anteena shall be required to maintain its supporting
structures at least five (5') feet from any side property line; ten (10') feet from
any rear yard property line; and fifty (50) feet from any front yard property line
on Iota greater than an acre in size,
Replacement of an amateur radio antenna support structure shall be subject to
all applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits. However, the
supported antenna, including the array, may be replaced without issuance of
a new building permit, provided the replacement antenna does not exceed the
maximum weight, dimensions or wind load area specified in the current building
permit.
The antenna, including guy wires, supporting structures and accessory
equipment, shall be located and designed so as to minimize the visual impact
on surrounding properties and from public streets. The materials user in
constructing the antenna shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny, garish, or
reflective.
F. ANTFNNA OPFRATIONAL CRITFRIA AND PFRFORMANCE
STANDARDS.
The following regulations shall apply to the establishment, installation and operation
of all antennas in all zones:
(1) Antennas shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the
requirements of the Building Code. Antenna installers shall obtain a building permit
prior to installation.
(2) No advertising material shall be allowed on any antenna.
(3) All electrical wiring associated with any antenna shall be buried
underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official.
(4) Every antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against
a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate grounding method approved by the City
of Temecula Building Official. ,
(5) installation must meet wind velocity criteria as set forth in the
Uniform Building Code when deemed necessary by the City of Temecula Building
Official.
F. DFSIRN AND PFRFORMANCF STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL
TRANSMITTINg- ANTFNNAS.;
(1) All ground-mountad antennas shall be required to maintain their
supporting structures at least ten (10') feet from any property line and ten (10) feet
from any other structure.
(2) The base of all ground-mounted antennas shall be screened by walls,
fences or landscaping at least six (6') feet in height obscuring visibility of the base of
the antenna. Landscaping shall, be of a type and variety capable of growing within
one (1) year to a landscape screen which obscures the visibility of the base of the
antenna.
(3) All antennas and their supporting structures shall be located in the
rear yard or side yard, except a street side yard.
(4) No antenna shall be higher than the maximum height permitted in the
zone, measured from grade level.
(5) A maximum of one (1) antenna shall be allowed per lot.
(6) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located within 1,500
feet of Interstate 15.
(7) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located within 1,000
feet of any other such antenna..
~-, VARIANCES. Pursuant to the procedures of Section 18.27 of
Ordinance No. 348, any person may seek a variance from the provisions of this
Ordinance. No fee shall be charged to an applicant for a variance that is required
solely for the purposes of complying with the Ordinance. Any variance so granted is
revocable for failure by the applicant or property owner to comply with the conditions
imposed. A variance shall be issued for an antenna if it meets the following
standards:
(1) Locating the antenna in conforrnance with the specification of this
Ordinance would obstruct or otherwise excessively interfere with reception, and such
obstruction or interference involves factors beyond the applicant's control; or, the
cost of meeting the specffications of this Ordinance is excessive, given the cost of the
proposed antenna.
(2) The variance application includes a certification that the proposed
installation is in conformance with applicable City Building Code regulations. Further-
more, the application must contain written documentation of such conformance,
including load distributions within the building's support structure and certified by a
registered engineer.
(3) If it is proposed that the antenna will be located on the roof, where
possible, the antenna shall be located on the rear portion of the roof and be consistent
with neighboring improvements, uses, and architectural character.
NON-CONFORMING ANTENNAS. All antennas, in any zone,
lawfully constructed and erected prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, which
do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance for the
particular zone in which they are located, shall be considered Non-Conforming
Structures as defined and regulated in Ordinance 348 Section 18.8.
Section 4. SFVFRABII ITY. The City Council hereby declares that the
provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent
jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be
invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this
Ordinance.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section 6. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPI IANCF. The City Council hereby finds
that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act under Section 15061 (b)(3).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of March, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall
Mayor
June S. Greek
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS
DATED
DECEMBER I 6, 1991 AND FEBRUARY 24, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Plann. ing Commission
FROM:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
DATE:
February 24, 1992
SUBJECT: Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending
adoption of the Antenna .Ordinance, entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS."
PROPOSAL
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Antennas. The purpose for preparing the
proposed Antenna Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as
it relates to Antennas. ,
BACKGROUND
On January 6, 1992, the Planning Commission considered an ordinance which establishes
regulations for the installation. of commercial transmitting antennas and non-commercial
antennas, which includes satellite dish, television/radio and FCC licensed amateur radio
antennas. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission continued this item in
order to allow the Staff to meet with the representatives from the local amateur radio
operates club in order to understand their concerns.
DISCUSSION
The local club's basic request was to permit antenna's up to 65 feet without conditional use
permit approval, subject to design end performance standards as established in the ordinance.
Other minor clarifications were also discussed.
Revisions to the definitions and format have also been made in an effort to simplify the
ordinance· Staff recommends nonconforming antennas to be regulated through Ordinance
348 Section 18.8 Non-Conforming Uses, which establishes a three year amortization period.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Antenna Ordinance is intended to provide the City with balanced standards that
provide adequate use of television and radio antennas, while providing the necessary control
needed to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
Several cities perrt~it antennas to exceed the height limits of the base zoning district, subject
to various design and operational standards. Based on general direction provided at the
previous Commission Meeting, the attached ordinance has been modified to reflect the 65
foot height limit requested by the local amateur radio club. The Planning Commission may
modify this as it sees fit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
vgw
The Planning Department Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- . recommending
adoption of the Antenna Ordinar;ce, entitled:
'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABUSHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS.'
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 3
"Draft" Ordinance - page 6
Planning Commission Staff' Report (dated January 6, 1992) - page 15
Planning Commission Minutes (dated January 6, 1992) - page 16
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill
December 16, 1991
Antenna Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
PROPOSAL:
BACKGROUND:
AllOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91- recommending
adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
'CITYOF TEMECULA ADDING CHAFrER 6 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS?
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of
Antennas. The purpose for preparing the proposed Antenna
Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance
No. 348 as it rehtes to Antennas.
On OcWber 21, 1991, the Planning Commission considered
an ordinance which establishes regulations for the installation
of commercial transmitting antennas and non-commercial
antennas, which includes satellite dish, television/radio and
H.A.M. radio antennas. At the conclusion of the public
heating, the Commission continued this item in order to allow
the City Attorney and the Planning Staff the opportunity to
further evaluate the following issues:
1. Should all tytP~ of roof-mounted antennas be
prohibited within residential developments.
Are H.A.M. radio antennas exempt from all of the
standards of the proposed ordinance.
3. Provide addition legal information regarding the
regulations for H.A.M.radios.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A
DISCUSSION:
CONCLUSION:
Pursuant I to the direction of the Planning Commission, staff
has reviewed the above issues and has prepared the following
analysis:
Common residential skelet~ type radio and television
antennas used to receive UHF, VHF, AM and FM
signals of off-air broadcasts from radio and television
stations am exempt from the requirements of the
H,A.M.radio antennas are not totally exempt from the
requirements from the proposed Antenna Ordinance in
that the following standards have been included:
No pan of any amateur radio antenna shall
exceed s~xty-~ve (65) feet in height.
Not more than one (1)amateur radio antenna
support structure and one (1) whip antenna
structure in excess of thirty (30) feet in height
Allamateur radio antennas shall comply with the
Design and Performance Standards as set forth
in the ~ropos.d ordinance.
The legal opinion regarding the regulations for H.A.M.
radio antennas willbe presented by the City Attorney
at the Public Hearing.
The proposed Antenna Ordinance provides the City with the
standards to thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well
as pwviding the necessary control measures needed to
ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and control
the overall quality and number of such antennas. In addition,
the proposed ordinance provides adequate reguhtions in
order to comply with the FCC's Order.
The new Antenna Ordinance willserve as interim regulations
until the City's Zoning Development Code is prepared and
adopted. At that time, this ordinance will be incorporated
and/or modified inW the final Zoning Development Code.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN O-SIGN-A
STAFF RPCOMM~.NDATION:
!The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
:Planning Commission:
~r}OPT Resolution No. P.C. 9 1-
recommending adoption of the Antenna
Ordinance, entitled:
"ANORDINANCEOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THECITYOFTEMECULAADDINGCHAFrER
6 TO THE TEMECUIA MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS
AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR
THE USE OF ANTENNAS.*
OM:ks
Attachments:
Planning Commission Staff Report
(Dateda October 21, 1~1)
Planning Commission Minutes
(Datedi October 21, 1991)
A:DIRECTIONN.. SIGN
D-SIGN-A
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DATED
DECEMBER 16, 1991 AND FEBRUARY 24, 1992
The Febr-uary 24, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were not
available for distribution with this report.
~OEZSt! miwr'Jrz
read "-
drafted..-
D~C~i~, 16, ~99X
pT.~IQ/I~G CO)n(TBBTO~MI'NU~B
any future construction along ~he freevayJould
~he sign coming sou~bound, and suggests "'"-
amended Page 7, seventh paragraph, to
the public impact fee condition was
comassloN~
November 16,
FORD-
1991
moved to approve the minutes of
amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER
4 COMMISe ~: Fahey., Ford,
AYES: · Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES' 0 COMMISSIONERS: one
ABS~: I COMMISSIONERS:
NON PU~T'T~ ~TIQO TTW~ .
3. OlD TOWN S ZFZC PLaN BELBCTZON COMMITTB~
3ol Appoint Co · sioner to Committee to select Old Town
Consultant for ecificPlan-
aOWN MEYER summarize the staff report-
By unanimous consensus the Commission approVed
'
F~BT.ZC ww~atlNO TTlt~(~
4. T~L~VZSZON/PaDiO XNT~NNX ORDZFANCE
proposal for an ordinance establishing regulations for
Television/Radio Antennas City Wide-
. ed the staff report- John Meyer
advised the Commclub to review the °rd~nanaff was
recommending a continuance
meeting of JanuarY 6, 1992 in order to incorporate some
of the recommendations-
pCMIN12/16/91
-2-
DECEMBER 18, 1991
COJ~(TBBTC~MT~3TtS ntC~4:BER 16, 1991
~C)lm r, AVM~kUGIH advised that there are still issues that
need lobereViewed underthe section of conditional uses
as they pertain to satellite receiving antennas.
C~IRMANHOaGLa~Dopened the public hearing at 6:25 P.M.
The following individuals were present to represent the
various local Amateur Radio Clubs in support of the
ordinance:
Robert Berg, 42701 Via De1 Camps, Temecula
Joseph Terrazos, 31160 Lahontan Street, Temecula
Michael'Tucci, 42325 Via Conduels, Temecula
Rick~Saage, 43120 Vista De1 Rancho, Temecula
Robert ~erman, 23635 Kettle Road, Murrieta
Ron Perry, 29879 Camins Del Sol, Temecula, member of
RACES, thanked staff for their work on the ordiance, and
expressed co currents with the amateur radio portion of
the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FORD asked Mr, Perry if a list of local
radio operators could be provided to the City.
Ron Perry advisedthat he was in the process of preparing
a list of operators for Fire Stations 12 and 73.
Joe Terrazosi presented the Commission with a magazine
which referenced an article about an amateur radio
operation, much like the one that is being coordinated
with the Temecula police department.
COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern for clustering of
antennas on ~the roof and asked that the city attorney
look into controlling this problem, as well as looking at
stronger enforcement of regulations of the building
permits, before bringing this item back before the
Commission.
COMMIBBIONER:CHINIAEFF moved to continue Television/Radio
Antenna Ordinance to the Planning Commission meeting of
January 6, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES:
0 ' COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: i
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair
PCM~N12/16/91 -3- DECEMBER 18, 1991
ITEM 16
APPROVA
CITY ATT-ORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager'
Planning Department
March 10, 1992
Status Report on French Valley Airport
RECOMMENDATION:
Recei~/e and discuss
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this Agenda Report is to provide the City Council with some initial information
concerning the French Valley Airport, the agencies which regulate the airport and surrounding
areas, to identify the role of the City in land use decisions within the Influence Area of the
French Valley Airport, and to address some of the safety issues raised by the City Council at
it's October 8, 1991 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Airport Facilities
The French Valley Airport is a general aviation airport owned and operated by Riverside
County. The airport is located east of Winchester Road north of the City of Temecula.
According to the Aviation Division of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency
(EDA), the existing runway is 4,600 feet long and 75 feet wide with a gross single wheel load
bearing capacity of 30,000 pounds. The airport has lighted runways that enable 24-hour
operation. There is no control tower at the French Valley Airport. Approximately 100 fixed
wing aircraft are currently based at the airport. The runway surface is capable of supporting
aircraft operations for most small private propeller-driven and small business jet aircraft. The
airport facility currently handles approximately 80,000 operations (landings and take-offs) per
year. The operational capacity of the French Valley Airport is approximately 140,000
operations per year.
"" $'~=RNCHVLY.AIR~IdR4,AR
The French Valley Airport does not have an adopted Master Plan to guide the development
of the airport facility. The EDA is applying to the FAA for a grant to prepare a Master Plan
for the French Valley Airport. The Board of Supervisors approved the grant application on
January 7, 1992. The current management program for the French Valley Airport facilities
is contained in the 1985 Site Selection Study and Environmental Impact Report.
According to EDA staff, there are currently no plans to lengthen or expand the runway or
apron areas at the French Valley Airport. However, the Aviation Division of the EDA is
planning to enhance the operation of the facility by upgrading the airport from Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) to basic Instrument Right Rules (IFR). The County has applied to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) for the equipment to enhance airport operations.
AirpOrt Safetv
The safety concerns expressed by Councilman Mur~oz at the October 8th City Council meeting
were addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration. City Staff contacted the local area
office of the FAA. The Councilman's airport safety concerns were discussed with Mr. Carl
Christopher, the Manager of the Accident Prevention Program. It was the opinion of Mr.
Christopher, that there are no significant safety problems at French Valley Airport. His opinion
is based upon his experience in general aviation and his contacts with the safety counselors
at the French Valley Airport. The safety counselors are local volunteers who monitor flight
operations and safety at the airport. Although the Federal Aviation Administration
representative believes that there are no significant safety hazards at the airport, the City
Airport Committee will meet with the FAA, the Friends of French Valley Airport, and airport
safety experts to identify what they perceive to be potential safety problems around the
French Valley Airport. The solutions to these problems will be forwarded to the appropriate
regulatory agencies for consideration.
Airoort Manaqement
In addition to the local governments that are responsible for the planning and zoning for the
airport and surrounding areas; four government agencies have some form of legal jurisdiction
over the airport facility and areas of influence. The Federal Aviation Administration is
concerned with the flight safety and manages the airspace over the airport. The Division of
Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) issues operating
permits, conducts airport facility inspections, provides technical assistance to county airport
operation agencies, and reviews airport land use plans for consistency with State Law. The
Aviation Division of Riverside County's Economic Development Agency (EDA) provides staff
support to both the Riverside County Aviation Commission and Airport Land Use Commission,
and is responsible for the operation, maintenance, lease management, and improvements to
the County-owned and -operated airports in Riverside County.
S~'RNCHVI.Y.~.AR 2 ~
The Riverside County Aviation Commission (RCAC) is an advisory body to the Board of
Supervisors. The five member Commission reviews actions affecting the operation of the six
County-owned and operated airpert facilities and makes recommendations before the Aviation
Division staff submits matters to the County Board of Supervisors. Each Supervisor appoints
one member to serve on the Aviation Commission from there respective districts. The five
members of the RCAC are: William Harker (1 st District), Peggy Zopf (2nd District), Ron Karge
(3rd District), Frank Wilson (4th District), and Colonel Ed Butler (5th District).
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has seven members and is
responsible for land use planning around all thirteen airports in Riverside County. Five
members represent the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and two members represent
Riverside County Cities. The five County representative are the members of the RCAC. The
two City representatives are Gillar Boyd (Palm Springs) and John Wingate (Riverside). Both
were appointed in 1982 by the City Selection Committee. The City Selection Committee is
composed of all the Mayors for all the Cities in Riverside County. According to EDA staff,
recent changes in State Law concerning the terms of office for the members of the Airport
Land Use Commission, will require that the current City representatives on the ALUC be
reappointed or replaced by the City Selection Committee. The City of Temecula is a member
of the City Selection Committee and will be involved in this process.
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission operates pursuant to the provisions of the
State Aeronautics Act, Sections 21670 through 21679 of the Public Utilities Code. According
to Section 21670, the purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, ensure the continued orderly use and development of
airports in California, and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. Section
21675, requires that a Comprehensive Land Use Plan be prepared for all commercial and
general aviation airports to ensure; the ordedy growth and expansion of these airports and to
address the unique land use, noise, and public safety concerns associated with airports.
According to the provisions of Section 21675.1, county airport land use commissions must
adopt a CLUP for all airports in the county by June 30, 1992.
At present time, the ALUC regulates the area of influence of the French Valley Airport under
the 1984 Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. The ALUC amended the interim airport
influence area in September, 1989, to include all areas within 2 miles of the airport. The
previous influence area had included all areas within 1 mile of the airport. Exhibit I shows
the present Interim Area of Influence for the French Valley Airport. The current influence area
is also the Study Area for the CLUP.
Until the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, the
Influence Area around the French Valley Airport is managed pursuant to the 1984 Riverside
County Airport Land Use Plan. The Plan established interim policies to direct development
within airport influence areas in Riverside County. The Plan established three specific
influence areas. Area I is the area near the imaginary approach paths into and out of the
facility is the most restrictive management area. Area II is the area around the airport with
potentially significant safety concerns. The entire Area of Influence around the airport is
Influence Area III. Area III is the least restrictive influence area within the influence area of
the French Valley Airport. Exhibit 2 shows the location of interim Influence/Management
Areas I and II at the French Valley Airport.
S~":RNCHVLY.AII~AIR4.AR 3
The currant countywide Airport Land Use Plan allows only residential development on lots
larger than 2.5 acres in Area I if the development des not interfere with the approach zones
of the airport runway. In Area II, in addition to the uses allowed in Area I, agricultural,
industrial and commercial uses are also acceptable. In Area III, height limits and avigation
easements are required for all uses, and special sound proofing requirements are required to
reduce interior noise levels in all residential uses.
Airoort Area Land Use Planning
As mentioned above, the ALUC is required to prepare a comprehensive land use plan for all
airports in Riverside County. To prepare the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French
Valley Airport, the ALUC has received a ~54,000 grant from Caltrans. The firm of Aries
Consultants has been hired to prepare the Plan, To facilitate the preparation of the CLUP, the
Airport Land Use Commission has created an advisory committee that includes local agencies
and airport users, The French Valley Airport Technical Advisory Committee consists of
representatives of Caltrans, the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Riverside County, the Friends
of French Valley Airport, and local property owners, The first meeting was held in Hemet on
November 27, 1991; a representative from the City Planning staff was in attendance at the
meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the consultant who would be
preparing the CLUP to the French Valley Airport Technical Advisory Committee and to solicit
their issues and concerns, The next meeting has been scheduled for the end of January,
1992.
State Law requires that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport be
adopted by June 30, 1992. City Staff is concerned about the timing of the master plan for
the airport facility and the comprehensive land use plan for the airport influence area. The
Master Plan for the airport facility should be completed before a comprehensive land use plan
is prepared. This is because the CLUP should be based upon the long-term plans and
assumptions contained in the Master Plan. City Staff is concerned that the future size and
use of the airport facility will be constrained by the planning assumptions used to develop the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport. According to Aviation Division
staff, the CLUP may be revised after the Master Plan is completed to reflect the changes in
anticipated use and capacity of the airport.
In addition, the City General Plan will also need to carefully consider future land uses around
the airport in order to prevent future noise and safety problems. The General Plan Guidelines
for the State of California require city general plans to address both existing and projected
noise levels from a wide range of noise sources, including roadways, industrial facilities, and
general aviation airports. The City will have the opportunity to address the noise, safety and
land use compatibility issues during the preparation of the City's first General Plan.
The Role of the City in AirpOrt Area Land Use Decisions
According to State law, the adopted airport comprehensive land use plan was intended to take
precedence over a City or County general plan within the airport's area of influence. The
legislature intended that all development and land use proposals within the area of influence
be consistent with the airport land use plan. All land use development entitlements within the
influence area of the airport, must be approved by the Airport Land Use Commission. If a land
S~cRNCHVLY~iR~4-~R 4 ~
use or development proposal is denied by the ALUC, the City or County (whichever has
jurisdiction of the area) may overrule the decision and approve the development.
To overrule a decision of the ALUC, the City or County must, with a 2/3's vote of it's
legislative body make specific findings that the proposed project is consistent with the
legislative intent as defined in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code· The action of a City
or County .to overrule the decision of the ALUC make the operator of the airport immune
liability fo~.eli damages.to property and perserial injury.that-results from the decision to
overrule a project denial by the Airport Land Use Commission (Section 21675·1 (f) Public
Utilities Code).
Public Comments on Initial Aaenda RePort
Two comment letters were submitted in response to the City's December 10, 1991, Agenda
Report on the Status of the French Valley Airport. One letter was from a property owner near
the airport, and the other was from the Riverside County's Economic Development Agency.
The letters are attached to the Agenda Report as Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. The letter
from the EDA contained a number of reiterations and elaborations of information originally
provided to City Staff by the Aviation Division. City Staff circulated a draft of this agenda
report to both of these commentors· Borre Winckel responded in writing on January 2nd,
EDA staff responded by phone on January 3rd. The final agenda report has been corrected
to reflect their specific comments to the draft egenda report.
City Staff has reviewed the EDA's December 17, 1991, letter and has identified a number of
additional concerns and issues. Their additional concerns and issues are as follows:
"The airport's runway, given its length, width, and strength, may accommodate most
small propeller driven aircraft and small business jets under 30,000 pounds. The
existing runway may accommodate some forms of commuter type aircraft meeting the
runway length, width, and strength constraints. The Dash 7's and Dash 8's aircraft
mentioned in your city staff report cannot operate our of French Valley Airport at this
time given that the gross weight of these aircraft exceed the runway's weight
restrictions." (Page 2, Paragraph 4 and Page 3, Paragraph 1 )
Response: The statement concerning the potential for commercial air service at French
Valley Airport has been deleted from the agende report.
City Airport Committee
"We did note that the City formed an Airport Committee. We also noted that the
Riverside County Economic Development Agency/Aviation Division was noticeably
absent from the Committee. It is our opinion that we are the most knowledgeable on
the French Valley Airport, airport operations and requirements, and our absence from
the Committee would not serve the City's best interest. We would be happy to
provide our knowledge to the Committee to ensure the City obtains complete
information." (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
S~:RNCHVLY.AIRVMF~.AR 5
Response: No change to the Agenda Report is needed. It was the intent of City
Airport Committee to invite Aviation Division staff to share their expertise and
information on the French Valley Airport.
"The city staff did a thorough job discussing the Airport Land Use Commission
legislation, role, and preparation of the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan. The costs
of the Airport Land Use Ran need clarification. The total cost of the Airport Land Use
Plan is ~60,000. The costs are divided into 850,0 (0 consultant fees and ~10,000
administrative costs. The source of the funds for the Airport Land Use Plan are a
$54,000 grant from the California Aid to Airports Program and a $6,000 local match."
(Page 4, Paragraph 5)
Response: The exact dollar amount has been included in the Agenda Report.
Another letter was sent by Borre Winckel, President of the Dutch Village Property Owners
Association. Mr. Winckel's letter contained a number of specific comments on the City's
Agenda Report. City Staff has reviewed the Mr. Winckel's December 16, 1991, letter and
has identified · number of additional concerns and issues. The additional concerns and issues
are as follows:
"Page 1, Airport Facilities, Paragraph 1: The count of 80,000 operations (actually
78,000) is an estimate based upon one week acoustical count by Caltrans for 1990
by extrapolation .... "
Response: The comment supports information stated in staff report, and provides
additional information on airport use projections. No change to the Agenda Report is
needed.
'Same Paragraph, Staff Report: The airport is not approved for any commuter or
commercial service. Hence it can not accommodate DASH 7's and DASH 8's with a
current tarmac strength category of 12,500 pounds. Changing tarmac strength will
require new approvals based on new environmental assessments. Currently the airport
may accommodate a limited air taxi service within the general aviation aircraft category
envelope."
Response: The commercial service statement has been deleted from the Agenda
Report. The information on tarmac strength is different than provided by the EDA.
The 12,500 pound runway weight strength limit was used in the Site Selection Study
and EIR. In addition, increasing the weight bearing capacity of an airport will change
the type of aircraft that can fly into and out of that facility.
"Page 1, last Paragraph: There is no Riverside County Aviation Commission. There
is a Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Aviation Department
has applied to the FAA for an instrument approach procedure, which implementation
is fully subject to both the CEQA and NEPA process. Procedurally the problem is that
EIR No. 206 did not sufficiently cover instrument approach procedures which
handicaps meeting the FAA's requirement for an Environmental Assessment update."
S%FRNCHVLY.AIR%AIIM.AR 6
Response: According to the EDA, the Riverside County Aviation Commission does
exist, and serves as an advisory board to the Board of Supervisors. No change to
Agenda Report is needed. The issue of the environmental procedures followed by the
Aviation Division is beyond the scope of this agenda report. City Staff will attempt to
determine the correct information.
"Page 2, Paragraph 1: The report mentions two Master Plan applications. There is
only one Master Plan application. by the Aviation Department. The report fails to point
out that adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is a requirement by the
State of California, reinforc~ed by SB 255 with an extended deadline date of June 30,
1992. CLUP must use as its data basis the Master Plan and Site Selection Study
information adopted by EIR No. 206 in July 1985. The CLUP may not incorporate any
new information ....
Response: The Agenda Report discussed only one Master Ran for the airport facility.
No change to the Aganda Report is needed. The deadline for completion of the CLUP
has been added to the agenda report. The issue of the information and assumptions
to be used in preparing the CLUP will be reviewed by City Staff.
"Page 2, Airport Management, Paragraph 3: At present time, ALUC denies, conditions
and approves projects on the basis of the expanded Interim Airport Influenced Area.
The Staff Report is in error when it makes mention of the regulating of land uses by
the ALUC under the 1984 Riverside County Land Use Plan. Hence, Exhibit 1 shows
the expanded Interim Airport Influenced Area as was adopted by the ALUC (only) on
September 21, 1991 ."
"Page 3, Paragraph 3: Same Comment as immediately above.'
Response: The word "Airport" was left off of Page 2. The term Airport has been
added onto Page 2. The correct Plan title was found on Page 3 of the Agenda Report.
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan was adopted on April 26, 1984 by the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. The County Airport Land Use Plan is
a general countywide policy document intended to bridge the gap between the lack of
airport land use plans in Riverside County and the requirements of State Law.
"Page 3, Paragraph 4: The Staff Report incorrectly describes the three categories of
land use in Interim Airport Influenced Areas I, II, and III. The staff report lists them
backwards.
Response: The interim influence area descriptions used in the December 10, 1991
Agenda Report were double-checked and found to be correct. The information was
taken directly from the 1984 Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. No change to
the Agenda Report is needed.
Page 3, Paragraph 4 "The proper term for airspace easements is "avigation easements"
not aviation easements .... "
S~:RNCHVLY.AII~AIR4.AR 7
Response: The correct terminology for a flight path easement has been included in the
Agenda Report.
e
'Page 3, Paragraph 5: The CLUP Advisory Committee also has land
representation on it .... "
owner
Response: The Agenda Report has been corrected to reflect this fact.
'Page 3, Paragraph 6' The current plan for French Valley Airport is the same one as
was adopted by the County in EIR No. 206· There are no other valid assumptions for
a different use."
Response: The comment provides an additional information. No change to the Agenda
Report is needed.
10.
'Page 4, The Role of the City Etc., Paragraph 1: Once a CLUP has been adopted,
CLUP will supersede City and County General Plans. However, due to the fact that
Interim Airport Influenced Areas should first be established in consultation and hearing
with involved planning agencies (March 1990 ALUC Rules and Regulations) the
process is assumedly an interactive and mutually agreed to process. Prior to CLUP
adoption, Interim Airport Influenced Areas will not suparc..de City or County General
Plans·'
Response: The comment provides an additional information. No change in the Agenda
Report is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is Staff's recommendation that the City Council pursue the following goals and objectives
relating to the French Valley Airport:
/
The City Airport Committee should coordinate airport concerns and issues with the
Friends of French Valley Airport, the FAA, the Airport Land Use Commission, and other
airport experts. The Committee should evaluate safety issues around the airport,
determine if feasible solutions are available, and forward any solutions to the
appropriate regulatory agency for consideration. A specific Work Program that
identifies the objectives and activities should be prepared to assist the City Airport
Committee in it's efforts to reduce safety hazards and address local airport concerns.
e
The City should continue to actively monitor and provide input into the development
of the Airport Land Usa Plan for the French Valley Airport.
The City Council contact Supervisor Walt Abraham and request that the City be
allowed to provide input into the selection of any future First District representative to
the Airport Land Use Commission.
The Mayor should be actively involved with the City Selection Committee to improve
local representation on the Airport Land Use Commission.
~-~
S~=RNCHVLY'AIRVMR4'AR 8
The City should encourage the City of Murrieta to identify and implement possible
solutions to airport issues and concerns.
The City should incorporate airport related issues into the Land Use, Noise, and Safety
Elements of the City's General Plan.
Attachments:
Exhibit I - Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 - French Valley Airport Infkmnce Areas
Exhibit 3- December 17, 1991 Letter from the Riverside County
Economic Development Agency
Exhibit 4 - December 16, 1991 Letter form Borre Winckel
representing Dutch Investors, Inc.
Article entitled: 'Mayday, Mayday - No Place to Land", Plannina,
November, 1991.
S~J:RNCHVLY.AIFr~JN..AR 9
ITEM
17
APPROVAX. =----,
CITY MANAGER")%~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
David Dixon, City Manager
DATE:
March 1 O, 1992
SUBJECT: CFD 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) Sales Tax Agreement/Tomond
Properties
PREPARED BY: Scott F. Field, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached
"Agreement Between City of Temecula and Tomond Properties, a General Partnership,
regarding Sales Tax Revenues of Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez
Corridor)" in substantially the form presented, subject to approval by the City Manager
and City Attorney as to the final form of the Agreement.
DISCUSSION: Last March 23, 1990, the County of Riverside completed all
proceedings necessary to establish the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District.
In order to induce the formation of the District, the City Council approved the use of
sales tax revenues generated within the District to reimburse owners for Special Taxes
levied to meet bond payments. However, the Council directed that the sales tax
reimbursement would only be used for improvements of a community-wide nature.
For example, no sales tax reimbursement will be available for constructing four of six
of the lanes of Ynez Road, since these would have been a developer obligation.
One of the principal purposes of the Ynez Corridor District was to induce the
establishment of an auto mall. The initial phase of the auto mall was constructed by
Tomond Properties. Tomond has constructed various public improvements as part of
the auto mall, principally being Solano Way and associated water, sewer and storm
drain improvements.
However, approximately $132,318.70 in storm drain improvements were not
inspected by the County Flood Control District prior to their installation.
Consequently, the District will not accept these improvements into the storm drain
system. Subsequently, Mr. Raymond approached the City as to whether the City
would be willing to acquire these facilities as part of the District.
City Council Agenda Report
March 10, 1992
Page 2.
As a compromise, City Staff has negotiated an arrangement whereby the City will
acquire these facilities with bond proceeds. The effect of this arrangement means the
District will acquire the facilities costing approximately 8132,318.70. Tomond will
then repay this debt through a special tax payment, consisting of principal and interest
on this 8132,318.70 portion ofthe bonds.
Staff believes this is a fair and equitable arrangement and recommends that the City
Council approve the attached Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Agreement between City of Temecula and Tomond Properties
Exhibit A - Summary
Exhibit B - Cost Sheet
Exhibit C - Property Description
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TOMOND PROPERTIES,
A GENERAL PARTNE~HIP, REGARDING SALES TAX
REVENUES OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-12
'(YNEZ CORRIDOR)
THIS:AGREEMENT is made and entered intothis__day of
, by and amongTOMONDPROPERTIES, a general
partnership, hereinafter referred to collectively as "Tomond" and
the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation hereinafter
referred to as the "City."
WHEREAS, prior to incorporation of the City, the County of
Riverside (the "County") initiated and conducted proceedings
pursuant to the Mello-RooS COmmunity Facilities Act of 1982, as
amended, Chapter 2.5 (commencing with S 53311) of Division 2 of
Title 5 of the Government Code (the "Mello-Roos Act"), for the
establishment of Community Facilities. District No. 88-12 (Ynez
Corridor) of the County of Riverside, State of California (the
"District"); and
WHEREAS, all proceedings pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act with
respect to the establishment of the District, the authorization
of the bonded indebtedness therefor and of the levy of special
taxes on taxable property therein to pay the principal of and
interest on the bonds thereof have been completed as of March 23,
1990; and
TM~IIOTS~02.AOR -- 1 --
WHEREAS, on or about June 14, 1991, the City entered into an
agreement entitled "Agreement Regarding Sales Tax Revenues As to
Businesses Located Within The Boundaries Of Community Facilities
District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) of the County of Riverside,
State o[ California" (hereinafter, Sales TaxAgreement") with the
Property Owners within the District whereby the City will make
sales and use tax revenues received by the City from commercial
and industrial businesses looated within the District available
for the payment of the principal of an interest on bonds of the
District; and
WHEREAS, among the public improvements which are proposed to
be financed with the proceeds of the bonds of the District are
the acquisition of all or a portion of Solano Way, a portion of
Ynez Road at its intersection with Solano Way and all or a
portion of certain water, sewer and storm drain improvements
located therein (the "Public Facilities"); and
WHEREAS, Tomond owns all of the Public Facilities, a legal
description of which is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A, and
by this reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, those Public Facilities described in Exhibit B,
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, are
not of a community-wide benefit and, consequently, it is the
intent of the City not to make the sales and use tax revenues
received from businesses located within the District available to
reimburse Tomond for payment of the principal and interest on the
bonds of the District associated with those Public Facilities
-2-
described in Exhibit B; and.
WHEREAS, City and Tomond have a~reed to amend the Sales Tax
Agreement as it applies to Tomond to provide that City will not
reimburse Tomond with sales tax for those Public Facilities
described in Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the
mutual covenants and conditions heroinafter set forth, the
parties do hereby covenant and agree as follows:
RP~TT~T~. The Recitals set fort~ above are true
Section 1.
and correct.
Section 2.
nRFTNTTTQNS. When used in this Agreement, the
following terms shall have the meanings specified below:
(a) "Tomond Parcel" means a parcel or parcels of land
located within the.boundaries of the District as described in
Exhibit C.
(b) "Public Facilities" means all or a portion of Solano
Way and a portion of Ynez:Road at their intersection and certain
water and sewer system and storm drainage facilities in Solano
Way and Ynez Road located near said intersection, including the
acquisition of right-of-way therefor, which have been constructed
to support the auto park located at such intersection, as more
specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
(c) "Special Tax" or "Special Taxes" means the Special Tax
or Taxes to be levied by the Board of Supervisors of the County
during each fiscal year to pay the principal of and interest on
the portion of the bonds of the District which is issued and sold
,/
to finance the construction and acquisition of the Public
Facilities.
Section 3. CONDTTTONS PR~-C~rT. The obligations of the
City under this Agreement ere conditioned on the District issuing
and selling bonds to finance the construction of the Public
Facilities necessitating the annual levy of the Special Taxes.
Section 4. D~T~MTNATTON ~ND PAY~mWT OF SAT.~-S & USE TAX
R'P..CP. IV~.n:
The Sales Tax Agreement, as it applies to the Tomond
Parcel, is hereby amended, to provide that the amount of sales
tax reimbursement to Tomond is reduced by the proportionate share
of Special Tax attributable to the bonds of the District sold to
acquire those Public Facilities described in Exhibit B.
Section 5. TEEM. This Agreement shall remain in effect as
long as the levy of Special Taxes is required to pay that portion
of the bonds issued end sold by the District to finance the
construction and acquisition of the Public Facilities described
in Exhibit B.
Section 6. TNU~TaNT. This Agreement shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and to their
respective heirs, executors,
assigns.
Section 7, AtFTHORTTY.
administrators, successors and
Each party hereto represents and
warrants to the other parties that it has the power and authority
to enter into this Agreement, and that each person executing this
Agreement on its behalf has been duly authorized so to act for
TM/1107S002.AGR -- 4 -
and on behalf of such party.
Section 8. INCORPORATION OF PROVTSTONS R~OUIRED ny T.AW.
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into
this Agreement shall be deemed to be included herein, and this
Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each such
provision were included herein, it being specifically provided
that if through mistake or otherwise any such provision is not
inserted or is not correctly inserted, this Agreement shall be
amended to make such insertion upon application by any party
hereto.
Section 9. SRVERABILITY. Each section and provision of
this Agreement is severable from each other provision, and if any
provision or part hereof shall be declared invalid, the remaining
provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect.
Section 10. ENTIRE ~GR~EMENT. It is expressly agreed that
this Agreement embodies the entire agreement of the parties in
relationship to the subject matter hereof, and that no other
agreement or understanding, verbal or otherwise, relative to the
subject matter hereof exists between the parties at the time of
execution, and that this Agreement may be modified or amended
only by a writing signed by the duly authorized and empowered
representatives of each and all of the parties hereto.
Section 11. NOTICES. Any notices required or permitted to
be served by any party upon the others shall be addressed to the
respective parties as set forth below, or to such other address
as shall be designated by proper notice given from time to time
~/
by the respective parties heret~~
TO
CITY OF TEMECULA
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Attn: City Manager
With COpy To:
Scott F. Field, Esq.
City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
3200 Bristol Street
Suite 640
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
TOMOND PROPERTIES
P.O. Box 2159
Escondido, CA 92025
Section 12. APPtTCABtE LAW. This Agreement is made in the
State of California under the laws and constitution of such State,
and is to be so construed.
Section 13. COUNTerPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in
counterparts signed on behalf of the City and one or more of
Tomond. Each such counterpart shall be an original'agreement, but
all such counterparts shall together constitute a single
agreement.
'I'M/IIOTSO~,AOR -6-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement the day and year first above written.
CITE OF '~MECVla
PATRICIA BIRDS~T.T., MAYOR
ATTEST:
JUNE GREEK, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY
TOMOND PROPERTIES
Printed Name:
Title:
T~al~Aoa -7 -
SUMMARY
CFD 88-12
TOMOND PROPERTIES
CATEGORY
02/05/92
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION STAKING
CONSULTANTS
ENGINEERING
GRADING
LANDSCAPING RIGHT-OF-WAY
LETTER CREDIT FEES
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
SEWER
STORM DRAIN/BOX CULVERT
STORM DRAIN
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SUPERVISION
TESTING AND STUDIES
UTILITIES & STREET LIGHTS
WATER
ON-SITE STORM DRAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY
SUBTOTAL UNDER CFD 88-12:
ADDITIONAL INSPECTION FEES
ADDITIONAL LETTER CREDIT FEES
SUBTOTAL UNDER CFD 88-1 ~ WITH ADDN:
ON-SITE STORM DRAIN OUTSIDE CFD 88-12
TOTAL DUE TOMOND PROPERTIES:
40,130.00
37,264.95
70,996.60
87,087.00
62,109.63
39,235.04
105 922.00
88,221.56
173,565.26
106,456.05
228.068.55
15,000.00
39, 118.36
206,647.59
128,147.11
54, 199.22
1.482.168.9~
6,645.07
8,027.64
1.496.641.63
132,318.70
1.629,1 60.33
EX H I BIT "A" ,wo ~ ~t,.~o3 ~ ocm .-
ON-SITE STORM DRAIN OUTSIDE CFD 88-12
132,318.70
EXHIBIT "B"
pw01%tds%0310cm.e
r.k.e.
,/
,
-L
.~.:.
"""~ "' ~ ill
ITEM NO. 18
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
City Council
J. Sal Mufioz, Councilman
March 2, 1992
County Health Department Services
In recent months I have received complaints from business people trying to open
restaurant businesses in town about the lack of cooperation from our local
Health Department Inspector. I wish to make the Council aware of the fact that
this is an area where we should take a proactive role in ensuring that the
services we contract for from the County are meeting the standards that we
would like to see for the City of Temecula. Based on the details that I have been
given of the bad experiences these businesses have had with the local Health
Department Inspector, it does not appear to me that we are getting the type of
cooperation with our local business that we should. In any economy, the
obstacles and delays that appear to be occurring at the hands of the Health
Department are harmful to the business community. In today's economy, it is
unacceptable that we have anything less than full cooperation from any of our
government agencies with respect our local business community.
I wish to have an open discussion of this matter so we might give staff some
direction on how to approach not only this problem, but other similar problems
with respect to contract services which we may be encountering. As I am sure
the Council all agrees, we want to have a climate in this city of cooperation and
expedient processing between government agencies and the business owners.
JSM:ss
[Dictated but not read]
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
March 1 O, 1992
Item No. 18 - County Health Department Services
City Clerk June S. Greek
BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize a staff report on this item and forward
it to you under separate cover.
JSG
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:11
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS:
PM.
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz,
Parks
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S.
Greek, City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Moore to approve the minutes_
of February 11, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
None given.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson reported that the Teen Center is scheduled to
open the third week in March.
President Parks asked for a report on the progress of the Sports Park Snack Bar Facility. Mr.
Nelson reported the shell of the building has been completed and staff has met with the
Sports Council and reached agreement that the City will install the electric water heater and
cabinets and the Sports Council will provide the equipment necessary to run the Snack Bar.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
4/Minutes/022692
-1 - 02128/92
CSD Minutes Februarv 95.1992
DIRI=CTORS RI=PORTS
None given.
ADJOURNM~:NT
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Lindemens to adjourn at 8:16 PM to
a meeting on March 10, 1992 at the Temecula Community Center. The motion was
unanimously carried.
Ronald J. Parks, President
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, TCSD Secretary
4/Minut~,~0225g2 -2- 02/28/82
TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AGENDA
ITEM
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 9:25 PM.
PRESENT: 5
AGENCY MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks, Mufioz
0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and
Agency Secretary June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMFNTS
None given.
AGENCY BUSINFSS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Member Birdsall, seconded by Director Moore to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
1.1 Approve the minutes of February 4, 1992.
1.2 Approve the minutes of February 11, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
e
Acouisition Aoreement for Drainage Facilities - Toyota of Temecula
City Attorney Field presented the staff report.
It was moved by Member Moore, seconded by Member Parks to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
2.1 Approve Agreement for Redevelopment Agency to acquire drainage
facilities from Toyota of Temecula;
2.2 Approve Cooperative Agreement between Agency and City;
2.3 Approve an appropriation of 832,000 for the acquisition of storm drain
facilities.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Temecula RedevdQl~ment ASea~y Minute~ February 25. 1992
EX~:CUTIV; DIRI:CTOR'S R;PORT
City Manager Dixon reported that a draft of criteria for granting economic development
incentives-should be before the Agency in the next couple of weeks. He also reported that
the boundaries of the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee have been expanded and
advertisements have again been placed inviting applications for this Committee.
GENERAl COUNSFL'S RI:PORT
None given.
AGENCY MI:MBFRS RI:PORTS
Member Lindemans asked for consensus of the Agency to allocate staff time to Member
Lindemans end Member Moore to meet with developers of industrial property regarding a
proposal, received from Dr. Nye to bring employment to the area. A consensus of approval
was given by the Agency.
Member Parks clarified that the 850,000 grant to California Curves was used for tenant
improvements to make a currently unusable building safe, to increase property tax revenues
to the City and increase employment in the community.
ADJOURNMFNT
It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Lindemans to adjourn at 9:35 PM.
The motion was unanimously carried.
J. Sal Mufioz, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary