HomeMy WebLinkAbout012693 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 28816 Pujol Street
JANUARY 26, 1993 - 7:00 PM
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will
determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00
PM and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting.
All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM
EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:30 * ExeCUtive Session of the City' Council pursuant to
Government Code Sections'54956.9(a), (b) and (c) regarding potential'litigation and
54957.6(a) regarding labor negotiations
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 93-02
Resolution: No. 93-05
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor J. Sal Mu~oz presiding
Invocation
Pastor Bill Rench, Calvary Baptist
Flag Salute
Councilmember Roberrs
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Parks, Roberrs, Stone, Mu~oz
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council
on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are
limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item
not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak" form
should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
lOendNO12693 I 01/21/113
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2
Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
ReSolution AODrOvinQ List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
3
Citv Treasurer's RePort as of December 31.1992
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of December 31, 1992.
egendNO126e3 2 01/20/13
4
Award of Professional Services Contract to The Elliott Group to Provide LandsceDe
Plan Review Services and Update City Standards as thev Relate to Landscape Plan
Review
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Award a Professional Services Contract to The Elliott Group to provide
landscape plan review services and update City standards as they relate
to landscape plan review end authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign
said contract.
5
Revised Vestino Final Tract MaD No. 23103
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Extend the Revised Vesting Tentative Map, and then approve the Final
Tract Map No. 23103, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
Acceptance of Road Easements and TemPorary Construction Easements on Ynez Road
Between Rancho California Road and Palm Plaza for Road Widenine Improvements
within CFD 88-12
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE
PURPOSES INCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICES PURPOSES
AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ON YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND PALM PLAZA
Resolution Reconfirminq Existence of a Local Emeraencv
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
RECONFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY
OF TEMECULA
egende/O 12693 3 01120/93
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
8
Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 93-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF TEMECULA
RELATING TO MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION THROUGH
REDUCING EMPLOYMENT-RELATED MOTOR VEHICLE TRIPS AND
EMPLOYMENT°RELATED MOTOR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
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.
9
Appeal No. 28 for Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1, Adams Advertisinc~
(Continued from 1/12/93)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 28, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 245, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET NORTH OF
THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-005
egende/O 12693 4 01/20/93
10
11
12
ADDeel No. 29 for Plot Plan No. 246. Amendment No. 1, Adams Advertising
(Continued from 1/12/93)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 29, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 246, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE (19 V-TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,850 FEET NORTH OF
THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-005
28613 Pujol Street o Assessment of Nuisance Abatement Costs
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve the Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien as a
special assessment against the real property located at 28613 Pujol
Street and the vacant parcel across therefrom.
Use of Tax Increment Funds for Senior Center
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR CITIZEN
CENTER IN A REDEVELOPMENT AREA
egende/O 12693 6 01120/~3
COUNCIL BUSINESS
13
14
Anti-Graffiti Removal
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 93-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING
DIVISION 4 TO CHAPTER 6.14 OF THE TEMECULA' MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO GRAFFITI REMOVAL AND ESTABLISHING REWARDS FOR
INFORMATION LEADING TO THE SUCCESSFUL CONVICTION OF ANY PERSON
PLACING GRAFFITI ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY
Award of Contract for the Construction of Ynez Road Widenina from Rancho California
Road to Palm Plaza (Project No. 92-05)
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Award a contract for the construction of Ynez Road Widening from
Rancho California Road to Palm Plaza, Project No. PW 92:05, to Vance
Corporation of Rialto, California for $2,612,811.29 and authorize the
Mayor to execute the contract;
14.2
Authorize the City Manager to approve change order not to exceed the
contingency amount of $391,921.69 which is equal to 15% of the
contract amount, for a total of $3,004,732.98.
15
16
City Road Projects Status Reoort
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Receive and file and provide staff direction.
Non-Profit Orqanization Exemotion of Fees for Outdoor Events
(Continued from the meeting of 1/12/93)
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Direct staff to exempt Non-Profit Organizations from the payment of
fees for Minor Outdoor Events.
.eeende/O 12683 8 01/20/93
17
18
19
2O
Amendment to Employment Agreement with the City Manaaer
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached letter amending the City
Manager's Agreement to allow the City vehicle to be used for vacations
at a reimbursement rate of $10,00 per vacation day.
Discussion of Boys and Girls Club Grant Reauest
(Continued from the meeting of 12/8/92)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 This report will be forwarded under separate cover.
Official Name of the Parks and Recreation Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Consider and if desired, change the official name of the Parks and
Recreation Commission to the Community Services Commission.
Purchase of Law Books
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT-THOUSAND DOLLARS
($8,000.00) THE PURCHASE OF LAW BOOKS AND BOOKSHELVES TO BE
GRANTED TO THE TEMECULA BRANCH OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LIBRARY
SYSTEM
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER REPORT
egendeK) 12693 7 01
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: February 2, 1993 - 7:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Next regular meeting: February 9, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California
egerdNO 12613 8 01/20/~,1
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES 'DISTRICT MEETING .- (To be:held at 8:00)
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 93-01
Resolution: No. 93-01
CALL TO ORDER:
President Patricia H. Birdsall
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Mur~oz, Parks, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall
PUBLIC COMMENT:
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
Storm DamaQe Report - City Parks and Recreation Facilities
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Receive and file Storm Damage Report concerning City Parks and
Recreation Facilities.
2 Contract Amendment for Wimmer Yamada Associates - Pala Road Park Site
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Approve amendment to contract with Wimmer Yamada Associates
(WYA) to provide additional engineering and architectural services for
the Pala Road Park Site.
2.2
Appropriate $17,000 in the capital projects fund (210-190-120-5802)
from fund balance.
3
Contract Amendment to Mentone Turf Suoolv - Loma Linda Park
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve amendment to contract with Mentone Turf to install two (2)
handicap accessible concrete drinking fountains at Loma Linda Park.
ageride/012893 9 01/21/~3
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting, February 9, 1993, 8:00 PM, Temecula
Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
agende/012693 10 01/21/13
'TEMECUI A 'REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 'MEETING
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 93-01
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding
AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Muf~oz,
Parks
Roberts, Stone,
PUBLIC COMMENT:
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.
AGENCY BUSINESS
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of January 12, 1993.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: February 2, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California
Next regular meeting: February 9, 1993, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816, Temecula, California
,gerdNO12683 11 01/20/93
ITEM NO.
1
ITEM NO.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET
FORTH IN E~IT 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 amount of
$766,998.32
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 26th day of January, 1993.
ATTEST: '
J. Sal Mu~oz, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
R~so 295 -1-
STATE OF CALIFO~)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TE~UI, A)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 93- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 26th day of January, 1993 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NOES: 0
COUNCILMI~MBERS: None
COUNCH.,MI~-MBERS: None
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Reso 295 -2-
01/11/'93 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
01/14/93 TOTAL CHECK FlU N:
01/26/93 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
01 I14/93 PAYROLL:
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
S60,529.77
$70,787,70
$538,459.74
S97,221.11
TOTAL UST OF DEMANDS FOR 01/16/93 COUNCIL MEETING:
DfBBURBEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
00t
100
140
190
191
193
210
280
300
310
30
GENERAL
GAS TAX FUND
COMMUNITY DEV. BLOCK GRANT
TCSD
TCSD ZONE A
TCSD ZONE B
TCSD ZONE C
TCSDZONE D
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
INSURANCE FUND
VEHICLE FUND
INFORMATION8 SYSTEMS
COPY CENTER FUND
PAYROLL:
001
100.
190
191
192
I g3
300
320
330
GENERAL(PAYROLL)
GAS TAX FUND(PAYROLL)
TCSD(PAYROLL)
TCSD ZONE A(PAYROL~
TCSD ZONE B(PAYROLL)
TCSD ZONE C(PAYROLL)
INSURANCEFUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS(PAYR~LL)
COPY CENTER FUND(PAYROLL)
1451 ,/51,84
S35,81 ~.81
e432..81
1402o17
$1,396.81
$10,812,96
$66,484.46
$10,897.87
$14,880.88
$408.54
$1,4/5.20
$1,001
$1,279.70
SE7,221.11
TOTAL BY FUND:
$766,996.32
PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING 18 TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEflCBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLL()W*ING 18 TRUE AND CORRECT.
UCHRE~
/11193
11:56
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
190 CONNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD ZONE A
192 TCSD ZONE B
193 TCSD ZONE C
210 CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROd FUND
300 INSURANCE FUND
310 VEHICLES FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTENS
330 COPY CENTER FUND
TOTAL
CiTY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECI( REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ANOUNT
34,309.71
6,067.18
13,1)62.16
1,093.38
319.53
888.26
775.00
1,087.27
1,890,33
1,011.97
60,529.77
PAGE
7
}UCHRE2
/11/93 11:56
~CHEk/
:ECK CHECK
MBER DATE
1362.3 01/06/93
13675 01106/93
13718 01/07/93
13722 01/11/93
13723 01/11/93
13724 01/11/93
13725 01/11/93
13726 01/11/93
13727 01/11/93
VENDOR
NUHBER
000773
000772
000253
13728 01/T1/93 000105
13728 01/11/93 000105
13729 01/11/93 000129
1373~ /11/93 000130
13730 01/11/93 000130
13730 01/11/93 000130
13731 01/11/93 000170
13731 01/11/93 000170
13731 01/11/93 000170
13731 01/11/93 0O0170
13731 01/11/93 000170
13731 01/11/93 000170
13731 01/11/93 000170
13731 01/11/93 000170
13732 01/11/93 000173
13732 01/11/93 000173
13732 01/11/93 000173
13733 01/11/93 000177
13733 01/11/93 000177
~.3733 01/11/93 000177
!3733 01/11/93 000177
~3733 01/11/93 000177
!3733 01/11/93 000177
~3733 01/11/93 000177
~3733 01/11/93 000177
:3733 01/11/93 000177
:3733 01/11/93 000177
~3733 0,j,/11/93 000177
~NDOR
NAME
UNITED EXPOSITION SERVI
PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION
POSTMASTER
MISSION POOLS
ENGINEERING VENTURES
KLB RANCHO CALIF. ASSOC
MESA HONES
RANCHO CALl FONN]A PARTN
~IOODCREST MORTGAGE, INC
AEI SECURITY, INC.
AEI SECURITY, INC.
CAL ~/EST RENTAL CENTER
CANYON REPROGRAPHZCS
CANYON REPROGRAPHICS
CANYON REPROGRAPHZCS
FRANKLIN GUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN GUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
GENERAL BINDING
GENERAL BINDING
GENERAL BINDING
GLENNZES OFFICE PROOUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PROOUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PROOUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PROOUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PROOUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
CARPET/CONFERENCE
CONFERENCE/JAN 9
BROCHURE
REFUND/MISSION POOLS
REFUND/ENGINEERING VENT
REFUND/KLB RANCHO CALIF
REFUND/MESA HONES
REFUND/RANCHO CALIF PAR
REFUND/IJOCX)CREST NORTGA
ALARM MONITORING;TEEN C
ALARM NONITONING;JULY -
NISC. RENTALS
I SET OF 9-BASE TOPO FO
DELIVERY
TAX
PAGEFINDER RULER #10460
CLASSIC STORAGE BINDER
NONARCH STORAGE BINDER
ZIPPER POUCH f~O08
NONARCH FILLER #331
CLASSIC MASTER FILLER
FREIGHT
TAX
100 11/2" SURE'LOX BIN
FREIGHT
TAX
T3/~e-CON; RIBBON, IBM;
DISCOUNT ON MERCHANDISE
TAX
X2'061961; INK PADS
A5"C'213-31; INDEXES
BC-GSM11'BE; BLUE BIC P
BC'GSM11;BK; BLACK BIC
U~-ZE'21'B; CLICK ERASE
U~-ZER'2; ERASER REFILL
M1-35265; 9 1/2 X 12 1/
M5-1211; POSTED STAMP
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-110-999-52(~
001-100-999-5258
190-180-999-5230
001-162-4285
001-2650
001-2650
001-2650
001-2650
001-2650
190-182-999-5250
001-199-999-5250
190-180-~-5238
001-163-~99-5268
001-163-~-5268
001-163-999-5268
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-~qq-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-~9-5220
001-161-~9-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-~-5220
330-199-~99-5586
330-199-999-5586
330 - 199 - ~ - 5586
001-140-~9-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-~99-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-~99-5220
001-140-~9q-5220
001-140-~99-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
ITEM
AMOUNT
74.00
125.00
1,575.00
88.11
11.00
30.12
5.00
58.00
5.00
35.00
135.00
87.28
6.48
5.00
.89
9.00
27.80
11.95
1.75
29.95
25.95
9.50
8.98
21.30
7.00
2.19
20.25
5.06-
1.18
8.66
18.06
2.78
2.78
16.98
1.29
40.00
8.25
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
74.00
125.00
1,575.00
88.11
11.00
30.12
5.00
58,00
5.00
170.00
87.28
12.37
12~,88
30
UCHREZ
/11/93
UCHER/
ECK
qBER
13733
13733
13733
13733
13734
13734
13734
13734
13734
13734
13734
13734
13734
13734
13734
13735
13735
13735
13736
13736
~3736
13 736
!3736
:37'37
:3739
3?40
3?40
3740
3740
3~1
3~1
3~1
3741
3741
3~1
3~1
3~1
3~1
3742
37~,2
3?42
11:56
CHECK
DATE
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/95
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/9~
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
VENDOR
NUMBER
000177
000177
000177
000177
000180
000180
000180
000180
000180
000180
000180
000180
000180
000180
000180
000186
000186
000186
000192
000192
000192
000192
000192
000206
000218
000224
000243
000243
000243
000243
000245
000245
000245
000245
000245
000245
000245
000245
000245
000248
000248
000248
VENDOR
NAME
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
GRAY BAR ELECTRIC
HANKS HARDWARE
HANKS HARDWARE
HANKS HARDWARE
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
KINKO~S COPIES
NARILYN'S COFFEE SERVIC
ME~AD & ASSOCIATES
PAYLESS DRUG STORE
PAYLESS DRUG STORE
PAYLESS DRUG STORE
PAYLESS DRUG STORE
PERS (HEALTH INSUR.PREN
PERS (HEALTH INSUR.PREN
PERS (HEALTH INSUR.PREM
PERS (HEALTH INSUR,PREM
PERS (HEALTH INSUR.PREM
PERS (HEALTH INSUR.PREN
PER$ (HEALTH INSUR.PREM
PERS (HEALTH INSUR.PREM
PERS (HEALTH INSUR.PREN
PETROLANE
PETROLANE
PETROLANE
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
g5'1012; SECOND NOTICE
58727; TABBIES
D l SCOUNT
TAX
SINGLE SIDED TRAY 19"
FREIGHT
TAX
NOOULAR PLUG8X8 NON-KE
AT&T CAT 4 CABLE
CABLE TIES PANDUIT PLT2
CONTACT CLEANER 160Z
TAX
WIRE MANAGER
FREIGHT
TAX
NISC SUPPLIES
MISC. SUPPLIES
MISt. SUPPLIES
C3469S DG-90 4NN TAPE C
C2787 HP LASERJET lllsi
C3251 DUST BLASTER II R
FREIGHT
TAX
MISC. SUPPLIES
COFFEE SERVICE; CITY HA
DEC. PLAN CK
FILM PROCESSING SERVICE
PROCESSING FOR 2 ROLLS
FILM PROCESSING SERVICE
FILM PROCESSING SERVICE
INS, PREMIUM/JAN 93
INS, PREMIUM/JAN 93
INS. PREMIUM/JAN 93
INS. PRENIUN/~AN 93
INS, PREMIUM/JAN 93
INS, PREMIUM/JAN 93
INS, PREMIUM/JAN 93
INS, PREMIUM/JAN 93
INS. PREMIUM/JAN 93
FUEL
FUEL
FUEL
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-140-99~-5220
001-140-9~-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-~-5220
320-199-~-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-~-5221
320-19~-~-5221
320-199-~-5221
320-199-99~-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-1~-~-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-~-5221
190-180-~-5212
190-180-99~-5212
100-164-999-5218
320-199-~-5221
320-199-9~-5221
320-1~-~-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-~-5221
330-199-999-5590
001-1~-999-5250
001-162-~-5248
190-180-~-5250
001-162-999-5222
190-180-~-5250
190-180-999-5250
001-2090
100-2090
190-2090
191-2090
192-2090
193-2090
300-2090
330-2090
001-150-~-5250
190-180-~-5263
001-162-9~.-5263
190-180-999-52&3
ITEM
AMOUNT
8.25
7.15
17.14-
7.52
64.33
2.58
4.98
110.00
96.07
8.66
30.86
19.0~
61.47
4.36
58.98
160.91
51.70
167.50
227.98
54.00
13.11
35.37
18.10
106.50
85.05
33.55
12.22
10.73
25.67
14,083.90
2,629.01
3,705.18
135,11
300.24
457.4~.
142,48
583.05
100.69
52.86
91.30
66.27
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
120.95
407.12
271.59
497.96
18.10
106.50
85.05
82.19
22,137.10
210.43
VOUCHRE2
01/11/93 11:56
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUChtR/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
13743 01/11/93 000261
13743 01/11/93 000261
13744 01111/93 000271
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13745 01/11/93 000277
13746 01/11/93 000280
13746 01/11/93 000280
VENDOR
NAHE
RANCBO BLUEPRINT
RANCHO BLUEPRINT
ROBERT BEIN, tJH FROST &
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & $ ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS
SC SIGNS
SC SZGNS
13747 01/11/93 000285 SIR SPEEDY
13747 01/11/93 000285 SIR SPEEDY
137~7-. 01/11/93 000285 S/R SPEEDY
13~ 01/11/93 000285 SIR SPEEDY
13748 01/11/93 000291
13748 01/11/93 000291
13749 01/11/93 000294
13749 01/11/93 000294
13749 01/11/93 000294
13749 01/11/93 000294
13749 01/11/93 000294
13749 01/11/93 000294
13749 01/11/93 000294
13749 01/11/93 000294
13749 01/11/93 000294
13750 01/11/93 000299
13751 01/11/93 000305
13751 01/11/93 000305
13752 01/11/93 000307
13752 01/11/93 000307
13752 01/11/93 000307
13752 01/11/93 000307
13752 01/11/93 000307
13752 01/11/93 000307
13752 01/11/93 000307
SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T
SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T
STATE COMPENSATION INS.
STATE CUMPENSATION INS.
STATE COMPENSATION INS,
STATE CUMPENSATION INS,
STATE CUMPENSATION INS,
STATE COMPENSATION INS,
STATE COMPENSATION INS,
STATE COMPENSATION INS,
STATE COMPENSATION INS,
STRACHOTA INSURANCE
TARGET STORE
TARGET STORE
TEMECULA TROPHY
TENECULA TROPHY
TEMECULA TROPHY
TEMECULA TROPHY
TEMECULA TROPHY
TEMECULA TROPHY
TENECULA TROPHY
[TEN
DESCRIPTION
HISC. BLUEPRINTS, ETC.
36 x 60 MYLAR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES F
OP-326; EGGHE/U) FAMILY
SZ-241B; 4 1/2" STEEL S
AB-IO00; 1/2" VARNISH B
MB-IO00; DELUXE MOO0 BU
PT-2814; SATIN HATER BA
ND-115; tIOOOBURNING PLA
SC-410; OIL COLOR PENCI
PT-2802; CLEAR ACRYLIC
DE-7201; SCALLOPED PINE
BK-311; HCX)DBURNING BOO
FREIGHT
NOV. POSTINGS
NOV, POSTINGS
500; BUSINESS CARDS; HE
TAX
500 EA BUSZNESS CARDS
TAX
REPAIR & NAINTENANCE;VE
OIL AND FILTER CHANGE
DECEMBER
DECEMBER
DECEMBER
DECEMBER
DECEMBER
DECENDER
DECEMBER
DECEMBER
DECEMBER
PROPERTY COY.
SUPPLIES
RECREATION SUPPLIES
TROPHY AHARDS
1ST PLACE PLAGUE 9X12
1ST PLACE PLAQUE 9X12
1ST PLACE PLAQUE 9X12
TAX
TAX
TAX
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-163-999-5268
001-161-999-5224
210-165-623-580~
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
1~0-180-~-5300
1~0-180-~-5300
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
001-161-999-5256
001-120-999-5256
001-162-999-5220
001-162-999-5220
001-163-999-5220
001-163-999-5220
310-180-999-5214
310-162-999-5214
001-2370
100-2370
190-2370
191-2370
192-2370
193-2370
300-2370
320-2370
330-2370
300-199-999-520~
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
190-182-999-5300
190-183-905-5300
190-183-906-5300
190-183-907-5300
190-183-905-5300
190-183-906-5300
190-183-907-5300
ITEM
AMOUNT
5.43
31.52
775.00
71.45
51.00
69.90
263.40
46.74
71.88
30.58
17.94
45.54
5.89
27.56
720.00
45.00
26.00
2.02
27.70
2.15
22.49
22.49
9,979.61
3,360.80
3,354.17
213.88
19.29
430.82
68.79
192.96
380.33
21.00
87.22
87.22
25.86
147.00
24.50
49.00
11.39
1.90
3,80
CHECK
AMOUNT
36.95
775.00
701.88
765. O0
57.87
17,980.65
21.00
174.~
263.45
VOUCHRE2
01/11/93
VOUCHER/
:HECK
NUIIBER
13753
13754
13754
13754
13756
13756
131~56
13758
13758
13758
13758
13758
13759
13759
13760
13761
13761
13761
13762
13763
13763
13763
11:56
CHECK
DATE
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01711/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01111/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
VENDOR
NUMBER
000318
000320
000320
000320
000320
000322
000326
000326
000326
000326
000326
000326
000361
000374
000374
0003?4
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000375
000420
000423
000423
000423
000434
000448
000448
000448
VENDOR
NAME
TO-MAC ENGINEERING
TO~/N CENTER STATIONERS
TOt4N CENTER STAT/ONERS
TONN CENTER STATIONERS
TOt,/N CENTER STATIONERS
UNIGLOBE BUTTERFIELD TR
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
INTERNATION COUNCIL ON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
TRANS-PACIFIC
H & H CRAFT & FLORAL SU
H & H CRAFT & FLORAL SU
H & H CRAFT & FLORAL $U
SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS
MOORE BUSINESS FORMS
MOORE BUSINESS FORMS
MOORE BUSINESS FORMS
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER.
FOR ALL PERIOOS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
REFUND
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
AIRFARE/CONF, JAN 27-29
RENTAL OF UNIFORMS AND
2-SETS OF UNIFORMS; CLE
2'SETS OF UNIFORMS; CLE
RENTAL OF UNIFORMS AND
RENTAL OF UNIFORMS AND
UNIFORM RENTAL
REGISTRATZON/DD/MAY 16-
11/05-12/07
11/19-12/22
11/19-12/22
11/19-12/21
11/19-12/21
11/19-12/21
11/19-12/21
11/19-12/21
11/19-12/21
11/19-12/21
11/19-12/21
11/18-12/21
11/18-12/21
11/18-12/21
11/18-12/21
11/18-12/21
11/18-12/21
9092024204/NOV CHARGES
?142f24020-NOV CHARGES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES R
RECREATION SUPPLIES
RECREATION SUPPLIES
RECREATION SUPPLIES
PROGRANING ASSISTANCE
MOORE SPEEDISET FORMS
FREIGHT
TAX
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-2650
190-180-~-5220
190-180-~-5220
190-180-~-5220
1~0-180-~-5220
001-100-~-5258
190-180-~-5243
100-164-~-5243
100-164-~-5243
1~0-180-~-5243
190-180-99f-5243
190-180-~-5243
001-110-~-5258
190-180-~-5240
191-180-~-5500
191-180-~-5500
001-1~-~-5240
001-1~-~;~-5240
001-1~-~-5240
001-1~-~-5240
001-1~-~-5240
001-1~-~-5240
001-199-~-5240
191-180-~-5500
190-182-~-5240
190-182-~-5240
190-182-~-5240
190-180-~-5240
191-180-~-5240
191-180-~-5500
001-110-999-5208
190-180-999-5208
300-1~-~9-5205
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5300
320-1~-~-5250
001-163-~-5222
001-163-~-5222
001-163-~-5222
/TEN
AMOUNT
15.00
1.67
112.98
~.~
133.00
49.55
12.50
12.50
13.60
13.60
13.60
200. O0
13.52
171.45
~76.58
961.58
79.98
176.92
642.66
354.04
142.05
544.01
153.71
224.25
118.52
28.46
51.59
191.06
82.06
75.83
'.855.00
10.85
59.02
66.~6
792.29
240.79
4.71
18.66
PAGE
CHECK
AMOUNT
15.00
276.58
133.00
115,35
200.00
4,024.11
157.89
855.00
136.33
792.2~
264.16
5
,'CXJCHRE2
31/11/~r$ 11:56
CITY OF TEHECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PER!OOS
/OUCL
:HECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEH ACCOUNT
~UHBER DATE NUHBER NANE DESCRIPTION NUNBER
137&~ 01/11/93 000470 GOVERNHENT FINANCE OFFI REG[STRATIOR/HJ/GFOA CO 001-140-~-5258
13765 01/11/93 000521 STEHART, BRUCE H, STREET ADDRESSES 001-162-~-5250
13766 01/11/93 000532 SECURITY PACIFIC NAT#L 47980200000120872/SN 190-180-~-5260
13767 01/11/93 000558 ADVANCED NOBILCOffiq
13768 01/11/93 000559 AL'S WELDING
13769 01/11/93 000570 WlHBERLY, VALERIE
13770 01/11/93 000580 PHOTO t~)RKS
NONTHLY ELSIHORE BASE U 001-1~-9~-5209
REPAIR FLO00 CONTROL GR 190-180-~-5212
REFUND BREAKFAST HISANT 190-18~-4951
FILH PROCESSING FOR FIR 001-171-~-5250
13771 01/11/93' 000596 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES/LAF REGISTRATION/JAN 27-29 001-100-~-5258
13771 01/11/93 000596 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES/LAF REGISTRATION/JAN 27-29 001-110-~-5258
13772 01/11/93 000615 DEPARTNENT OF CONSERVAT SHI FEES 001-2280
13772 01/11/93 000615 DEPARTNENT OF CONSERVAT $HI FEES 001-2290
13772 01/11/93 000615' DEPARTNENT OF CONSERVAT CREDIT 001-162-4229
13773 01/11/93 000643 FORTHER HARDHARE NISC, SUPPLIES 190-180-~x~-5212
137~01/11/93 000671 GLOBAL BUSINESS FURNITU FS440BL FUTURA STOOL WI 001-162-~-5242
13Tt~ 01/11/93 000671 GLOBAL BUSINESS FURNITU FREIGHT 001-162-~-5242
13774 01/11/93 000671 GLOBAL BUSINESS FURNITU TAX 001-162-~-5242
13775 01/11/93 000704 SIS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL/CN 001-110-~-5263
13775 01/11/93 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL/R4 100-164-~-5263
13775 01/11/93 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL/PH 001-163-~-5262
13775 01/11/93 000704 SKS, INC./ZNLAND OIL FUEL/B&S 001-162-~-5262
13776 01/11/93 000720 RANCHO GLASS SNACK BAR SCREEN TO REP 1~0-180-{~9-5300
13777 01/11/93 000723 GRAYS OF GLENOAKS, THE 8' TALL CHRISTHAS TREE 001-1~-~-5220
13778 01/11/93 000769 DOS GRINGOS BREAKFAST H/SANTA 190-183-951-5300
13779 01/11/93 000774 RESIOENCE INN HOTEL OEPOSIT/ICSC/IqAY 001-110-999-5258
TOTAL CHECKS
ITEH
ANOUNT
250.00
290.41
18.44
195.30
500.00
18.50
15.07
720.00
180.00
2,215.92
133.26-
10.76
139.90
19.37
11.~
z~.91
20.67
190.19
39.90
185.00
51.72
8~6.50
125.00
PAGE 6
CHECK
ANOUNT
250.00
290.41
18.44
195.30
500.00
18.50
15.07
900.06
2,531.97
10.76
171.26
2~5.67
185.00
51.72
846.50
125.00
60,529.77
VOUCHRE2
01115193
15:58
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
190 CONNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD ZONE A
192 TCSD ZONE B
193 TCSD ZONE C
210 CAPITAL INPROVEHENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPHENT AGENCY - CIP
300 iNSURANCE FUND
320 INFORNATZON SYSTENS
330 COPY CENTER FUND
TOTAL
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
AMOUNT
38,~69~41
4,699.67
11,479.77
1,975.27
113.28
616.16
7,929.00
402.17
309.5~
2,3~.4.0,G
2,671.41
PAGE
9
3JCHRE2
1/15/93
15:58
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
~UCHER/
~ECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
JMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
~09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
~09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
~09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
~09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
509294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
S09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
;09294 01/14/93 00028~ BANK OF AMERICA
;09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
;O9294 01/14/93 00028~ BANK OF AMERICA
;09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
;092'94 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
;09294 01/14/93 00028~ BANK OF AMERICA
;09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
~09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
;09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
;09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
;09294 01/14/93 000283 BANK OF AMERICA
00028~ FICA/NED
000283 FICAIMED
000283 FICAfNED
000283 FICAfMED
000283 FICA~MED
00028~ FICAfNED
000283 FICA~NED
000283 FICArMED
000283 FICAPMED
000283 USIT
000283 USXT
000283 USIT
000283 USIT
000283 USIT
000283 USlT
000283 USIT
000283 USIT
001-2070
100-2070
190-2070
191-2070
192-2070
193-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
001-2070
100-2070
190-2070
191-2070
193-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
;83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 00G44~ CAIT 001-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 CAIT 100-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000/,4.4 CAIT 190-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000.444 CAIT 191-2070
83279/-,01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 00044,4 CAIT 193-2070
;8327 1/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 CAIT 300-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 00044,.4 CAIT 320-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 CAIT 330-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 SD[ 001-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 SD[ 100-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 SD[ 190-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 0004.44 SDI 191-2070
83279 01/14/93 00O444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 SDZ 192-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 SDI 193-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 SDZ 300-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 SDI 320-2070
83279 01/14/93 000444 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 000444 SOl 330-2070
13783 01/15/93 RADISSAN HOTEL CONFIRMATION ~59669\596 001-163-9~9-5258
2,414.68
383.44
508.52
14.92
19.40
50.98
19.36
37.30
40.08
11,080.76
1,698.80
1,940.49
73.25
196.10
71.98
207.19
56.24
2,885.87
350.90
406.18
18.22
35.37
15.27
42.73
7.69
1,076.33
250.39
227.95
6.69
8.70
22.84
8.67
16.72
17.96
421.00
18,813.49
5,398.50
421.00
13784 01/15/93 JC RESORTS REFUND/WITHDRAWAL OF AP 001'2210
13784 01/15/93 JC RESORTS REFUND/WITHDRAWAL OF AP 001'161'4104
13784 01/15/93 JC RESORTS REFUND/~ITHDRA~AL OF AP 001-163-4104
13784 01/15/93 JC RESORTS REFUND/~ITHDRAWAL OF AP 001-163-4388
69.00
264.00
56.25
28.00
417.25
13785 01/15/93 000102 AMERICAN FENCE COMPANY /480 LINEAR FEET OF TEMP 210-190-1]~-5804
200.00
200.00
13786 01/15/93 000114 AT & T 7320696034001 DECEMBER 320-199-999-5208
19.07
19.07
13787 01/15/93 000125 CALED REGISTRATION FEE SEMINA 001-110-~-5258
125.00
125.00
13788 01/15/93 000127 CALIFORNIAN ACCT NO 777198~*CI 001-120-~;5256
13788.201/15/93 000127 CALIFORNIAN TOOY96009 & TOOO351QA 001-161-999-5256
75.90
92.93
168.83
VOUCHRE2
01/15/93
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13789
13790
13791
13791
13791
13792
13793
13 793
13793
13794
13794
13 794
13795
13796
13796
13796
13796
13796
13796
13796
13796
13796
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
13797
15:58
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR XTEM ACCOUNT
DATE NUHBER MANE pESCRIPTXON NUMBER
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
000129
000134
000138
000138
000138
000155
000156
000156
000156
000162
000162
000162
000164-
000174
000174
000174
000174
000174
000174
000174
000174
000174
000174
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
CAL I~EST RENTAL CENTER OPEN P.O. FOR NlSC. REN
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFF GENERAL SESSZON/INSP OP
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
JAN PYMT
JAN PYNT
JAN PYMT
DAVLIN
AUDIO PROOUCTION/JAN 4
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA DEC 1992/JAN 1~7~J INS P
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA DEC 1992/JAN 1993 INS P
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA DEC 19~2/JAN 1993 INS P
EGGHEAl) DISCOUNT SOFTHA
EGGHEAD DISCOUNT SOFTWA
EGGHEAD DISCOUNT SOFTWA
105494; PS PRINT BY BRI
FREIGHT
TAX
ESGIL CORPORATION
PLAN CK/DEC.
190-180-999-5238
001-162-999-5258
320-199-999-5560
320-2800
320-199-999-5250
001-161-999-5250
001-2340
100-2340
001-150-999-5250
001-170-999-5221
001-170-999-5221
001-170-999-5221
001-162-999-5248
GET PAGED TI4Q PAGERS FOR TRAFFIC 001-170-~-5242
GET PAGED Tk/O PAGERS FOR TRAFFIC 001-140-999-5250
GET PAGED Tt40 PAGERS FOR TRAFFIC 100-164-~-5238
GET PAGED PAGER FOR RON ROBERTS, 001-100-~-5250
GET PAGED PAGER/JAN 100-164-~-5238
GET PAGED PAGER/JAN 001-162-~-5238
GET PAGED PAGER/JAN 320-199-999-5238
GET PAGED 8 PAGERS; TCSO; 11.50/P 190-180-999-5238
GET PAGEO PAGERS/JAN 100-164-999-5238
GET PAGEO POLICE/JAN 001-170-999-5242
PS-VF24-PT PUTTY
J1-2~5-20 MONTHLY CALE
30563 RIVERSIDE THOMAS
QT-R-53 ARROW/GUIDE
R3-GBS-90 TAN NON SKID
FC-&0148 AOUA PENS' (DOZ
Ul-21447 RED INK
SCALE, ARCHITECT 6" FLA
D [ SCOUNT
TAX
5AN135270 CLASP ENVELOP
5A48C38PY TAPE DISPENSE
0925076 HIGHLIGHTER SET
5ANI35264 CLASP ENVELOP
TAX
1 ARCHITECT
TAX
CREDIT MEMO/ARCHITECT $
TAX
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENN]ES OFFICE PROOUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENN]ES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNZES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-120-999-5220
001-120-999-5220
001-120-999-5220
001-120-999-5220
001-120-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
ITEM
AMOUNT
22.63
300,00
410.55
1,017.02
142.66
150.00
83.70
27.90
30.00
285.00
8.50
22.09
417.04
7.33
7.33
7.34
11.00
11.00
33.00
11.00
88.00
44.00
11.00
29.00
4.39
27.90
6.24
19.80
8.40
3.98
22.50
14.47-
8.35
11.90
1.89
3.99
5.60
1.81
11.94
.93
22.50-
1.74-
PAGE
CHECK
AMOUNT
22.63
300.00
1,570.23
150.00
141.60
315.59
417.04
Z31.00
129.91
3
VOUCHREZ
01/15/93
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13798
13798
13798
13798
13799
137~9
13800
13801
13802
13802
.13803
13804
13805
13806
13807
13808
13809
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
13810
15:58
CHECK
DATE
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
VENDOR
NUMBER
00018~
00018~
00018~
00018/,
000186
000186
000201
000206
000212
000212
000213
000214
000218
000220
000220
000223
000233
000243
000246
000246
000246
000246
000246
000246
000246
000246
000246
000246
000266
000246
000246
000246
000246
000246
000246
000266
000266
000246
VENDOR
NAME
GTE
GTE
GTE
GTE
HANKS HARDWARE
HANKS HARDWARE
JENNACO
KINKO'S COPIES
LEWIS VALLEY CONTRACTOR
LEWIS VALLEY CONTRACTOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONHIS
LUNCH & STUFF CATERING
MARILYN'S COFFEE SERVIC
MAURICE PRINTERS QUICK
MAURICE PRINTERS QUICK
JOHN MCTIGHE & ASSOCIAT
NELSON, SHAWN
PAYLESS DRUG STORE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETZREN
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
ITEM
_DESCRIPTION
909-699-Z~09DEC CHARGE
909-695-3539-DECEMBER C
909-699-0128 DECEMBER C
909-699-8632 OECEMBER C
MISC. CITY ACCOUNT
OPEN P.O. MISC. ITEMS;
TEEN CENTER JANITOR[AL
COPY 1~3RK FOR PW92-05
FOOTINGS ON SIDEWALKS F
lOX RETENTION
MAXIMIZING METROLINK SE
DINNER FOR COUNCIL & ST
COFFEE SERVICE; CITY HA
NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH NE~S
TAX
PROFESSIONAL SERVC 11/9
TUITION REIMBUSEMENT
SLIDES
000246 PER REDE
000246 PER REDE
000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS RET
000246 PERS RET
000266 PERS RET
000266 PERS RET
000246 PERS RET
000266 PERS RET
000266 SURVIVOR
000266 SURVIVOR
000246 SURVIVOR
000246 SURVIVOR
000246 SURVIVOR
000246 SURVIVOR
000246 SURVIVOR
000246 SURVIVOR
000246 SURVIVOR
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
001-199-999-5242
001-199-999-5242
190-182-999-5212
001-1280
210-190-134-5804
210-2035
001-161-999-5258
001-100-999-5260
001-199-999-5250
001-170-~99-5222
001-170-999-5222
001-140-999-5248
001-150-999-5259
190-180-999-5250
001-2130
100-2130
001-2390
100-2390
190-2390
191-2390
192-2390
193-2390
300-2390
320-2390
330-2390
001-2390
100-23~)
190-2390
191-2390
192-2390
193-2390
300-2390
320-2390
330-2390
ITEM
AMOUNT
23.08
22.92
168.53
17.11
29.10
80,03
400.00
429.36
810.00
81.00-
10.00
80.00
69.15
321.00
24.88
40.33
400. O0
5.72
42.94
171.76
9,929.49
1,547.30
2,185.70
69.02
8~.25
265.22
92.25
18~.21
202.58
56.59
7.68
12.09
.42
.93
1.44
.93
1.86
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
231.(~
109.13
400.00
429.36
729.00
10,00
80.00
69.15
345 .ira
40.33
400. O0
5.7'2
14,8~6.12
VOUCHRE2
01/15/93
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13811
13812
13812
13813
13813
13813
13813
13813
13813
13813
13813
13814
13814
13814
13814
13815
13816
13816
13816
13816
13817
13818
13819
13820
13820
13821
13822
13822
13822
13822
13823
13823
13824
13825
13825
13825
13825
15:58
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
01/15/93
01/15/93
01115193
.01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
.01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE
000260
000260
RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF
RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF
000261 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
000261 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
000261 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
000261 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
000261 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
000261 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
000261 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
000261 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
000266 RIGHTWAY
000266 RIGHTWAY
0002666 RIGHTWAY
000266 RIGHTWAY
000280 SC SIGNS
000285 SIR SPEEDY
000285 SIR SPEEDY
000285 SIR SPEEDY
000285 SIR SPEEDY
000294
STATE COMPENSATION INS.
000305 TARGET STORE
000306
000320
000320
000322
000325
000325
000325
000325
000326
000326
000345
000374
000374
000374
000374
TENECULA VALLEY PIPE
TO~N CENTER STATIONERS
TO~N CENTER STATIONERS
UNIGLOBE BUTTERFIELD TR
UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN
UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN
UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN
UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
pESCRIPTION
GENERAL PLAN AD RUN FOR
REPLACEMENT INSERTS FOR
TAX
PW 92-05 YNEZ CORRIDOR
PW 92-5 YNEZ CORRIDOR
YNEZ ROAD/STRO, IMP.
YNEZ ROAD/STR IMP
OPEN P.O. BLUEPRINTING
RAYVEN 300 STICKYBACKS/
TAX
MISC. BLUEPRINTS, ETC.
PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS
PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS
PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS
RENT 1/8-2/4/93
POSTING OF PUBLZC HEAR]
500 BUSINESS CARDS; B/W
TAX
CONT. LH RECEZPTS - GRN
TAX
ANNUAL PREM DEPOSIT & S
OPEN P.O. FOR RECREATIO
MISC. SUPPLIES
OPEN P.O. FOR OFFICE SU
OPEN P.O. FOR TCSD; OFF
AIRFARE/SACRAMENTO TRIP
000325 t.~
000325 UW
000325 W
000325 UW
2-SETS OF UNIFORMS; CLE
RENTAL OF UNIFORMS AND
5100 XEROX LEASE JAN 19
11/30-12/31
11/30-12/31
11/30-12/31
11/30-12/31
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-161-999-5256
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-1280
001-1280
001-1280
001-1280
190-180-999-5268
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-163-999-5268
190-180-999-5238
190-180-999-52~8
190-180-999-5238
100-16~-999-5238
001-161-999-5256
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-199-999-5250
190-180-999-5300
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5220
190-180-999-52Z0
001-110-999-5258
001-2120
100-2120
190-2120
300-2120
100-164-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
330-199-999-5582
191-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5500
193-180-999-5240
ITEM
AMOUNT
170.04
15.00
1.16
488.75
28.96
344.46
7.24
3.23
56. O0
4.34
8.08
57.39
229.55
119.78
57.39
.270. O0
26.00
2,02
495.25
38.39
1,040.31
87.22
25.47
35.78
10.90
133.00
?7.23
9.27
19.50
.50
12.50
13.60
2,345.00
49.21
12.40
12.40
PAGE 5
CHEL"K
AMOUNT
170.04
16.16
941.06
464.11
278. O0
561.66
1,040.31
87.22
25.47
46.68
133.00
106.50
26.10
2,345.00
VOUCHRE2
01/15/93
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13825
13826
13826
13826
13826
13826
13826
.138,?,6..
132
13826
13826
13827
13827
13827
13828
13828
13828
13829
13830
13831
13832
13833
13834
13835
13836
13836
15:58
CHECK
DATE
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01115193
01/15/93
01/15/93
01115193
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/i5/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01115193
01115193
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
VENDOR
NUMBER
000374
0003?4
0003?4
000374
0003?4
0003?4
0003?4
000374
0003?4
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000374
000375
000375
000375
000375
0003?5
000375
000375
0003?5
000375
0003?5
000379
000379
000379
000389
000389
000389
0O0400
000403
000423
000426
000428
000500
000512
000518
000518
VENDOR
NAME
SOUTHERN CAL/F EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CAL1F EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
W. DEAN DAVIDSON
W. DEAN DAVIDSON
W. DEAN DAVIDSON
USCM
USCM
USCM
ALEXANDER HAMILTON INST
SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA
H & H CRAFT & FLORAL SU
RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
HORIZOR WATER
DALEY & HEFT ATTORNEYS
CADET UNIFORM
OEL RIO CARE ANIMAL HOS
DEL RIO CARE ANIMAL HOS
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
11/30-12/31
12/01-01/04
12/01-01/0~
12/02-01/05
12/03-01/05
12/02-01/06
12/02-01/06
12/02-01/06
12/02-01/05
12/02-01/05
11/03-12/04
11/10-12/11
11/20-12/22
11/24-12/24
11/24-12/24
191-180-999-5500
191-180-999-5500
191-180-999-5500
191-180-999-5500
190-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5500
191-180-999-5500
191-180-999-5500
193-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5500
193-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5500
909-202-4751-TS DEC CHA 001-163-999-5208
909-202-4?53-DECEMBER c 190-180-999-5208
909-202-4?54-DECEMBER C 190-180-999-5208
909-202-4755-DECEMBER C 190-180-999-5208
9092024?57-DECEMBER 199 001-120-999-5208
714-292-4020 DECEMBER C 190-180-999-5208
7143457421-DEC CHARGES 001-163-999-5208
714-~45-7425 DECEMBER C 001-110-999-5208
9092024756/TH 001-110-999-5208
9092024760/JH 001-110-999-5208
ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEE
AMENDMENT TO co# 0416;
TEMECULA VALLEY SENIOR
210-199-801-5804
210-199-801-5804
210-199-801-5804
000389 PT RETIR 001'2160
000389 PT RETIR 100-2160
000389 PT RETIR 190-2160
24 ISSUES OF MANAGERS L 001-150-999-5228
DECEMBER SERVICE 190-180-999-5212
OPEN P.O. RECREATION SU 190-180-999-5300
OPEN P.O. FOR JANITORIA 001-199-999-5212
WATER AND CUPS ACCT ~02 190-182-999-5240
LEGAL SERVICES/LAKE VIL 300-199-999-5205
ENTRY RUG SERVICE: CITY 001-199-999-5250
VET SERVICES
VET SERVICES
001-170-999-5285
001-170-999-5285
ITEM
AMOUNT
188.85
213.69
149.63
250.64
13.20
1,008.47
1,267.34
159.31
162.50
165.79
12.40
12.99
197.85
12.00
200.62
40.03
38.77
51.89
37.95
'36.69
3.63
7.62
17,79
39.55
43.34
2,478.65
3,500.00
1,021.35
221.28
120.00
131.96
45.60
90.00
7.28
193.64
29.55
101.05
34.25
86.76
23.72
PAGE 6
CHECK
AMOUNT
4,143.95
317.26
7,000.00
473.24
45.60
90.00
7.28
193.64
29.55
101.05
34.25
VOUCHRE2
01/15/93
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13836
13837
13838
13838
13838
13838
13839
13839
138~0
13841
138~2
13&G3
13844
138~4
138~4
13844
138~5
138~6
138~6
138~6
138~7
13847
138/47
138~8
138~8
138~8
138~8
138~8
138~9
13850
13851
13852
13852
15:58
CHECK
DATE
01/15/93
01115193
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
VENDOR
NUMBER
000518
000532
000536
000536
000536
000536
000545
000545
000581
OOO583
000596
000443
000?24
000724
000724
000724
000724
0O0730
0O0731
0007'51
0007'51
000738
000738
000738
000761
000761
000761
000761
000761
OOO777
O00TR
000780
000781
000781
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR
NAME
DEL RIO CARE ANIMAL HOS
SECURITY PACIFIC NATAL
PACIFIC DESIGN CONCEPTS
PACIFIC DESIGN CONCEPTS
PACIFIC DESIGN CONCEPTS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
VET SERVICES
479802000001086~-DEC CH
IRON MOUNTAIN FORGE TRA
IRON MOUNTAIN FORGE TRA
FREIGHT
PACIFIC DESIGN CONCEPTS TAX
PAC TEL CELLULAR - S.D.
PAC TEL CELLULAR - S,O,
NATURES RECIPE
RANCHO RUNNERS
LEAGUE OF CA CITIES/LAF
FORTHER HARDWARE
*A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRI
A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRZ
A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRI
A & R CUSTOM SCREEN
A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PR]
EDVALSON, HARWO00
NATIONAL CAREER WORKSHO
NATIONAL CAREER ~a3RKSHO
NATIONAL CAREER ~3RKSHO
R.F. COMMUNICATION SPEC
R.F. COMMUNICATION SPEC
R.F. COMMUNICATION SPEC
RANCHO T.V.
RANCHO T.V.
RANCHO T.V.
RANCHO T.V.
RANCHO T.V.
KAWASAKI OF TENECULA
SHERIFF~S AWARD CERENON
AMERICAN ECONOMIC DEVEL
ASSOC, OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSOC. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MONTHLY ACCESS CHARGE
AIRTIME USAGE
DOG FOOD/K-9
MESSENGER SERVICE; DAIL
REGISTRATION-ANNUAL NEE
OPEN P.O. FOR M]SC. SUP
T-SHIRTS 100~ PRE-S, TE
T-SHIRTS 100~ PRE-S, TE
WHITE COLLARED - PRINT-
SWEAT SHIRT - HOQOED, P
TAX
REIMB HOTEL FOR CITY MG
WORKSHOP/JAN 29
WORKSHOP/JAN 29
WORKSHOP/JAN 29
RADAR EQUIPMENT REPAIR
RE-CERTIFICATION
FREIGHT
FRONT SCREEN REPAIR; T.
TECHNICAL CHARGES
SERVICE CHARGES
FREIGHT
TAX
MAINT/MOTORCYCLES
SHERIFF AWARDS BANQUET
ENTRY FEE 1993 SALES LI
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES/
AEP 1993 CEQA 140RKSHOP
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-170-999-5285
001-110-999-5258
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
320-199-999-5208
001-140-999-5208
001-170-999-5327
001-140-999-5210
001-110-999-5258
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
001-110-999-5258
001-161-999-5258
001-140-999-5258
190-180-999-5258
001-170-999-5215
001-170-999-5215
001-170-999-5215
280-199-999-5244
280-199-999-5244
280-199-999-5244
280-199-999-5244
280-199-999-5244
001-170-999-5214
001'100'999-5260
001-110-999-5244
001-161-999-5226
001-161-999-5258
ITEM
AMOUNT
7.90
275.31
Z30.O0
358.80
125.00
45.63
24. O0
45.02
50.91
165,00
410.00
9.77
'312.00
46.50
165.00
38~. O0
70.33
360.00
98. O0
98. O0
98. O0
45.00
35.00
8.00
299. O0
40.00
20. O0
20.00
23.17
591.03
45.00
160.00
6O.00
190.00
PAGE 7
CHECK
AMOUNT
118.38
275.31
759.43
69.02
50.91
165.00
410.00
9.77
977.83
360.00
294. O0
88.00
402.17
591.03
45.00
160.00
250.00
VOUCHRE2
01/15/93
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13853
13854
13855
13856
15:58
CHECK
DATE
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
VENDOR
NUMBER
000785
000790
000791
000792
VENDOR
NAME
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOC
CASHIER, DEPT. OF PEST]
CPSRPC
REGENTS U.C.
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ZTEM
_ ~ESCRIPTION
ATA BOOK/FED NOTOR CARR
LICENSE RENEWALS
CPRS CONFERENCE IN S.F.
SPORTS TURF MANAGEMENT
TOTAL CHECKS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-163-999-5228
190-180-999-5258
190-180-999-5Z58
190-180-999-5258
ZTEM
AMOUNT
10.25
160.00
225.00
170.00
PAGE 8
CHECK
AMOUNT
10.25
160.00
225.00
170.00
70,787.70
JOUCHRE2
16:36
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD ZONE A
193 TCSD ZONE C
ZIO CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROJ FUND
~20 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 COPY CENTER FUND
TOTAL
CITY OF TEHECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PER]ODS
AMOUNT
379,192;52
76,836.53
1,068.30
11,097.88
561.00
Z1,15Z.16
38,199.70
6,378.59
3,973.06
538,459.74
PAGE
4
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA
01/15/93 16:36 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
""' FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
MUNBER DATE NLIHBER NANE ~ESCR[PT[ON NUNBER
ITEN
ANOUNT
CHECK
ANOUNT
13860 01/26/93
DECCA CONSTRUCTION CONP REFUND/PP 224/RECEIPT 7 001-2670
5,000.00
5,000.00
138&1 01/26/93
NATON ENGINEERING, INC REFUND TOUP 37 & 45/REC 001-2670
5,000.00
5,000.00
13862 01/26/93 000123 BURKE gILLIAN$ & SORENS NOV. SERV
13862 01/26/93 000123 BURKE gILLIANS & SORENS NOV, SERVICES
001-130-999-52~6
001-130-999-5246
9,294.20
1,0/,7.07
10,3/,1.27
13863 01/26/93 000126 CAL/FORNiA LANDSCAPE DECENBER SERVICES
13863 01/26/93 000126 CALIFORN]A LANDSCAPE DECFJIBER SERVICES
13863 01126193 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE DECENBER SERVICES
190-180-999-5250
191-180-999-5510
193-180-999-5510
9,664.80
561.00
21,152.16
31,377.96
13864 01/26/93 000135 CENTRAL CiTiES SiGN SER SZGNS 100-164-999-52~
1386~ 01/26/93 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SiGN SER TAX 100-164-999-52~Z,
13864 01/26/93 000135 CENTRAL CITZES SIGN SER SIGNS 100-164-999-52/~
1386~ 01/26/93 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER TAX 100-164-999-524Z,
17,965.65
1,392.34
276.00
21.39
.19,655.38
13865 01/26/93 000179 GRAFFITI RENOVAL SERVZC GRAFFITI RENOVAL/NOV. 001-170-999-5293
1 ,~96.00
1,996.00
138(~ 01/26193 000200 INTERTECH TELECONNUNICA PEX CIRCUZT CARD 8ELCC 320-199-999-5602
138(:.5 01/26/93 000200 .INTERTECH TELECONqUNICA LABOR CHARGE 320-199-999-5602
13866 01/26/93 O00ZO0 INTERTECH TELECONNUNICA TAX 320-199-999-5602
2,500.00
500.00
193.75
3,193.75
138"~ 01/26/93 000231 NBS/LCNRY SERVICES FRON START TO 100-164-999-5248
136 01126193 000231 NBS/LO~RY START OF JOB TO 10/30/9 100-164-999-5248
13867 01126193 000231 NBS/LOURY SERVICES FRON 10/92 - 1 100-164-999-5248
13867 01/26193 000231 NBS/LOtJRY 10/31-11/27/93 SERVICES 100-164-999-5248
6,500.00
6,900.00
1,300.00
1,410.00
16,110.00
13868 01/26/93 000235 OCB REPROGRAPHICS PRINTING & DESIGN COSTS 210-190-129-5802
13868 01/26/93 OOO235 OCB REPROGRAPHICS PRINTING & DESIGN COSTS 210-190-129-5802
13868 01/26/93 000235 OCB REPROGRAPHICS PRINTING & DESIGN COSTS 210-190-129-5802
13868 01/26/93 000235 OCB REPROGRAPH]CS PRINTING & DESIGN COSTS 210-190-129-5802
13868 01/26/93 000235 OCB REPROGRAPHICS PRINTING & DESIGN COSTS 210-190-129-5802
380.63
77.85
156.78
207.94
562.01
1,365.21
13869 01/26/93 000240 ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING CITYgIDE STRIPING & STE 100-164-999-5410
13869 01/26/93 000240 ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING CITY~IDE STRIPING & STE 100-164-999-5410
8,566.18
4,429.01
12,995.19
13870 01/26/93 000251 PLANNING CENTER, THE OCTOBER SERVICES 001-161-999-5248
13870 01126193 000251 PLANNING CENTER, THE NOV. SERVICES 001-161-999-5248
13870 01/26/93 000251 PLANNING CENTER, THE NOV. SERVICES 001-161'-999-5248
13870 01/26/93 O00251 PLANNING CENTER, THE PROF SERVICES / DEC 92 001-161-999-5248
350.00
2,407.70
1,496.75
2,530.~
6,i'85.09
13871 01/26/93 000257 RANTEK VIA LOBO CHANNEL IHPROV 100-16~-999-5401
13871 01/26/93 000257 RANTEK TIRE & RATERIAL FRO 12/100-16~-999-5402
13871 01/26/93 000257 RANTEK TINE & NATERIALS FOR 12 100-164-999-5402
13871 01/26/93 000257 RANTEK TINE & NATERIALS FOR 12 100-164-999-5402
13871 01/26/93 000257 RANTEK TIRE & NATER[ALS FOR 12 100-16~-999-5401
13871 01/26/93 000257 RANTEK TIRE & NATERIAL FOR 12/100-164-999-5402
13871 01/26/93 000257 RANTEK TIRE & NATER[ALS FOR 12 100-16~-999-5401
13871 01/26/93 000257 RANTEK TIRE & NATERIALS FOR 12 100-164-999-5401
22,944.75
111.45
1,036.19
517.31
886.50
993.10
578.59
1,008.07
28,075.96
13872--01/26/93 000270 RJN DESIGN GROUP PROF SERVICES PRJ#559-O 210-190-129-5802 1,386.00
JCHRE2 PAGE 3
'15/93 16:36
JCHER/
~CX CHECK VENDOR
4BER DATE NUHBER
138TZ 01/26/93 0002713
1387"~ 01/26/93 000332
13874 01/26/93 000345
13874 01/26/93 000345
13874 01/26/93 000345
13874 01/26/93 000345
13874 01/26/93 O00Z~+5
13875 01/26/93 000406
13875 01/26/93 000406
13875 01/26/93 000406
138;.75 01/26/93 000406
11875 01/26/93 000406
13875 01/26/93 000406
13875 01/26/93 000406
13875 01/26/93 000406
13875 01/26/93 000406
13875 01/26/93 000406
13876 01/26/93 000434
13877 01/26/93 000482
13877 01/26/93 000482
13878 01/26/93 000620
13878 01/26/93 000620
13879 01/26/93 000648
13879 01/26/93 0006~8
13879 01/26/93 0006~8
13879 01/26/93 000648
13879 01/26/93 0006~8
13880 01/26/93 0007'25
138~0 01/26/93 000725
13857 1/26/93
VENDOR
NAME
RJM DESIGN GROUP
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
XEROX CORPORATION BILL[
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY $HERIF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHER]F
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SNERIF
RiVERSiDE COUNTY SHERIF
RZVERSZDE COUNTY SHERIF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SNERIF
SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
LINGO INDUSTRIAL ELECTR
LINGO INDUSTRIAL ELECTR
BANANA BLUEPRINT
BANANA BLUEPRINT
BANANA BLUEPRINT
BANANA BLUEPRINT
BANANA BLUEPRINT
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERZOOS
ITEM
' -'DESCRIPTION
NOV. SERVICES
PLAN CX/DEC
688537141
7032; COPY CARTRIDGES;F
TAX
XEROX 5100 TONER
TAX
BIKE PATROL/OCT
LAg ENFORCEMENTrQCT.
LAW ENFORCEMENTrOCT.
LAW ENFORCEMENT rOCT.
LAW ENFORCEMENTtQCT.
LAW ENFORCEMENTtQCT.
LAW ENFORCEHENTrOCT.
LAW ENFORCEHENTfOCT.
LAW ENFORCEMENTFOCT.
BIKE PATROL
SERVICES FOR 12/16-12/3
SERVICES THRU NOV 27, 1
GEOTECHNZCAL INVESTIGAT
29-5-80; W/50' M.A. & 1
TAX
PRINTING & DESIGN
MISC BLUEPRINTS & COPIE
PRINTING & DESIGN
PRINTING & DESIGN
PRINTING & DESIGN
RIVERSIDE ICE SNO~
RIVERSIDE ICE TAX
WILLDAN & ASSOC.
ACCOUNT
NUHBER
210-190-129-5802
001-162-999-5248
330-1930
330-199-999-5220
330-199-999-5220
330-199-9~9-5583
330-199-999-5583
140-199-999-5281
001-170-999-5288
001-170-999-5299
001-170-999-5298
001-170-999-5290
001-170-999-5291
001-170-999-5281
001-170-999-5282
001-170-999-5262
140-199-999-5281
320-199-999-5250
210-165-623-5804
210-190-120-5802
210-165-611-5804
210-165-611-5804
210-190-129-5802
210-190-129-5802
210-190-129-5802
210-190-129-5802
210-190-129-5802
190-183-952-5300
190 - 183 - 952 - 5300
001-163-999-5249
ITEM
AMOUNT
5,544.00
1,462.02
3,028.63
126.50
9.80
750.00
58.13
356.10
227,633.15
19,378.32
22,856.48
6,079.92
5,790.40
19,340.01
2,824.00
19,507.92
712.20
2,264.40
3,202.00
14,523.00
1,125.53
3,293.15
388.18
2,354.14
2,742.32
11.77
1,330.00
103.08
25,197.94
CHECK
AMOUNT
6,930.00
1,462.02
3,97~.06
324,478.50
3,18~.84
5,4~.40
15,648.53
8,789.56
1,433.08
25,197.94
TOT.~L CHECKS
538,459.74
ITEM NO. 3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAT.
CI
CITY MANAGER . //~ ,,
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
January 26, 1993
City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1992
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's
report as of December 31, 1992.
DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's 'investment
portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government
Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in
compliance with the Code Sections as of December 31, 1992.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Norle
ATTACHMENT:
City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1992
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
As of December 31, 1992
Cash Activity for the Month of December:
Cash and Investments as of December 1, 1992
Cash Receipts
Cash Disbursements
Cash and Investments as of December 31, 1992
$
$
16,231,335
2,006,567
(2,184,539)
16,053,363
Cash and Investments'Portfolio:
. ~pe of Investment
Petty Cash
Interest Checking
Benefit demand deposits
Deferred Comp. Fund
Local Agency Investment Fund
Institution
N/A
Bank of America
Bank of Arnedca
ICMA
State Treasurer
Yield
N/A
2.500%
2.500%
N/A
4.647%
Balance
800
327,002
8,183
309,431
15,407,947
16,053,363
(1)-This amoum includes outstanding checks.
Per Governmere Code Requirements, this Tmasurer's Report is in compliance with
the City of Temecula's Investment Po~cy and there are adequate funds available
to meet budgeted and actual expenditures for the next thirty days of the City
of Temecula.
Prepared by Carole Serfiing, Senior Accountant
.Z
! ,i !
ITEM
NO.
4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY %~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
\
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Plennir~}~,,(e~'
January 26, 1993
Award of a Professional Services Contract to The Elliott Group to provide
landscape plan review services and update City standards as they relate to
landscape plan review.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is requested that the City Council award a Professional
Services Contract to The Elliott Group to provide landscape plan
review services and update City standards as they relate to
landscape plan review and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
sign said contract.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the Council's January 12, 1993 meeting to allow
Councilmember Parks to meet with-staff over certain concerns regarding the proposed
contract· A meeting has been scheduled and an oral update will be presented the night of the
meeting·
Attachments:
Proposed Contract - page 2
Scope of Service - page 3
January 12, 1993 Staff Report - page 4
S~LSCAPE~ELLJOTT.CC2 Idb
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PROPOSED CONTRACT
S~LSCAF~'~J, IOTr. CC2 Idb 2
AGRI~.MF. NT
FOR PROFR~SIONA~. Sk"RVICES
THIS AGR.EEM~_~NT, made and entered into this 12th day of January, 1993, between
the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as *City* and The
Ellion Group, herehaf~ referred to as 'Consultant'.
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
~I:~RVIC'~-~. 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.
PI~I~OleMANC1~.. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to
the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described
herein.
t
PA~. 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.
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 pwvided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within
approximately thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. Invoices must be
submitted to:
'4.
City of Temecula
Accounts Payable
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecuh, California 92590
SUSPENSION. T~RMINATION OR ABANr}ONM~NT OF AGR~.M~.NT.
The City may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this Agreement, or
any portion hereof, by senring 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 such
suspension, termination or abandonment shall not ma~ void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
S~VFAFI~.p~M · ~OTr. ORP I
BRI~ACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for
cause under the tin'ms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or
duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed af~ the
date of default. Default sha/1 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 conu'ol, and without fault or
negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
If the City Manager or his delegate determines tha~.the Consultant defaults in
the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shal/
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 fight, 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 hw, in equity or under this
Agreement.
:12~]~. This Agreement shall commence on January 12, 1993, and shall
remain and continue in effect no late~ than January 12, 1994. Based pm ,itia;
.agreement from both parties this agreement may extend for two (2) one year
extensions.
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
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
reth'ed judges of the Judicial Arbiwation and Mediation Services, Inc. The
arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1280, tIJ~. City and Consultant shall share the cost of
the arbitration equally.
OWNERSHIP O1= I)OCUM~.NYS. 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 proixaty of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise
disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
S~'F~M x~OTr. GK1,
10.
11.
INT~PPNr~.NT Cc)NTR&t'TFGR. The Consultant is and shall at all times
remain as to the City a wholly independent conWactor. 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 officen, employees or agents are in any manner
of~cen, employees or agents of the City.
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 sahries, wages, or other coual~cnsafion 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.
I.F-GAL RESPONSI'nILvfI~_~. The Consultant shall lzep itself informed of
State and Fedend hws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the l/,:tfomance of its service pursuant to
this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all
such hws and regulations. The City, and its officen and employees, shall not
be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply
with this section.
NOTICI::.. 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 Temecuh, located at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecuh,
California 92590 and the Consultant at 637 Arden Drive, Encinitas, California
92024 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.
ASSIGNlV~-NT. 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.
SWFAFFRIx~M ·
12.
LIARrr-1TY rNSURANCF:.. The consulrot shall maintain insurance
acceptable to the City in full force an effect throughout the term of this
contract, a~ainst claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which
may arise from or in cormec~on with the performance of the work hereunder
by the Consulrot, his a~ents representatives, employees or subconu-actors.
Insunnce is to be placed ~i~ insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than
A:VIL The costs of such insunnce shall be included in the Contractor's bid.
The Consultant shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance:
Minimum ScOpe of Insur,~nce. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Insurance Services O~ic~ form Number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering
Com~ve General t-i~Nii_fy and Insunnce Services Office form
number GL 0404 coveting Broad Form Comprehensive General
Liability; or Insurance 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' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of California an Employers' t-i=bility insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum T-imit~ of Insurance. Contractor shall mainl~-~ limits of insurance
no less than:
General Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occmTence for
bodily injury and property damage.
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
Workers' Compensation and F. mployer's Liability: Worken;
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.
Deductlbles ~nd Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $I,000
must be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurnnce Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall
contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insre'rice policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled
by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice to the City via United States First Class Mail.
b$
Genepl T-inhility nnd Automobile Tjnhili~y cov~e. The Ci~ of
Tm~, i~ o~, o~, e~loy~ ~d vol~ ~ ~ be
~ ~ ~s~s ~ ~: ~ffi~ ag out of ~~
~~ by or ~ ~ of ~ ~v,!~nt; ~~ ~d ~mple~
~~ of ~e C~~ ~~ ~, ~ or u~ by ~e
~~ ~ ~m~ o~, ~, ~ ~ ~w~ by ~e
~mL ~e ~e ~ ~ no ~ ~ons on ~e
~ of ~ro~ ~d~ ~ ~e ~W, i~ offi~, offi~s,
~lo~ ~ volun~.
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the
work ~ in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage
shah 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
volunt~rs 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 lilTtits Of the insur~r'S lisability.
Worker's Compensation :,nd F-nlployers T.iahility Coverare. The
insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses
ari.ing from work performed by the Consultant for the City.
S~STAPFRF~IK~O'fT. GKp
13.
14.
Verification of Cover-~,e. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effec~ng cover-age 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 separate certificates for each subcontractor. All
coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated herein.
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 ellmlnMe such deductibles or self insured retentions as
~ the City, its officers, officials and employees; or the Consultant
shall procure a bond ~marant~ing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
r XCk'NS~:.~. The Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary
licenses, including but not limited to City Business I icense.
INI~RMNII:ICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save.harmless
· the City of Temecula, its of~cen, offxciah, 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 my
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of
persons, or damage to ptotx~ty 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.
15.
ENYIRI~. AGRRRMI::.NT. 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 this Agreement
shall prevail.
HFI~-CTIVI:. I~ATR ANT~ k"X"RCUTION: 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.
S~STAFFR?DmI~OTT. G~p 6
13.
14.
Verification of Coverage. 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 separate certificates for each subcontractor. All
coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated herein.
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.
LICENSES. The Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary
licenses, including but not limited to City Business License.
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.
15. 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 this Agreement
shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE 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.
S\STAFFRFBEIxIOTr. GRP
IN VdTNF_,SS WI-I~RFX)F, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
By
I. Sal Mu~oz, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
~wisscl 2/21/~2
S%ST~OTT. GIIp 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
SCOPE OF SERVICE
S~LSCAPE~JJJOTT.CC2 klb 3
CIty of Temeeula Plan Cheek
Jan~ la, lm
Page I
SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. PLAN CHECK
1. DRC REVIEW:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Once notified by me project planner em plane have been reoeived,
our offioe will piok up plans for review and site enidyale.
and conformanoe with City etandarde. '
Our oommente and obeervetio~e will be put into wfte~ form and be
provided to the proJeot planner to forward to the submittar.
Comments will generally be retu tried to the projeot planner wilhin two
(2) days end in no case taw than one (1) week alter rmtifioatkm Of
plan pick-up.
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS:
- b)
When notified by the project planner that plans have been received,
our offjoe will plek up plans for review.
conformance with City standards. One set o1 plains will be redlined
with oomments notifying the submittiN. of neceeaary revisione to be
made to bring me plane into conform wee with City standards. Items
not addressed in the City standards but that are outa~e the
,TJ. ,T ,,,,,. ,o, .,,-,.o.. ,,.,
o)
d)
Plane will be returned to the projeot planner ~or plok-up by the
eubrnitter baled on the established pI'OQeI8.
Onoe revisions have been reeubrnJtted, we will re-check the plans for
oonformar~e. 8houJd all revisions have been made and
questlone Brimfed, the plane will be ready for lRoroval. If Idl
revisbne are not made, one Me of plane and the Qheok list will be
ridlined again and returned to the lubmrder a eeoond time fly
CIty of Tamecub Plan Cheek
January 11, 19M
Page I
e)
Once plmns mrw ready for mppravml. our oflke will review submitled
COSt eetimetee end determine proper bond requirements for elioh
A final eat of q;N'oved plans (originals) will be stamped "Approval
end be filed at the City for use when the Iclrlidlot goes into the
oonmruotion etasiR, after ell bona have been submitted end ere
approved end In agrs.a.n.s nt ®xeouted.
g)
Should liems need lo be Ghe~ked which ere not inoludecl in the
standards. our offioe win coordinate with the CIty to amend the
mndllrde as required for future uee.
h)
Commentl/redlines will generally be returned to the project planner
within I week end In no'case biter then 2 weeks miter notification of
plan piok-up.
CONSTRUCTION INePICTION:
Our office wig provide oonstruction inspection earvices In order to insure
implementation is in t~onformanoe with the approved plans end the CIty
standards.
e)
Areas whbh will or may have potential for City aooeptenoe and
mmintenanoe:
The following inape~ions will be provide:
1 ) Irrigation mainline ptesmjre teat,
2) Inetallation of eprinkMre and valve prior to aloelag In
trenohee.
3) Irrigation coverage test end fine grading prior to
oommenoement of soil I:Nq:mretton.
4) Completed finish grade following soil amendments end
plant spotting prior to digging holes. It ineqoeotlon
will occur at this time M well.
5) Acceptance prior to start of Maintenance.
We will elk} attend the pre-conetruction meeting when requested
do so.
b)
Area not to beoome City maintained Imndeoapes:
The/oleowing inepeotione will be provided:
1 ) Final klspection alter all work has been oompleted per
Ihe plane and epeo~8.
City Of TI.ue~,,le Plain Cheek
January 18, 1693
Pege I
For areas whk:h mey bemome · City maintained lendP_-p l. our office
rove complete 'AB.BUILTB' to insure oonfonnenoe wilh CITy, elanclerl:ll.
Upon completion of the Implementation, rnlntenm ere gulrentee
end turnover of ee-builte, where required, our oflioe will review the project
· nd notify the City ot oomlatton for bond
C. REVIEW OF STANDARDS/GUIDELINES/PLAN CHECK PROC/.8S:
INTERIM STANDARDS/GUIDELINES
Our office will review Community Seevles Defxstment existing
landBoepe standards and provide cornme.
PLAN CHECK PROCESS:
We will develop tracking end :he~kllet Ioge tor both the City and our
offbe for use in tracking .ill proJectt N required. We will work with
City traoklng systems as approprlete.
City of 'l'emeeuls Pin Cheek
FEES
Jenumy 18, 1eel
Pege4
PLAN CHECK=
1. DRC review will be performed at the following fief fee per project:
1 200.00
See page 5 for breiu:lown of charges.
2. Conatruotlon drawing review will be performed at the following flat fee rate
per eheet submitted:
$ 270.00
Gee ege 6& 6forbreakdown of charge.
Fees 'are based on 3 revlewe. Should plans require more than 3 reviews. an
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION:
Construction Inspection service and attendence at pre-oonstnation meetingl will
be performed at the following fiat fee fete per inspection or meeting:
$ 225.00
See page 7 for breekdown of charges.
REVIEW OF 8TANDARDI/GUIDEUNES/PLAN CHECK PROCESS:
REVIEW OF INTERIM STANDARDS/GUIDELINES:
1. Review of Community Services Depmtrnent existing lendsoNe
OILy of Temlmull Pin CheGk
Jemwy 18, 1093
Page I
BREAKDOWN OF CHARGE8:
DRC REVIEW:
PIck-up pinWtraoking/~~
Review pierre w/project plEnnerf
field reviev/slte analysis
Line out oornmenm & deliver m
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW:
(bed on 4 e~teet mJbmittal)
lit CHECK
Pick-up plene/tmokjnOffile/k>g/map
Check plane Igldnlt CIty oonclitiont
end agreemeN
Check plans against City man(lards:
Title sheet
Pleating Plan
Planting UetNis/legend
Planting
Irrigation Plan
Irrigation details/legend
Irrigation
AB 325
Check plane against grading plans
Comments for next check/submittal
Deliver plane/treok~g
TOTAL
2nd CHECK
Pick-up plenl/trecking/ttle/iog/map
Check plens against redline comments
from 1st check:
Title sheet
Pintlng Pin
Pinring (kitmile/legend
Planting Ipeoe.
Irrigltk)n Plan
Irrigation detNla/legend
1,5 hre. O 185/hr.
2hrs. OlS0/hr,
1 hr. O IEQ/hr,
1.5 hra. O $35/hr.
.5 hm. 6 $60/hr.
.26 hm, O f~3/hr,
.5 hm. O 150/hr.
.5 hra, 0 160/hr.
.76 hrL O ~)/hr.
1,5 hm. 0 18O/hr.
,5 hrL O I50/hr,
,75 hm. ~ 15O/hr.
.5 hrs, ill l~:}O/hr.
,75 hrl. ~ I60Jhr.
,5 hrs. 0 lSO/l'r.
I hr. O $35/hr,
1.25 hm. 0 135/hr.
.15 hr$. O ~)O/hr.
.25 hrs, 0 I60/hr.
.25 hrs, O I60/hr,
.25 hm. e I50/hr.
.75 hrS. e lrd3/hr.
100,00
152.60
$ 4~"/.~0
$ 48,7E
7.60
12.60
12.60
12.60
37.60
12.50
Oily of Tememai Plan Checl
aanuezy 18, 1N~
PKle I
irrigation speos.
AB325
Cheek plans against grading pins
Cheok ~xt estima~ for bonding
Sosrests 1or next oheoldsubmittal
Deliver pl~ns/tmoklng
ContingerKN for total revlelons
.2.5 hrs. O
.25 hm. 0
.,50 hm. 0 80C)/1v-
.8 hra. 0
.5 hrs. O 160/hr.
1 hr. O $86/hr.
1 hr. O $60/hr.
TOTAL
3rd CHECK
~ am 2rid cheek
TOTAL
IRANO TOTAL
Divide 8 reviews for 4 sheera into $1,085.00 equal 1271.25/sheet
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION/PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING:
Driving tim to and from site
Inlpeedon time (varies 1-2 ha,
average 1.5
Field report end m~ll 1o CIty
2hm. Q $150/hr.
1.5 hrs. l) $50fhr.
1 hr. O $5(i/hr.
TOTAL
12.60
12.50
2S~10
26.00
35,00
11,0tS.l
100.00
75,00
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
JANUARY 12, 1993 STAFF REPORT
S%LSCAP~BJJOTT.CC2 VJb 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
' " APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Piermingle/7
January 12, 1993
SUBJECT:
Award of a Professional Services Contract to The Biiott Group to
provide landscape plan review earvices and update City standards as
they relate to landscape plan review,
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND
It is requested that the City Council award a Professional
Services Contrect to The Elliott Group to provide
landscape plan review services and update City
standards as they relate to landscape plan review and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said contract.
The City is involved in three stages of landscape plan review. The first is at the.
development review stage, when plans are reviewed by staff and approved by the
Planning Commission. The second stage is during the plancheck process, when
plans are being reviewed by the Building and Safety Department for issuance of
building permits, or being reviewed by the Public Works Depertrnent as part of
public improvement plans. Irrigation plans are also reviewed at this time. The third
stage involves a site inspection to verify the landscaping and irrigation were
installed consistent with the approved plans.
During its review of development projects, the Commission has raised concerns
regarding the quality .of landscape plan review. Currently the City is using the
limited standards found in Ordinance 348. Once the .Development Code (zoning
ordinance) is completed, the City will have more comprehensive landscape review
standards.
In response to the Commission's comments, the Community Service, Planning and
Public Works Departments met to discuss ways to improve landscape plan review.
It was determined that contracting with a landscape architect would be more cost
effective than hiring a staff member with the necessary experience or training.
s~rrARe~vl~sJJarr-oaP
The City of Temecule issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to areawide
consulting firms to provide landscape plan review end ulxlate City standards as
they relate to landscape plan review. tn response to the City's RFQ, twelve
consulting firms submitted Statements of Qualifications (SOQ's).
address the issues end prepare a scope of services. The six firms with the highest
composite scores were asked to submit detailed work proposals.
To evaluate the top firms, · selection committee composed of John Meyer, Doug
Stewart, Gary King, Bruce Hartlay, Harold Greek, sod Grant Yates reviewed the
proposals and interviewed the top six firms.
After the interviews, the firms were ranked, eod the top firm, 7. m Elliott Group,
was asked to mabmit detailed ecope of services eod to provide add~jonal
explanation on certain aspects of their propoMIs, As a result of this process, The
Elliott Group was selected to provide the services,
City Staff has refined The Eiliott Group's Scope of Service, sod has incorporated
modifications into the City's standard professional services agreement. A copy of
the proposed contract, scope of service, budget, sod work schedule are attached to
this report.
Coordinetina Committee
Staff has presented the scope of work, including method of calculating fees to the
City's Coordinating Committee. There was strong support for collecting fees based
on flat rates and per sheet rates rather than on · percentage of the contract.
During the discussion there was also the support for the service itself and
comments on the need to establish leedscape standards.
The Elliott Group will also be asked to review the Community Services Department
standards and make recommeodations for its improvement. Preparation of interim
design guidelines and preparation of an Ordinance to comply with AB 325 are no
longer part of this contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
Included in the attached scope of services are the proposed fee rates for the
Landscape Plan Review Services. The DRC review is a $200.00 flat rate per
application. The Construction Drawing Review is $270.00 per sheet (not including
the title sheet), and the Inspection fee is $225.00 per site visit. A breakdown of
charges is else included.
2
The current fees collected for Development Review and Plancheck do not cover the
extended services included in the scope of work. The development fees will need
to be increased to recover the cost of the service. Staff recommends the Council
consider the amount of increase through the review of the McTighe Report. A
workshop on the McTighe Report has been scheduled for January 19, 1993. Staff
estimates that approximately e5,000.00 needs to be appropriated for the remainder
of the fiscal year. However, because the application fees for the service should
offset costs, the net fiscal impact to the City should be zero.
Attachments: 1.
2.
Proposed Contract - page 4
Scope of Service - page 14
ITEM NO.
5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAl
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER/~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
/r~:~Tim D. $erlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
January 26, 1993
Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23103
PREPARED BY:
Kris Winchak, Senior Project Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council extend the Revised Vesting Tentative Map, and then approve the Final Tract
Map No. 23103, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 Amendment No. I was recommended for approval
by Riverside County Planning Commission on November 8, 1988, and found consistent with
the Comprehensive General Plan, Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1, and the zoning
which had been applied to the Specific Plan through Change of Zone No. 5107.
A first extension of time was granted on May 28, 1991 and the second extension of time was
granted on May 26, 1992 by the Temecula City Council. There is an application for a third
and final extension of time that was filed on September 29, 1992 that would extend the
expiration date of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 to November 8, 1993, but due
to the timely filing of the application, the expiration date of the Tentative Map will be
automatically extended for sixty (60) days under Section 66463.5, Paragraph (c) of the
Subdivision Map Act. During this 60-day period, the Final Tract Map may record without the
City Council acting on approval of the extension of time. Once the sixty (60) days has
expired, the City Council must first extend the map before approving the Final Map for
recordation.
As a Condition of Approval for the second extension of time for Vesting Tentative Map No.
23103, the Subdivider is required to deposit with the City an amount sufficient to cover the
construction of that portion of Butterfield Stage Road between where the easterly property
line intersects with the westerly right-of-way line and extends to intersect with the centerline
of the street. This portion of Butterfield Stage Road shall be completed by the developer of
Tract Map No. 23209, and said funds shall be reimbursed to the developer of Tract Map No.
23209 upon completion of the improvements. The refund .for the reimbursement of the
offsite improvements to Butterfield Stage Road as conditioned is tO be disbursed by the City
of Temecula through the attached Agreement entered into with the Developer of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23103.
-1- pw01%egdrpt~,93~0126%23103 0119b
Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23103 is a residential subdivision consisting of 18 residential lots
and one open space lot within 29.1 acres on the property generally located on the west side
of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road in the City of
Temecula. The average lot size is 1.13 acres, which is consistent with the Change of Zone
No. 5107.
The following fees have been paid (or deferred) for Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No.
23103.
Area Drainage Fees
(Deferred to Grading Permits)
To be determined
O
Fire Mitigation fees
(Deferred to Building Permits)
$ 7,200.00
O
Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee
(Deferred to Building Permits)
2,700.00
Stephen's K-Rat Fees
(To be paid at Grading Permits)
To be determined
o Parks and Recreation (Quimby Fees)
20,700.00
o Street Improvement (offsite) Development fees
38,066.00
The following bonds have been posted for Revised Vesting Final Tract Map no. 23103:
Streets and Drainage
Water Improvements
Sewer
Survey Monuments
Faithful Performance
$ 707,000.00
$ 256,000.00
$ 64,000.00
Other Bonds
9,000.00
Labor & Materials
$ 353,500.00
$ 128,000.00
$ 32,000.00
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Development Fee Checklist
Location Map
Copy of Map
Riverside County Planning Commission Staff Report
Conditions of Approval
Agreement for deposit and reimbursement of funds for street improvements
Fees and Securities Report
-2- PwO1%agdqat%93~0126%23103 0119b
ATTACHMENT i
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CITY OF
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECgx.xST
Revised Vesting F'nn-1 Tx'sc't Map No. R3R6*f-3
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
Traffic Signal Mitigation
Condition of ADDrove/
Condition No. 1 <'
Condition No. 6
Condition No. 37
Condition No. 18
Fire Mitigation
Flood Control
(ADP)
Regional Statistical Area
(RSA)
See Fire Department
Dated 9-20-88
Condition No. 31
Letter
N/A
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once
adopted.
The project is a part of specific plan No. 199 Amendment No. i and the zoning which
has been applied to the specific plan through Change of Zone Case 510V.
ATTACHMENT 2
LOCATION MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT
SITE '
To Sin Dwgo
Location Map
CASE NO.: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23103
EXHIBIT: A
VICINITY MAP
S%STAFFIFT~3103-2. VTM
ATTACHMENT
COPY OF MAP
63/.
II
I
I
I
I
_J _L/---'-'r4',,
TRACT NO. 23102
SHIll' 2 OF S
I
!i, I ,/44-48
e r,.I, 7 //.////
v,aw,,, z ml~am / / /
\~:>'~' / '/Y
~ ~r~ /~~.~.~.,~/ I/
'c,2,-~,,
,//
Ii a,I/a-n
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED November 23, 1988
:IEVE:DiDE cotIn;.-
PLAnninG DEiM En;
DATE November 23, 1988
TO:
-Surveyor
Road
Building & Safety
Flood Control
Heal th
Fi re Protection
RE:
TENTATIVE TRACT/PARGEb MAP NO. 23103 Amd. 1
REGIONAL TEAM NO. Specific Plans ieam
The Riverside County[~ Planning Director/F~lBoard of Supervisors has taken the following
action on the above referenced tentative map:
x APPROVED tentative map subjectto the attached conditions (no waiver request submitted).
DENIED tentative map based on the attached findings.
APPROVED tentative map subject to attached conditions and DENIED request for waiver
of the final map.
APPROVED Minor Change to revise originally approved map,{attached).
__ DENIED request for Minor Change.
APPROVED Minor Change to waive the final map
RG :mp
APPROVED tentative map and APPROVED request for waiver of the final .map.
APPROVED 3 Extens)on~.f Time to
' al 1 previously appr~ed,~con~i~:Ons.
APPROVED :, Extension of--Time-to , .?~'~-:'
' al 1 previously approved:.condit~i~ns:, and:the attached. addit.i~na~ conditions.
DENIED Extension of
__ APPROVED withdrawal of '~e~tat-~ap.
APPROVED Minor Change to revise, ally appmved conditions as shown (attached).
.~ __
Very truly yours, ~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT'
Roger~et'~'
~ ng.,Director
Ron Goldman, Principal Planner'
subject to
subject to
SORVEi/OR-~;'~.WHITEI ROAD - BLUE
HEALTH - PINK
BUILDING & SAFETY - GREEN
FIRE PROTECTION - GOLDENROD
FLOOD - CANARY
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARi) OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: Planntng Department SUBMrlTALDATE: November 8, 1988
SUBaECT: VESTZNG TENTATIVE and TENTATIVE TRACTS located .in the
Nargarita Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1) - First
and Third Supervisorial Districts - Rancho California Zoning Area.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Receive and File the Planning Conmnission action of 9-28-88 and
10-5-88 for
APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372
Amended No. 1, 23373 Amended No. 1, 23470 and 23471 and Tracts
22915, 22916, 23100 Amended No. 1, 2310~ 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. 1.
Streeter, )1 annin~'~ "i~rector
Depte. Commente
AGENDA NC
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONNISSION NINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1988
(AGENDA ITEHS 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE I - TAPE 6, SIDE 1)
'VESTING TRACT NAP 23373 AHENDED NO. I - EA 32548 - Nargarita Village
Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial
Districts - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Katser Parkway - 348
units - 31~ acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT NAP 23371ANENDED NO. i - EA 32546 - Nargarlta VIllage
Development Company - Rancho CaltfoPnia Area - First/Third Supervisorial
Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, east of Nargartta Rd - 1183 units -
398± acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT 23372 ANENDED NO. 1 - EA 32547 - Nargartta Village Development
Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervlsortal Districts - north
of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 469 units on 66 lots - 44±
acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m.
STAFF RECONY4ENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32548, EA
32546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesting Tract ~ps 23373 Amended No. 1, 23371
Amended No. I and 23372 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions.
Ns. Gifford also recommended approval of a waiver of the length to width ratio
for Vesting Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. The subject tract maps were located
within Village A of the Nargarita Village Specific Plan, and would create 1763
residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract
maps to be consistent with the'adopted specific plan. Hs. Gifford recommended
several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purviance asked
about a fiscal impact report, and was informed this report had been furnished
recently for Amendment No. I to the specific plan.
Jim Resney, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the development,
advising they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement community
which included a championship golf course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse
facility in the center of the project. He then referred to Condition 33(f)
for all three tract maps, which required front yards to.be provided with
landscaping and automatic Irrigation, and requested that this requirement
deleted for larger lots, as it was hts opinion that these homeowners would
prefer to do thetr own landscaping. The CC&Rs would require them to comply
with specific standards. Nr. Resney requested that this condition be amended
by adding to the end "or shall be Installed within 75 days after close of
escrow as provided tn the CC&Rs in the 45x100 square foot lot areas".
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Nap 23371 and Condition 14 for the
other two tract maps required a debris retention wall where block walls were
requtred at the top of slopes. Nr. Resney requested that this condition be
amended by adding: "If=applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Road Commissioner that a Naster Homeowners Association or other entity wtll
satisfactorily matntatn the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, at his option,
waive this requirement of a debris retention wall." He thought that if they
could convince the Road Commissioner that there would be no silting problems
1
and that the slopes wou d be maintained, the debris retention wall would not
53
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1988
be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt it would be better not to have the
small wall.
Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and Condition 15 for the other
two tract maps related to the minimum 30 foot garage setback from face Of
curb. Mr. Resney felt this condition conflicted wtth the spectftc plan
development .standards whtCh allowed 16 foot driveways wtth ro11 up doors,
setback etther from the back of curb or the back of sidewalk. He would prefer
to have the speclftc plan standards applted, but requested that the hearings
not be continued.
Lee Johnson advtsed the slump wall delineated in Road Department Condition 21
was a wall they had been requiring for the past three or four years when the
Planntng Department required a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on
the stze of the slope, the Road Department Design Engineer could require a two
block htgh wall at the property ltne to keep the debris washing down the slope
from crossing the sidewalk. They would be wtlling to consider any other
alternative the developer mtght suggest, as long as It accomplished the
purpose of this condition. He requested that this condition be retained.
Commissioner Donahoe asked whether adding to the end "or as approved by the
Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provide an
alternative plan, and Mr. Johnson agreed that it would.
Mr. Johnson advised the garage setback required by Road Department Condition
22 for Tract 23371 (Condition 15 for Tracts 23372.and 23373) was the minimum
setback required by Ordinance 460. He had read the language requested by the
applicant, but would prefer to retain the condition as originally proposed in
the Road Department letter. Mr. Resney explained they had been discussing the
possibility of providing a 4 foot sidewalk, and would like to have a 24 foot
setback rather than the 26 foot setback required by this condition. However,
i ~ the Road Department preferred the existing language, they would accept it.
Mr. Johnson advised the condition would not alter the width of the sidewalk in
any way.
Commissioner Beadling referred to Mr. Resney's request that front yard land-
scaping and irrigation not be required for the larger lots, and-stated she
felt they should be required for all lots. Mr. Goldman requested that the
condition be retained as originally written.
There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m.
FINDINGS ANO CONCLUSIONS: Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23371 Amended No. 1,
23372 Amended No. i and 23373 Amended No. I are located within Village A of
the Margarita Village Specific Plan (No. 199); the three tract maps will
provide 1763 dwelling units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372-
Amended No. I has been conditioned with the specific plan's condition of
approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts
have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan 199, Change of Zone Case
5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a waiver of the lot length to width
ratio will be needed for Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All
environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202, and the initial
54
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1988
studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts have been found; the
tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by
CGPA 150), Change of Zone Case 5107, and Specific Plan 199Amendment No. 1;
and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 460 and 348. The proposed
project wtll not have a significant effect on the environment.
MOTION: Upon morton by Commissioner Donahoe, seconded by Commissioner B~esson
and unanimously cartted, the Commission adopted t.le negative declarations for
EA 32546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Naps
23371 Amended No. I with a waiver of the lot length to width ratto, 23372
Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions
amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the
recommendations of staff.
Tract No. 23371
9 - Amend to reflect the September 30, 1988 Road Department letter.
23(2) and 23(3) - Amend to require the developer to com~ly with the parkway
landscaping requirements as shown in Speciftc Plan No. 199
Amended No. i unless maintenance is provided by a
homeowners association or other public enttty.
26 -Delete the last sentence ("The final map for Vesting Tract 23371 shall
show the park as a numbered lot").
33(c) - Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, except for the clubhouse whtch may have screened
equipment as approved by the Planning Department; however, solar
equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be pemitted with
Planning Department approval.
Condition 34(a) for Tracts 23371, 23372, and 33(a) for Tract 23373
Add "and mey be phased wtth the project". (to clarify that walls my be
phased'with the development of the tract.
Condition 33(d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372, and 32(d) for Tract 23373
Building separation between all buildings Including fl. replaces shall not be
less than ten feet unless approved by the Department of Butldtng and Safety
and the Fire Department per Specific Plan 199 Amended No. 1.
34(e) for Tracts 23371, 23372 and 33(e) for Tract 23373 - Delete
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373
Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Department"
55
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMPIISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
(AGENDA ITEM 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SIDE I - TAPE I SIDE 1)D v
TRACT MAP 23100 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32318 - Marlborough e . Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 291 lots - 122.5±
acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A
TRACT MAP 23101 - EA 32533 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - east
of Kaiser Pkwy, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87± acres -
SP/R-2-6OOO Zones. Schedule A
TRACT MAP 23102 - EA 32534 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - north
of La Serena Way, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4± acres -
SP/R-1 Zones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 23103 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32535 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California'Rd - 18 lots - 29~ acres -
SP/R-'A-1 Zones. Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 9:49 a.m. and closed at 10:08 a.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32318,
32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended
No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I with a waiver of the lot length
to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps
were located within Village B of the ~rgarita Village Specific Plan, and
would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots. Staff had found the
tract maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, Specific Plan
199 Amendment No. 1, and the zoning which had been applied to the specific
plan through Change of Zone Case 5107. Ms. Gifford recommended several
changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relating to requirements for
maintenance of the open space areas, park requirements, useable yard areas,
and fencing requirements. tlr. Klotz suggested modifying. the last condition
for each tract map by beginning with the phrase "Development of the".
Commissioner Bresson requested that changes be made throughout to refer to
either "public use trails" or "recreational trails" instead of "equestrian
trails"; he felt these terms would more accurately describe their use.
Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as
amended. It was his understanding that in the event any portion of the
development agreement was held to be invalid (for any reason), the conditions
requiring compliance with that agreement would be null and void; this was
confirmed by County Counsel.
There was no further testimony, and the hearings were closed at 10:08 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101,
23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 are located within Village B of the Margarita
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
Village Specific Plan; the four tract maps would divide the 254' acres into 605
residential lots; the tract maps have been Conditioned in accordance with the
specific plan's conditions of approval to mitigate impacts on the Stephens
Kangaroo Rat; the tract maps have been conditioned to comply with Specific
Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement
No. 5; a waiver for the lot length to width ratio will be needed for Tract
23103 Amended No. 1. All-environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR
107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for these tract maps, and no significant
impacts have been found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive
General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 150), Specific Plan 199
Amendment No. I and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract maps conform to the
requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. The proposed projects will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner
Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative
declarations for EA 32318, EA 32533, EA 32534 and EA 32535, and approved
Tentative Tract Naps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. I with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed
conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions
and the recommendations of staff.
Tract Map 23100 Amended No. I
22.
23.
Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners
Association).
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract
23100, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended
No. 1.
24.
Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service
Area or Homeowners Association.
37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially'conform'to attached
Figure III-ZB of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
38.
The development of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. I shall
coyly with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and
Development Agreement No. 5
Tract Hap 23101
17(h) Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average flat area of
2000 square feet.
22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners
Association).
3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
23.
24.
Prior'to the issuance of occupancy pemits for 160 units on Tract
23101, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended
No. 1.
Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the. common open space area by either a County Service
Area or Homeowners Association.
37(b)
38.
Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
The development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall comply with all
' ,o. ,o.,..,
Tract Map 23102
21.
Amend to conform with Condition 33 {to provide for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners
Association.
33.
Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service
Area or Homeowners Association.
35(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Figure III-2B of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
36. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23102 shall comply with all
sN S
Tract Map 23103 Amended No. 1
21. Amend to conform to Condition 22 (to provide for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners
Association.
22.
Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service
Area or Homeowners Association.
34(a) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Figure III-2B of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
35.
The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. I shall
comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and
Development Agreement No. 5
4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
(AGENDA ITEMS 1-3 AND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE I - TAPE 1, SIDE 1)
TRACT MAP 22916 - EA 32505 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California
Area - First Supervtsorial District - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfield
Stage Rd - 259 lots - 103.3~ acres - R-IVSP Zones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 22915 - EA 32504 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California
Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho Vista Rd, west of
Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 lots - 91.6~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT HAP 23471 - EA 32518 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho
California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho California
Rd, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 155 lots - 44~ acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT HAP 23470 - EA 32517 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho
California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Rancho Vista Rd,
west of Kaiser Pkwy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 10:10 a.m. and closed at 11:10 a.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32517, EA
32518, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and
22916, and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 subject to the
proposed conditions, and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio for all
four tract maps. These four tract maps were located in Village C of Specific
Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential
lots, provide a 10 acre school site, a 5 acre park site and 3 tot lots. Staff
had found the proposed maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General
Plan, the adopted specific plan, and the zoning which had been applied to the
property through Chan~e of Zone Case 5107. Ns. Gifford recommended several
changes to the conditions of approval; these changes related to the minimum
lot size, lot length to width ratio requirements, park requirements,
landscaping/irrigation requirements, and a requirement for development of the
tract maps in accordance with the adopted specific plan and approved
development agreement.
Commissioner Beadling questioned Hs. Gifford's recommendation for deletion of
the conditions for Tract rips 23470, 22915 and 22916 requiring landscaping and
irrigation. Iqs. Gifford explained these three tentative maps proposed minimum
7200 square foot lots and the County did not normally require landscaping and
irrigation for lots of this size. Hr. Streeter felt this condition could be
retained, as it was County policy to require landscaping and irrigation for
7200 square foot lots in the Rancho California area.
Robert Kimble, representing the applicant, advised they would prefer not to
provide the front yard landscaping and irrigation, and requested that the
condition be deleted. Commissioner Beadling asked whether Mr. Kimble had seen
the letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Pipher objecting to the density proposed
in the area adjacent to their estate type homes. At her request, Mr. Kimble
located Mr. Pipher's subdivision which was next to Rancho Vista Road. They
were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for this
area. Ma. Gifford advised the tract map was a refiling of a previously
5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
approved map, and there was no change in the density; the proposed tract map
was within the density range allowed by the specific plan. Commissioner
Beadling quoted from the letter, which requested that the density be reduced
to the density originally proposed by the specific plan. She wanted to know
what this density was, and was informed there had been no change in the
density.
Mr. Kimble requested that Condition 4 of the Flood Control District's letter
for Tract 23471 be deleted. This condition required maintenance ramps in the
this channel for their underlying map with 4:1 slopes. Mr. Lotz a to the
deletion of this condition. Mr. Kimble then requested that Road Department
Condition 26 for Tract 22915 and Condition 28 for Tract 22916 be amended by
adding to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner"; Mr. Johnson
agreed to this change for both tract maps.
Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and
developed prior to the.issuance of building permits for 150 units, and Mr.
Kimble requested that this condition be amended to require the ark prior to
the issuance of occupancy for the 25gth lot. Providing the fully improved
park prior to 150 units would be a burden to the developer. Ms. Gifford
advised Mr. Kimble's request would delay completion of the park until after
the entire tract had been completed; staff felt 150 units would afford the
applicant an opportunity to build some units, and at that point the improve-
ments could be tied into road improvements. The park would also be useful for
the tract to the north, which was being developed by the same developer.
Mr. Kimble requested clarification of the new condition staff had suggested
M
for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. r.
Goldman explained this condition referred back to the specific plan condi-
tions, which required either a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department
of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply with the Countywide program
being established by Riverside County.
Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was actively
involved with the task force appointed by the Board of Supervisors regarding
the Stephens Kangaroo Rot program. There was no set program at the present
time, and he wanted to know whether they would be charged the $750 per lot
fee, or whether they would be held up until a specific program was estab-
ished. He did not want to be dela ed, as they would be reai~
Ing permits within the next few we~{s. Mr. ~ otz explained eto pull build-
Board had
generally endorsed the concept of having a developer make a deposit of $750
per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted;
this would allow the project to go forward. He felt this option would be
available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily'the
onl a security to be deposited aVainst the ultimate
ultimate fee, but was p~anation satisfied Mr. Dudonay s concerns.
mitigation fee. This ex
Mr. Ktmble advised it was their understanding that in the event Development
Agreement No. 5 should be held invalid at some time in the future, the
approval of the four tract maps would still stand, but the condition for
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COf4MISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
compliance with the development a reementwould be null and void. Mr. Klotz
· advised this was explicitly provi)ed within the
agreement.
development
OPPONENTS: ~
Bob Pipher, 41825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advised the development in Which
he lived (known as Green Tree) contained approxt~.tely 96 acres and he and his
wife owned approximately one-third of this property. They had submitted the
letter requesting that the portions of the subject tract maps adjacent to
their area be required to create lots similar in size. Mr. Pipher had a map
of the Margarita Village Specific Plan dated March 30, 1986, which showed the
density in this area to be approximately half of the density currently
proposed. Mr. Pipher advised this was an equestrian area, and people residing
in the area needed riding trails. He requested a connecting trail from Pauba
to Rancho Vista along the boundary between their subdivision and the subject
development or along Kaiser Parkway; this would provide an additional
landscaped buffer area,
Mr. Pipher advised they had no problem with the proposed school site, but felt
the.circulation system proposed to serve the school was inadequate. In his
opinion, Street "B" should be extended to Kaiser Parkway; this would then
provide access to both the school site and the park from Kaiser Parkway. At
f
the present time there was a steady flow o traffic, and providing. an access
to the park site and school from Kaiser Parkway would help everyone in the
area, in addition to making the park more accessible. Because of the traffic
on Kaiser Parkway, Mr. Pipher thought it would be difficult for people living
on the other side to reach the park. He therefore suggested that one or two
~arks be required on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, to benefit residents in
hat area.
Mr. Pipher requested a solid wall along the boundary between their development
and the subject project. The people residing in this area were requesting a
buffer,' and would appreciate anything the Commissioners could do to help
them. In answer to a question by Commissioner Bresson, Mr. Pi~her advised
there was no street between the area he was representing and t e subject site;
the lots from the subject tract map were backing up against the.lots in his
subdivision.
When Mr. Pipher again requested equestrian trails, Hs. Gifford briefly
reviewed the.proposed trail system, which included a trail along Rancho
California Road, going up the Kaiser Parkway and WHD easement; no trails were
proposed in the southern area as requested by Mr. Pipher. Commissioner
Bresson requested that these trails be designated as public access or
recreational trails instead of equestrian trails. Mr. Burnell advised that an
equestrian trail had been established all along Pauba Road, going east and
west, and there was a north/south trail in the Hetropolitan Water District
easement going by the school administration site, along Rancho California Road
to Kaiser Parkway. The residents of the Green Tree area could use the trail
along Pauba which connected to the trail along Green Tree Lane. This was a
regional trail system, established under the direction of the Parks
Department.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
Commissioner Bresson requested information On the type of buffer to be
provided. Mr. Bumell advised there would be masonry walls in the area north
and south of Rancho Vista Road; he thought this would satisfy Mr. Pipher's
concerns. Mr. Burnell advised the irgarita Village Specific Plan had
originally been approved with a slightly higher density in this area. lhey
had added land with the amended specific plan but had not changed densities in
the area of the subject tract maps. llne exhibit presented by Mr. Pipher was a
conceptual exhibit prepared by the engineer for internal use only and had
never been presented to the County.
Mr. Kimble responded to ~. Pipher's request for an additional park on the
other side of Kaiser Parkway, by advising Cosrain Homes was providing a park
planned for Tract 22715 to the north; they were planning to upgrade both parks
over and above the requirements of the specific plan.
Commissioner Donahoe asked whether staff was recommending that a condition be
added to require the wall as a buffer between the subject tract maps and the
area represented by Mr. Pipher, and was informed this was a condition of the
specific plan.
Lee johnson referred to Mr. Pipher's sug estion that "B" Street be extended to
Kaiser Parkway, and advised both he and )ohn Johnson on
{Transportati Planning
Section of the Road Department) felt this was an excellent recommendation.
Circulation in this area might be improved by making this connection rather
than having the school served by a cul-de-sac street. This would also give
both the school and the park site access from a 66 foot wide street. When
Commissioner Bresson asked whether this could be accomplished without
redesigning the map, Mr. johnson replied he felt the map would have to be
amended. Mr. Streeter felt this provide a much better access.
Commissioner Beadling felt that a long cul-de-sac street going into a school
was poor planning, as it required the cars and school busses bringing in
children to wrap around and come back out the same way. Extending the street
would allow the vehicles to drop off the children and go out a different way.
Commissioner Bresson was concerned about creating a 4-way intersection, and
Mr. johnson agreed that a 3-way intersection created less problems. However,
he still felt that providing access to Kaiser Parkway would result in better
circulation service to the school site.
Mr. Burnell did not feel it was necessary to extend "B" Street to Kaiser Park-
way in order to provide adequate circulation for the school. He was concerned
that the change in the roadway might cause problems with regard to the sewer
lines. Mr. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-way intersection at Kaiser
Parkway; he felt retaining the existing 3-way intersection would provide an
overall better circulation system for residents of the area. Commissioner
Bresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because it would not encourage through
traffic along the school site. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there would be
less opportunity to eventually obtain signalization for a 3-way intersection
than for a 4-way intersection-
8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
Mr. ~mble advised they had met with the school district and showed them the
tentative map; they were pleased with the confi uration of the school site
well as the proposed street system. Mr. Burnel~ advised their as
original design
showed the school/park site adjacent Kaiser Parkway, and the school district
had objected to this plan because they did not want the children adjacent to a
major street. Commissioner Bresson supported the tract map as currently
designed, as it was satisfactory to the school district.
There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 11:10 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 22915, and 22916, and Vesting
Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 are located wlthtn Village C of Specific Plan 199
Amendment No. I (the Margartta Vtllage Spectftc Plan); the four tract maps
would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots; design manuals have
been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps
have been condttioned to comply with Spectftc Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change
of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a waiver for the lot
length to width ratio will be needed for all four maps. All environmental
concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for
these tract maps, and no significant impacts were found; the tract maps are
consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan
Amendment 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. I and Change of Zone Case
5107; and f
con orm to the requirements of Ordinances 34B and 460.
MOTION: Upon motion b Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Con~issioner
Beadling and unanimously carried,. the Commission adopted the negative
declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved
Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 32470 and 23471,
all with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed
conditions and based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommenda-
tions of staff.
Tract No. 23470
17(a) - All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net.
17(b} - Delete entirely
20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units, one tot lot
shall be improved and fully developed.
21 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 275 units, the second
tot lot shall be improved and fully developed.
27 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same)
36 - The development of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23470 shall comply with
its Design Manual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199
Amendment No. I and with Development Agreement No. S
Tract No. 23471
9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
20 - Prior to the tssuance of occupancy permits for 200 units, one tot lot
shall be improved and fully developed.
26 - Prlor to the tssuance of buildtng permits (balance to remain the .same)
32(f) - All front yards-shall be provided with landscaping and manually
operated, permanent u derground irrigation.
n
Flood Control Condition 4 - Delete entirely
35 - The development of Vesttrig Tentative Tract Map 23471 shall comply with
its Oestgn Manual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199
Amendment No. I and with Development Agreement No. 5
Delete Condition 4 of the Flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988.
Tract No. 22915
24 - Prior to the Issuance of butldtng penntts (balance to rematn the same)
32 - The development of Tentative Tract Map 22915 shall comply with all
provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development
Agreement No. 5
Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Commissioner".
Tract No. 22916
2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratio.
20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units in Tentative
Tract 22916, the park shall be fully improved and developed.
25 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same)
32 - The development of Tentative Tract Map 23916 shall comply with all
provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development
Agreement No. 5
33 - Prior to issuance of grading permits, impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo
Rat Habitat shall be mitigated per the specific plan conditions of
approval.
Road Department Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Commissioner".
10
Zoning Area: Rancho Ca}ifornia
Supetvisorial District: First and Third
EA No,: 32318, 32533, 32534, 32535
Specific Plan Section
Tract Nos.: 23100 Amendment No. 1
23101, 23102
23103 Amendment rio. 1
Planning Commission: 9-28-88
Agenda Item No.: 1-2
RIVERSIDE COURT/R,RRRZRG I~ARIERT
STAFF REPORT
1. Appl icant:
2. Engineer:
3. Type of Request:
4. Location:
E~isting Zoning:
6. Surrounding Zoning:
Site Characteri stics:
Are a Ch a rac te r~ s ti c s:
Comprehensive General
Plan Designation:
3.0. Land D~v~sion Data:
Narlbo~ough Develol~ent Corp.
Community Engineering Services, :inc.
The four tracts trill subdivide 254 acres into 605
residential lots and 18 open space lots.
14est of Butterfield Stage R~ad, north of Rancho
California Road and east of Kaiser Parkway.
R-R (Change of Zone 5107 heard by the Board of
Supervisors on 9-13-88 proposes Specific Plan 199
Amendment No. I zoning).
To the west and south the tracts-adjoin other
portions of Specific Plan 199. To the east and
north, the zontng ~s A-1-10, A-2-20 and R-T. The
N'-A-P property located ~n the southwest corner of
h
t e tracts is zoned R-1.
Vacant land traversed with low hills.
Located on eastern edge of Rancho California
co~nunity. Agricultural and rural land uses are
located east of Butterfield Stage Road.
Not designated as Open Space and Rancho V~11ages
(General Plan Amendment No. 150 proposes a general
plan designation of Specific Plan 199, Amendment
No. 1).
Tract Acreage Residential Lots Open Space Lots I)ensity
23100Amd, I 1~23 287 5 2.4
23101 87 263 8 3,0
23102 16 37 5 2,3
23103 Amd. I 29 18 .6
Total 254 6'~ i:g' ~
Staff R~port
Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1
23101, 23102
23103 Amended No. 1
Page 2
11. Agency Recemendations: See letters dated:
Tract 23100 Amd. 1 23101
23102 23103 Amd. 1
Road: 7-25-88 7-22-88 7-22-88 .7-22-88
Heal th: 4-19-88 4-19-88 4-19-88 6-23-88
F1 ood: 6-17-88 6-17-88 6-17-88 6-17-88
Fire: 6-14-88 6-15-88 5- 3-88 4-28-88
EH~ 4-15-88 4-15-88 4-19-88 4-15-88
Rancho Mater Di st. 6-20-88 6-16-88 4-18-88 6-16-88
Ca1 trans 3-30-88 3-30-88
Sheriff 4- 5-88 4- 4-88 4-5-88 4- 5-88
12..Lette rs:
Opposing/supporting: None received
writing.
as of this
13. Sphere of Influence: Not ~thtn a City Sphere.
ANALYSIS:
Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102 and 23103 Amended No. I implement
Village B of the Hargarita Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1).
Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5107, General Plan
Amendment No. 150 and Development Agreement No. 5 were heard by the Board of
Supervisors on September 13, 1988. These tracts have been designed to be
consistent with these documents.
The table below sunmmrize the tracts' relationship and consistency with the
Specific Plan's plannin~ areas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the
permitted number of re:sldential units.
COI4PARISON OF 11tACT AND SPECIFIC PLAN DMELLING UNI*TS
Tract No, Proposed Speci ft c Plan Pennitted
No. of Units Area No. of Units
23100 Amd. I 287 8, 10-12 291
23101 263 4, 6 263
23102 37 2, 3 : 37.
23103/bad. I 18 7, 9 19...
'605" '610
Staff Report
Tract Nos. 23100/mended No. 1
23101, 23102
23103 Amended No. 1
Page 3
Tract 23100 Mended No. I proposes a mtnimum 7200 square feet lot size and the
development of the southern portion of Planning Area 5, the proposed park. The
tract has been condittoned to comply kith the Stephens Kangaroo rat mitigation
tncluded in Spectftc Plan No. 199.
Zn confonnance kith the spectfic plan's conditions of approval, prior to
issuance of grading permits for 160 units on Tracts 23100 and 23101, the park
shall be developed to assure compatibility tn grading and to meet neighborhood
recreational needs. A lot line adjustment with the Rencho California ~ter
District is also required prior to recorderion of the final map.
Tract No. 23101 proposes a mlntmum lot size of 6000 square feet but ensures a
usable rear yard area per the specific plan conditions of approval. Tract
23101 kill also comply with the specific plan's conditions of approval to
mitigate Stephen's Kangaroo Rat tmpacts.
Tract '-No. 23102 proposes a minimum 7200 square foot lot size. Tract 23103
Amended No. I proposes one acre minimum lot sizes along Butterfield Stage Road
so as to provide a buffer and transition to kineries located to the east. The
applicant is requesting a waiver to the County's required length to width ratio
for lot 18 due to the difficult configuration of this parcel of land and
restricted access on Butterfield Stage Road.
All four tracts have been condittoned to mitigate impacts to the FIt. Palomar
Observatory, school impacts, as well as comply kith acoustical reports and the
adopted specific plan and development agreement requirements.
Environmental Assessments have been prepared on all four tracts. Environmental
impacts wen assessed in ETR 107 and ETR 202 prepared for the Rancho Village
Specific Plan and the Hargarita Vtllage Specific Plan. Additional
environmental evaluation has been provided by the reports prepared for the
specific plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for three tracts.
No significant environmental impacts have been found.
FINDINGS:
Tentative Tract No.s 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. I are located in Village B of the Pargarita Village Specific Plan.
2. The four tracts kill divide 254 acres into 605 residential lots,
3. The tracts have been condttioned per the Specific Plan's condition of
approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
Staff Report
Tract Nos. 23100/mended No. 1
23101, 23102
23103/mended No. 1
Page 4
4. The tracts have been condltloned to comply with Spectftc Plan 199, Change
of Zone No. 5107 and Development Agreement No. 5.
5. A rotvet for length to wtdth ratlo ktll be needed for Tract 23103/;ended
No. 1.
1. All environmental concerns have been addressed tn EIRs 107, 202 and the
Intttal studtes for these tracts and no stgntflcant tmpacts have been
found.
2. The tracts are conslstent, wtth General Plan Amendment No. 150, Change of
Zone No. 5107, Speclftc Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1.
3. The' tracts conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460.
RECOHI4ENDATIOfiS
ADOPTION of a Ne attve Declaration for EA Nos. 32318, 32533, 32534, 32535 based
on a ttndtng ~hat the project will not have a significant effect' on the
environment.
APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103
Amended No. 1 subject to the attached conditions of approval.
KB :mp
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTI4ENT
SUBDZVZSZON
CONDZTZONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23103
DATE: 9-28-88
AI(NDED NO. I
STANDARD CONDZTXONS
::3
u,,
C)
n~
0
The subdivider shall defend, Indemnify, end hold hamless the County of
Riverside, tts agents, officers, and employees from any clatm, action, or
proceeding agatnst the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
eeployees to attack, set astde, votd, or annul an approval of the County
of RIverside, its advtsory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Tentative Tract 23103, Amended No. 1, which action ts brought
about wtthtn the time period provtded for in california Government Code
Section 66499.37. The County of RIverside wtll promptly nottry the
subdivider of any such clatm, actton, or proceeding against the County of
RIverside and wtll cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fatls to
promptly nottry the subdivider of any such clatm, actton, or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not,
d
thereafter, be responsible to .fend, Indemnify, or hold hamless the
County of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply wtth the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
B, unless modlfted by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
= 4. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
i the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
Ordinance 460.
S. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a sotls report to' the Riverside
County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Butldtng and
t
Safety'. The report shall address the so ls stability and geological
conditions of the site.
6. If any grading ts proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
d
comprehensive gra tng plan to the Department of Butldtng and Safety. The
1an shall c ly with the Untfom Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended
~y Ordinance 4°~7 and as maybe additionally p ovtded for in these
r
conditions of approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23Z03, Amended No. :Z'
Page 2
A gradtrig permtt shall be obtatned from the Department of Butldtng and
f
Sa ety prtor to c~,,,,~ncement of any gradtng outstde of county eatntatned
road right of way.
Any deltncluent property taxes shall be patd pr(or to recordatton of the
ftnal map.
The subdivider shall comply ~tth the street Improvement reconxendattons
outltned tn the RIverside County Road Department's letter dated 7-22-88 a
copy of whtch ts attached.
Legal access as requtred by Orcltnance 460 shall be provtded from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the publlc and shall
conttnue tn force unttl the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Commissioner.
Easements, when requtred for roadway slopes, dratnage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be sho~n on the ftnal map tf they are located
wtthtn the land dhtston boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as dtrected by the County
Surveyor.
~ater and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be Installed tn accordance
wtth the provisions set forth tn the RIverside County Health Department's
letter dated 6-23-88 a copy of whtch ts attached.
The subdivider shall comply wtth the flood control recommendations
outltned by the RIverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dated
6-}~-M 9-27-88 a copy of vhtch ts attached. Zf the land dtv~ston l(es
v~thtn an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of
Ordinance 460, appro rtate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the Road Comtsstoner. (Amended by
Planning Commission 9-28-88)
The subdivider shall comply vtth the flre ~mprovement recon~endattons
outltned tn the County Ftre Harshal's lettar dated 9-29-88 a copy of whtch
ts attached.
Subdtv(ston phastng, Including any proposed common open space area
Improvement phastn , tf applicable, shall be sub3ect to Planntng
Department approval. Any proposed phastng shall provtde for adequate
vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the tntent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 3
17. Lots created by thts subdivision shall comply with the following:
a All lots shall have a mtntmuB stze of I acre gross.
b. Al1 lot length to width rattos shall be tn conromance with Sectton
3.8C of Ordinance 460.
c. Corner lots and through lots, tf any, shall be provtded with
additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as
not to contatn less net area than the least amount of net area in
non-corner and through lots.
d. Lots created- by this subdivision shall be in conformance wtth the
development standards of the Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1
zone,
e. When lots are crossed by major publtc uttltty easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the utility easement.
f. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be etther planted with tntertm landscaping or
provtded with other eroston control measures as approved by the
Director of Butldtng and Safety.
g. Trash bins, loadtrig areas and Incidental storage areas shall be
located away and vtsually screened from surrounding areas with the use
of block walls and landscaping.
18. Prtor to RECORDAT/ON of the ftnal map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outltned in the attached approval
letters froe the following agencies have been met.
County Fire Department
County Flood Control
County Parks Department
Rancho ~ter District
County Health Department
County Planning Department
Eastern Municipal Water Dtst.
b. Prior to the recordatton of the final map, General Plan Amendment No.
150, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1, Development Agreement No.
5, and Change of Zone No. 5107 shall be approved by the Board of
Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23Z03, Amended No. Z
Page 4
dtvtston shall be tn conformance with the development standards of the
zone ulttmtely applled to the property,
19. All extsttng structures on the subject property shall be removed prtor to
recordatton of the ftnal nap,
Impacts to the Temecula Elementary and Elslnore Unton Htgh School Dtstrtct
shall be mitigated at the development application stage tn accordance with
the district policies.
The common open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the final
map and shall be managed by a master property owners association or CSA,
(Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
t~he-~tee-q}tt-~:he-~xmirt~-~unsel~, ~'~ended by Planntng Commission
9-28-88)
~-J~4Jat-l~r~-~,~f-t.o~nan~r~on&~l~4~z. 4rH~~o~kN~j~,-e~- (Amended
by Planntng Commission 9-28-88)
an<~-~s~'~c-t-kHYr--+s---+noo~po~t~~-4~y~j- ~ aNPen~e. (Amended by
Planning Commission 9-28-88)
· r~e-l-l-4)i.-4;,r141;..f. er-4;4:l.e.J.E4Nrllle4q- 44'e&J-s-e.r-i41y- tEklC~t---tJ~q%m~H:l--~)b~ef~E--4:J/ie
· i14.vsr. r.441e-er-.t-he-~.~.reeec. es.ser-44"t--t..e4:,e!'~"z.~"z.~"+~ (Amended by Planntng
Commission 9-28-88)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No.
Page 4
dtvtston shall be tn conformnce wtth the development standards of the
zone ulttrately applled to the property.
19. All extsttng structures on the subject property shall be removed prtor to
recordatton of the ftnal map.
0e
Zepacts to the Teeecula Eleeentary and ElstnoreUnton High School Dtstrtct
shall be mitigated at the developcent application stage tn accordance wtth
the dtstrtct policies.
The common open space area shall be shown as a nuebered lot on the final
map and shall be mnaged by a easter property owners association or CSA.
(Amended by Planntng Commission 9-28-88)
~_JL4~l&r~t, to~4ff-4ovanaa&~<d~r~~4n&4~4~ie~ion~,-e~- (Amended
by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
-"410t, l~4;hsta4x144~j--44V--gPev4ek~4e-(4~s-~3ccla~ attorr'bo-'bhr~cmt,., Jr,
~4~4~~~~q-~~ (~end~ by Planning C~tsston
9-2~88)
Conditions of Approval
Tentatfve Tract No. 23:103,/mended No. 1
Page 5
"m4*~teeN~e--esseseee~---~e--as~essee~44eh-ee~-¢~ee~l~.~14.~,.
9r4er-~e--,q4--etker--44ees--4,e~erded--iubceqeent-.~-.~.k.:_.~t4¢e..~f.
*srveYJnee4~-~r--~-41e~~u~i~J-~e-as~essme~-4-4efh (/mended
by Planntng Commission 9-28-88)
-'eemmee-er::%- (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
p~'~~~'+~nJ~,'~'~'-'~re~~e~-~n~ol~=- (Amended by
anntng Commission 9-28-88)
4)nee apppovcat,-(~he-~feclanatt~n-~yr-~ovcnants.,.,;~m~Ht-,i~ns..i~d..~as~itiH~ns.
(bended by Planning ~ission 9-2~B8)
Prior to the recordation of the final mp, the subdivider shall convey to
the ~unty fee st~le title, to all colon or c~on open space areas,
f~e and clear of all liens, taxes, asses~nt, leases (recorded and
unrecorded) and eassnts, except those easements which in the sole
discretion of the ~unty are acceptabl.e. ~ a conditions precedent to the
~unty accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall su~tt the
following documents, to the Planning )par)nt for revt~, which
d~u~nts shall be subject to the approval of that depar~ent and the
Office of the County ~unsel: (~nded by Planning C~ission 9-2B-BB)
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and (~ended
by Planning C~isston g-2~88)
2) A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual
lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants,
conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference.
(Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall (a) provide for a term of 60years, (b) provide for the
establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of
each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provisions
verbatim: (Amended by Planning Conanisston 9-28-8B)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 6
"Notwithstanding any provision tn thts Declaration to the contrary, the
following provision shall apply: (Amended by Planntng Commission
9-28-88)
The property owners association established heretn shall, tf dormant,
be activated, by tncorporetton or otherwise, at the request of the
County of RIverside, and the property owners' association shall
unconditionally accept froe the County of RIverside, upon the County's
1 anY part of the ' c~on area ', more
demand, tttle to al or
particularly described on Exhtbtt ' ' attached hereto. The
dectston to requtre activation of the property owners' association and
the dectston to requtre that the association uncondttlonally accept
tttle to the 'conmort area' shall be at the sole discretion of the
County of Riverside. (Amended by Planntng Commission 9-28-88)
In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, ~s conveyed to
the property owners' association, the association, thereafter shall
own such 'common area., shall manage and continuously maintain such
'common area', of any part thereof, absent the prtor wrttten consent
of the Planning D~rector of the County of Riverside or the County's
successor-ln-tnterest. The property owners' association' shall have
the right to assess the owners of each Individual lot or unit for the
reasonable cost of maintaining such 'common area', and sah11 have the
r~ght to l~en the *property of any such owner who defaults tn the
payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment 1ten, once
created, shall be prtor to all other l(ens recorded subsequent to the
nottce of assessment or other document creating the assessment l(en.
(Amended by Planning Comm(sston 9-28-88)
Thts Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or
property deannexed therefrom absent the prtor wrttten consent of the
Planning Dtrector of the County. of R~verstde or the County's
successor-In-Interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered
'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the
'common area'. (Amended by Planntng Commission 9-28-88)
Zn the event of any conrltct between thts Declaration and the Arttcles
of/ncorporatlon, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association
Rules and Regulations, tf any, thts Declaration shall control.'
(Amended by Planntng Commission 9-28-88)
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions
shall be recorded at the same ttme that the ftnal map ~s recorded.
(Amended by Planntng Canmission 9-28-88).
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103,/mended No. 1
Page 7
'23.
24,
25,
The developer shall comply wtth the following parkway landscaping
conditions and Spectftc Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1:
1)
2)
3)
Prtor to recordatton of the final map the developer shall ftle an
application ~th the County for the formation of or annexation to, a
parkway mtntenance district for Tentative Tract No. 23102 in
accordance with the Landscaping and Ltghttng Act of 1972, unless-the
project is within an existing parkway maintenance district;
Prior to the issuance of butldtng pemtts, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaptn and Irrigation plans from the County
Road and Planntng Department. A~I landscaping and irrigation plans
and specifications shall be prepared tn a roproductble format sultable
for permanent filing with the County Road Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released
bonds, concurrent;~ewith the release of subdivision performance
quaranteetng viabtlity of all landscaping which will be
Installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by
the district.
4)
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees,
shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance unttl
such time as maintenance is taken over by the district,
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those
operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the
Planntng DIrector,
Street 11ghts shall be provtded withtn the subdhtston in accordance with
the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following:
1)
Concurrently with the ftling of subdivision improvement plans with the
Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed
street light layout first from the Road Department's trafftc engineer
and then from the appropriate uttltty purveyor.
2)
Following approval of the street 11ghttng layout by the Road
Department's traffic engineer, the developer shall also ftle an
application with LAFCO for the formation of a street lighttng
district, or annexation to an extsttng lighting district, unless the
site is within an extsttng 119httng district.
3)
Prior to recordatton of the final map, the developer shall secure
conditional approval of the street lighting application from LAFCO,
unless the site is within an existing lighting district.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 8
All street ltghts and other outdoor 11ghttn shall be sho~n on
4) electrical plans submitted to the Department of ~utldtng and Safety
for plan check- approval and shall comply wtth the requirements of
Riverside County Ordinance No, 655 and the R~vers~de County
Comprehensive General Plan,
PHor to the Issuance of GRADING PERNITS the follwtng conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prtor to the (ssuance of grading pemtts, detailed co,~non open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development In process. The
plans shaql be certtfied by a landscape architect, and shall provtde
for the following.
]). Permanent automatic Irrigation systems shall be Installed on all
landscaped areas requiring (rrtgatton.
2) Landscape screening where requtred shall be destgned to .be opaque up
to a mtntmum hetght of stx (6) feet at maturity.
3) All uttltty service areas and enclosures shalq be screened from vtew
wtth landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as
approved by the Planntng Director. Utilities shaql be placed
underground.
4) ParlNays and landscaped butld(ng setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide vtsual screening or a transition tnto the prtmary use area of
the slte. Landscape elements shall ~nclude earth bemtng, ground
cover, shrubs and speclmen trees tn conjunction wtth meandering
sidewalks, benches and other pedestrtan amentttes where appropriate as
approved by the Planntng Department and Spectftc Plan No.
Amendment No. 1.
5) Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of specimen accent trees
at key visual focal potnts wtthtn the pro~ect.
6) 14here streets trees cannot be planted wtthtn right-of-way of (ntertOr
streets and pro~ect parkways due to Insufficient road right-of-way,
they shall be planted outstde of the road right-of-ray.
7) Landscaping plans shall Incorporate nattve and drought tolerant' plants
where appropriate,
8) All extsttng spedmen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the
subject property shall be shown on the proJect's gradtng plans and
shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 9
28,
9) All trees shall be etateam double staked. lieaker and/or slow growing
trees shall be steel staked.
the subject propert shall be
All extsttng nattve spedmen trees on cannot be preserved t~ey shall be
preserved wherever feasible, Mhere they
relocated or replaced wtth specimen trees as approved by the Planntng
landscap ng plans,
DIrector. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved
If the project ls to be phased, prtof to the approval of grading permits,
an overall conceptual redtng plan shall be submitted to the Planntn9
Dtrector for approval, The plan shall be used as a guideline for
subsequent detafied grading plans for individual phases of development and
shall tnclude the following:
1)
2)
Techniques whtch wtll be uttllzed to prevent eroston and sedtmentatton
durtng and after the gradtng process,
Approx4mate ttme frames for grading and Identification of areas whtch
may be graded durtng the htgher probability ratn months of January
through Parch.
3) Preliminary pad and roa~ay elevations.
4) Areas of temporary grad(ng outs(de of a particular phase.
29. Prtor to the tssuance of gradtng permtts, the developer shall provtde
evtdence to the Director of Butldtng and Safety that all adjacent
off-slte manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope
maintenance responstb(ltttes have been asstgned as approved by the
Dtrector of Butldtng and Safety.
30. Grading plans shall conform' to Board adopted Htllstde Development
Standards: All cut and/or ftll slopes, or Individual combinations
thereof, whtch exceed ten feet tn verttcal he1 hts shall be modtfted by an
a propr~ate combination of a spectal terracing (benchtrig) plan tncrease
s~ope ratto (t.e. 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planttrig combtned
wtth (rrtgatton. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terratn and exceeding
the grading techniques:
1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adJusted'to the angle
of the natural terratn,
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23:103, Amended No.
Page
2)
3)
4)
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the
natural rounded terratn.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded ~th curves wtth tad11
destgned tn proportion to the total hetght of the slopes ~here
dratnage and stability permtt such rounding,
Ibere cut or flll slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved tn a continuous,
undulattng lashton.
Prior to the tssuance of BUILDING PERNITS the follewtng conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. Wtth to the submittal of butldtng plans to the Department of Butlding
and Safety the developer ~11 demonstrate compliance wtth the
acoustical study prepared for Tract 23:103 Amended No, t which
established appropriate mitigation measures to reduce amb(ent tnter~or
notse levels to 45 Ldn and extePtor notse levels below65 Ldn.
Butldtng separation between all buildings Including fireplaces shall
not be less than ten (:10) feet,
c. All street stde yard setbacks shall be a mtntmum of :10 feet.
In accordance Ntth the ~rttten request of the developer to the County of
RIverside, a copy of ~htch ts on f~le, and tn furtherance of the agreement
between the developer and the County of RIverside, no butldtng pemtts
shall be tssued by the County of RIvers(de for any parcels ~tthtn the
subject tract unttl the developer, or the developer's
successors-In-Interest provided evidence of compliance wtth the terms of
said Development Agreement No. 5 for the financing of public facilities.
Prtor to the tSsuance of OCCUPANCY PERNITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Ftgure III-28 of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. (Amended by
Planntng Comlsston 9-28-88) -
b. All landsca tng and Irrigation shall be ~nstalled tn accordance with
approved p~ans pr(or to the tssuance of occupancy permits,
seasonal conditions do not permtt planting, tntertm landscaping a~
eroston control measures shall be uttltzed as approved by the Planning
Director and the Dtrector of Butldtng and Safety.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23Z03, Amended No. 1
Page Z1
All landscaping and Irrigation shall be Installed tn accordance wtth
approved plans and shall be vettried by a Planntng Department fteld
Inspection.
d. Not withstanding the preceding conditions,the hetghts of all requtred
walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
e. Concrete stde,alks shall be constructed throughout the subdtvtslon tn
accordance ~lth the standards of O~dtnance 461 and Spectftc Plan No.
199 Amendment No. 1.
Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision tn accordance
vtth the standards of Ordinance 460 and Spectftc Plan No. Z99
Amendment No. 1
Development of Tentative Tract No. 23t03 Amended No.~ conform to shall
comply vtth the provisions of Spectf(c Plan No, Z99 Amendment No. ~ and
Development Agreement No. 5.
KG:mp
KENNETH !,, [DWARDI
~X41IF IN~INIIR
Illl M&RKL"'F ITRwL""F
P. O. BOX !OIl
VHONE (714) 717-1011
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVIRIIDL gAI-IImORNIA IIlOl
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regtonel Team No.
Re:
bea: '~-c~l~ V-if,),
have reviewed this case end have the following comments:
'7'r~c/- 231 o 3
A..,,,dod N:'. I
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project ts considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stattng, 'All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in
regul art ons.
Area
accordance with the applicable r~les and
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The Dtstrtct's report dated ~'Hke 1'7, (9~t$ Still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Chief Engineer
30HN. H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
DATE: ~ef( . 3?,
KINNITH I_ IDWARDI
~llllF I;NiINKIR
IIII MARKIt' I/RIll'
P. O. BOX 1013
TII. lYNONI (714) 7174011
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVIIIIIDI, gAI. II~ORNIA
June 17, 1988
lttverside.County
Planning Department
County 3~dministrative Center
Riverside, California 92501
Attention=
Specific Plan
Kathy Gifford
Ladies end Gentlemen
Re: Tract 23103
This is a pro~osa/'to divide about 29 acres in the Temecula
Valley area. The site is along the west side of Butterfield
Stage Road. This tract is within Specific Plan 199 for which
the drainage plan has been approved.
Our review indicates that the area consists of well defined
ridges and natural watercourses that traverse the property from
the east to the west. The applicant proposes to accept these
offsite flows across Butterfield Stage Road with culverts and
daylight the flows in their natural paths on the property.
Onsite flows would be drained with streets.
Following are the District's recommendations=
1. This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage
fees shell be paid as set forth under the provisions of
the "Rules and Regulations for ~lministration of Area
Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988=
a. Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
am part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certi~icate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map~ or
b. At~he option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
qnired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
ok ices, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit or building permit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be first obtained after the recording
oE the subdivision final map or parcel mapw provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
.exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Tract 23103
- 2 -
June 17, 1988
o
ge
have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3
year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that .parcel which remain active.
Adequate ~nlets end outlets should be provided t~ the
proposed culverts under Butterfield Stage Road. The ap-
propriate capacity of the culverts should be provided.
Erosion protection should be provided along all the fill
slopes which are exposed to the potential erosion
hazards.
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shell be kept free
of buildings and obstructions".
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation of the final map.
All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street
or an adequate outlet.
The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the
curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained
within the street right of way. When either of these
criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities
should be installed.
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows.
Additional emergency escape should also be provided-
The property's street and lot grading should be designed
in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural
drainage petterns with respect to tributary drainage
area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a
drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows· A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prior to the recordation of the final map.
[(
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re= Tract 23103
June 17; 1988
10. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented
immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition
of debris onto downstream properties or drainage
facilities-
Development of this property should be coordinated with
11- the development of adjacent properties to ensure that
watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not
diverted from one watershed to another. This may require
the construction of temporary drainage facilities or
offsite construction and grading-
12 A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
' map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map- Grading plans should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits-
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang
of this office at 714/787'2333-
Very truly yours,
Community Services
Engineering, Inc-
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
· ~ En inee
~O~H...(ASHUBA
enior Civil Engineer
RCzsef
R 335-146-50
.3une 7~ 1988
ltiversi~e County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
ltiverside, CA 92501
Attention:
Reference:
Mr. Rcm Goldman:
Tentative Tract No. 23103 - Lot 18
Variance for Lot Depth to Width Ratio
Dear Mr. Goldman:
We are rec/uesting a variance from the County of Riverside in regard to
Ordinance 460, Section 3.8.C. for Lot 18 of Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amend
Map No. 1. This section requires that the lot depth shall not exceed 2 1/2
times' the lot width.
Upon reviewing the proposed tentative, the County of Riverside Road Department
has stated that no vehicular access will be allowed from private property onto
Butterfield Stage Road. We can ordy provide access to the area previously
known as Lot 19 by combining Lots 18 and 19. This single lot has its access
ordy from Street "C".
By not combining these two lots, the area previously known as Lot 19 be:trees
inaccessable and virtually land locked. Based on these conditions and
requirements, we therefore, rec/uest a variance from aforementioned section of
Ordinance 460.
Thank you for your help in expediting this matter.
Very truly l~urs,
/Bill~
B /em
Rick Hie:, Marlborough Development
Bob Brink, Turrini and Brink, Planning Consultants
Riverside County Planning Comtsston
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
OFFICE OF ROAD COMM!$$1ONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR
July Z2, 1988
COUNTY ADMINIITRATIVI: CENTER
MAILING AODREIIt Im.O. BOX
IIIVlfllO[, CALlerOWNI · IIIOZ
TiklemNONi 1714l 717o1114
Re: Tract Nap 23103 - Amend
Schedule A - Team SP
Ladies and Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the
following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement. Standards (Ordinance 461).
It is -understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, and that their mission or unacceptabtlity may require the map
to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding
as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road
Commissloner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall' be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by
both, All drainage easements shall be shobm on the final map
and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachmerits by land fills are allowed". The
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage flowing onto or through the site, in the event the
Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage
pul~oses, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460
wt apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capecity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage
facilities as approved by the Road Department.
'Trgct Hap 23103 - Amend
,3uly 22, 1988
.Page 2
3, Ha3or dratnage ts involved on 'this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Deparment,
4, Butterfield Stage Road (including R~O site) shall be Improved
within the dedicated .right of way in accordance with County Standard
No. 100, (43'/55').
5, "C" Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in
6
accordance with County Standard No, 103, Section A, (44'/6'),
6, "B" and "S" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right
of way tn accordance with County Standard No, 104, Section A, (40'/
60').
7, The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on Butterfield Stage
Road at the .intersection with "C" and "S" Streets as approved by
the Road Department,
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif,
Water District prior to the recordation of the final map.
The maximum cent·tithe gradient shall not exceed 15%,
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the
Road Department,
The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall
be 35 feet or as approved by the Road Commissioner,
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County
Standards·
Men blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a
debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of
way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved.by the Road
Commissioner,
Tract I~p 23103 - Amend
Juqy Z2, 1988
Page 3
4·
7·
The mtntmum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
of curb.
Concrete stdevralks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision
in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
Prior to the ~ecordatfon of the final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
$150.00 per lot'as mitigation for traffic signal impacts· Should
the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into
a ~rttten agreement with the County deferring said payment to the
time of issuance of a building permit.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending
a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and
alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner.
Completion 'of road improvements does not imply acceptance for
maintenance by County.
~8. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
0·
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less-than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt
emulsion shall confom to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State
Standard Specifications.
Standard cul-de-sacs and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed
throughout the landdivision.
Comer cutbacks in confonnance with County Standard No. 805 shall
be shown on the final map and offered for dedication.
Lot access shall be restricted on Butterfield Stage Road and so
noted on the final map.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets
shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope
easements as approved by the Road Department.
All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50'
tangent measured from flow line.
Tract Nap Z3103 - Amend
~u~y 22, 1988
Page 4
64
8,8
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinate with TR 23100, TR 23101 and SP 199.
Street lighting shell be required in accordance with Ordinance 460
and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA)
Mmtntstretor determines whether this proposal qualifies under an
existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall
'file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of
a 'Lighting Assessment Otstrtct" in accordance with Governmental
Code Section 56000.
All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this
pro~ect shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the
street improvement plans.
A striping plan is required for Butterfield Stage Road. Traffic
signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all
incurred costs borne by the applicant.
The landdivider shall comply with this department's recommendations
for SP 199 as outlined in our letter dated June 2, 1988.
GH:lh
Very truly yours,
Gus Hughes
Road Division Engineer
~Mmass I ~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
HRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CAIJFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
RAY HEBRARD
FIRE CHIEF
9-20-88
FLAh'Ifi. HG DEPARTMENT
TF..&H l, KATHY GIFFORD
I.E: I/23103
Planning & Engineering Office
4080 lemon S~reeg, &airs I I
Riverside. CA 92501
(714) 787.6606
~tth respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance vtth Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "C" fire protection approved standard flre hydrants, (6"x4"x21") located
one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 660 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion of any 'lot frontage more than 330 feet from'a hydrant.
Hintmum fire flo~ shall be 500 GPH for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.~
Applicant/developer shall furnlsh one copy of the rarer system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall
be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local rarer company
vith the folioring certification: "I certify that the design of the water system
is in accordance vith the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Dept."
The required rarer system including fire hydrants shall be 1natalled and accepted
by the appropriate vater agency prlor to any combustible butldin2 material being
placed on an individual lot.
HITICATION FEES
Prior to the recordation of the final m~p, the developer shall deposit vtth
the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection impacts. Should the .developer choose to defer the time
of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of a buildin2 permit.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
KAYMONDH. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Geor2e Tatum, Deputy Fire Marshal
. TO: liVERSIDE COUITrY PLANNING DZPT. DATE: June 23, 1988
RE: 'TRACTF~P 23103, Amended No. 1
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Tract ~ap 23103, Amended
No. 1. Our current comnents will remain as stated in our
letter dated April 18, 1988.
SM:tac
dUN 27 1988 '~ "
RIVEtibeu~ COUNTy
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
oe ·
L-/0 , LIIdlll
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
RIVERSIDE COUNTy
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Alan: Kathy Gifford
i,,smmm
i,If., CA Ilia1
t04lOll
los IOUTe4 IUENd. VilTd~
lIBIT
fiEIT. CA 9E343
RE; Tract Map 23103; Being a portion of the Rancho Temecula
granted by the government of the United States of America to
Luis Vignes by patent dated January 18, 1860. and recorded
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County.
California in Book '1 of patents at Page 37 and a portion of
the Rancho Pauba Government of the United'States of America
to Luis Vignes by patent dated January 19. 1860 and recorded
in the office of the San Diego County Recorder in Book I at
Page 45.
(19 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map
No. 23103 and recommends that:
4%-!01 I ITSEEl
~0, GA I~JOl
LdkKE ELleNOral., ~t. llllO
fALl IPlllll
flllll
PilqlS. CA liEtO
1"10 L~DEN ~
S811 MllStO~ ILVD.
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prindts of the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale
not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
joint specifications, and the size of the main
at the junction of the new system to the
existing system, The plans shall comply in
all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of
the California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General
Order No. 103 of the Public .Utilities Commission of the
State of California, when applicable.
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Kathy Gifford
April 18, 1988
The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and
water company with the following certification: "I
certify that the design of the water system in Tract
Map 23103 is in accordance with the water system
eMpansion plans of the Rancho California Water District
and that the water service,storage and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to
such tract. This certification does not constitute a
guarantee that it will supply water to such tract at
any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose". This certification
shall be signed by a responsible official of the water
company. _Tl~_~_~!~n~_m~-~
to th~_E~M!~!_[~E_!h~-
This Department ~as a statement from the Rancho California
Wate.r D~strict agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the
final map.
Th~s Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water District agreeing' to allow the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the sewers of the District. The
sewer system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the District. the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate,
along wlth the original drawing. to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications
and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicating iocation
of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sewer district with the
following certification: "I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Tract Map 23103 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
tract."
!Uclmrd D. Steffey
Pmskkat
James A. Derby
Ralph Daily
Doug Kulberg
Jon A. Ladln
Jeffrey L. Minide
T.C. Rowe
PhilUp L. Forbes
Director of Finance -
Treasurer
Norman L Thomas
Dirwctor of Engineering
Thomas R. McAliester
Dizzcl~r of Operations
& Maintenance
Barbara J. Reed
Dimct~r of Administration *
District Seemary
Rutan and Tucker
June 16, 1988
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
PLANN|:,/~ r...E~;..~/F#~.iENT
Reference: Vesting Tract 23103
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingentsupon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Senga P, Doherty
Engineering Services Representative
F012/jkw169f
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRIC~
28061 DIAZ ROAD * POST OFFICE BOX 174 * TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-061'
:IiVE:ibiDE COUntY
PLAnninG DEP, :tClTIEnC
DATE: March 16, 1988
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Duda
load Department
Health - hlph Luehs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
IJLFCO, S Paisley
UoS, Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
APR 2 8 1588 "'
RIVERSiD~ COUNTy
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Riverside County Parks
Agriculture Cor~tsstoner
A~rports Depart-
GROFIT ·
Eas~ H~t c~pal ~ater D~strict
hn~o California Wa~r Dist.
Elstno~ Unton School Dfst.
Te~cula )1on School Dtst.
Sierra Club
~T~S ~
~missioner Binsson
~misstoner )nahoe
Sheriff's )part.
VESTING TRACT 23103 - (Sp P1) - E.A.
32535 - Faarlborough Development Corp. -
Kancho California/Skinner Lake Area First
& Third Supervisorial District - West
Butterfield Stage Road., North of Rancho
California Road - R-A-1 Zone 29 Acres
into 19 lots - Schedule C - (CONCURRENT
CASE SP 199, Amd #1,: CZ 5107,TR 23100,
23101, 23102) (RELATED CASE SP 199,
Margarita Village) '- Hod 120/339 -
923-210-001-6
rlease revlev the case described above, along vith the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for ~ay 16, 1988. If it clears,
'it vlll then 20 to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to~iay 1, 1988 in order that ~emay
include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
Kath~ Cifford at 787-6356
Planner
co~fi~rrs:
The Elsinore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded
and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing student
population caused by new residential, commercial and industrial con-
struction. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section
53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, this district levies a fee against all new
development projects within its boundaries.
DATE: SIGNATURE ~ ~~-:.~"
wwaqw .r4., .... o,A ~4+~- Joseph . Superintendent
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
120/8/eg
Municipal er Dis ric
Aprfl 15o 1988
RIverside County Planntng Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
RIverside, California 92501
SUBJECT: VESTING TRACT 23103 (Gtfford)
The DtstrtCt ts responding to your request for covenants on the subject
project(s) relatlve to the provision of eter and seer service. The items
checked below appl~ to thts project revtew.
The subject project:
not wtthtn EMWD's:
X water servtce area
seer se~vtce area
Flust be annexed to thts Dtstrtct's Improvement Dtstrtct No. in order
to be e1191ble to receive domesttc wa'ter/sanltary sewer $erv'~.
Wtll be requtred to construct the following facilities:
a.) rarer Se~vtce
b.) Seer Servtce Conwnents ere submitted to RIverside Co. (Feb.,
15, 1988) regarding SP 199 - Am el. Thts ts to reiterate those comments that
seers are to be graytry, regionally stzed and no seers will be allowed on
prtvate lands, or along lot. lines. They are to be tn streets.
....... · ~__. Ace._ a._ see . u__., ~.::t...;. ae.,-q , 'r,l,,~k^Re I'/t41 925-7676
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page Three
ATTN: Kathy Gifford
!uEve~or's QLfice t~ Eeviiw St le!st tw~ weeks ~rior tothe
request Lor the recoE~a~i~n ~f the final ma~.
It vill be necessary for financial arrangements to be made
prior to the recordation of the final map.
Environmental Health Services
SM:tac
ATTACHMENT 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
C
IT
Y
0F
TEM
ECULA
lune 15, 1992
Brian Esgate
Community Engineering Services, Inc.
5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Suite 360
Riverside, CA 92S07
Notice of City Council Approval for the Second Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract .Map No. 23103
Dear Mr. Esgate:
The City of Temecula City Council, at its meeting of May 26, 1992 approved your request for
an extension of time for an 18 lot residential subdivision on 29.2 acres on the proper~ generally
located on the west side of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho
C~lifornia Road in Temecula.
This second extension of time will expire on November 8, 1992, unless extended pursuant to
Ordinance No. 460 of the City of Temecula and the provisions of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act.
If you have any questions n~garding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at
(714) 694-6400.
Sincerely,
k Rhoades
Associate Planner
Debbie Ubnoske
Senior Planner
klb
4,5174 BUSlNE.~ PARK DRIVE · TUaCtU.A. CALIPORNIA (:J~SgO · PHONE (114) 694-1989 · FAX (714) 694-1999
CONDrrlONS OF AFPROVAL
S'~TA.PFRFra31(I~VTM,CC ~
ATTA 2
CrrYOFT ZLr'ULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
City Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
May 26, 1992
November 8, 1992
Unless predously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordin:nC~ No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth
in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a
Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No.
663, the applicant shall pay the fee nxluired by the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning ~r verification that Section 10.35 of
Ordinance No. 460 has been satisfied regarding payment of parks and recreation fees in
accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. Verification shall be submitted
prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the
project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of
compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundrr, d dollars
($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public libx-ary
development.
This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23103 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is November 8, 1992.
The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract
Map No. 23103 (see attached) except as amended hcrein.
TEIVIECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant or hi.~ assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 0.23 acres of parkland to satisfy Quimby requirements. The amount to
be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to the recordatien
of said map.
s~.pr~m~v.m. cc 10
may bc dedie,-esd street shah be offered with an easement to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD mndaxds and completion of the application
process. All slope and open space areas shall be identified by numbered lot, with the
square fontage of said areas noted on the final map. (Struck and xL=vised at the Planning
Commi.~sion meeting on March 16, 1992).
DEPAR~ OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following 'are the Depamnent of Public Works sdd~ion,1 COnd~tlons Of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding
the true mpsning Of the ccm,'i~ons shall be icf6,,~! to tim ap~op~zts staff person of the
Dcpamncnt of Public Works.
and their omission may require the project m be renbmin~ for ~ revicw an~
revision.
The subdivider shall comply wigs all previous Conditions Of Approval for this project
except as amended or supeneded herein. -
PlYfOR TO I~OI~nATION OF TI~- FfNAY. MAP:
Punuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any subdivision which is part of
an existing .~qessment Distria must comply with the m~rements of said section.
Subdivider shall dcposk with thc City of Temecuh an amount suffi~ to cover the
construction of that portion of Butterfield Stage Road between where the "west~.l~[Z ,/.
property line intersects with the westerly fight-of-way line and extends to intersect with
the ccnterlinc of the street. This portion of Buncrfield Stage Road shall be completed
by the developer of Tract Map No. 23209, and said funds shall be reimbursed to the
developer of Tract Map No. 23209 upon complction of thc improvcmcnts.
The vertical design of Bunerfield Stage Road shall be as appwved by the City of
Temecuh.
Maintenance for slopes, drainage devices and open space areas must be provided by
Tcmceula Co,..,..uaity Sc, ~iccs Di~t. let or the Homeowncn Association. The limits of
each maintenance area must be defined by numbei, t.d lots on the map. (Stuck at the
Planning Commission meeting on March 16, 1992).
A median island shall be shown on the street impwvement plans and shah be constructed
within Butterfield Stage Road per City standard No. 100 and as directed by the
Depamnent of Public Works, or bonds shall be posted, as pan Of the street improvement
plans.
swr^~,t-nnxmv-rM.cc 11
Prior to lsp,oncs of nraeihlg Pca'miR:
Prior to i~,,,,,,e of a gnding pea'hilt, developer must obtain a National Pollutant
DiscMIX~ ln]iminsriOll System (lCPDItS) permit from the State Water Resources Control
]],oard. NO grading shall b~ ~ tllltil a h'PDP. S 1~ is grlllt~d or the projea is
shown to Iz sxanpt
DsveJop~ shall pay any ¢mpital 'fee for mad impmvsngmts and public facilities imposed
upon th~ piolx4ty or pro~ect, including that for tnfffic mad pubtic facifity miiigstlon as
be in the smount in effect st dz dme oflm)mzmt ofthe fee. I/sam or fiul pub~c
flCifity mitipiiOn f~ or diltfict ~ IRR bgR~ ~ t,~shliels~ by t[~ ~ oil which
dsvelotgr mtue~ts its building permits fox' tim lax~jeet or any phass thm~sof, tim ¢isvelolxsr
shall sxscute the ~sm for pryrant of Pubtic Facility f~, a copy of which has bc~n
provided to develotgr. Concurf~y, with excreting this ~ent, cksvelopcr shall
post uauity to secttin paymint of the Public Faci]ity f~. 1~ mount of the security
shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to {accmt $I0,000. Deve. lopl~r undmlancis that said
Agre~l~nt may r~lui~ ~ paymlmt of f~e.s ill eaters of thOS~ now e~-timared (assuming
benefit to the project in the atomrot Of suet fees). By ~ec~,ficm of dis ~~t,
developer will waive any fight to protest tl~ provisions of thil Condition, of this
~ent, the forumion of tuy traffm impact fee district, or th~ pnx:ess, ~vy, or
collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this proj~:t; provided that
cieveloper is not waiving its fight to protest the msonableness of any traftc impact fee,
and the amount thex~of.
sxs'rAnt-nmmv.rstcc 12
ATTACHMENT I I
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
C!ty. Cmmctl Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
May 28, 1991
November 8, 1991
Plannine 'Department
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. the
applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No, 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set. forth in that ordinance, Should Ordinance No. 663 be
superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the
payment of the fee required by Ordinance No, 663, the applicant shall pay the
fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County
ordinance or resolution,
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section
10.35 of Ordinance No, ~60 has been satisfied regarding payment of parks and
recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~60.
Verification shall be submitted prior to issuance of any certificate of
occupancy.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the devetoper's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A
cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per let/unit shall be deposited with
the City as mitigation for public library development·
This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23103 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date.
unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~60. The expiration date is
November 8, 1991.
The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. Z3102 (see attached) except as amended heroin.
Enaineerina Department
The following are the Engineering DeIDartrnent Conditions of Approval for this
projet1;, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103
It is understood that the Doveloner mrrectly shows all existin9 easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, 'and their omission may require the proices to be
resubmitted for further mnsideration,
/
6. The Developer shall comtDiy with the State of California Subdivision Map A~
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall 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, q60,
Submit letter from adjacent property owner that the proposed drainage on
their property is acceptable to them,
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
As deemed n ,bY.- - .,y by the City Engineer m' his representative the developer
shall receive written r. Jearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District:
Eastern Municipal Water District:
.Riverside County Flood Control district:
City of Temecula Firs Bureau:
Planning Department:
Enginesring Department:
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department,
10.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication *~,
the public and shall c~ntinue in force until the City accepts or abandons su,
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approve by the
City Engineer,
11.
12..
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Butterfield Road and so noted on the
final map.
Easements, when require for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
13.
A declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (CCI;R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSR's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCi;Rss shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CC~R's shall be subject to the following conditions:
STAFFRPT\VTM23103
2
a. The CC~;R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CCI~R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and stall incluae
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CCF, R's and Articles of incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are aubjegt te the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded =oncurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCSR's shall provide far the effective establishment. operation.
management, use, repair and maintenance of ell common areas and
facilities.
f,
The CC~;R's shell provide that the H, cq-;-Ly shall be developed.
operated and maintained so as net ta create a public nuisance.
The CCE;Rss shall provide that if the i-.~P~ tY is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCiRss, then the City. after making due
demand end giving ,/~. ~r.,mble notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the ow,,., 's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCi;Rss or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor air the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
i. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further
subdivision of any late, whether they are lettered lots or
numbered lots.
ii.
All parkways. open areas. and landscaping shall be pemanently
maintained by t,~,,,awner*s asrdaciation or other muns ac=aptable
to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted
to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of
building peruate.
The developer. or the developer*s su~:essor. shall execute a current Public
Facilities Agreement with the City air Tern,cole which provides for*the payment
of the sum air money per residential unit than established by Resolution of the
City Council. prior to the issuance of any building permits for any individual
tots o
15.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in confence with applicable City standards.
Street improvements. including. but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter. medians. sidewalks. drive appr~aaches. street lights.
ST A FFR P T\ VTM23103
3
16.
17.
18.
19.
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
Storm drain facilities.
Landscaping { street and parks ),
de
ee
Sewer and dane·tic water systems,
Undergrounding of existing and prop-~--I utility distribution lines.
The strtet deign and improvement ~,ncept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights ·hall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
~nce with the standards of Ordinance hie. ~61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to ,,l~- _~tion of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Dal~Brtment a cash sum as established, per. lot. as mitigation
towards traffic aignBl impel4. Should the devebper choose to defer the time
of payment .of traffic signal mitigation fee, he my enter into · written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of .a
building permit.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
20.
21.
22..
23.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
The subdivider shell submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department, The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as maybe additionally provided for in these Conditions-
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 21l' x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
A geological report shall be prepared by · qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the tim of application for grading plan ~heck.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities ·hall be in·tailed as required by the City Engineer.
STAFF RP T\ VTM23103
26.
27.
28.
,
On-site drainage facilities, iocateci outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
II
added to the final map stating Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map. along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submi~ced to the
Riveraide County Flood Control DistriCt; for review.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of attest improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
29,
30.
31.
Prior to any worlc being formed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office-
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
A'~iood mitigation charge shall be paid· The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the am of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits,
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has-already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDINC PERMIT:
32.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval, The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
33. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code. City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. Th'~
final grading ptan shall be in substantial conformante with the approved rough
grading plan.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but nat limited to, curb and
gut. tar, A,C. pavement. sidewalk, drive appr~tchss, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
36.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal ) shall be ,pplied nat less than lU days foliowin,
placement of-the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0. 05 gaIN
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform tJ~ Section Nos. 37. 39. ~. ~
9~ of the State Standard Specifications.
37,
Developer stall I~y any capital fee for reed improvements and public facilities
impa~ecl upen the prape'ty or project. including th~ for traffic and public
: f
facility .mitigation as requ'rtcl under the EIRINegative Declaration or the
project. in the amount in affect st the tim of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mltig,tion fee or .district ha not ben finally
established by the d~te on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof. the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee. a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands thst eaid Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of these now estimated (asuming benefit to the
project in the ,mount of such fees ) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation Enaineerina
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
38.
A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for Chenin Ciinet and Placer Loudeaonne and shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
39.
Condition No. 7 in the County of Riverside Road letter dated July 22.. 19~F~
shall be deleted.
Prior to designing any of the above, plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
Condition No. 28 in the County of Riverside Road leer dated July 22, 1988
shall be modified to read: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by
a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield
Stage Road and shall be included with the street improvement plans.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and demur
or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plans.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103
6
· COUNTY PLANKING DEPARTKENT
SLIDIVISIOII
COKDTTZONS OF APPROVAL
TRACT lID. ~1D3
DATE: g-Za.-88
AJiL:ND[D NO. 1
STANDARi)
The subdivider shall defend, Indemnify, and bold harmless the County of
Riverside. tts agents, Officers, and .emplol~es fr~, any claim, action. or
proceeding agatns~ the CounTY Of IUverstde or t~ agents officers, or
emplol~es to attar. t, set estde, void. or annul an approval otl the County
of Riverside, 1Is adviso agencies, aT,as1 boards or legislative body
concerning Tentative Tract ~Z03, kneaded No. 1, ~nich action is brough~
about vi~htn the tim period provided for tn California Government Code
Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside trill promptly nottry the
subdtytder of any such clatla, action, or proceeding against the County of
Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. [f the County fails
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim. action. or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, tndmtfy, or hold harmless the
County of Rtverst de.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with ~he State Of California
Subdivision Pap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 46D, Schedule
B, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally app~oved refitalive map will expire the yea~s after the
County of Riverside Board of Supe~viso~ approval da~e, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460. .
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor sublet, to
the .reQuirements of the S~sle of California' Subdivision Pap AC~ and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils repo~ ~o the Riverside
County 5urve~or's Office and t~o copies to the Department of Building and
t stability and geological
Safety. The repo~ shall address the so ls
conditions of the site.
If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the DepaF12nent of Building and Safely. The
lan shall comD~y with the Uniform Building Code. ~hapter 70. as ended
Cy Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions Of approval.
.Bulldine l; Safety Department
Submit approved tract mp to the Department of Building and Safety far
addressing prier to submittal for Structural Plan Review.
r45, Obtain land Use and Building Department clearances, '--
~6, School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District,
STAFFRPT%VTM23103
..)
Conditions of Approval
'Ten~'~tve lract No. Z3ZD3, Amended No. 2
Page 2
7, A grading parwit shall be 'obtained from the Department of Bullcling and
Safety prior to cameo·cement of any grading outside of county mtntatned
f
road i-lght · air,
8, Any delinquent proper~ tans shill be paid irior to record·tin· of the
fins1
g. The subdivider shall coorely vlth the street Improvement recomenda~tons
outlined h the Ittverstde County bad Departnent's letter daT. ed 7-Z2-88
copy of vhJch ts atTiclwS,
lO. Legal access ·s required by I:)rdtnlnce 460 shell be proytded from the tract
map boundary to · County mtn~Jtned road,
:Z1. M1 road easements ·hi31 be offered for dedication to the Publtc and shall
· continue tn force unit1 ~he governing bodY accepts or abandons such
offarc. &13 dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Road Counts·Inner. Street names shall be subject to approval 'of
the bad Corals·toner.
Ease·eats, vhen raWtrod for rolckay slopes~ drainage facilities,
ut$1~ttes, etc., shall' be shorn on the final map tf they ere located
~Ithtn the land dive·ton boundary. M1 offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as d~rected by the County
Surveyor.
~.3. TAter ._sad seer·go d~sposal facilities shall be ~nstalled ~n accordance
k~th the provisions set torch ~n the RIverside County Health
letter dated 6-23-88 a copy of vh~ch ts attached.
:~4. The sutxi(v~der shall comply ~rith the flood control recoanendations
outlt~ed by the R~versIde County ~ood Control DtstrIct's letter dated
6-}7-86 9-27-88 a copy of vhtch ts attached. :Zf the land div~s~ofl l~es
vith~n an adopted flood contro1 drainage area pursuant to Sectton .~0.25 of
Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
fac~lttSes shall be collected by the bad Commissioner. (Amended by
Planning Conatss~on 9-28-88)
15. ~he subd¶v~der shaql comply vtth the f~re Improvemat reconfnendat~ons
nullSned tn the County F~re HarshEl's letter dated 9-29-88 a copy of vhtch
4s atTichid,
Subdivision phasing, Including any proposed conwan· open space area
~mprov~nent phase· o tf ·ppltcable, shell be sub:)ect to Planning
1:)apartment apprOVal. Any proposed phsstng shsl~ proYIde for adequate
vehicular access to 8~ lots tn each phase, and sha~l substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tra~t No. 231D3, Amended No. 2
Page 3
17. Lots create by aids subdivision shall cmFly wtth the following:
a M1 lots shall have · stintram size of I acre gross.
b. All lot length to vidth ratios shall be tn conformsace with Section
3.K of 0rdtnance 460.
c. Corner lots and through lots, tf ar~, shell be provided with
additional area pursuant to Section 3,88 of Ordinance 460 and so as
not to contain less net area ha the least amount of net area in
non-corner and thre. ugh lots.
d. Lots created by thts subdivision shall be in conformante with the
development standards of the Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No.
zone.
e. When lots are crossed by ms:Jot public utfltty easenears, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the uttltty easement.
.f. Graded but undeveloped land shall be mtntatned-in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with tntertm landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by
Director of Bu~ldi.ng and Safety.
g. Trash bins, loading areas and tactdenTal1 storage areas shall be
located away and vtsually screened from surrounding areas with the use
of block walls and landscaping.
1B. Prior to RECORDATZON of the final nap the following conditions shall be
"satisfied:
a. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County had and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined 4n the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have been met.
County Fire Department
County Flood Control
County hrks Department
~ncho Water District
County Health Department
County Planning Department
Eastern Puntcipal Water Dist.
b. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, General Plan Amendment
150. Specific Plan No. 199. Amendment No. 1. Development Agreement No.
5, and Change of Zone No. 5107 shall be approved by the Board of
Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land
.)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103. Amended No. 1
Page 4
dtv~ston shall be tn conromance ~ith the develoFInen~ s,~andsrds otr ~:he
lone ultbetely applted to the proper'~y,
All extsttng structures
recorattoa of the f~nml
%mpacto to the Tamecalm Elementary and L'!stnore Unton H4gh School Dtst~ct
shall be adttgated at the develolaenT, application stage tn accords,ca wt~h
the dtst~ict Imoltc~es,
The cannon open space am shall be shone as a numbered lot on the ftnal
mp and shall be artaged by a master proper~y owners assoctat4on
(Amended by Planntng Coafissten 9-28-88)
~4X--~-v~--l~r--C~m~-'rmmTrTe~r ?'A~nded by Planning Conwnisston
9-28-88)
~,~.,e,~laclar~~~r~~~~~~~- (Amended
by Planntng Comm.~ssion 9-29-88) ...
Planning ~ss~o~ ~-~)
Planntng Cmtss~on 9-Z~88)
~4~~~~~-6ppl~ (~ed b~ Planntng ~sston
9-2~88)
Cm~sston ~2~88)
Conditions of Apl~oval
TenUthe Tract No. 23203,/mended No. :1
Page S
mi4e~tenaesl Issess...erA;. M ats!llLlRt-~4ees-eeee-cre~tea~-r~eq4-4~e-
fr4er-Ce--&lq--Kka'l. :t4ass ;l:gl;.dld-subsaqeent--4;e--~ke--e~t4ce--e4r-
FIEISS..IR~ I:. ~t~4F IflEk.'lee~lL.l.lt(ng 4}ks tCstss._ent-4~e~. (Amended
bJr Plannteg Camdsston e-28-88)
qqlds-OecA4~4en-lkmll eet-be-44en4~-Jsvbstint4,14~J--.&.~ndz~-er
(Amended by Placates Commission 9-28-88)
~e-{~e- evetiC-e(- ~ ee~4q4t~- betveee-{Hs- ~-cqeret4~r~ e~ -~+~- ~-t4t-l~s
e(-4ece~pe, ct4e~-{he-&ylt~s-er-{he-~rapc. {~,..c r~-fissec4a'~4~41rles
.e-d-.RettRet,+m~,-.+.r.-t.r~-,t'+H~ht-t~~~t~ o1%~- (Amended by
Planntng COmmission 9-28-88)
22.
(AlP, eric:led b,y Planning Eon:ntsston ~-28-88)
Prtor to the recordalton of the finaq map, the subdivider shall convey tu
the County ~ee s~mple Stile, to all coneon or comon open space areas,
free and clear of all 1tens, taxes,- assessment, leases (recorded and
unrecorded) and easements, except those easements vhtch tn the sole
d(scret(on o~ the County are acceptable. As a conditions precedent to the
County accepttn9 Stile to such areas, the subdivider shall submtt the
~ollowtng documents, to the Planntng Department for raytaw, whlch
documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the
Of~tce of the County Counsel: (Amended by Planntng Commission 9-28-B8)
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restricttons; and (Amended
by Planet rig Comisston 9-28-88)
z)
A sample document conveying tttle to the purchaser of an Individual
lot or unlt ~htch provtdes that the declaration of covenants,
conditions and restrictions ts Incorporated thoretA by reference.
CAmended b~ Planntng Comtsston 9-28-88)
The declaration o~ covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
revtew shall (a) provtde for a term of COy ears, (b) provtde for the
establishment of a property okmers' association comprised of the ovners of
each Individual lot or untt and (c) coneta the Solloving provisions
verbatim: (Amended by Planntng Comisston 9-28-88)
C~ndttlens of Approval
· [enutlve Tr&~'c Ira. 23103, ;mended No. 2
Page 6
"eotvithstandtng e~y prortston tn ~ts kcla~tt~ ~ the contra~, the
1
lollMug p~vtston mll ePF (laded b~ Plsnntng ~ss~on
~e p~~ ~e~ us~8tt~ ~bltsh~ ~n shaql, tf do~n~,
-k a~1vsted, b~ ln~, ~, att~ ~ o~e~se,. at ~e ~West of the
of R~ve~de, u~n t~ ~un~'s
u~dltt~a11~ ac~t f~ ~ ~ ~ a~' m~
of ~~ c d h o ~e
~e declst~ ~
~ttle ~ the 'c~ a~a' sell k at ~ sole titstation of the
~unty of RSve~tde. · (Mnded by Planntng ~tss4on 9-2~88)
Xn the event that the connon area, or any part thereof, 4s conve~ed to
the property o~ners' assoc4atton, the assoctat4on, thereafter shall
oMn such :connon area., shall ranage and cont4nuously mathlain such
'camon area', of any pert thereof, absent the prior ~4tten consent
of. the Planntng D~rec~or of the County of R~vers~de or the County's
successoT-~n-~nterest- The property oreera' association shalq have
the r4ght to assess the mme~s of each ~nd4vtdua~ ~ot or un4t for the
reasonable cost of ma~ntain4n9 such 'comma area'. and sahll have the
r~ght to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the
payment of a ma4ntenance assessment. An assessment 1ten, once
created, shall be prtor to all othe~ 1tens recorded subsequent to the
nottee of assessment or other document c~eating the assessment 1ten,
(Amended by Planning Connisston g-Za-88)
't'hts DeclaratIOn shaql not be terminated, 'substantially' amnded or
property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the
Planning D~rec~or of the County of R~vet~(de or the County'~
successor-In-Interest- A proposed amencLment shall be considered
'substantial' If tt affects the exten~, usage or maintenance of the
'connon area', (.Amended by Planning Conn~sston 9-28-88)
In the event of any conr!tct betMean thts Declaration and the Arttcles
of Zncorporatton, the Bylaws, or the property wners' association
she11 control · ·
Rules and Regulations, tf any, thts Declaration
{Amended by Planntng Conntsston 9-28-88)
Once approved, the decqaratlon of covenants, conditions and restdcttons
shall be recorded at the same time that the f~nal map ts recorded-
(Amended b~ Planntng Cmmtsston 9-28-88)-
Conditions of Apparel
7enUtJve Tract No, 23203, Mended
Page 7
24.
25.
The. developer shall comply with the foilrating park,el landscaping
conditions and $1mclfic Plan b. 3Jg, Mendsant No. 1:
2)
2)
3)
!~tor to r~cor~tton of the fi~al mp ~ develo~r shall file an
appltu~ton ~ ~ ~n~ for ~ fomtton ~ or anneu~ton ~o, a
~y mtn~~ dt~ for lenUttve Trct ~. 23202 tn
a
accordance with the Landscaping and Ltghtlng Ac~ of 2972, unless the
project ts withtm an extsttng parbl~ staten·ace dts+.~tct~.
I~tor to the lssuance of buriallag permits, the developer shall secure
aplroval of I~oposed lsndscaptn and tn-lgatton pleas f~om the .County
Road and Planntng Deparlnent. ~k~l landscaping and t~tgatton plans
and specifications ~h:11 be p~epe~nd tn a Pep~oductble forest suJtable
for peranent ftllng with the County Road Departmen+-.
The developer shall J~st 8 landscape pe~omance bond ~htch shall be
~eleased concurrently with ~ release o~ su~vtston ~Yo~nce
bonds, ~arenUetng ~e vtabJ11~ oY all landscaping ~ch ~33 ~
4asSailed p~or U ~e essu~tton oY ~e mtntenance ~sponstb~lt~y by
~he district,
4)
The developer, the developer's successo~s-tn-tn+.e~est or assignees,
shall be responsible for a31 pa~kvmy landscaping mtn~enance unit3
such ttmas mtnte~n=e ~s ~ken ove~ by the dist~c~. ~
The developer shall be Pesponstble for mtntenance end upkeep of
slopes,."Tandscaped areas and irrigation sTstems unit1 such time as those
operations are the r~sponstbtltl;tes of other pa~ties as approved by the
Planning Dt rector.
Street. 11ghts shall be provtded k,'i~,htn the subdivision in accordance wtth
the standards of C)rdtnance 462 and the follo~ing:
2)
Concurrently vtth the ftllng of subdivision Improvement plans ~tth +.he
Road Depertnent, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed
s+.reet 11ght layout ftrst from the Road Deparment's +.rafftc engineer
and then from the appropriate uttllty purveyor.
2)
Follow4ng approval of the street 11ghttng layou+. by +.he Road
Departaent's trefftc engineer, the developer shall also ftle an
application with LAFCO for the form+.ton of · street 11ghttng
district, or annexation to an extsttng 11ghttng distrio+., unless the
stte ts within an extsttng lighting district..
3)
I~tor +.o record·+.ton of the ftnal mp, the developer shall secure
conditional approval of the street 11ghttng application from LAFCO,
unless +.he stte ts k'lthtn ·n extsttng 11ghttng dts+.rtct,
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Mended
Page 8
26.
All street l~ghts and other ogletoot lighten shall be shown on
~or plan c~k app~al aM sell ~1~ e
v ~de ~ n
Rtve~t~ ~ ~ta~ No. 655 a~ ~e Rt e~ u ~y
~hestve bM s Pla~
~tor ~ the Issuance of G~T~ P[~ h fo31~ng c~dt~4ons sha~ H
satisfied:
a. Prior to the Issuance of grading perwits, deistled corn·on open space
area landscaping and Irrigation plans shall be subedited for Planning
i)eparment approval for the phase of development tn process. The
plans shall be certified by · landscape architect. and sha~ provide
~or the followring.
]). Permanent automat:It 4rrtgal:fon sysl:ms shall be Installed on
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
2) Landscape screening vhere requtred shall be destgned to be opaque up
to a mintmum height of six (6) feet at matu~il:y.
3) All u~ltty service areas and enclosures shaql be screened. from viev
vtth landscaping and decorative barriers or ba~:t'le treemerits, as
approved by the Pl ann~ ng D~ rector. UI;414 ti es she11 be pl seed
underground, .
4) Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide visual screening or a transition tnl;o the primary use area of
the stte. Landscape elaneats shall include earth betrain;, ground
covert shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction vtth .meandering
sidewalks, benches and other perlesir(an amend ties where appropriate as
approved by the Planntng Department and Specific Plan No, Z99
Amendment No, Z,
5) Landscaping plans. shaql Incorporate the use of specimen accent trees
at ~ey vtsual focal points vtthtn the pro;jeer,
6) I/here streets trees cannot be planted vtthtn right-of-way of interior
streets and pro~ect parkways due to insufficient road rtght-of-~aY,
they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-ray.
7) Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate.
s)
All existing specimen trees and sign4ficant rock outcroppings on the
subject property shall be sho~n on the project's grading plans and
shall note those to be removed, reqocated and/or retatne~.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tracz No, Z3:[03, Mended
Page 9
29.
30.
g) . All trees shall be fintame double staked. iieaker snd/o~ slow Faring
trees shall be steel staked.
&11 extsttnl natlye spedmen trees en the subject property shall be
preserved .her,vet foulbit. llhere they cannot be preserved they shall be
relocated or replaced ~4th spectmen trees as approved by the Planntng
DIrect. or. It, placement. trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans.
~f the pro:iota Js to be phased. pr4of to the approval of gradtrig perrates.
an overall conceptoal red4ng plan shall be subedited to the Planning
Dtrector for approvaIW. The plan shall be used as a guideline for
subsequent dealtled grading plans for tndlv~dual phases of development and
shall tnclude the folioring:
Techniques .htch yell* be uttltzed to prevent eraston and sedimentslion
during and after the grading process.
z)
Approximate ttme frames for grading and Identification of areas vhich
my be graded during the htgher probabtlt-ty rein months of ~lanuary
through Parch.
3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4) Areas of temporary grading outstde of I particular phase.
Prior to the tssuance of grading permits, the developer shaql provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent
off-stte manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that s~ope
maintenance responstb411ttes have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Bulldin9 and Safety.
Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted H(lqs4de Develoreent .
Standards: All cut and/or f(11 'Slopes, or --~ndtvtdual combinations
thereof, ~h~ch exceed ten feet tn ve~Jcal heights shall be modified by an
appropriate combination of aspectal terracing (benchtng) plan increase
slope ratto (t,e. 3:Z), retaining ~alls, and/or slope plant(ng combined
with Irrigation, A11 driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade.
A11 cut slopes located ad:)acent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding
the frad4ng ~chn~ que$:
2) The angle of the g~aded slope shaql be gradually ad:iusted to the angle
of the natura~ te~ra t n.
~nd~ons of Approva~
~entat~ve ~ract I~. ~3Z~3, Mended
Page ~0
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the
na~m-al rounded
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded v4th curves
destgned tn proportion to the total height of the slopes vhere
dratnage and sUbllttyperadt such rounding.
4) Idhero cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
hortzonUl contours oft he slope shall be curved tn a continuous,
undulattng fkshtoe.
32. Prtor to the tssuance of BUXLD]K6 P[RKZTS the folic~ln9 conditions sha~l
be satisfied:
a. With to the subm4tta~ of bu(lding plans to the !)epar~ment of
and Safe~y the developer v411 demonstrate compliance
acoustical stu~ prepared .for Tract 23103 kneedad No.
esUbltshed appropriate mtt4gltton measures to reduce ambient ~n~erior
no~se levels to 45 ~dn and ex~ertor notse levels below 65 ~dn.
b. ButSdin9 separation between al~ bu(~dings ~nclud~n9 fireplacesshal~
not be less than ten (10) feel
c. A~ street s~e yar~ setbacks sha~ be ~ mininude of ~ ~ee~.
~. In accordance vith the brtt~en request o{ the developer to the C~unty
~ve~s~de, a copy o~ ~ich ts on ~ile, and 4n fur~r. herance o{ the agree,,-mnt
between the developer and the C~unt~ of Riverside, no building pemtts
sha~ be ~ssued by the County o~ ~iverside for any parcels ~ithtn the
subject ~ract until the deve~ope~, or the deve~oper's
successors-in-interest prov~de~ eyidence o~ com;~iance v~th the terms of
said Deve~o;nent Agreement Ho. 5 ~or ~he financing of public fac41~t~es.
34. Prior to the tssuance of OCCUPANC~ PERK~TS the following conditions shall
be s~ttsfted:
a, Wall and/or fence locations shalq substantially conform to attached
Ftgure ZZ}-28 of Specific Plan No. 299 Amendment No. Z. (Amended by
Planning Commission 9-28-88)
b. All landsca ~ng and ~rrtgatton shall be Installed ~n accordance ~ith
ipproved p~ to
ins pr(or the tssuance of occupancy permits.
seasonal conditions do not permit pqant~ng, ~nterim landscaping and
erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning
Director and the D~rector of Building and
Conditions of Approval
Tenalive Tract !to. 23103, Amended No. 2
d. Not withstanding the preceding conditions,the heights of 811 recruited
wells shall be deteradned by the acoustical study uhere applicable.
(~ Concrete stdeutlks stall be constructed throughout the subdivision
accordance utah the seJndards of Ordinance 46:1 and Specific Plan
199 AmendEent lID. 1.
Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision tn accordance
with the stJndarcls of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. 299
kneAdmerit ~. 1
Develo;xnent of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Mended No.1 conform to shall
comply with the provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment, No. 1 and
De~'eloment Agreement No. 5.
K~.:mp
RIVERSIDr COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION
IrZ~m r.l"' f~e , ,IWll'&
Riverside County
P1 arming Depa~Jnent
County Adstat strattve Center
Riverside, C41 tfornta
Attention: bgional Tea No. ill:
Area: '7~,,,c,1~ V.,It,7'
tie have reviewed this case and have the following
~31o 3
Except for nuisance nature local Tunoff ahicb my traverse po~ttons 'of the
property the p~oject is considered f~ee from o~dinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construe-
lion should comply with all applicable onlinances.
The topography of the a~ea consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the .p~operty. The~e is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in onier to maintain the natural
-drainage patterns of the area sod to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an envirnnmental constraint sheet stating, 'A11 new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.'
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the
.regulations.
Area.
applicable r~les and
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
Control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
//The District's report dated ~r,,e 1'7. ~$1Pts still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments mpply.
Very truly yours,
CO:
KE]~ETH L. El)WARDS
Chief Engineer
JOHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
DATE: far( ._~?.
IIAlrlFr 1'11122,r
tell
.|~l.il ¢"/14l
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WA'T~R CONSE:RVATION DISTRICT
mm~m~mmmmt. ma~mm~mmmm~ mmmmm
,anne 17, 1988
itivermide C~unt7
Planning Department
C~unty Administrative Center
Riverside, California 92501
Atten=Lonz Specific Plan
rat~ Giffozd
ladies and Gentlehertz
Bern Tract 23103
This is m propus/~D divide about 29 acres in the Temecula
Valle~ area. The site is alcmg the west side of Butterfield
Stage Road. This tract is within Specific Plan 199 ~or which
the drainage plea'has been approveft.
Our review indicates that the area consists of well defined
ridges and natural watercourses =hat =rayeras the property from
the east to the v~st. The applicant proposes to accept ~heme
offsi~e flows across Butterfield Stage Road w~th culverts and
daylight the flows in their natural paths on ~he property.
Onsite flows would be drained wi~h sT. Teats,
Following'are t~e Disurict's recommendations:
This ~ract is located within the limits of the Murrieta
~reek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan fur which
drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage
fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of
the 'Rules and Regulations for Adminis~ra?_ion of Area
Drainage Plans', amended February 16, 1988z
Drainage fees shall be paid ~o the Road Commissioner
am part of the filing fur record of the subdivision
fins/map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
fine/parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall he
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
~lm parcel map= or
A~ t~e option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
qnired affidavit requesting defermen~ of the payment
of ~u, the drainage fees may be paid =o the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
perndt or building perm/t fur each approved parcel,
whichever my be first obtsined after the recording~
oEthe'subdivision final map or parcel map= provide
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exer=ised f~r any parcel where grading or s~ruc~ures
Riverside Coun=y
Planning Depar~nen=
Re= Tract 23103
June 17, 1988
have been ini~ia~ed on tam parcel within ~e prior 3
2- Adequate inle=s ins out/eta should be provided ~o the
proposed ~alverte unfier lu=tartield S~age Road- The
-propriatm oapaci~7 of t. be oulverU should be provided-
3- Erosion pro=so=Lore should-be provided elong ell ~he fill
slopos which are exposed to ~ potential erosion
hazards ·
4. Onsi~e drainage facili~ies located ou=side of road righ~
of way should be contained wi=hin drainage easemen=s
s~own on the final map. A note should be added ~o the
final map stating, 'Drainage easemenU shall be kep= free
of buildings and obsT. ruc~ions'-
5- Offsite drainage facili~ies should be located
publicly dedica=ed firainage easements obtained from ~he
affected proper=y owners- The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submi==ed =o the Dis=Tic=' prior TaD
recorda=ion of =he final map.
6. All lo=s should be graded ~D drain V~ =he adjacen= sT_Tee=
or-zn adequate ou~le~-
7. The 10 year s=orm flow should be con=aimed within
curb and =he 100 year s=orm flow should be contained
within ~he s~ree= ri~h~ of ray- W~en either of these
cri=eria is exceeded. additional draina~.e facili--ies
should be ins~alled-
8- DTaina~.e facilities outle==ing sump con~itions should be
designed ~o conve~ ~he =ribu~ary 100 year s=orm flows-
Additional emergenc~ escape should 'also be provided-
9. The proper~y's street and lo= grading should be fiesigned
in a manner the= perpe=ua=es =he exis=ing na=ural
drainage patterns wi~h respec~ v~ v. Tibu=ary drainage
area, ou~le~ points and ou~le~ conditions, o~herwise. a
fireimage easemen= should be obtained frmn the affec=ed
proper=y o~ners for the release of concentra=ed or
ver=ed storm flo~s- A copy of the recorded fireimage
easemen= should be submi==ed ~o the Dis=rio= for revie~
prior ~o the recorda~ion of the final map.
Riverside C~unty
planning Depar~nent
Res Trac~ 23103
~une 17~ 1988
Tem~crerY erosion c~ntrol measures shoUld be implem_.~;~e~
10- iatel ~ollo~ing rough grading to preven~ deposi~ic
~anned · sT, Team ~ ~r~ies or drainage
of debris ~n~ d~wn ~ ~'
Devel ant of this ProPert7 'should
11- ~ of ac~t ~~es
~ dew~o~t of ~obs~uc~ and s~~ers ~e nc
~rc~ses r~~ers~d ~ ~t~r- T~s may re~u~
div~d ~ ~e r~Y drainage ~cili~es or
ofbiu ~~uc~on ~ ~ad~g*
12- map al~g ~th su~cr~ng ~dr~l~ic
cula~ons s~d ~ su~~ ~ ~ Dis=ic= via t~ '
~on o~ tM final
of gra
prior ~ iss~nce din
Ouestions concerning ~s m~ter ~? be referred ~ ~bert C~
of t~s office at 714/787-2333-
Ve~ =ul~-yours
co:
Communi=y Services
Engineering, Inc ·
KEI~TETH L. EDWARD$
RC:sef
J
R :~35-14~-5D
1900
are re~estiz~ · varian~ irm the Cmunt7
~d~ 460, ~~ 3.B.C. f~ ~ 18 ~
~ ~e lot wid~. -
~ revi~ ~ ~~ t~ti~, ~ ~ ~ ~rsi~ R~d ~r~
n~ ~~g ~e t~ 1~, ~ area previ~ly
~i~
Yea7 truly yours,
~aNZT~ T~' ZYr_.
c:::: Rick Niec, ~arlborou~ Deve/opment
Bob ~:ink, Turrini an~ Brink, Planning Crmsultants
LeRm/D. $mem
OFFICE OF ROAD CO alM!$SIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR
duly ?.2, 1988
Riverside County Planning Coatssloe
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Tract Map 23103.- Amend
Schedule A - Tea SP
Ladies and Gentlemen:
t~ith respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map, the Road Department recmaaends that the · landdivider provide the
following Street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside C~unty Rold Zmprovement Standards (Ordinance 461).
Zt is ~anderstood thst the tentative map correct13f shows acceptable centerline
profiles. all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, and that their omission or unacceptabJltty my require the map
to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in DE is as binding
as though occurring in a11. They are intended to be complementJr~J and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All question~
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Rc
Commi ssioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the dratnage patterns, t .e., concertira- .
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by
both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the ftnal map
and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or en:roachments by land ffils are allowed". The
protection shall be as approved by the Road DeparTJ~en~.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage flowing onto or through the site· In the event the
Road C~,,,,tssioner permits the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the provisions of Article X1 of Ordinance No. 460
will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage
facilities as approved by the Road Department.
Ir.zc~ Asp Z3],03- Amend dr].
July 22~ ].988
Page 2
3. 1~3or drainage ts 1evolved on this landdivision and t~,s resolution
shall be u rapproved by the Road Deparlnent-
4. lcr~cerfield Stage Road (including RDID site) shell be traproved
within the dedicated .right of -17 tn accordance with County ST4ndard
:ZOO. ('43'/55')-
"Ca Street shell M improved .~thin t~e dedicated Fight of .vary in
6
accordance vith Coun~ Standard No. 103, Section A. (44'/5').
#
6. 'l' and 'S' Streets shall be haproved viihie the dedicated right40
of k~y in accordance krith County Standard No. Z04, Section A. ( '/
60').
7. The landdivider u111 provide · le~ ~ lane on ButtedField Stage
Road at the intersection with ICe and mS- Streets as spp~oved by
the bad Departneat.
T. The lenddivider she1'1 provide u'dl?ty clearance from hncho h~f-
~a~e~ DtsTric~ ~tor ~ W ~co~ion of ~e fjna~ rap.
9. ~e mxJ~ cen~erljne Fadient s~11 ~ ~ceed ~5~.
~e mln?~ cenTe~3~ne ~ldi? shall ~ 3DO' or as app~oved b~ ~he
'Road
~e m~nim~ lo~ fron~ges along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall
be 35 feet oF as appFoved by the bad ~issioner.
~2. A11 drive,ays shall confore to the appqicabqe Rive~ide ~unty
$tanda~s
~en block~lls ape ~quiFed
debris ~tent~on ell shall ~ considered It the street right of
~y line
~i sst oner.
Page
1
The minimum garage setlack shall be 30 feet measured from the face
of curb.'
Concrete sidewalks shall be constroc~ed throughout the landdivision
tn accordance ~h Count~ $Unaard No. 400 and 40X (cur~ sidewalk.).
I~tor ~o the recor~latlon o~ the final map, the developer shall
deposit tdth the Riverside Country Road hparl;nent, a cash sm of
$ZSO. OO per lot'as edttgetlon for traffic signs1 impam. Should
the developer choose t~ defer the ~tae of payment.. he my enter into
a M-titan agreement ~th the County deferring said payment ~ the
tim of Issuance o~ a tmfldtng I~rerlt.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending
a minimum of 300 feet be3mnd the pro;ject boundaries at a grade and
alignment as approved by The Riverside County Road Connissioner.
Completion of road improvements does not ts;ly accepunce for
maintenance by County.
~8. [lectrtcal and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461t Standard 8~7.
Asphaltic maulston (fog seal) sial1 be applied not less Than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at a rate of 0,05 gallon per square yard, Asphalt
emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the
Standard Specifications,
20, Standard cul-de-sacs and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed
throughout the landdivision.
Corner cutbacks in conformante with County Standard No. 805 sial1
be shown on the f~nal map and offered for dedication,
22, Lot access shall be restricted on But~erfield Stage Road and so
noted on the final map,
23, Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent 1~ the streets
shall I~ovide erosion control, sight distance control and slope
easements as approved by the Road Department.
24, All centerline intersections shall be at gO* with a minimum 50'
tangent measured from flow l~ne,
TLJJaI13; )YD'AA~.z.n.L
Tram z, ~ b~z#(gll)
tl 2.~1.03
Vitb respect to the conditions of approval for tin alma referenced %and division,
the Fire Department racemends the fo:LXm4mS fin protect~en measures be provided
· n accordance rich kLverside County Ord4--~ces end/or racepeLted fire protection
st anderda:
Schedule "C" fire protection approveAt standard f~re ~ydrancs, (dexA"xg|e) located
one at each street intersection and spaced us u ore than 660 feet apart in say
direction, v~th us portion of any lot frontage more than 330 feet fram'a hydrant.
l~ln~mum flre floe shall be 500 GP~ for 2 hours ~uration at 20
Applicant/developer sha~ furnish one copy of the rarer system'plans to the
Fire Department for revise. Plans shall conform to tire hydrant types, loteric
and spacing. and. the system shall meet the tire flov requirements. Plans sha3.~
be stgned/approved by s registered civil engineer and the loca~ rarer company
vlch the telloving certification: mI certify that the design of the rarer system
is In accordance vith the requirements prescribed by the riverside County Fire
The required valet system including tire hydrants shaZl be initialed end accepted
by the appropriate valet qency pr~or to any combustible buildLug meter:La:~
placed on an individual lot.
HITICATZON Dg~ES
Pr~or to the recordszion of the final map, the developer 8haZl deposit sixth
the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum st $&0O.00 per lot/unit as ~LciSati
for f~re protection impacts. Should the developer choose go defer the time
of payment, he may enter trite a vrttten agreement vith the County deferring
said paFment to the time of issuance of a building pez~Lt.
k~ questions regarding the meen~nZ o~ Zht conditions sha:LZ he referred to the
Fire Department P:Lanning end Engineering staff.
KAYHDI(DR. BZC~S
Chief Fire Department Planner
Geerim Tatus, Deputy T~ra )tar,ha:~
Page 4
The street design and improvemet concept of this project shell
coordinated with TR 23100, TR 23101 and SP %gg~ '
Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance,.460
and 461 throughout the sulxltviston, The County Service Area (CSA)
Adnrlnistrstor determines whether this proposal qualifies under an.
existing assesmet district or not. If not, the land owner shill
file an application with LARGO for annexation into or creation of
a "Lighting Assessment Dts,trtct" in accordance with Governmetal
Code Section 56000,
All prtvmte and public entrmnces and/or intersections opposite this
pro~ect shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the
street tmprovment plans,
A striping plan is required for Butterfield Stmge had. Traffic
signing and striping shall be done by CounTy forces with
incurred costs borne by the applicant,
The landdivider shall comply with this deparment's reconnendations
for 5P ]~g as out1 teed in our letter dated June Z, 1988.
6H: I h
Very truly yours,
{;us Hughes
Roacl Division Engineer
_j
APR 2 1 988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4080 Lean Street
Riversade.-CX 92502
~Oelee ~m~av
see ~*
kill
taill I,I, IaKIIII, l&.
l&l,I IPIIIIII
Illl,ltll
Attn: Kathy OAtford
R;; Tract Nap 23X03; Being a portion o~ the Rancho Temecula
Vranted by the government o~ the United States of Xmeraca to
Luas Vignes by patent dated 3anuary 18. 1860. and recorded
an the Office of the Cotmay Recorder of San D:ego COtmay.
California an Book 1 of patents at PaVe 37 and a port3Dn Of
the Rancho Pauba Government of the TJnited States of Ameraca
to LuXs Vignes by patent dated 3anuary 39. 1860 and recorded
:n the office Of the San Daego County Recorder xn Book I at
Page
(19 Lots)
Gentlemen:
T~e Department of Public Health has revieved Tenant:re Hap
No. 23103 and recommends that:
A valor system shall be installed accordaug'to
plans and specification as approved by the valet
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prandts of the pla4~s of the voter system shall
be submitted in traplie&to. vith s m~n;mum scale
not less than one inch equals 200 feet. along v:th
the original draving to the County Surveyor. The
prints shaAA ahoy the internal pipe diameter.
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
3oant specifications. ~nd the size of the main
at the 3unction of the nay system to the
existing system. The pll4~l shall comply in
all respects vith DZY. S. Part 1. Chapter 7 of
the California Health and Safety Code. Callroman
ldmanastrat:ve Code. ratio ~2. Chapter 16. and General
Order No. 1~3 of the Public ~tilit:es Commaas:on of the
State of Califmrnaa. vhen applecable.
!eiversSde County Plsnningl::)ept,
Page Tvo
ALAn: Kathy G~fford
Apr~ ~e, ~geO
The plans shall be s2gned by A reg2stered en,o2neer
valor company v~th the/ol~ov~ng certification:
certify %hat the deszgn of the valor system %~ Tract
MAp 23103 it in 'accordance vlth the vatmr system.
and thsL the valor service,storage ~d
such tract. ~8 cert~fScst~on does hot constitute
emirs&Lee thsL ~t v~l s;p~y voter to such trsc~
shy specific qu~t~tSes', flora or pressures for fZre
protectl~ or shy other ,rpoee', h~s cert~t~ctt~on
sAaZZ be s~ed by s reep~s~ble
Vste.r ~2str2ct aFree~hg to serve domestic valor to each
ever~ lot 1~ the subdlv~sSon on demand provid%ng
sst%sfsctory f2nsncla~ Arrangements are compJeted v~th the
arrangements to be made prior to the recordst~on o£
~a~er ]:::)2str:~ct s;ree~nF to Sl~Dv the subc~av~s~o~ soYare
system to be connected Lo the severs of the ~lstrZct. The
sever system shA~ be %~sta~led according to p~s~s And
sl~ec~.~2c&t~ons As Approved by ~he ]:)%strict, the County
&~ong v~th the or2g%nA1 drnv~ng, to the County SuTveyor. The
~r~nts sh&l~ ahoy the ~ntern&l ~pe d~Ameter, location 0£
manholes, complete profiles. pzpe and 3oznt spec%~catzons
And the s~ze of the severs &t the ~unct%on of the hey system
to the existing system. A s~ngle plat %nd2cAt~ng location
o~ sever 11nes And rarer l~nes shall be m port%on of the
sevsge plans And profiles. ll~e pitrim shall be szgned by m
registered engineer And the sever dXstr%ct vzth the
~ollovzng cert~f)c&tion: '! certify that the desXgn of the
sever system ~n Tract Hap 23103 ~s %n Accord&nee v~th the
sever system ex-p&ns~on plans of the EAstern Z~lunicxp&l ~ster
]:)1strict And that the vsste disposal system zs Adequate &t
thls tXme to treat the Anticipated v&stes from the proposed
tract,'
:~nv~ ronmenL&i :lies3 t.h Serv~ ces
SH:L&c
lZidmnmd D. Barley'
Pudde~
Jean A, Darby
ir. Vim Pmddemz
ILdph Daft}'
bus Kulbel
Jom A. Lamb
Jeff re)" I, Minide
Sub::jec'c: uat.,er AvailabilitY
Re~e.t"en~e,: V~'A'IfC23503
Gentlemen:.
Please be advised =ha~ ~e above-referenced
proper=y is located within the boundaries of Ranuho
California Water Dis~ric=. Water service, ~.herefore,
vould be available upon completion of financial
arrangements be=veen RCWD and the property owner.
Water availabili=Y would be contingen= upon Q. he
property owner signing an Agency Agreemen= whir
assigns rarer management rights, if any, ~o RCWD.
If RCWD can be of further service =o'you, ple-~ a
contat= T. his office.
VeT truly yours,
RAN~OCA~FORNIA WATERDISTRICT
Senga P- Doher=y
Engineering Services Representative
F012/jk~w169f
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTR
2~n;~ DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 * TEMECUR CA 92390~174 · ~14) 6764101 * FAX ~14
April 15, 1988
Riverside Co~mty Planning Department
4080 L~nmn Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, Csltfo~ta 92501
~lmmmmmd
SUNECT: VESTZ~ TPJ(CT Z3103 (Giftoral)
The Di sIFt ct t s r~spondt ng to your ~q~st for
proSect(s) relatte to the p~vtston of eter and
checked below Ipply to this pro,iect reYtew.
coffnents on the sub:)ect
seer semi ce. The t TeN
The subS)eel p~ect:
X
Is not viChtn
X valet semite
seer settee area
flust be annexed to this Distrtct's Im~vement District No.__ in order
to be eligible to receive domestic eter/sanitary sect semite.
will be required to construct the following f&c(lities:
a. } Water Service
b.) Seer Service Cants ve~ submitted to Riverside Co. (Feb.,
15. 1988) regarding $P 199 - Am ~1. This ts to reiterate those conTnents that
seers are to be gravity, regionally sized and no seers All be allowed on
private lands. or mlon9 lot lines. 7hey mre to be in streets.
94.eKn Sm~ Jerm~ St~t · Pat OlTm~ 9oz lSl · Hme~ GnU/ohm 12343 · Tele~hefie
REDLINED tO 2HOW ·
THIS ZIO;aOV~M~ff AmaRi)fS)~ (eAgreemen~-) is made ttteottve
day ot ~093 ~ ~ ~We
C~ty of ~Ja, a nntcl~ ~tatl~ (eatrye).
A. 'M DO owns ~hat oarCain real ~roperty located in the city
of Teamoula, County of Riverside, romeo of california wntcn is more
parClcu~mrly depicted and demoribed on Tentative ~ract Map 23103
(s~rao~ 23Z03e) On file with the City;
B. As a oond/tion of ap, royal tar regarding t~e final snap
tar ~aot 23103, ~e C~ ~ed ~at ~ deceit vA~ b CiW
~t potion of aut~rfield hge a~ ~at~ wi~in ~ot a2~03,
hErnia, (~nc~u~ng, vi~ou~ Z~e~ion, ~e paveend, ~b,
~t~field ~ege ~ad as ~l on ~e ~ovmn~ ~l~ for
uhd l~rovmnts.); ~d
C. ~he Road Tapr~vement'a rill likely be oonm~r~oted
owner of that =erreta real p:operl:y Xooated In the City of
TmmlCulm, County of :Riverside, Irate of California gma~tralXy
depleted and dmm~rtbed on Tentative Trmot Msp 33309 on fllm wi~h
the City (the ;|A.d:Jltcamnt ~o~y.) as a oondttion
~e M~aa~ prop~y. ~ ~s~nt ~op~ty is generally d~i~ed
on'R~ib~ eta" I~a~M bertha. ~m oondi~ing of
~oplrCy ~o aonsC~ ~e Road Zapzove~ts v~11 ~re ~ltance
wt~h legal proom~rom a~ publto h~tngm ac~mnl~
dts~etl~a~ deaLstons. The City I~wled~8l ~at no~l~
conta~ In ~is A~o~ shall be ~t~ed as a pre-cont~t
or reCUsant ~a~ the Ci~y Pl~ing C~lsmion or City COMaoil
.~ a eye d~f~ffding ~m Adjacent
NOw, ~HERBFORE, for end in oonmldera~Xon o! ~-he foregoing
Raoltmls and ~e ~1 ~n~n~m ll~ tO~ ~eln, ~ pOllS
h~ a~e: am folly:
1. A~-~now]td~L~ment of leloet)t of F-ha- The CIty h~
a~ledqes r~t~ ::~ ~C Dr ~a s~ Of ~~-light
S~y-Six Dollars (03S,066.o0) as ppenC in full ~or al1 ~sts
~lmtin~ ~c ~he c=st~ctton a~ ~s~llation of all o~ b ~d
l~r~en~s (~s "~ Ya~n="). ~e ~lss a2owledge and
8~se ~t ~e ~C Pa~an~ ~as ~leUlatad ~tng ~ ~ollwtqs (a)
~e co~nctto~ ires and ~anZl~les su~t~ted by ~C and ap~oved.
ATTACHMENT 6
AGREEMENT FOR DEPOSIT AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
A. SaC rams ~hat mrUin real property
OZ Ta~Zn, C~ty o~ ~l~, h~ of ~aliZ~
~i~ly d~ic~ad nd dea~im ~ ~a~lvo ~a~
(e~a~ 33103°) on Ztle vt~ ~s
Zor Trsct 23103 with the City
funds sufficient to aove: the aostm tad expenses o$ coastrioting
that ~ton or suttsr~lsz~ stage bid 1~ wL~ ~ra~ 33103~
as :~l ~lcularly dmpiet~ aM dms~i~ on whibit sAs attend
hireCo, (~clud~, vt~t l~l~/~s ~ pavm~t, ~b~ ~tt~s
and m~l ~ md ~~~m rmla~ C6 l~ ~r~i~ o~
Butterfield stage ~ad as ~o~ ~ ~ Zmprov~ Plans ~or
Buttmr~tald BUgs RMd on ffl!m vi~ ~m City) (~llm~t~ly ~e
w~ad Im~ovemnCm**) y · and
C. The Road Improvements viII likely be constructed by
our of ~hat omr6~in real property located in ~he City
Tammauls, County or Rivereider State o:r CmltZ~rnta Seem=ally
depicted and described en ~antative Tract Nap i3R0g on till w11~a
the City (the wM~&oent Preps. roys) as a condition of development st
~he Adjacent Property. The Adjacent S+vv~ Ly is generally depicted
on ~xh~b~t sB,, stemshed heret~. The ccmditionJr~ of tile
Property to construct the Road ZaVa~vwaents w111 require compliance
with legal Froc~dutee and pub11~ hma~lngs accompanll~ by
dis~rettonazT decisions. The City acknowledges ~het
contained in this J~t shall be construed aS s
or requirement that the C~ty Planning commission st City
condition any discretionary actions regarding tee MJacen~ Property
or construct the Road
NOW, THEreFORE, rot and in ~ormideratt~n o~ ~m ~or~oJng
Xecttals end ~S ~Ul ~tn~ s~ ZO~ h~, ~m ~tes
hereby m~M as folios:
rmla=lng to the construction and installation of all of the Road
Zi~rov~me3~ts (the "MDC )aylente), The parties tukncNZedge end
agTeethattheMDC Payment was calculated using the Solidwings (m)
the ccnltructtonltmand~uantlttesmutmdttedb~MDCand apprc~ed
1
; ',-1~-81; l~;Cl ; 71872172C" WlLLDAN-TEMEGULA;~ &
I~ t~w City; e~m (b)
mmtab~&emd ~ b c&~. A of ~m xcity o:. ~m~la
her·Co am B~ wow.
2. 'mttmfaa~4on of ~rndikim~ eE AL~u,,.,.,,-al. The
~c~iof aplxToval, the e&ty mm ·me the XDC Payment' as the
: ¥, in its 8020 eLBareel·n, ~nmm nm~msmmz7 and ·
'.,-..-,.,- '=
wa ms mad release· any cilia ~t mty nov ar heraaltar have tot ·
re~und of any portion of the NDC Pay·ane, Xn ~ne event much Paymmn~
exam·as the aa~ua2 aoo~s o~ monsCrua~ing b Road Xaixroment8.
)mC and that NDC 8hmX1 not have an7 rutthe a~liVa~ion vhatsomve~r
regarding the coRm·rum·ion oZ ~ ROad la~rOVlme~tm (including, but
no~; lim:i4:m:l ~;o, paying or c, Gn'crtl:mfi:imJ mmm~mm :Ln mamma
Immymen~, perEorming any voz'k or pxov&d&ng any mary:Loom·).
this AOrmmmen~, lnoluding~ t?~o~ limitation, the right
prosaiC· a Pr~eding, at law or in ;iCy, agm~ ~m vho
has viola~d, or is at~ng to v/·lake, a~ of ma~d
Provisions, ~o ~Join or v~t It ~r~ do~ so, ~o ~ume
viola%i~n %~ ~ ramdie~nd/~ to r~v~ said
· amagmm ~or maid
violation.
Iliad b~tw(ec),s~ ~t~e°rnav'a-Fiaa' In the event a legal s~lon is
~ov/s/on, ~saf~, He nt~ or any ~ov~e/on
~ov~s~on hen~ (~s~ ~ p~ s~lsr) n~ shaX~ su~ ~Lv~
~ns~X~u~e, con~nu~ sat~ ~lels ~~le e~usly ~ov~dsd.
o= e ~ ~LE ~x. vnt ~XX ~' eXd ~ ~ oo~t
raa in;
por~L~s ~reot a~l roain ~ ~ull for~ and
Ptty ue~te ~ oelZ~ uy and a~l do~~d
e~s aeeabl~ nemea~ ~o etfet~ate ~e ~ ~ ~s~ons of
(g) leot~c2~. Any notice required or permitted by this
Agreement to be glven by either arey, rebel1 be in writing aM
shall ~m personally served or ~11 be stunt by oerCiZied Dr
registered mail, postage epaid ~o ~hs address shmrn belo~ u~ttl
nobles oZ a aXZZerent a~ess te give. Any notlos given by
certified or registered mail deposited with the U. 2. Postal Sarvlce
shall be {leeRed reoelved two (2) business days a~ter the da~e such
mall is postmarked.
MARLBOI~UGH DZVSLOPMENT CORPORATION
~00 Bayvie C~rula, suite 2000
a~o~ Bu~, calif~a 92660
A~tution: ~le
A~on~lon ~
(h) J~';ndjnq), w.e~e,t. ~he tarms and pr~leions of
A~a~ shall he Dlndi~ ~n and in~e to ~e ~neZit of
pa~ ires h~mtc and ~e~ resistire suetee more, ass i~s and
(Signatures ~o Follov)
Xs WXTmZSS ~F, the partlain have made this Agreement
eraTool:lye am o5 ~hm day and Fear firm~ warj~ten mbovm.
a CalJfmrnis curlrotation
It. el
X~s:
CITY O~ TBMXCULA, · aunioXpel
Recommended Fur Approval:
Name ..
cAlM Snginaer
BFt
=. 9al Munos
NAYOR
ATTBSTt
~unw s. 6remk
CAty Clerk
Se~t F. FAeXd
CAty Attorney
W~LDAN-TENE~ULA;~ ?
· aVs .1. o~ ~. I~aVa
W~LLDAN-TEMECU~A:~ B
I~II"ZB:Z'I'
C.4.'~y of Temw~L~R Bnglnmerlng Dm~pm%~: t
Consf,.g-um:ton Smmn.Tl%y worJannme'l;
(Bee A~:'gachmd)
ATTACHMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
CITY OF TEMEC~ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
TRACT MAP NO. 23103
DATE: January 12, 1993
IMPROVEMENTS
FAITHFIlL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Streets and Dx~dna;e $
Water $
Sewer
TOTAL $
MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY
1,873,500.00 $ 937,000.00
462,500.00 $ 231,500.00
343,500.00 $ 172,000.00
2,679,500.00 $ 1,340,500.00
eimiutemm CereS!e- (lel fw em leer)
*(e= mmae If mtk ta emeletel)
$ 267,950.00
Monument Security
Street Improvement( Offsite)Development Fees
Fire Mitigation Fee
RCFC Drainage Fee Due-to be determined.
(Due Prior to Grading Permits)
Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD #
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
other Developer Fees (Quimby)
$ 58,740.00
$ 38,066.00
$ 83,200.00
$ o.oo
$ 31,200.00
$ 0.00
$ 20,700.00
Planning Department Fee
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Fee
Plan Check Fee
Inspection Fee
Monument Inspection Fee
316.00
8.00
87,662.00
78,978.00
2,937.50
Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees
Less Fees Paid To Date (Credit)
Total Inspection]Plan Check Fees Due
$
$
$
169,901.00
169,901.00
-0-
ITEM
NO.
6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAl
CITY ATI'ORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
January 26, 1993
Acceptance of Road Easements and Temporary Construction Easements
on Ynez Road Between Rancho California Road and Palm Plaza for Road
Widening Improvements Within CFD 88-12
PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution emitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC
ROAD AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES INCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITY
AND PUBLIC SERVICES PURPOSES AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ON YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND PALM PLAZA
BACKGROUND:
The road width along Ynez Road between Rancho California Road and Palm Plaza is
inadequate at this time to provide for the construction of the proposed six lane improvements.
Therefore additional right-of-way must be acquired along both the east and west sides of Ynez
Road for the entire length of the project. The right-of-way required varies since some sections
within the improvement area have previously dedicated road easements at the time the'
property was developed.
The required dedications will provide 1 O0 feet of right-of-way from Rancho California Road
north to the north end of the existing commercial development and 134 feet from that point
to Palm Plaza.
Dedication of the right-of-way was a condition placed on the Sales Tax Reimbursement
Agreement. All property owners adjacent to Ynez Road have offered to dedicate their portion
of the necessary right-of-way to construct the widening improvements.
-1- PwO7~agdrpt~93~O126~road.ded 0114
The easement documents are available for review in the City Clerks's office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact is anticipated from accepting the right-of-way dedications for the Ynez Road
Widening project.
Attachment:
Resolution
-2- pwO7%agdrpt%93%0126~road.ded 0114
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC
ROAD AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES INCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITY
AND PUBLIC SERVICES PURPOSES AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ON YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND PALM PLAZA
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
WHEREAS, portions of property adjacent to Ynez Road between Rancho California
Road and Palm Plaza within Community Facility District 88-12 as shown in Exhibit "A" ,
attached hereto, have been offered for dedication to the City:
WHEREAS, the legal descriptions for the dedications are set forth in Exhibit "B",
attached hereto:
WHEREAS, the dedications are for road and drainage purposes including public utility
and public services purposes and temporary construction easements and are necessary to
widen Ynez Road being constructed as part of Community Facility District 88-12:
NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as
follows:
Section 1. That the City of Temecula accepts the offers of dedication on Ynez Road.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting held on the 26 th of January, 1993.
ATTEST:
J. Sal Munoz, Mayor
June S. Greek
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No.__-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January, 1993, by the
following vote:
AYES: -
NOES: -
ABSENT: -
ABSTAIN: -
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
EXHIBIT "A"
Key Map
!liil.~ll
,,~ -i~
>.5 t'l~t~ 'V .Ltgtt'tY'3
Ey, HtBt'T
! '
~ ~2/'~20' 02 7 ' 2 3 I
e x ~' / e 4, a z '~::",,'~','=,'
,~Z/, ~. '
/ 4 'aS ~,~ 2r*¢;° . ~ o,~,
,'~,~ .
I
E:XHIBiT A-2 I I
I
I
\
\
\
\
~,c0 o0'~
L_~
I
· ~A'tfl /T A I ' ~
I
'1
EXHIBIT A- I ~
,~2/-;
~:fi z,2d, ~ co.
Ell
~"'YHIBiT :4
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
("'~>'a/-,e)
_./
EXHIBIT "B"
Legal Descriptions
(To be attached to final resolution)
ITEM NO.
7
APPROV/~T.
CITY ATTORNEY ~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM: City Clerk
DATE:
January 26, 1993
SUBJECT: Reconfirmation of Local Emergency
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
RECONFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY
BACKGROUND:
The provisions of Government Code Section 8630 require that "whenever a local emergency
has been proclaimed by an official designated by ordinance, the local emergency shall not
remain in effect for a period in excess of seven days unless it has been ratified by the
governing body...". The City Council took that action at the meeting of January 19, 1992.
However,. the same Government Code Section 8630 also provides "...The governing body
shall review, at least every 14 days until such local emergency is terminated, the need for
continuing the local emergency...". In order to comply with this review provision, staff will
place a resolution reconfirming the emergency on your agendas until the termination at the
earliest possible date that conditions warrant.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOL~ON OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECONFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF A
LOCAL EMERGENCY
WIIERP~, Ordinance No. 91-34 of the City of Temecula empowers the Disaster
Counc'~/Disast~ Director to proclaim the e~istence or thre3twed existence of a local emergency
when said city is affected or likely to be affected. by a public calamity and the City Council is
not in session, subject to ratification by the City Council within seven days; and
WHEREAS, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen
within this city, caused by extreme rainfall and flooding commencing on or about 4:30 PM on
the 16th day of January, 1993, at which time the City Council of the City of Temecula was not
in session; and
WHEREAS, said City Council does hereby find that the aforesaid conditions of extreme
peril did warrant and necessitate the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Disaster Council/Disaster Director of the City of Temecuh did proclaim
the existence of a local emergency within said city on the 16th day of January, 1993.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, DOES
RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. It is hereby reconfirmed that said local emergency shall be deemed to
continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Temecula,
State of California.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption 'of this resolution.
APPROVEB AND ADOPTED, this 19th day of January, 1993.
ATTEST:
J. Sal Mu~oz, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
" Resos 296 I
STATE OF CAIJPORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
C1TYOFTBMECIYLA )
I, June S. ~ City Clerk of the City of Temeeuln, I-~-R~.RY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution No. 93- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 19th day of January, 1993 by the foilowing roll call vote.
COUNTERS:
NOES:
COUN~MBERS:
CO~C~~ERS:
June S. Greek,. City Clerk
Re~os 296 2
ITEM
NO.
8
ORDINANCE NO. 93-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RELATING TO MOBILE SOURCE AIR
POLLUTION I~-nUCTION THROUGH I~Er}UCING
EMPLOYMENT- RELATED MOTOR VEHICLE TRIPS AND
EMPLOYME~NT-ItEt,&TED MOTOR VEHICLE'MILES
The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following findings:
of our residents.
The City is committed to protecting the health, welfare and safety
welfare and safety.
Poor air quality and congestion is detrimental to the public health,
in the City/County.
Motorized vehicles contribute signi~can~y to the poor air quality
D. The South CoEt Air Quality Management Plan calls for
Cities/Counties to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips.
E. The County and every City in the County is required by state law
to adopt and implement a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which complies with
standards and requirements established within the County's Congestion Management Program
(CMP).
F. Riverside County Transportation Commission, as Congestion
Management Agency for Riverside County, has established requirements for new developments
which could employ 100 or more persons.
Section 2. Intent.
safety by reducing
traveled.
Section 3.
A. This Ordinance is intended to protect the public health, welfare and
air pollution and congestion caused by vehicle trips and vehicle miles
Definitions.
A. "Alternate Work Schedules" means a variation from the traditional
Ord~3~l
-1-
5 day/40-hour work week to a 4 day/40-hour, 9 day/80-hour work schedule or other alternative
schedules.
B. * Applicable Development' means any new or existing development
that meets or exceed the employment threshold identified in Section 4.
C. *Flex-time* means allowing employees to determine their own
starting and quitting times by either extending the work day in the morning, or evening, or both.
D. 'Parking Management' means an action taken to alter the supply,
operation and/or demand of parking facilities to force a shift from the single-occupant vehicle
to carpool, vanpool, or other transportation mode.
per vehicle.
"Rideshare" means a transportation mode with multiple occupants
F. "Telecommuting' means the employee forgoes a trip to the normal
work site and instead, works from home or from a satellite office near home.
· Section 4. New Development.
A. Applicability: This Ordinance is applicable to new-employment
generating developments that could employ 100 or more persons based upon the following
methodology:
LAND USE CATEGORY
Retail Commercial
Office/Professional
Industrial/Manufacturing
Warehouse
Hotel/Motel
Hospital
GROSS SQUARE FEET/EMPLOYEE
500 Square Feet/Employee
300 Square Feet/Employee
500 Square Feet/Employee
1,000 Square Feet/Employee
.5 Employees/Guest Room
300 Square Feet/Employee
For mixed-use developments, the project employment factor shall be based upon the proportion
of the development devoted to each land use.
B. Standards: All applicable developments shall incorporate facilities
and/or programs in their development plans sufficient to attain a twelve percent (12%) work-
related trip reduction from the expected number of trips related to the project as indicated in the
Trip Generation Handbook published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Trip
reductions shall be calculated in accordance with standards established by Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) and/or the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(AQlVID).
C. Facilities. Facilities provided in accordance with the provisions of
this Section may include, but are not limited to:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled; and
1 ]. On-Site
Preferential parking for carpool vehicles;
Bicycle parking and shower facilities;
Information center for transportation alternatives;
Rideshare vehicle loading areas;
Vanpool vehicle accessibility;
Bus Stop improvements;
Local TSM and road improvements;
Facilities to encourage telecommuting;
Contributions to support regional facilities designed to
menides such as cafeterias and restaurants,
automated teller machines, and other services that would eliminate the need for additional trips.
D. Trip Reduction Plan Option: Proponents for new development
proposals shall submit Trip Reduction Plans and/or design features specified in Section 5 of this
Ordinance to achieve trip reduction requirements of this Section. Said plan shall be approved
prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Agreements to secure implementation of such plans
shall become a condition of development and shall be recorded with the Deed of Trust for the
property.
Section 5. Existing Development.
A. Applicability: This Ordinance is applicable to all employers that
employ 100 or more persons at one site.
B. Trip Reduction Plans: All applicable developments or businesses
shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan to reduce work-related vehicle trips by twelve percent (12 %).
~ Ords93-Ol -3-
Said plan shall be submitted ~vithin 120 days from the issuance and/or renewal of the business
license.
C. Trip Reduction Methods: Any combination
methods may be u~ to achieve the required vehicle trip reduction:
I. Alternate Work Schcdulcs/l~cx-Timc
of the following
Warehouse
a. Office/Professional, Industrial, Manufacturing,
( 1 ) Incorporate alternate work schedules and flex-
time programs. (Adoption of 9/80 work schedule for all employees would account for a ten
percent (10%) reduction in vehicle trips.)
b. Hospital
( 1 ) Incorporate alternate work schedules and flex-
time programs for employees that normally work between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
2. Telecommuting
a. Office/Professional
(1) Office facilities 25,000 square feet or larger
may preserve five percent (5 %) of the. gross floor area for telecommuting purposes to allow
tenants with multiple facilities to establish satellite work centers.
(2) Establish telecommuting or work-at-home
programs to allow employees to work at a home or a satellite work center either one day per
week or one day every two weeks.
(3) Through the telecommuting or work-at-home
program, provide incentives or offset employee costs in acquiring the needed equipment and
supplies for telecommuting.
b. All Other Uses
(1) Establish telecommuting or work-at-home
programs for selected employees (i.e., certain clerical or administrative employees).
(2) Through the telecommuting or work-at-home
program, provide incentives or offset employee costs in acquiring the needed equipment and
supplies for telecommuting.
Ord~93-Ol -4.- :
3. Bicycle Facilities
(1) Provide bicycle parking facilities equivalent
to five percent (5 % ) of the total required automobile parking spaces.
area for employee locker and shower facilities.
Preserve two percent (2 % ) of the gross floor
4. Parking Management
a. All Uses
(1) Designate, with signs in lieu of painted
pavement, employee parking area based upon the following percentage of the required parking
as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance:
parking
Office/Professional: 75 % of required
parking
Commercial Retail: 30% of required
80% of required parking
(c)
IndustriaYManufactufing/V,/ar~house:
(d) Hospital: 70% of required parking
(2) Designate with signs, in lieu of painted
pavement, twenty-five percent (25%) of employee parking for carpools and vanpools.
(3) Offer Financial or other incentives to
employees who participate in ridesharing or an alternative mode of transportation other than the
single occupant vehicle.
occupant vehicle.
Establish a parking surcharge on the single
5. Mass Transit Facility Usage
a. All Uses
(1) Provide incentives to employees to use Mass
~ Ords93-Ol _5_
Transit Facilities. Incentives could include provision of a bus pass, additional pay, flex-time or
any other incentive which encourages employees to use mass transit in lieu of the single
occupant vehicle.
6. Truck Dispatching, Rescheduling and Re-Routing
a. Commercial and Industrial Uses
(1) Establish delivery schedules and truck routing
to avoid congested areas and minimize peak hour travel.
D. Other Measures: Any other method or measure which can exhibit
a reduction in vehicle trips shall be credited toward attaining the requirements of this Ordinance.
E. Enforcement: Upon approval of the applicable Trip Reduction
Plan, if there is future noncompliance with this Ordinance, or exhibited failure to implement the
Trip Reduction Plan, one or more of the foliowing provisions shall apply:
the subject property.
Exercise a lien, based upon the terms of the agreement, on
2. A monetary penalty compounded on a monthly basis upon
the length of time of noncompliance equal to the business license renewal fee.
Section 6. Fee.
A. A trip reduction plan review fee payable at the time of initial
submittal or annual review shall be required. This fee shall be used to defray the costs of
processing and reviewing each individual trip reduction plan. The fee will not apply to
voluntary programs.
Section 7. Compliance with AOMD Re~ XV.
A. Trip Reduction Plans approved by the AQMD in accordance with
provisions of Regulation XV may be submitted to the City in lieu of plans required under the
provisions of this Ordinance. AQMD approved Regulation XV Trip Reduction Plans approved
by the City shall be deemed to comply with trip reduction plan requirements of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Voluntary Plans and Program.
A. Employers which employ fewer than 100 people will be encouraged
by the City to submit Trip Reduction Plans on a voluntary basis to achieve 'an overall trip
reduction within the City of twelve percent (12%).
--~
Ords93-Ol -6-
B. The City Manager or his representative shall be responsible for
developing effective incentive programs which promote voluntary programs to reduce vehicle
trips and miles traveled.
Section 9. Effective Date.
A. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after
its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of
this Ordinance to be posted and published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROV~D, AND ADOPTED, this 12th day of January, 1993.
ATTST:
J. Sal Mu~oz, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 93-01 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of January, 1993, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Temecula On the day of ,1993, by the following roll cali vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
~ Ords93-Ol -7-
ITEM NO. 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
· APPROVAL
CITY ATI'ORNEY ' """~,,j
FINANCE OFFICER~~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department .~~''
January 26, 1993
Appeal No. 28 for Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I
PREPARED BY:
Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 28, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 245, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET NORTH OF
THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-005.
BACKGROUND
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 was denied by the Planning Commission at the
September 21,1992 meeting. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the project, however,
Staff received two letters in opposition and two phone calls in opposition to the project.
Commission discussion centered upon the hardship request by the applicant and on the likely
probability that the proposal for a V-Type Outdoor Advertising Display would not be consistent
with the City's future General Plan. The vote of the Commission was four in favor of denying
the Plot Plan and one (Commissioner Ford) opposed to denying the Plot Plan.
Appeal No. 28 was continued from the December 8, 1992 City Council meeting to the
January 12, 1993 City Council meeting at the request of the applicant. The applicant was
out of the State on December 8 and was therefore unable to attend the City Council meeting.
At the meeting on January 12, 1993, staff requested that the applicant continue this item to
the City Council meeting on January 26, 1993 due to scheduling conflicts. The applicant
concurred with this request.
1 R:~-~rAFFRPT~SAPPIRL. CC3 1/14/93
Staff has received two (2) additional letters in favor of outdoor advertising displays (billboards)
which are also in favor of locating additional displays within the City of Temecula (see
Attachment No. 2).
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution No. 93- - page 3
Letters Received by Staff - page 8
City of Temecula Agenda Report: January 12, 1993 - page 9
City of Temecula Agenda Report: December 8, 1992 - page 10
it:It~rAFP]tPT~IAPPBAL.CC3 1119/93 Idb
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
3
CC3 1/14/~J
RESOLUTION NO. 93--
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY 'COUNCIL OF ~ C1TY
OF TEMECULA DENYING APPEAL NO. 28, UPHOLDING
PLANNING COMMI~SION'S DECISION TO DENY PLOT
PLAN NO. 245, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ALLOW ~
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON ~ EAST SIDE
OF WINCHF..STER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET
NORTH OF ~ INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND
NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEl.
NO. 911-150-005.
WtlFREAS, Adams Advertising filed Plot Plan No. 245 on July 15, 1992;
WtW~, an Amendment No. I to Plot Plan No. 245 was filed on August 14, 1992;
WHY, R!?.4~S, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WI~RE~kS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plan;
W!~,~, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said
Plot Plan.
~/]tERE_AS, Adams Advertising, Inc. fried Appeal No. 28 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on
December 8, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support
or opposition to said Appeal; and
WHEREAS, Appeal No. 28 was continued at the December 8, 1992 public hearing;
WItEREAS, Appeal No. 28 was continued at the January 12, 1993 public heating;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, THEREI~RE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF Tt2VIECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
4 R:~TAFFRF~$APPRAL.CC3 1/14/93 lib
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
fmdings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general .plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the prel~ration of the
2. The planning agency fmds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. '-
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecuh as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines While the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General:
Plan.
C. The pwposed Plot Plan is consistent with the County of Riverside SWAP
Guidelines and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
1. The Planning Commission finds, in denying projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following:
a. There is a likely probability that the land use or action proposed
will not be consistent with the General Plan pwposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is a pwbability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
5 R:~,~T~I~AL.CC3 1/14/93 k~b
c. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c) of Ordinance No. 348, no plot plan may be approved
unless the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state hw and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designs! for the protection of the
public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
to wit:
The City Council, in denying the Appeal No. 28, makes the following findings,
1. There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 will
not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project
site is Medium Density Residentisl. The proposed sign is inconsistent with this land use
designation. In addition, the proposed sign is inconsistent with the Draft C_w-"neral Plan Land Use
and Community Design Elements, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the
fact that the proposed project site is a potential "gateway" to the City.
2. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The erection of one (1) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent with the
pwposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. There are existing
residential uses to the west of the project site and residential development is proposed to the
northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the Community Design Element has determined
that the area of the project will be a "gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor
Advertising Disphy, the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
3. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances. Section 4.A. of ~ce No. 92-06,
prohibiting the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Disphys, contains hardship pwvisions,
which have not been demonstrated to exist for the pwposed sign. Approval was never granted
by the Riverside County Planning Depamnent, and the subsequent approval procedure with the
City of Temecuh was not pursued.
4. The proposed sign is not designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare and does not conform to the logical development of the land. Further,
the sign is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for industrial development. The
Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the designation for the site is Medium
Density Residential. The present development in the immediate area is vacant to the south, east
and portions north of the site. Residential uses exist to the north/northwest of the site.
R:~WrAFFRFr~A~HAL.CC3 1114193 Hb
Appwved uses will include residenfisl uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial
uses to the south. The sign as proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding
development. In addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a potential
gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Disphys.=
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecuh City Council hereby
determines that Appeal No. 28 is a statuWry exemption under CBQA pursuant to Section 15270
(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO~ this 26th day of January, 1993.
ATTEST:
J. SAL MUROZ
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAI-r~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 93--- was duly introduced and phced upon its fhrst reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the__ day of , 1993, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed a regular meeting of the City Council on the _th day
of __, 1993 by the following roll call vote:
COUNCYL~ViElVIBI~I~S:
NOES:
COUNTERS:
COUNCn-MEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:~X,TFAFIqtFI~NAPImBAL.CC3 III,~Y~ klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
LETI'ERS RECEIVED BY STAFF
1/14/93
CARLTOHe~eH~RGR~VE
P.81
MODonilcrs
December g, I992
Temecula City Council
cicy of Temecul&
43174 Business P&rK Drive
Tcmecula, C&liforniS 92590
Adam& Advertising lnc-
Sign project - Highway 79 North
Dear council Members:
we wish to express our need plus the importonce of the Adams
Adv~rcisini billboard we maintain of Inters~&te 15, south or Rancho
California Road, in the city of Temecule,
This display has been very beneficial To our business and is ~he
only medium available ~'o reach ~he m&ss ~rarfic, pea&inS through
Tomec~la d~ily, ~dvisinS them where to exit To reach our business.
Therefore, ~e wo~ld le~d our support to Adsms AdvertisinS's
proposal ~o provide ~ddition~l siZns, needed b~ tb~ b~siness
communitY| on Hilhw~Y 79 Horth,
'Thank >'ou.
SincerelY,
Own · r
P. 2
VA> ,r DAE L E, .
DEVELOP COtPORATION
December 8, 1992
City Cnunci] "
City o~ Temecula
43174 lus/ne=l Park Drive
u'~mecula, CA 92590
tdONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Van Uaele Development Corporation is currentl'y developing a
single family home community within the City of Temecula. The
community is re£erred to as Van Daeae's Signature Series located
nea~ =he i~tersec~ions of winchester and Nicholas Road.
The recently approved Kiosk Signage Program for the City o~
Temecula has been ~nscituted. Since that time, we have noticed a
aeterioration in the amount of traffic which we have receive~
through our new home community. tqhile I understand the reasons
for attempting to eliminate peripheral s~gnage, ~uch s~gnage ~s
often 't~mes the only true visible means for ~hich buyers are able
to find our communities. To th. extent that aadj~.~onal permittea
signage wo~ld be alZowe~ at major intersections such ~I Nicholas
and Winchester Roads, such accommodation woul~ be most
agpreciate~.
TO the extent that the C£ty of Temecula does not believe that
peripheral fignags is in the community's best interest, we woul~
fully support the addition of well place~. ~asre£ully constructed
freeway signage along Interstate 15, During the past two years,
we bare had the opportun£ty to work with Adams Advertising. As
compared to other billboard advertisers, i~ has been our
experience thaC Adams Adver~£sing has constructed well designed,
aesthetically pleasi.g billboards.
2~00 A~lam~ Slmel · Suite C.25 Phor~: (?14~
Rive~i~l~. Cmli[emi~ ~;2,~04 FAX: (714) 3,~4.2f~6
t2. 6.1592 1:5t5!
P. 3
.Honorlbit Na~o~ Ind O~ty Counci]
December ~, ]~g2
Page Two
Irrespective of your final
~a most appreciated.
very ~ruly yours,
VA~ DAELE DEVElOPmENT CORPORATION
PATRZCK J. VAN Oa~bE
Executive vice President
deci~io~, your
A'i'I'ACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT
JANUARY '12, 1993
R:~%STAI:;'FRPI'~21~PPEALCC3 1/19/93 klb
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
' r": '~PROV
" CITY ATTORN~EY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department ~
January 12, 1993
Appeal No. 28 for Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I
PREPARED BY:
Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
' RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 28, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 245, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET NORTH OF
THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-005.
BACKGROUND
Appeal No. 28 was continued from the December 8, 1992 City Council meeting at the request
of the applicant. The applicant was out of the State on December 8 and was therefore unable
to attend the City Council meeting (see Attachment No. 1 ).
Staff has received three (3) letters in favor of outdoor advertising displays (billboards) which
are also in favor of locating additional displays within the City of Temecula. These letters
have been included as an attachment (see Attachment No. 2). One telephone call has been
received by staff in opposition to the location of the proposed outdoor advertising display.
Staff has requested that the applicant continue this item to the City Council meeting on
January 26, 1993 due to scheduling conflicts, The applicant has concurred with this request
in a letter addressed to the City Council (see Attachment No, 3),
FISCAL IMPACT
None
R:~S~STAFFRI~aAPPEALCC2
Attachments:
Resolution No. 93- - page 3
Applicant's Request for Continuance Letter from the December 8, 1992 City Council
Meeting - page 9
Letters Received by Staff - page 10
Applicant's Letter Concurring with Staff's Request to Continue Appeal No. 28 to the
City Council Meeting on January 26, 1993 - page 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
~:~'AmFr~2~ALCC2 , 3
RESOLU~ON NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF ~ DENYING APPEAL NO. 28, UPHOLDING
FLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLOT
PLAN NO. 245, AMEND~ NO. 1, TO ~-T.TOW ~
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATEn ON ~ EAST SIDE
OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATEt.Y 1,200 FE~.T
NORTH OF ~ INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND
NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 911-1.~}-005.
WFiI~.&S, Adams Advertising ~ed Plot Plau No. 245 on July 15, 1992;
WHs:slEAS, an Amendment No. 1 to Plot Plan No. 245 was filed on August 14, 1992;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
~, the Planning Commi-~sion conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plan;
WHR~R4~, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said
Plot Plan.
Wu~:slEAS, Adams Advertising, Inc. filed ~ No. 28 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by -reference;
WItRRRA. S, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
~, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on
December 8, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support
or opposition to said Appeal; and
Appeal No. 28 was continued at the December 8, 1992 public hearing;
the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, ~~-~'ORE, TB~. CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
R:~b'~TA~&.PPEALCC2 4
Seaion 1. Findings. That the Temecuh City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incoxporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months fortowing incorlxration. -During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requireanent that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state hw that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in appwving pwjects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
wffi be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Tomecub as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the County of Riveaide SWAP
Guidelines and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
1. The Planning Commission finds, in denying pwjects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to thi.~ rifle, each of the following:
a. There is a likely probability that the land use or action proposed
will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be StUdied within a rcasormble time.
b. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the phu.
R:~S%STAFFRPT~BAPPeAL CC2 5
c. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other
applicable requiemcuts of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c)ofOrdin~ce No. 348, no plot plan may be approved
unless the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the !and and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
to wit:
The City Council, in denying the Appeal No. 28, makes the fonowing findings,
1. There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 will
not be consistent with the General plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time. The Dx'aft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project
site is Medium Density Residential. The proposed sign is inconsistent with this land use
designation. In addition, the proposed sign is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use
and Community Design Elements, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the
fact that the proposed project site is a potential "gateway' to the City.
2. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The erection of one (1) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent with the
proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. There are existing
residential uses to the west of the project site and residential development is proposed to the
northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the COmmUnity Design Element has dctcrmlned
that the area of the project will be a "gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor
Advertising Display, the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
3. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local orrlinnnces. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06,
prohibiting the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays, contains hardship provisions,
which have not been demonstrated to exist for the proposed sign. Approval was never granted
by the Riverside County Planning Department, and the subsequent approval procedure with the
City of Tcmecula was not pursued.
4. The proposed sign is not designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general weftare and does not conform to the logical development of the land. Further,
the sign is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. At the current time, the subject project site is z~ned for industrial development. The
Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the designation for the site is Medium
Density Residential. The present development in the immediate area is vacant to the south, east
and portions north of the site. Residential uses exist to the north/northwest of the site.
R:~S~STAFFRrr~BAPPrt'ALCC2 6
Approved uses will include residential uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial
uses to the south. The sign as proposed, will not be consistent with the immetlint~ surrounding
development. In addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a potential
gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Displays.
Section 2. ~:nvironment~l Conlplinnce. The City of Temecuh City Council hereby
determines that Appeal No. 28 is a statutory exemption under CEQA pursuant to Section 152'70
(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
R:~S~STAFt=RPI~tedaPEALCC2 7
Section 3. DENfEB AND ADOFrED this 12th day of January, 1993.
ATTEST:
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALT.
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAT-rFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF ~)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 93-_. was duly introduced and phced upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1993, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and p~ a regular meeting of the City Council on the __th day
of __., 1993 by the following roll call vote:
COUNCH-MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNTERS:
COUNCn-MEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
~s~rAR:e~r~e~EALcc2 .8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE LETTER
FROM THE DECEMBER 8, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
P,:',S~'rAFFRPT'~a~Pf, F. ALCC.2 9
19081 RocKy Roact, Santa Ana, 'ifornia 92705, (714) 838-9026, FAX (71t ~0-5461
adams advertising, inc.
December 8, 1992
RECEIVED
DEC 10 1992
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAlL
[909J 694-1999
Mr. Gary Thornhi//
Planning D/rector
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr..
Te,~ecula, CA 92590
Re: Plot'Plans #245 and #246
De3r Mr. Thornhi/i:
/n a telephone conversation with Matthew Fagan, it was brou~rht to my attention that
/ neglected to offer a reason for requesting the continuance.
Bob Adams is out of the State and is unable to return until Wednesday, December 9,
1992. Therefore, we will not be in a position to make a presentation at the meeting
~onight.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Michele ,4dams
MA:dt
19081 RocKy Road, Santa Ana, (' ~rnia 92705, (714) 838-9026 · FAX (714)( .5461
adams advertising, inc.
December 8, 1992
Mr.. Gary Thornhill
Planning1 Director
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAlL
RE: Plot Plans #245 & 8246
.;= .:Dear Mr.".~Thornhiil:
Adams Advertising respectfully requests that items # 14 and # 15 on the December 8,
"':. "=.: 1992.City:-Council agenda be continued to the next City Council meeting,
Your assistance is ~Ireatly appreciated,
Thank you,
Yours truly,
Michele Adams
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
LETTERS RECEIVED BY STAFF
R:%S%STAF:~"RPT'~,28APPEAL. CC2 I C)
RAMAD INN
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
R~
The City Council
City of Teznwula
Downtown T,,-s of America
Ramada Inn, Teazaxla
Decrxnber l, 1992
Adams Sign R~quest for' Additional SignaSe
The billboard they constructed for our Ramada Inn has increased our exposure as well as
our occupancy.
RAMADA INN · 28980 Front Street · Temeculs, California 92590 * (?'14) 676.,8770
Ord & Rodgers Homes
December 4, 1992
City of Temecula.
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear City Council
We wish to express our need, plus the importance of the
Adams billboard we maintain on Interstate 15, north of
Winchester Road, Temecula.
This display has been very beneficial to our business and is
the only medium available to reach the mass traffic passing
through Temecula daily.
Therefore, we would be favorable to your approval of the
Adams'project on 79 North to allow additional signage~for
business.
Sincerely,
L. Frederick Pack
Ord & Rodgers Homes
CC: Adams Advertising
5122 AVENIOA ENCINAS ·
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
· FAX (619) 438-5861 · {619) 438-1588
cc: Gary ThornhAll
December 3, 1992
Temecula City Council
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Dear Council Members:
RE: ADAMS ADVERTISING INC.
SIGN PROPOSAL
:" .L ' HIGHWAY .'.79 '~ NORTH .'
-" ;. ':.]-]12=/r.
We wish to express our need plus the importance of the Adams
Advertising billboard we maintain on 'Interstate 15, north of
Highway 79 South, advising the motorist of our golf club.
This display has been' very beneficial to our business and is the
only medium available to reach the mass traffic passing through
Temecula daily.
Therefore, we would be favorable to Adams Advertising's sign
project to provide new signs, that are very necessary for our
business and many others, in the City of Temecula.
Thank you.
· -......, . :' . '-:-: . .
L. A. Heffner
Executive Vice President
..&5 1130 Redhawk Parkway. Temecula. California 9~,592 Phone (909) 695-1424 FAX t909} 69~.-09-S9
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
APPLICANT'S LETTER CONCURRING WITH STAFF'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE
APPEAL NO. 28 TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JANUARY 26, 1993
R:~S~STAFFIct~I'~28APPEALCC2 11
19081 ROcky Road..~nta Ana. Cal;.*orniu 92705. (714) 638-9026 · FAX ('714) 730.5461
WA FACSIMILE AND MAlL
f909l 694-1999
January 4, 1993
HeaoraN, MaW and CIty Cou, d Mernben
City of Temeaulm
43174 Busiest Park Drive
Temeaafa, CA 92590
.=ler ,e,lar, 245 & Pier Plan 24.6
Appeal 28 & Aimpeel 29
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
In accordance with a ~quesr from Staff. Adam; Advertisln~ hereby request~ to
conb~ue subject items to the regularly ;cheduled meeb~g of January 26, 7993.
Thenit you.
Yours truly,
cc: Matthew Faggmn '
A'ITACHMENT NO. 4
CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 8, 1992
R:~S~TAFFRP'/~BAPpEAI,.CC3 1/19/93 Idb
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER ~,~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
December 8, 1992
Appeal No. 28 for Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1
PREPARED BY:
Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Council:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 28, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 245, AMENDMENT. NO. 1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELy 1,200 FEET NORTH OF
THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-005.
City
BACKGROUND
Plot Plan No. 245 was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on July 15,
1992. The applicant submitted this Plot Plan pursuant to Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-
06 (the hardship clause contained within Ordinance No. 92-06). Staff conducted a preliminary
review of the submittal and informed the applicant that the necessary findings could not be
made for their hardship request. The applicant was also informed that if the Plot Plan
application was pursued, Staff could not support a recommendation of approval. This
information plus comments relative to amendments to the submittal were conveyed in a letter
to the applicant dated August 5, 1992. The applicant chose to pursue the application and re-
submitted an amended site plan on August 14, 1992.
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I was denied by the Pla'nning Commission a't the
September 21,1992 meeting. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the project, however,
Staff received two letters in opposition (see correspondence) and two phone calls in
opposition to the project. Commission discussion centered upon the hardship request by the
applicant and on the likely probability that the proposal for a V-Type Outdoor Advertising
Display would not be consistent with the City's future General Plan. The vote of the
S~STAFFRFT~28APPEALCC
Commission was four in favor of denying the Plot Plan and one (Commissioner Ford) opposed
to de.nying the Plot Plan· Commissioner Ford stated four reasons for his opposition to denying
the proposed plot plan:
Due process was not followed in the initial processing of the applications with the
County of Riverside.
e
The applicant did incur a hardship - they expended money, however no approvals were
ultimately granted·
Ordinance No. 92-06, Section 4.A. (the hardship provision) should be decided by the
City Council·
Consistency with the future General Plan was not substantiated - it is still in a draft
format and has the potential for change.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution No. 92- - page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - page 9
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 10
Correspondence/Petitions - page 11
Exhibits - page 12
S%$TAFFtlPT~BARaF'ALCC 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S%STAFFRFT'~BAPPF. ALCC 3
ATTACtIMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RF~OLUTION OF TIff. CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING APPEAL NO. 2.8, UPHOf.DING
PLANNING COMMIgSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLOT
PLAN NO. 245, IMEND~ NO. 1, TO ALLOW Tltlr.
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISHAY LOCATED ON ~ EAST SIDE
OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,200 F!~T
NORTH OF ~ INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND
NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNO.WN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 911-150-.005.
~F-&S, Adams Advertising filed Plot Plan No. 24:5 on July 1:5, 1992;
Wi~.REAS, an Amendment No. 1 to Plot Plan No. 24:5 was fried on August 14, 1992;
Witlr~RE&S, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
I~tFIk'ZRE&S, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing lieRaining to said Plot
Plan on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plan;
WFrEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said'
Plot Plan.
WI~.REAS, Adams Advertising, Inc. fried Appeal No. 28 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WIIEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;'
WRF_,RIAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertmining to said Appeal on
December 8, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support
or opposition to said Appeal; and
Wlllr. REAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, TIn~I~ORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
$%STAFFRFT'~28APrcALCC 4
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, 'the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the fonowing:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
· proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of sub~antlnl detriment to or
intc~crence with the future adopted. general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c.' The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances. ·
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to th~ incorporation of Temecuh 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 proceexiing in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. 'The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the County of Riverside SWAP
Guidelines and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
1. The Planning Commission fmds, in denying projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building penits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a. There is a likely probability that the land use or action proposed
will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is a pwbability of substantial detriment W or interference
with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
S~,STAFFRPT',,2OAPPEALCC 5
c. The proposed use or action
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
does not comply with all othcr
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c) of OrdinanccNo. 348, no plot plan may bc approved
unless the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
to wit:
The City Council, in denying the Appeal No. 28, makes the following findlugs,
1. There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, AmendmentNo. 1 will
not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable timc. Thc Draft Prcfcrrcd Land Use Plan designation for the project
site is Medium Density Residential. The proposed sign is inconsistent with this land use
designation. In addition, the proposed sign is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use
and Community Design Elements, duc to its impact upon the surrounding development and the
fact that the proposed project site is a potential "gateway" to the City.
2. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The erection of one (1) V-type Outdoor Advertising Disphys will be inconsistent with the
proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. There are existing
residential uses to the west of the pwject site and residential development is proposed to the
northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the Community Design Element has determined
that the area of the project will be a "gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor
Advertising Display, the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
3. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06,
prohibiting the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Disphys, contains hardship pwvisions,
which have not been demonstrated to exist for the pwposed sign. Approval was never granted
by the Riverside County Planning Depaxtment, and the subsequent appwval procedure with the
· City of Temecuh was not pursued.
4. The proposed sign is not designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare and does not conform to the logical development of the land. Further,
the sign is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. At the current time, the subject project sitc is zoned for industrial devclopment. The
Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the designation for the site is Medium
Density Residential. The present development in the immcdiatc area is vacant to the south, east
and portions north of the site. Residential uses exist to the noah/northwest of the site.
S%STAFFRFT~BAPPEALCC 6
Approved uses will include residential uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial
uses to the south. The sign as proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding
development. In addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a potential
gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Displays~
Section 2. P.~vironm~nt~l Complinnco. The City of Temecula City Council hereby
determines that Appeal No. 28 is a statutory exemption under CEQA pursuant to Section 15270
(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
S~STAFFNm2BAPPEad, CC 7
Section 3. DENI!~ AND ADOFrED this 8th day of December, 1992.
ATTEST:
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF C.AI-mORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 92--- was duly introduced and placed upon its fn~t reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1992, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed a regular meeting of the City Council on the __th day
of __, 1992 by the following roll call vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
C OUNCTr -MEMBERS:
COUNCH-MEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
S~STAFFRFn2SAR, SU, CC 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
S%STAFFRPT~BAPPEr, ALCC 9
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Development Code
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Hoegland to appoint
Commissioner Chiniseff as Planning Commission representative to the Development
Code Committee.
· The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoegland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Norm
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:10 P.M.
Noise Ordinance
John Meyer presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey questioned where the issue of the noise ordinance originated from.
Gary Thornhill advised that it .originally came as a result of problems occurring at the
School District bus maintenance facility. Mr. Thornhill added that staff does not feel
the ordinance being presented deals with the kinds of problems it should address,
therefore staff would prefer to postpone action on this item until completion of the
noise element portion of the General Plan.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoegland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
postpone action on this item until completion of the Noise Element portion of the
General Plan.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoegland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PCMIN9121/92
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Plot Plan No, 245
Proposed erection of one V-Type outdoor advertising display on the east side of.
-2- 8123/g 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 91. 1992
Winchester Road, approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road
and Winchester Road.
Plot Plan No. ~46
Proposed erection of one V-Type outdoor advertising display on the east aide of
Winchester Road, approximately 1,850 feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road
and Winchester Road.
Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M.
Michelle Adams, Adams Advertising, 19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, stated that the
most important issue was whether or not this is a hardship case. Ms. Adams stated
the hardship is necessitated by the processing time at Riverside County. Based on
hardships incurred by the landowner, who at the time of application had a legally zoned
piece Of property; the community has suffered a hardship due to the fact that several
local advertisers had expressed an interest in advertising on these signs; and Adams
has incurred a economic hardship because the signs should have been approved 2 1/2
years ago.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close
the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-034 denying Plot Plan
No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. I based on
findings I through 4, page 6 and 7 as identified in staff report
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford
Commissioner Ford clarified that he voted against the motion because he did not feel
that due process was followed.
Specific Plan I (CamDos Verdes)
Chanae of Zone 5617
Environmental Impact Report No, 348
Soecific Plan 263 (Temecula Regional Center)
Chanae of Zone 5589
Environmental Imoact Report No. 340
Soecffic Plan 255 (Winchester Hills)
Chanae of Zone 553~
PCMIN9121/92 -3.- 9/23/92 ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
S~STAr-FRPT~2a~Pf~,ALCC 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 21, 1992
Case No.:
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot
'Plan No. 246, Amendment No. I
RECOMMENDATION:
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
ADOPT Resolution No. g2- denying Plot Plan No. 245,
Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff
report,
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Adam Advertising, InC.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Same
PROPOSAL:
To erect two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays.
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
East side of Winchester Road approximately 1,200 and 1,850
feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road and Winchester
IVI-SC {Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
North: R-2 (Restricted Single-Family Residential
Subdivisions)
SP 164 (Roripaugh Estates)
SP 213 rVVinchester Properties)
R-R {Rural Residential)
South:
East:
West:
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family ResidencesNacant
Vacant (SP 164 - Commercial)
Vacant (SP 213 - Residential/
Single-Family ResidencesNacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Billboard No. I (Plot Plan No. 245):
Height: 35 feet
Height from Roadway Grade: 25 feet
Size of Sign: 297 square feet
Billboard No. 2 {Plot Plan N0. 246):
Height: 35 feet
Height from Roadway Grade: 25 feet
Size of Sign: 297 square feet
BACKGROUND
The City of Temecule has adopted · number of Ordinances regarding Outdoor 'Advertising
Displays, Following is a chronology of Ordinances regulating Outdoor Advertising Displays:
Ordinance No. 90-08:
Adopted on April 24, 1990 and expired on June 8, 1990,
Ordinance No, 9008 was an urgency ordinance adopting an
interim zoning ordinance pertaining to regulations for Outdoor
Advertising Displays. Section 3 (a) stated: "Pending the
completion and adoption of the General Plan of the City of
Temecula together with associated signage regulalEion for the
Land Use Code for the City of Temecuis, the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Display is hereby prohibited' and no
application' for sign location plan, plot plan or other applicable
discretionary entitlement for an Outdoor'Adve.rtising Display shall
be accepted, acted upon, or approved,"
Or. dinance No. 90-09:
Adopted on June 5, 1990 and expired on April 24, 1991.
Ordinance No. 90-09 was an urgency ordinance which extended
interim Ordinance No. 90-08.
Ordinance No. 91-17:
Adopted on April 23, 1991 and expired on April 23, 1992,
Ordinance No. 91-17 was an urgency ordinance which further
extended interim Ordinance No, 90-08,
Ordinance No. 92-06:
Adopted on April 28, 1992 and will expire on April 28, 1993.
Ordinance No. 92-06 is a resolution pertaining to sign regulations
and establishes regulations for the use of Outdoor Advertising
Displays, Section 4.A. of Ordinance No, 92-06 contains a
hardship provision which would permit commercial off-premises
signs, provided that a finding of hardship is made by the Planning
Commission. Following a noticed public hearing, a commercial
off-premises sign may be approved subject to compliance with
the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No, 348, Article
XIX (Advertising Regulations),
S'~T~4S-244.PP 2
Ordinance No. 92-07:
Adopted concurrently wire Ordinance No. 92-06 as an urgency
ordinance.
Aoolicant's Submittal to the Count~ of Riverside Plannine DePartment
Two (2) applications for Outdoor Advertising Displays were originally submitted ~o the County
of Riverside Banning Department on February 22, 1990. According to a chronology prepared
by the applicant (reference Attachment No. 3), there was confusion involved in processing
these applications through the County' of Riverside Pinning Department. Based on the
applicant'a chronology, approval from the County of Riverside Planning Department was
received on three separate occasions. Subsequently, they Were finally informed by Riverside
County that their project was within the City of Temecuis end therefore, no permits could be
issued. The applicant's request for · "hardship exemption" is based on the processing time
at Riverside County. The applicant feels that if their applications were processed in a timely
manner through Riverside County, then they would have had their approval/permits prior to
the City of Temecula moratorium on Outdoor Advertising Displays. Attachment No. 4, dated
May 7, 1990, are the County of Riverside notices that the signs were to be considered by the
County of Riverside Planning Department. Attachment No. 5, dated May 31,1990, are denial
letters by the County of Riverside Planning Department f.or'the proposed displays. Although
the denial letters are not signed, the date on the denial letters indicates that the projects were
being processed by Riverside County after the moratorium was established in the City of
Temecula.
City Staff requested either an approval letter or approved exhibits from the applicant, however
none of the requested items could be provided.
Submittal to the Cit~ of Temec~,ia
Plot Plans No. 245 and 246 were submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on
July 15, 1992. The applicant has submitted these Plot Plans pursuant to Section 4.A. of
Ordinance No. 90-06 (the hardship clause contained within Ordinance No. 92-06). Staff
conducted a preliminary review of the submittal and informed the applicant that the necessary
findings could not be made for their hardship request. The applicant was also informed that
if the Plot Plan applications were pursued, Staff could not support a recommendation of
approval. This information plus comments relative to amendments to the submittal were
conveyed in a letter dated August 5, 1992. The applicant chose to pursue the applications
and re-submitted amended site plans on August 14, 1992. Staff reviewed the re-submittals
and determined that the projects were complete.
PROJECT DESCRIFTION
Plot Plan No. 245 is a proposal to erect a V-type Outdoor Advertising Display on the east side
of Winchester Road, approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road and
Winchester Road. Plot Plan No. 246 is a proposal to erect a V-type Outdoor Advertising
Display on the east side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,850 feet north of the
intersection of Nicholas Road and Winchester Road. Total height of each Outdoor Advertising
Display shall be thirty-five (35) feet, however from the roadway grade, the signs shall be
twerfty-five (25) feet in height. The distance between the two signs is approximately 640
feet. The separation of the display faces on the V-type signs is twenty-five (25) feet.
S~.STAFFIIFT~4S,,~44.PP 3
ANALYSIS
ADoroyal Procedures
The Riverside County Planning Department processed applications for the City of Temecula
until July, 199Q, All projects which were processed by the 'County of Riverside Planning
Department were ultimately placed on the egendas of the City of Temecula City Council.
According to Ordinance No, 89-13, notice of all decisions of me Courm/Planning Director and
the County Planning Commission were to be filed with me Clerk of me City Council within
fifteen (15} days after the decision, No notice of decision for those two plot plans was
received by me CiW of Temecula City Clerk, and the Outdoor Advertising Display applications
were never raceNed for action by me City. of Temecula City Council, A hardship was not
incurred since mere is no official approval by the County of Riverside Planning Director
{reference Attachment No. 4, letter to Mr. David Dixon dated September 12, 1990, which
states: "Due to the series of circumstances enumerated above, the sign applications would
not be approved"), In me event that the projects were approved by Riverside County, the
above mentioned procedure would have to. be followed, Since me procedure was not
followed, the City Council would not have me opportunity to act on the Riverside County
Planning Director's decision if they had chosen to do so,
City Council Denial of Other Outdoor Advertisina DieDlay Aoolicstione
The City Council previously denied two appeals for Outdoor Advertising Displays. Both were
denied during the review period for the applicsnt's Outdoor Advertising Displays by the
Riverside County Planning Department. Plot Plan No. 1170 was denied on February 27, 1990
and Plot Plan No. 1168 was denied on March 13, 1990. Findings to support both denials
included aesthetic concerns of the proposed signage, and inconsistency and incompatibility
with present and future development of the surrounding property. Both Of me applications
were denied prior to the moratorium on Outdoor Advertising Displays which went into effect
on April 24, 1990.
Inconsistency with Draft Future General Ran
The'- proposals to locate two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays on me east side of
Winchester Road, (one display approximately 1,200 feet north of me intersection of
Winchester and Nicholas Roads and the other approximately 1,850 feet north of this
intersection) are likely to be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan for me following
reasons:
The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the subject project site is Medium Density
Residential. If the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan is ultimately adopted, then the proposed
Outdoor Advertising Displays would be inconsistent with the residential designation for the
site. '.
Residential uses exist to me west of me project site and are proposed to the normeast and
the east. The Outdoor Advertising Displays would not be compatible with mesa residential
uses. Section E of the Land Use Element of the Draft General Plan states: "Residere3 want
adequate buffering from non-residential uses in terms of light, noise, traffic impacts and
neoa~ive visual imoacts."
Section B of the Community Design Element of me Draft General Plan identified the northern
portion of the City along Winchester Road as a "gateway" to the City. It is further elaborated
in Section E: 'The primary entrances or "gateways" to the City should be cleady defined
through monumentalion, signage and extensive landscape design features". The intent of
Section E will not be met if Outdoor Advertising Displays are erected in this area.
Policy 1.4 of the Land Usa Element is to "Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and
infrastTucture when reviewing proposals for new development." The proposed project is
inconsistent with the D~aft Preferred Plan, the Land Use Bernant and the Community Design
Element, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the fact that the proposed
project site is a potential 'gateway' to the City.
Twent~-I=ive (~51 Wide Trans-ortation Corridor Fasement
The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) contains s policy which racluires a twenty-five
(25) foot transportation easament along Highway 79 (Winchester Road). Staff has been
requesting that right-of-way be set aside for this easement on both sides of Highway 79 for
all projects for future traffic mitigation program. The applicant currently proposes to locate
the subject outdoor advertising displays within this right-of-way, The SWAP states: "This
easement may be used for additional paring and/or landscaping umil such time it is needed
for transportation improvements.' In the event that the Planning Commission approves the
proposed outdoor advertising displays, it is Staff's recommendation that the two (2) outdoor
advertising displays be rolecared, since they are permanent structures, and they should not
be located within this right-of-way.
EXISTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Existing zoning for the project site is Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC). Outdoor
Advertising Displays are a permitted use with an approved plot plan in the M-SC zone. The
proposed signage meets the requirements prescribed under Section 19.3 of Ordinance No.
348. The SWAP designation for the project site if General Light Industrial (LI). The SWAP
elaborates that the LI category is applied to areas that have been committed to the
Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) zone, The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan
designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential. Although the existing zoning
and the SWAP identify the subject property as Light Industrial, Staff cannot make the finding
that the.proposed project will be consistent with me City's future General Plan based upon
the projects inconsistency with the .Draft Preferred Land Usa Ran as well as inconsistency
with the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Draft General Plan,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I and Rot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 are statutorily
exempt pursuant to Article 18, Section 15270 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), CEQA does not apply .'co projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves,
s,,s.rA?4a..34aj~p 5
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Plot Plans No. 245 and 246 are proposals to erect two {2) V-type Outdoor Advertising
Displays on the east side of Winchester Road, north of the intersection of Winchester and
Nicholas Road. Ordinances No. 90-08, 90-09, 91-17, 92-06 and 92-07 have been adopted
to.regulate the use of Outdoor Advertising Displays. The applicant previously submitted two
applications for Outdoor Advertising Displays to the County of Riverside Planning Department,
however, no approvals were received for the projects. The applicant has submitted two ~
plan applications to the ~ of Temecula under a hardship provision contained in Ordinance
No. 92-06. Staff has determined that a hardship has not been incurred by the applicant for
the following reasons:
1. No approvals'were received from the County of Riverside Planning Department.
The City Council never acted or had the opportunity to act upon the proposed projects
which were processed by the County of Riveride.
The applications were being processed by the County of Riverside after the moratorium
was placed on the use of Outdoor Advertising Displays by the City of Temecula.
The proposed Qutdoor Advertising Display applications will be inconsistent with the City's
future General Plan. The subject property has been 'classified ms Medium Density Residential
On the Draft Preferred LaRd Use Ran, and the use would be inconsistent with me land use
designation. Residential uses exist to the northwest end the north end ere proposed to the
east of the subject site. The proposed signage would be incompatible with these uses. The
subject site has been identified as a potential gateway to the City and therefore, the use
would be detrimental in attaining a gateway appearance.' The proposed signage is statutorily
exempt from the California Environmerrml .Quality Act (CEQA).
FINDINGS
There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No.
246, Amendment No. I will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time, The Draft
Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential.
The proposed signs are inconsistent with this land use designation, In addition, the
proposed signs are inconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use and CommunitY
Design Elements.-
There is a probability of substantial detrimem to or interference with the future
adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan. The erection of two {2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent
with the proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site,
There ere existing residential uses to the west of the project site and residential
development is proposed to the northeast and the east of the site. In addition,. the
Community Design Element has determined that the area of the project will be a
"gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays, the
proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
S~%'TAR=tWeT't24~2~.PP 6
The proposed use or action does not comply with ail other applicable requirements of
state law and local ordinances. Ordinance No. 92-06 prohibits the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06 contains hardship
provisions, however, a hardship has not been demonstTatad to exist for the proposed
signs. Approvals were never granted by the Riverside County Planning Department,
and the subsequent approval procedure with the City of TemecUla was not pursued.
The proposed signs are not deigned for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; and do not conform to the logical developmerrc of the land. Further,
the signs are not compatible with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for
industrial development. The Draft Preferred Land Use Ran has been developed and the
designation for the site is Medium Density Residential. The present development in the
immediate area is vacant to the south, east and portions north of the site. Residential
uses exist to the north/northwest of the site. Proposed uses will include residential
uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial uses to the south. The
signs, as proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding
development. in addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a
potential gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor
Advertising Displays.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92~ denying Plot Plan No. 245,
Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff
report.
A~achments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution No. 92- - blue page 8
Exhibits - blue page 13
Chronology and Letters Submitted by the Applicant - blue page 14
County of Riverside Notices of Decision - blue page 15
County of Riverside Planning Director Denials - blue page 16
S"~'TAFFiqlq'~45-6q4i_mlm 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
ATTA~ NO. I
KESOLUIlON NO. 92-
A P~'F, OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMI, CULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO.
2~, AMENDMENT NO. I AND PLOT PLAN NO. 246,
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO-~ TWO (2) V-TYPE
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ON A pA.RC'lT, T,
CONTAINING 6.70 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF WINc. u~'xJ~tt ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 AND
1,850 FEET NORTH OF Tsrs'~ IR-x-,~~ON OF
WINc:~.3'x'~at AND NICHOLAS ROADS AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-1f0-001
Wap.;KEAS, Adsms Advertising filed Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot.
Plan No. 246, Amenclment No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County T =rid Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by rdermx~;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan applications wer~ .processed in the time and manner
~ by State and local law;
W]~3~S, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plans On September 21, 1992, at which time internstat persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plans; and
Wxs,:R~.4S, at the conclusion of the Commission heating, the Commission denied said
Plot Plans.
NOW, Tm~'~ORL THE PLANNING COMI~-~SION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETEILMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hexv. by maims the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6S360, a newly incorponted city shall
adopt a genenl plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the req~ent that a general plan be adoprod or the
re:quix'~ments of stat~ law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following mtuire~ents ar~ met:
The city is procegding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There i~ a reasonablc probability that the land use or action
proposed will be cov_-_gi_'stent with th~ Zonerid plan propo~ being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a xeasonable time.
b. There is little 'or no probab~ of substantial dcUimcnt to or
interference with the future adopted 2enenl plan ff the ~ use. or action is ultimately
'inconsistent with the plan.
c. The F,~,~.zase~! use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ord~nnnc~.
B. The Riverside County C.,eneml Plan, as -mended by the Southwest Area
. Community Plan, (heazinafxer 'SWAP") was adopted prior to the inco, F~,,,tion of Tcrnccula as
guidelines while the City is ~,wcccding in a timely fashion with the pzeF,~flon of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plans ar~ consistent with the SWAP and meet the x~uitements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The ~ty is Foc~c,~ing in a timely ~hion with a px'cpaxation-of the: general
2. The p!,nning Cornml-qion finds, in denying projec~ and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, p~t to this title, each of the following:
a. Theaz is a likely probability that the land use or action prt~sed
will not be consistent with the General Plan F, xoposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied .within a reasonable time.
b. - There is a probability of substantial' detriment to or intafergnce
with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
c. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other
applicable req~ts of state law and local ordinances.
D. Purrdant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan mY be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the Gencral Plan rcquiremcnts and
with all applicable requirements of staz law and City ordinances.
2. The ovenll development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
· is compatible with the present and future logical development of the sm-wunding property.
E. The Planning Commission, in denying the proix>seal Plot Plans, makes 'the
following findings, to wit:
There is a hlr. ly probability that Plot Plan No. 245, .A, mem4ment No. 1 and Plot Phn
No. 246, Amendment No. 1 will not be consistent with the Genenl Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be. studied within a reasonable time. The Dx=afi
Prefezmd v ~,.d Use Plan d,.si.vno,ion for ~ projet siz is Marlurn Density Residential.
The proposed signs arc inco~t with this land use designation. In addition, the
proposed signs are inconsistent with. the Draft General Plan Land Use and Community
There is a probability of substantial dewim,-nt to or intr-,.rc, t,,cc with the futu~ adopted
General Plan ff the pwposed use or ac~on is vltlmptely inconsistent with the plan. The
erection of two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays ~ be inconsistent with the'
proposed land use desi2n~on of Medium Density Residential for thc site. There ax~
proposed to the northeast and the cast of the site. In addition, the Community Design
· Element has determined that the area of the project will be a "2ak'way' to the City. By
appwving the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays, the proposed Gcncral Plan Goals
and Policies will be difiSaxlt to obtain.
The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable requirements of
state law and local ordinances. Ordinance No. 92-06 prohibits the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06 contains hardship
provisions, however, a haniship has not been dcmonswated to exist for the proposed
signs. Approvah were nevcr granted by the Riverside County pl~nning Department, and
the subsequent approval procedure with the City of Temecula was not pursued.
The proposed signs are not designed for the pwtection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; and do not conform to the logical development of the land. Further, the
signs are' not compatible with the present and hutre logical development of the
surrounding ptol/-t ty. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for industrial
development. The Draft Prcfen'ed Land Use Plan has been developed and the
designation for the site is Medium Density P,e~de~nL The present development in the
immediate area is vacant to the south, east and portions north of the site. Residential
uses e0dst to the north/northwest of the site. Proposed uses will include residential uses
w the north and east, with commercial and indusu'ial uses to thc south. The signs, as
11
proposed, will not be con~r, ent with the irtlnleelin¢t' surrotmdirtg development. In
addition, the Community DesiEn Ki-ment idenfif-zs this arm as a pomnlial gainway w
the City, the development of which would not include Oredoor Advertising Displays.
Section 2. eondiiions. That the City of Temec,,1- Planning Commi~on hm?.by deni~s
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendmint No. 1 to elect two
C2) V-Type Outdoor Mveztitg Displays on a parcel colltal-lng 6.70 aca'es located on the east
side of W'mchest=r Road; sn,,o2,;r~,~'ly 1,200 and 1,850 feet north of the intm'section of
WinChester and Nicholas Roads and known as A-tsessor's Parcel No. 911-150-005
5. Section 3. DENm~ AND ADOFrED tiffs 21st ay of Sq~mb~, 1992.
IJNDA FAv:r'ar
CHAInMAN
· STATE OF C~T-T~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF
I In~Rk'~ny CER~ that the forggcing Res~l,,tio- was duly sdopted by the Planning
commission of the City of Temec,,i,, at a x%,ular mt't~g mf, held on the 21st day of
September,-1992 by the following vot~ of the Co~mlssi0n:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSBNT:
PLANNING COMMBSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONtil~:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
G~y~OP, N'nTrx-
SF./3RETIY
S'LSTAPFIIPr~46-24e.PP
12
ATTACHMENT NO.. 3
CHRONOLOGY AND LETI'ERS SUBMITFED BY THE APPLICANT
1) Applications were submitted to R~verside County February 22,
1990.
2)
3)
4)
.e)
7)
Processing should have been completed wlthin 30-45 days and
Dr~ or to Clty' s 1reposed moratorium of Aprll 24, 1990.
Applications :were approved; then, "at the last moment" the
required property ownerrs notlces were not mailed out.
No comments were.received, and the applications were again
approved.
5) Planner then t~ought slgns were located withln Speclflc Plan
213.
- We Immediately advised planner that property was not
within Speclftc Plan 213.
- Planner then had to verify this.
Applications were agaln approved.
Ultimately, we were advised that the property was now in the
City of Temecula. Once agaln, the County was not lssulng
the permits.
Due to the errors made by staff, Adams was'advised of
this after Temecula had established a billboard
moratorium.
These applications should
approved through the County,
would have been approved.
have been administratively
and if processed correctly,
adams advertising, inc.
19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ar'~, .,alitornia 92705, (714) 838-9026 o FAX (7. 30-5461
adams advertising, inc.
April 14, 1992
VIA CERTIFIED MAlL
P.-793 513 483
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
Clty o3 Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Re:
Application for Blllboazds in Accordance wlth Ordinance
No. 91-20, Sectlon 4
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Some time ago, we met and discussed a situation where, as a
result of a series of errors made by .Riverside County,' we did
not receive permits for two signs that should have been issued.
Enclosed is a letter from Riverside County that you may reca/1.
It outlines some of what occurred and supports the ~fact.that a
mists~ke was made. I hope this helps refresh your memory of this
issue and of our meeting. I have also enclosed a chronology o3
what occurred, together with a plot plan and map identifying the
Sign locations.
We helleve these circumstances constitute a hardship in that we
were erroneously precluded from building signs. As a result,
businesses and developers in the southwest area have suffered a
hardship as they have been wrongfully denied the opportunity to
promote their business by being denied' the ability to. advertise
on these signs.
In light of the foregoing, it is our contention that we,
together with the community, continue =o suffer a hardship which
we respectfully request you to relieve.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or
need any additional information.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED
Michele Adams'
MA: dt
rJUL 15 992
· 0F TEMECULA
September 1~, 1~90
Mr, David Dixon, City Manager
City of Temecula
P,O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
RE: Adams Adve~/lSng, inc.
· Applications for S;gn Permit Not,, f 183 and ~ 184
Dear Mr, Dixon:
PL nn rlG DEP :tCrilErI
On February 22, 1990 Adams.Adverb~ing, inc, made application for two billboard= to the
County of Pd'versidO, The ,igns were proRosed to be dtuated on fie northeast corner of
Winchester Road and Hamilton Avenue in what has now become the City of Teattale.'
Typicafly, the Count7 .would have completed the proce,~ing of such applications within 60
days, Ti, u=, in this case, processing would nonflatly have been completed before the
moratorium on new billboard= was imposed by your City on April 24, 1990,. However, that '. '
was not tho case,
The Riverside CouLlty ..Planning Department; in fact, did approve In· applications but we
discovered at the I~ moment that the requlred notice= to neighboring property owners were
not mailed out. Furthermore, .there ~vas tome confusion as to whether the two signs were
to be iocazed adjacen~ to Specific Plan No. 213, After the nOtice~;/ere.mailed, no comments
were received, and the*appllcadon~ .+/er.e ~ apRroved, Before th~ p~rmits 'could be issued
we discovered that the t'.wo.dgn.~tr~ctu. re= 'w~re,. in fact, prop6~ed to be situated within the
City of Temecula, .......~. ~. :.~, :. '.'...~ ~ ,,.. ;.., :., .,., ..: :... ·
· , ? .',.. , .;': ~.".
Due to the series of ct?cu~$tan~Z~ enumerated 'b~e /he'sifn 'applications could not be
approved. Howe~,er, the application= were, in'fact, in compliance with ail regulations in effect
· prior tO d~e C,'r.y's moratorium en~ ~ou/~..hf~e been acted upon favorably prior to fiat date,
· Very ~rui;~.y, ours, · "
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Joseph A. filcherda, Planning Director
Mark F, Baiys, .Chief Deputy g D/rector
..
MFB:aea
co:
doseph S. Aklufi
400O L~MON STREET, 9TH FLOOR 79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE E
A'i'I'ACHMENT NO. 4
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOTICES OF DECISION
15
R:IVERSZD[ COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTHENT
4080 LD¢ON STREET, KZNTH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(7)4) 275-3200
Joseph A. Rtchards, Planntng Dtrector
As prescribed under the provisions of Coemty Ordinances, thts ts to nottry Jmu
that the application referenced belov bee been recetved to be considered by the
RIverside County Planntng Departrant.
Any person vtshtng to rant m the project mJat subett written cements to
the Planntng Dll)lrlzmlt It the Illova address before
NO PUBLIC HEARING on the application shall be held be re I dects~cm ts Bee
fo
unless a heartng tS requested tn arlCtq prtor to the aforementioned date by
the appltunt or other affected Imrso~, or tf l~e Plenntng Dtrector datemines
that I publlc hearing should be reclulred. if a Wbllc halring ts scheduled
before the Planntng DIrector, Jmu shall be notified.
The proposed project appltcltfon my be vtmed it the publlc tnformtton
counter, Nonday through Frtday frm 9:OO I.E. grit11 4:OO p.B.
Zf yOU have any camrants to sulmtt Or vtih to request a Publlc bearing, please
return thts sheet and return to thta office by the above rottoned date.
OUTDOOR ADV[RTZSEHENT ZZ83, axedirt fm C[O A, fs an eppl(catton sulmttted by
Addins Advertising, lnc for prolNrty iotated tn the liarPlats Arel and Ftrst
Supervisor1/1 Dlstrtct aR(I generally described as the NE corner of WInchester
Road and Hamllton and rode pursuant to Ordinance No. 348, Riverside County Land
Use Orcltnance ~htch prnposes and off-stto atgn.
CASE & NO. OUTDOOR ADVERTTSERENT 1183
I do not fish a public beartng to be bald on th~s case, but*! aeuld like
to submit comments ~n regards to thts project.
] am reouesttng that a publ$c heartrig be held 'on th~s use for the
fol low4ng reasons:
Z. underStand that Z v111 be notlfted of the ttme and date of the publlc
hal r~ rig.
S ~ gna r.u re
PrtnT, lieme
Prtnt Street Address
Prtnt Cfty/State ZtD
RTVERSzDE COUNTY PLANNXNG DEPARTT4ENT
4080 LEHON STREET, NZNTH FLOOR
R[VERSZOE:, CALZFOPJIZA 9250]
(714) 275-3200
Joseph A. Rtchards, Planntng Dtrector
As prescribed under the provisions of County Ordinances, this ts to nottry ~ou
that the application referenced belw his been recetved to be considered by the
RIverside County Planntng DepartmenT..
Any Person vtshtng to cooRefit on the project must submtt vrttten colRents to
the Planntng Departneat at the above address before Nay 7, 1990.
NO PUBLZC HEARZNG on the appltcJtloe shall be hel-d before e dectston Is Bade
unless a heartrig ts requested te vrtttng prtor to the aforementioned date by
the applicant or-other affected person, or tf the Plan~tng Dtrecter determines
that a publlc hear4ng should be required. :f a labllc heartrig ts scheduled
before the Planntng DIrector, .You shall be notified.
The proposed project application my be vteved at the publlc Information
counter, 14onday through Frtday from 9:OO a.m. unit14:OO p.m.
Tf ~OU have ar~ COnorientS to subett or vtsh to request a pebllc heartrig, please
return thts sheet and return to thts offtce by the above mattneed date.
OUTDOOR ADVERTZSEFIENT ~-Z84, excel from CEQA, ls an appllcatto~ subtitled by
Adorns Advertising. Znc for property located tn the HurTlets Ares and FIrst
Supe~Ytsortal DtstrtcC and'generally described as the HE corner of lathchester
Road 'end Hamtlton and made ;wrsuant'to Ordinance No. 348,+ RIverside County LJed
Use Ordinance vhtch proposes and off-stIR s.tgn.
CASE & NO. OUTDOOR ADYERTXSENENT 1184
! do not wtsh a publ¶c heer~ng to be held on th~s case. but ! would lake
' to submtt coenen~s tn regards to thts project.
T am requesting that a publtc heartrig be held on th~s case for the
' following reasons:
undersT.and' that Twtll be riotilted
hen rt n9.
SIgnature
of the t~me and date of the pub1 tc
PrtnT. Name
Prlnr, .%treat Address
PrtnT. C1 ty/State
ATi'ACHMENT NO. 5
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DIRECTOR DENIALS
DATE: 31 May 1990
L] ~ard of S;~vtsor$ b~ ) ~ll~tng action on ~e
above refeeced plot plan:
APPROVE) the Plot Plan, Exhibtt , subject to the attached
cond$ tfons.
APPROV[D the Plot P1 an,
amended conall tlons.
APPROVED the Plot Plan.
attached coax ttons.-
APPROYED the Plot Plan.
attached mended condt ttons.
UPHELD the appeal.
DENIED the appeal.
APPROVED the i(/Til)RAWAL of the appeal request.
APPROYED the WZTIIDRAWAL of the Plot Plan.
DENXED the Plot Plan based on the attached findings.
ADOPTED the Negative Declaration on the Environmental Assessment
noted above.
Exhtbtt , subject to the attached
Revised Exhibit , subject to the
Rerlsed Exhibit , subject to the
This actlon my be appealed to the Da Planning Cammission [] Board of
Supervisors within ten (10) days of the data of this notice.. The appeal must
be rode in writing and submitted krlth a fee in accordance ~th the fee
schedul · to the ~ppropr?ate deparlaent. An appeal of ' any condt tt on
constitutes an appeal of the action as m ~hole4nd requires a new public
hearing before the ~propriate hearing body.
Very truly yours,
R/YERSIOE COUNTY PLANNING DEPART!~NT
Joseph X. ~:hazd~. P)-nn~ng Dizector
cc: Representat? ve - - FIle
Sian Prm~n, Planner III
liarf seal _.
4080 LEMON STREET, P FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787.6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 3(
INDIO, CALIFORNIA g22C
(619) 3~
DATE: 31 zey 1990
Dear Applicant:
It[: Plot Plan Io. 11 4
Ea. drmmeatal Assessa~l~ No. N/~
Iteg4oral Tea ll~. N4r~r. ~-~.
L] Nard ef Supervisors took *.he follm~tn9 acMon on the
above referenced plat
APPROVED ~e Plot Plan, Exhibit , subject to the attached
condt M Des.
APPROYED the Plot Plan, Exhlb?t , subject to the attached
amended conditions.
APPROVE:D the Pl.ot Plan, Revised Exhibit , subject to the
attached condf Mons.
APPRDYED the Plot Plan, Revised F. xh?blt , subject to the
attached mended cond4Mons.
;HELD the appeal.
DENIED the' appeal.
APPROVED the ifiTIERAHAL of the appeal .request.
APPROYED the WXTHD~ of the Plot Plan.
DD/ZE:D the Plot, Plan based on the attached findtags.
ADOPTED the Ilegattve Declaration on the Env4ronmental
noted above.
Assessment.
Thts ·cOlon my be appealed to the M Plann4ng Canm4ss4on' [] Board of
Supervisors ~lthtn ten (10) days of the te of thts notice The appeal must
be 'made In wlMn9 and seat,ted Vlth · fee tn ·ccordance'~lth l~e fee
schedule to the appropriate department. An appeal of ·n~ cond?Mon
const4tutes ·n appeal of the action -ms · vhole end requtres· nw public
healing before the appropriate hearing body.
Very truly yours,
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANKZIG DEPARTKENT
Joseph A. ~eazes, pl~ · Direcu~r
cc: RepreSen tat1 ve
File
295-43
le~lsed
8-10-88
4080 LEMON STREET. gm FLOOR
RNERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
T714) 787-6181
Sian P~mTan, Planner III
4&21:)9 OASIS STREET. RO0kZ 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 8';201
(619) 342-~1277
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CORRESPONDENCE/PETITIONS
$~STAFFRPT~BAPPEALCC 11
P.t:, % ,,I,,,,,L/f,/-./
City of Temecula
Planning Commision
September 16, 1992
4s residents of Winchester Creek, Winchester Collection
are very much opposed to Plot Plan No. 245 and 246. These
billboards do not conform to the surrounding land uses and
'~ill be an eyesore to our tract. In addition they would
detract. attention from a very busy and dangerous area of
~inchester Rd., these signs would be located very near the
narrow bridge located just' north of Nicholas Rd. and could
be a safety hazard to the motorists.
Thank You
Richard and Donna Dietrich
RECEIVED
8EP 18 ltt
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Temecula~ CA 92591
Jack E. & Ruth A. McLean
39423 Long Ridge Drive
Temecul~,' CA 92591
September 21, 1992
We spaeft'ally protest the thought of pllcing two signs on WINCHESTER
ROAD requested by ADAMS ADVERTISING, INC.
~ pr. otest because fhe ~i.~r~ would not imprl~e the a.apeamnce of the
k~:inchesler Creek subdivision. In fact the proposed plan k not
consistent with any present or future piar~ bein9 im.Diement@d by the
CITY OF TEMECULIL..
It my be of interest to you that the notice which informs the pubre olr
the heirin9 roger/~ above cannot be mad u~iess you are !~_c e_-s-,9
at a speed of 10 miles per hour, or s~op the I~r and / back to mad
Also, when the P.~l w~s made to protest the possible constnJction, the
person who answered the call did not know there was a WINCHESTER CREEK
SUBDIVISION... Seems rather odd tl"~i pinning would not be aware of
surToundings near such an important proposal.
Jack E. McLean
RECEIVED
SEP 2 1992 _,
CI'P( IF ~J4ECULA
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
$~TAF~SAPPEALCC 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
NICOi, a,,e
IIIIIlli
SITE /
i /
-I
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
EXHTRIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
b'~STAFF~246.pp
CITY OF TEMECULA
# I
SITE
-I
/,
LI
Designation:
General Light Industrial (LI)
R-R .,. S-p (,ffi,4) '~\
:-,~_, .\
.... -SITE'
.\/,"
S-P (2 13)
I
·
ZONING -EXItIBFI' C Designation: Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC)
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
P.C. Date: September 21, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
UL'TIrIATE
RI61.{T OF L,4AY
LINE
NINCHESTER ROAD
Proposed
~s~MILTON ,ai/L
.'TO NICOLAS RoAD
' CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
EXHTRIT: D1 SITE-PLAN
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
S~"TA~246.pp
CITY OF TEMECULA
Gateways
TEM-Ot',I00P.COk4.I:)SN · Dfa/t Date: July 20, 1992 ll:25am
hie 10-10
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot p!nn No. 246, Amendment No. 1
EXI-IIRIT: E LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992 AND GATEWAYS
S~I'AFF~45-241.PP
ITEM NO. 10
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROV
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department '& ~'
January 26, 1993
Appeal No. 29 for Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. I
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Matthew Fagan
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Council:
City
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 29, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 246, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELy 1,850 FEET NORTH OF
THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-005.
BACKGROUND
Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 was denied by the Planning Commission at the
September 21,1992 meeting. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the project, however,
Staff received two letters in opposition and two phone calls in opposition to the project.
Commission discussion centered upon the hardship request by the applicant and on the likely
probability that the proposal for a V-Type Outdoor Advertising Display would not be consistent
with the City's future General Plan. The vote of the Commission was four in favor of denying
the Plot Plan and one (Commissioner Ford) opposed to denying the Plot Plan.
Appeal No. 29 was continued from the December 8, 1992 City Council meeting to the
January 12, 1993 City Council meeting at the request of the applicant. The applicant was
out of the State on December 8 and was therefore unable to attend the City Council meeting.
At the meeting on January 12, 1993, staff requested that the applicant continue this item to
the City Council meeting on January 26, 1993 due to scheduling conflicts. The applicant
concurred with this request.
1 R:I~'rAFFRFrX29APpEAL.C(~ 1114/93 Idb
Staff has received two (2) additional letters in favor of outdoor advertising displays (billboards)
which are also in favor of locating additional displays within the City of Temecula (see
Attachment No. 2).
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution No. 93- - page 3
Letters Received by Staff - page 8
City of Temecula Agenda Report:
City of Temecula Agenda Report:
January 12, 1993 - page 9
December 8, 1992 - page 10
R:~F~APPItAL.CC3 1119/93 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:~TA]mIqt.FI*~AI~EALCC3 1/14/93
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING APPEAL NO. 29, UPHOLnING
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY. PLOT
PLAN NO. 246, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ALLOW T!:r~.
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THg EAST SIDE
OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELy 1,8~0 FEET
NORTH OF THE INTERSF~TION OF WINCHESTER AND
NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 911-L~-005.
WHEREAS, Adams Advertising filed Plot Plan No. 246 on July 15, 1992;
WHI~IH?.AS, an Amendment No. 1 to Plot Plan No. 246 was filed on August 14, 1992;
Vvr!~'~F2,S, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WI~RR~kS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support.or opposition to said Plot Plan;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said
Plot Plan.
~, Adams Advertising, Inc. filed Appeal No. 29 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by/~'ference;
WHFREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WH]~REAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on
December 8, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support
or opposition to said Appeal; and
WHEREAS, Appeal No. 29 was continued at the December 8, 1992 public hearing;
Wl:ff.~, Appeal No. 29 was continued at the January 12, 1993 public hearing;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, TFI!~gI?ORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
4 R:~WrAFFRFr~APpEAL.CC3 1114/93 klb
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecuh City Council hereby makes the foilowing
fmdings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met: '
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency fmds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest pertion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the County of Riverside SWAP
Guidelines and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
1. The Planning Commission finds, in denying projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following:
a. There is a likely probability that the land use or action proposed
will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
R:~SXSTAFFRPT~APpI!AL.CC3 1114/93 lab
c. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant t° Section18-30(e) of Ordinance No. 348, no plot plan may be approved
uuless the following findings cau be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
to wit: E. The City Council, in denying the Appeal No. 29, makes the foliowing findings,
1. There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 will
not be consistent with the C.,ene~ Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project
site is Medium Density Residential. The proposed sign is inconsistent with this land use
designation. In addition, the proposed sign is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use
and Community Design Elements, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the
fact that the proposed project site is a potential "gateway" to the City.
2. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The erection of one (1) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent with the
proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. There are existing
residential uses to the west of the project site and residential development is proposed to the
northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the Community Design Element has determined
that the area of the project will be a "gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor
Advertising Display, the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
3. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06,
prohibiting the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays, contains hardship provisions,
which have not been demonstrated to exist for the proposed sign. Approval was never granted
by the Riverside County Planning Department, and the subsequent approval procedure with the
City of Temecula was not pursued.
4. The proposed sign is not designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general weftare and does not conform to the logical development of the land. Further,
the sign is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for industrial development. The
Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the designation for the site is Medium
Density Residential. The present development in the immediate area is vacant to the south, east
and portions north of the site. Residential uses exist to the north/northwest of the site.
R:~S~FAFFRPT~)AppI~AL. CC3 1/14/93 lab
Approved uses will include residential uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial
uses to the south. The sign as proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding
development. In addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a potential
gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Displays.
Seaion 2. Environmental Compli3nce. The City of Temecula City Council hereby
determines that Appeal No. 29 is a statutory exemption under CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 -
(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTEl} this 26th day of January, 1993.
ATTEST:
J. SAL UVd' OZ
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAtx~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECUIA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 93--- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1993, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day
of __, 1993 by the following mH call vote: '
COUNCHJMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCHAMEMBBRS:
COLINCH-MEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
7 R:~kqTAFFRFr~APP]]AL. CC3 1114/93 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
LETTERS RECEIVED BY STAFF
8 R:~L~rAFI;RPT~gAppEAL.C.~ 1114193 lib
Nu}l~nml~l~
December 8, Z992
Temeculs City Council
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Tcmecula, California 92390
Re: Adams Advertising Inc-
Sign project - Highway 79 North
Dear Council Members:
we wish to express our 'need plus the importance of the Ad&ms
Advertising billboard we msintain or Interstate 1.5, south of Rancho
California Road, in the city of Temecula0
This display has been very befieficial ~o our business and is The
only medium available to reach the mass traffic, passing through
Temecul8 daily, advising them where to cxit to reach our business.
Therefore, we would lend our support to Adsms Advertising's
proposal to provide additional signs, needed by the business
communitY~ on HilhwsY 79 NotCh.
Thank you.
S i nCere I Y,
Own e ~
~'~ ~"~ ~=~, '=~ iNC. ]'EL 714-730-546i P. 7
~ROe
12, 1.1)~2 l~:Se
F'. 2
VAb r DAE L E.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
December 8, 1992
City Council
City o~ Tenscull
43174 BusLness Park Drive
u'emecula, CA 92590
gONORADLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Van Uaele Development Corporation is currently developing a
single family home community within the City of Tamecull. Thb
communi~y is re£erred to as Van Dsele's Signature Series located
nea~ the i~tersections of winchester and Nicholas Road.
The recently aperoved KiOsk Signage Program for the Cit~ of
Temecul~ has been instituted. SZnce that time, we have noticed a
deterioration in the amounE of Craffic which ~e have received
through our new home community. while I understand the reasons
for attemptin9 to eliminate peripheral signage, such signage
often times the only true visible means for ~hich buyers are able
to find our communities. To the extent tha= additional permitted-
signage ~ould be allowed at ma~or intersections such ss Nicholas
and Winchester Roads, such accon~nodatio. woul~ be
appreciate~.
To =he extent'that the City oZ Tamecull does not believe Chat
peripheral lipsage is in the community's best in~erest, we would
fully support the addition of well placed, tas;eZally constructed
freeway sipnage lion9 Interstate IS. During the past two years,
we have had the opportunity ~o ~ork wi~h Adams A~ver~iaing. As
compared to other billboard advertisers, it has been our
experience =haC A~ams Advertising has cO~stru¢zed well designed,
aestheCically pleasi.g billboards.
2f(X) Xdams Streel · Suite C.2S
Rivedida. CellfoeS,
Phone: (714) 3~4.2121
FAX: {714) 3.q..~N6
December ~,
Irrespective o£ Four ~aai decision
~s mos~ sppreeL~ed. '
very truly yours,
V~ D~ELE DEVE~Op~ CORPORATZOS
PATRICK J, VAN D~ELE
Executive vice Presiden~.
P~v:bk
FouF
scrooge ~onmide~mtion
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT
JANUARY 12, 1993
R:~TAFFRPT~APPEAL.CC3 1/19/93 klb
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
!' ,PPROVA~. _
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department/~2/
January 12, 1993
Appeal No. 29 for Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. I
PREPARED BY:
Matthew. Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 29, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 246, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET NORTH OF
THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-005.
BACKGROUND
Appeal No. 29 was continued from the December 8, 1992 City Council meeting at the request
of the applicant. The applicant was out of the State on December 8 and was therefore unable
to attend the City Council meeting (see Attachment No. 1 ).
Staff has received three (3) letters in favor of outdoor advertising displays (billboards) which
are also in favor of locating additional displays within the City of Temecula. These letters
have been included as an attachment (see Attachment No. 2). One telephone call has been
received by staff in opposition to the location of the proposed outdoor advertising display.
Staff has requested that the applicant continue this item to the City Council meeting on
January 26, 1993 due to scheduling conflicts. The applicant has concurred with this request
in a letter addressed to the City Council (see Attachment No. 3).
FISCAL IMPACT
NOFle
I~S~$TAFFRFT~iAPftr'ALCC2
Attachments:
Resolution No. 93- - page 3
Applicant's Request for Continuance Letter from the December 8, 1992 City Council
Meeting - page 9
Letters Received by Staff - page 10
Applicant's Letter Concurring with Staff's Request to Continue Appeal No. 28 to the
City Council Meeting on January 26, 1993 - page 11
R:~S~,STAFFRFT~SAPPEAL CC2 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
~S~STAFF~PT~Sa~q*F. AL. CC2 . 3
RESOLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF T~MECULA DENYING APPEAL NO. 29, UPHOt,nING
PLANNING COMR6gSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLOT
PLAN NO. 246, ~IV!gNT NO. 1, TO ALLOW TFtR
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON TRR EAST SIDE
OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELy 1,850 FEET
NORTH OF ~ INTERSECTION OF WINCH~-~;TER AND
NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCF. I.
NO. 911-150-00~.
WiP.~,EAS, Adams Advertising filed Plot Plan No. 246 on July 15, 1992;
WHI;REAS, an Amendment No. 1 to Plot Plan No. 246 was filed on August 14, 1992;
WHERE4~, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHKstEAS, the Planning Commi-~sion conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in suppoE or opposition to said Plot Plan;
WI:rERE~kS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said
Plot Plan.
WHEREAS, Adams Advertising, Inc. filed Appeal No. 29 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by .reference;
W!:!'ERI~,,~kS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local hw;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on
December 8, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support
or opposition to said Appeal; and
WH~:uRAS, Appeal No. 29 was continued at the December 8, 1992 pubtic hearing;
W]]EREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, Tm~R~ORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TER,~,CULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOr-TOWS:
P,:~S~S'rAR:R~n'~2SAR~t, ALCC2 4
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
froclings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorpo~on. 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 r~luirements are met:
general plan.
The city is procecding in a timcly fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency fin&, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantinl detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is uitimntely
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Ar~
Community Plan, 0ncreinafu~r "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the County of Riverside SWAP
Guidelines and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
1. The Planning Commission finds, in denying projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:.
a. There is a likely probability that the land use or action proposed
will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
R:~S~STAFFRPT~gAP!aEALCC,2 5
c. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c) of Ordimmce No. 348, no plot plan may be approved
unless the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state hw and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
to wit:
The City Council, in denying the Appeal No. 29, makes the fonowing findings,
1. There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 will
not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project
site is Medium Density Residential. The proposed sign is inconsistent with this land use
designation. In addition, the proposed sign is hconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use
and Community Design Elements, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the
fact that the proposed project site is a potential ' gateway' to the City.
2. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted General Plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsi._qent with the plan.
The erection of one (1) V-type Outdoor Advertising Disphys will be inconsistent with the
proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. There are existing
residential uses to the west of the pwject site and residential development is proposed to the
northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the Community Design Element has determined
that the area of the project wffi be a "gateway" to the City. By appwving the proposed Outdoor
Advertising Disphy, the proposed General Phn Goals and Policies wffi be difficult to obtain.
3. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06,
prohibiting the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Disphys, contains hardship provisions,
which have not b~--n demonstrated to exist for the proposed sign. Appwval was never granted
by the Riverside County Planning Dcpamnent, and the subsequent approval procedure with the
City of Temecuh was not pursued.
4. The proposed sign is not designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare and does not conform to the logical development of the land. Further,
the sign is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
propony. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for industrial development. The
Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the designation for the site is Medium
Density Residential. The present development in the immediate area is vacant to the south, east
and portions north of the site. Residential uses exist to the no~i~nordmwest of the site.
R:~S~STAFFRF'r~Ala~=N'CC2 6
Approved uses will include residential uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial
uses .to the south. The sign as propose, d, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding
development. In addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a potential
gatoway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Displays.
Section 2. Environmental Corllpli~nce. The City of Temecula City Council hereby
determines that Appeal No. 29 is a statutory oxemp~on under CEQA pursuant to Section 15270
(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
R:~I'S~STAFF:RPT~29API:~:"ALCC2 7
Section 3. DENB~ AND ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 1993.
ATT~T:
PATRICIA H. :RIP, DS~T-T.
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
crrY OF 'HaIvBLc'trLA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of T6quccula, do here, by certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 93--- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1993, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed a regular meeting of the City Council ou the th day
of __, 1993 by the following roll call vote: '
COUNCu-MHMBERS:
NOES:
COUN~HP, S:
COUNCu MHMB~:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:%S~STA~'e-i%2~APPEALCC2 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE LETI'ER
FROM THE DECEMBER 8, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
R:~S'~STA~gAI~CC2 9
19081 Rocky Roach, Santa Ana 'li/ornia 92705, (714) 838-9026 o FAX (71:' '30-5461
adams advertising, inc.
RECEIVED
'DEC 1
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
(909) 694-1999
December 8, 1992
Mr. Gary Thornhill
i~lanning Director
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr..
Te,~ecula, CA 92590
Re: Plot'Plans #245 and #246
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
In a telephone conversation with Matthew Fagan, it was brought to my attention that
i ne~l/ected to offer a reason for requesting the continuance.
Bob Adams is out of the State and is unable to return until Wednesday, December 9,
1992. Therefore, we will not be in a position to make a presentation at the meeting
tonight.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Thank you.
Yours ~uly,
Michele Adams
M A:dt
19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, ':fornia 92705, (714) 838-9026 * FAX (714;'" ~0-5461
adams advertising, inc.
December 8, 1992
Mr.- Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAlL
RE: Plot Plans #245 & 8246
· :, .;Dear Mr.':]'hornhiil: ~
Adams Advertising respectfully requests that items # 14 and # 15 on the December 8,
:.: 1992.City--Council agenda be continued to the next City Council meeting.
Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Miche/e Adams
ATi'ACHMENT NO. 3
LETTERS RECBVED BY STAFF
R:~T~CC2 10
RAMADA INN
.-~ry Thomas_-
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
R~
The City Council
City of T.enec~la
Downtown T.,.,,,~ of America
Ramada Inn, Temaecula
Dec~znber 5, 1992
Ada2m SiI~ Request for'Additionfi SigsmSe
The billboard they con~ru~cl for .our Ramada Inn has increased our exposur~ as well as
our occupancy.
RAMADA INN · 28980 Front Street · Terneculs, California 92590 · (7'14) 676-8770
Ord & Rodgers Homes
December 4, 1992
City of Temecula.
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear City Council
We wish to express our need, plus the importance of the
Adams billboard we maintain on Interstate 15, north of
Winchester Road, Temecula.
This display has been very beneficial to our business and is
the only medium available to reach the..mass traffic passing
through Temecula daily.
Therefore, we would be favorable to your approval of the
Adams pro3ec= on 79 North to allow additional signage for
business.
Sincerely,
L. Frederick Pack
Ord & Rodgers Homes
CC: Adams Advertising
5122 AVENIOA ENCINAS · CARLSBAD. CA 92008 · FAX (619) ,.:38-5861 · (619) 438-1588
cc: ~ary i~or~li
December 3, 1992
Temecula City Council
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Dear Council Members:
RE: ADAMS ADVERTISING INC.
SIGN PROPOSAL
:" .~'HIG~WAY.~79'=.NORTH.'
..'
We wish to express our need plus the importance of the Adams
Advertising billboard we maintain on-Interstate 15, north of
Highway 79 South, advising the motorist of our golf club.
This display has been' very beneficial to our business and is the
only medium available to reach the mass traffic passing through
Temecula daily.
Therefore, we would be favorable to Adams Advertising's sign
project to provide new signs, that are very necessary for our
business'and many others, in the City of Temecula.
Thank you.
L. A. Heffner
Executive Vice President
Redhawk P:rkway. Tcraecula. Cal i[orni;z 5)%.~92 Phone ( 909 ) 69.~ - 1424 FAX ( 909 ) 694-09-~9
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
APPLICANT'S LETTER CONCURRING WITH STAFFS REQUEST TO CONTINUE
APPEAL NO. 29 TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JANUARY 26. 1993
,:~TAmUm2Sk"EALCC2 11
i
19081 Rocky Rcoc:.. SanTa Ana. Call.~ornia 9:7705~ (7:41 ~38-9026 · F~AX (714) 730.546~
aidmann adve, rtidng ino,
WA FA C$1Mll~ AND MAlL
fa09l 694-1999
January 4~ 1993
Honordie MaW and City Council Member=
City of Temecula
43 I74 Buslnes$ Park Drive
Tamecain, CA 92590
Rot PI;m 245 & Plot Ran 246
Appeal 28 & Al~ped 29
Dear Honorable Mayor a~d City Council Members:
in accordaz~ce with a naquest from Stmff, Adams Advertisln9 heraby requests to
conb~ue subject items to the regularly $;heduled meeting of JtnuNy 26, 1993.
Thank you.
Yours lzuly,
Michele Adam$
cc:
Matthew FaiZgan
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 8, 1992
] 0 R:~STAFFRPT~9APPEAL.CC3 1/19~)3 Idb
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Ranning Department
December 8, 1992
Appeal No. 29 for Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. I
PREPARED BY:
Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Council:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 29, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 246, AMENDMENT. NO. 1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,850 FEET NORTH OF
THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-O05.
City
BACKGROUND
Plot Plan No. 246 was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on July 15,
1992. The applicant submitted this Plot Plan pursuant to Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-
06 (the hardship clause contained within Ordinance No. 92-06). Staff conducted a preliminary
review of the submittal and informed the applicant that the necessary findings could not be
made for their hardship request. The applicant was also informed that if the Plot Plan
application was pursued, Staff could not support a recommendation of approval. This
information plus comments relative to amendments to the submittal were conveyed in a letter
to the applicant dated August 5, 1992. The applicant chose to pursue the application and re-
submitted an amended site plan on August 14, 1992.
Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. I was denied by the Planning Commission at the
September 21,1992 meeting. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the project, however,
Staff received two letters in opposition (see correspondence) and two phone calls in
opposition to the project. Commission discussion centered upon the hardship request by the
applicant and on the likely probability that the proposal for a V-Type Outdoor Advertising
Display would not be consistent with the City's future General Plan. The vote of the
S%STA~SAPPfr, ALCC
Commission was four in favor of denying the Plot Plan and one (Commissioner Ford) opposed
to denying the Plot Plan. Commissioner Ford stated four reasons for his opposition to denying
the proposed plot plan:
Due process was not followed in the initial processing of the applications with the
County of Riverside.
e
The applicant did incur a hardship - they expended money, however no approvals were.
ultimately granted.
Ordinance No. 92-06, Section 4.A. (the hardship pr. ovision) should be decided by the
City Council·
Consistency with the future General Plan was not substantiated - it is still in a draft
format and has the potential for change.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution No. 92- - page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - page 9
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 10
Correspondence/Petitions - page 11
Exhibits - page 12
S~TA~gAPPEALCC 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S~.STAFFRPT~gAI=PE./d_CC 3
ATrA~ NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF T6P. CITY COUNCIL OF Tl:w. CITY
OF TEMF_LII,A DENYING APPEAL NO. 29, UPHOLDING
PIANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLOT
PLAN NO. 246, AMRNDMENT NO. 1, TO AI,l.OW ~
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) V-TYPE OUtDOOR
ADVERTISING DISHAY LOCATED ON ~ EAST SIDE
OF WINCB~-~TER ROAD APPROXIMAIw-I. ,Y 1,850 FF-~,T
NORTH OF THY, INTERSK'WION OF WINCffP-~TER AND
NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEl'.
NO. 911-1S0-005.
W!n~JkS, Adams Advertising ~ed Plot Plan No. 246 on 1uly 15, 1992;
WI~':REAS, an Amendment No. 1 to Plot Plan No. 246 was fried on August 14, 1992;
WREREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local hw;
W!~-RE,~kS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plan;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said
Plot Plan.
WF~-REAS, Adams Advertising, Inc. fried Appeal No. 29 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local hw;
WH'P-nRJ. S, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on
December 8, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support
or opposition to said Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of ~e Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, T!~'TRF-I~)RE, T!~. CITY COUNCIL OF Ti:~. CITY OF 'rEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOuOWS:
SX'~TAF~APPrrr'ALCC 4
Section 1. Findini, s. That the Tomecub City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant w 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 hw that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
'1.
general plan.
The city is .proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning. agency finds, in appwving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
· proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted. general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances. ·
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior W the incorporation of Tcmecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the County of Riverside SWAP
Guidelines and meet the requirements set forth in Section 6~360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
1. The Planning Commission finds, in denying projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following:
a. There is a likely probability that the land use or action proposed
will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is a pwbability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
S~'TAFFRFT~gAPPEALCC 5
c. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Punuant to Section 18. 30(c) of Ordinance No. 348, no plot plan may be approved
unless the following f'mdings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designed 'for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
to wit:
The City Council, in denying the Appeal No. 29, makes the following f'mdings,
1. There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 will
not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project
site is Medium Density Residentinl. The proposed sign is inconsistent with this land use
designation. In addition, the proposed sign is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan I and Use
and Community Design Elements, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the
fact that the p.roposed project site is a potential "gateway" to the City.
2. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The erection of one (1) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent with the
proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. There are existing
residential uses to the west of the project site and residential development is proposed to the
northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the Community Design Element has determined
that the area of the project will be a "gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor
Advertising Display, the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult'to' obtain.
3. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06,
prohibiting the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Disphys, contains hardship provisions,
which have not been demonstrated to exist for the pwposed sign. Approval was never granted
by the Riverside County Planning Depamnent, and the subsequent approval procedure with the
City of Temecuh was not pursued.
4. The proposed sign is not designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare and does not conform to the logical development of the land. Further,
the sign is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for industrial development. The
Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the designation for the site is Medium
Density Residential. The present development in the immediate area is vacant to the south, east
and portions north of the site. ~Residential uses exist to the north/northwest of the site.
S~STAFFRFT'~29APPEAL CC 6
Approved uses wffi include residential uses to the noah and east, with commercial and industrial
uses to the south. The sign as proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding
development. In addition, the COmmUnity Design Element identifies this area as a potentinl
gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Displays.
Section 2. Environmental Co!lip!lance. The City of Temecula City Council hereby
determines that Appeal No. 29 is a statutory exemption under CEQA pursuant to Section 15270
(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
$~TAFFRPT'~eAPPF, ALCC 7
Section 3. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of December, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSAT-T,
MAYOR
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk.
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAT-r~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMEC~)
I, JUne S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 92-_. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the --. day of , 1992, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed a regular meeting of the City Council on the __th day
of ,1992 by the following roll call vote:
COUNCILMElV~ERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNTERS:
COUNCILMh'~4B~:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
S~STAFFRPT~gAPPPr'"AI-CC 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
S%STAFFRPT~gAPPEA~CC 9
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Develoomerrt Code
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Hoegland to appoint
Commissioner Chiniaeff as Planning Commission representative to the Development
Code Committee.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:10 P.M.
Chinieeff, Ford, Hoagland:. Fahey
4. Noise Ordinance
John Meyer presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey questioned where the issue of the noise ordinance originated from.
Gary Thornhill advised that it originally came as a result of problems occurring at the
School District bus maintenance facility. Mr. Thornhill added that staff does not feel
the ordinance being presented deals with the kinds of problems it should address,
therefore staff would prefer to postpone action on this item until completion of the
noise element portion of the General Plan.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
postpone action on this item until completion of the Noise Element .portion 'of the
General Plan.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoegland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PCMIN 912 119 2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Plot Plan No. 245
Proposed erection of one V-Type outdoor advertising display on the east side of.
'2' sna/s2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SFPTEMBER 21. 1992
Winchester Road, approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road
and Winchester Road.
Plot Plen No. 946
Proposed erection of one V-Type outdoor advertising display on the east side of
Winchester Road, approximately 1,850 feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road
and' Winchester Road.
Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey opened the pubiic hearing at 6:15 P.M.
Michelle Adams, Adams Advertising, 19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, stated that the
most important issue was whether or not this is a hardship case. Ms. Adams stated
the hardship is necessitated by the processing time at Riverside County. Based on
hardships incurred by the landowner, who at the time of application had a legally zoned
piece of property; the community has suffered a hardship due to the fact that several
local advertisers had expressed an interest in advertising on these signs; and Adams
has incurred a economic hardship because the signs should have been approved 2 1/2
years ago.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close
the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. and Adoot Resolution No. 92-034 denying Plot Plan
No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. I based on
findings I through 4, page 6 and 7 as identified in staff report
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Ford
Commissioner Ford clarified that he voted against the motion because he did not feel
that due process was followed.
Soecific Plan I (CamDos Verdes)
Chanoe of Zone 5617
Environmental Imoact Reoort No. 348
Soeci~c Plan ~63 (Temecula Reaional Center)
Chanae of Zone 5589
Environmental Imoact Report No. 340
Soecific Plan ~55 (Winchester Hills)
ChanQe of 7one 5539
PCMINg121/92
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
S~ST~mSN'E~CC 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September' 21, 1992'
Case No,:
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot
'Plan No. 246, Amendmerit No. I
RECOMMENDATION:
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- denying Plot Plan No. 245,
Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in me staff
report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Adsms Advertising, Ir~,
REPRESENTATIVE:
Saffle
PROPOSAL:
To erect two {2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays. '
LOCATION:
East side of .Winchester Road approximately 1,200 and 1,850
feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road and Winchester
Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:.
R-2 (Restricted Single-Family
Subdivisions)
SP 164 (Roripaugh Estates)
SP 213 (Winchester Properties)
R-R (Rural Residential)
Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE: . Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:.
West:
Single-Family ResidencesNacant
Vacant (SP 164- Commerdal)
Vacant (SP 213 - Residential)
Single-Family Residences/Vacar~
II
PROJECT STATISTICS
Billboard No. I (Plot Plan No. 245}:
Height: 35 feet
Height from Roadway Grade: 25 feet
Size of Sign: 297 square feet
Billboard No. 2 (Plot Plan N0. 246):
Height: 35 feet
Height from Roadway Grade: 25 feet
Size of Sign: 297 square feet
BACKGROUND.
The City of Temecula has adopted a number of Ordinances regarding Outdoor 'Advertising
Displays. FollOwing is a chronology of Ordinances regulating Outdoor Advertising Displays:
Ordinance No. 90-08: Adopted on April 24, 1990 end expired on June 8, 1990.
Ordinance No. 90-08 was an urgency ordinance adopting an
interim zoning ordinance pertaining to regulations for Outdoor
Advertising Displays. Section 3 {a) stated: "Pending the
completion and adoption of the General Plan of the City of
Temecula together with associated signage .regulation for the
Land Use Code for the City of Temecula, the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Display is hereby prohibited' and no
application for sign location plan, plot plan or other applicable
discretionary entitlement for an Outdoor'Adve.rdsing Display shall
be accepted, acted upon, or approved."
Or. dinance No. 90-09: Adopted 'on June 5, 1990 and expired on April 24, 1991.
Ordinance No. 90-09 was an urgency ordinance which extended
interim Ordinance No. 90-08.
Ordinance No. 91-17: Adopted on April 23, 1991 and expired on April 23, 1992.
Ordinance No; 91-17 was an urgency ordinance which further
extended interim Ordinance No. 90-08.
Ordinance No. 92-06: Adopted on April 28, 1992 and will expire on April 28, 1993.
Ordinance No. 92-06 is a resolution pertaining to sign regulations
and establishes regulations for the use of Outdoor Advertising
Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06 contains a
hardship provision which would permit commercial off-premises
signs, provided that a finding of hardship is made by the Planning
Commission. Following a noticed public hearing, a commercial
off-premises sign may be approved subject to compliance with
the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, Article
XIX (Advertising Regulations).
S.~T, ijqq~le1.~45.24~.pF, 2
II
Ordinance No. 92-07:
Adopted concurrently wire Ordinance No. 92-06 as an urgency
ordinance,
Aooticant's Submittal to the County of Riverside Plannine DePartment
Two (2) applications for Outdoor Advertising Displays were originally submitted to the County
of Riverside Planning Department on February 22,, 1990, According to a chronology prepared
by me applicant (reference Attachment No. 3), there was confusion involved in processing
these applications through the County' of Riverside Planning' Department- Based on the
applicant's chronologY, approval from the County of Riveride Planning Department was
received on three separate occasions, Subsequently, they were finally informed by Riverside
County that their project was within the City of Temecule and therefore, no permits could be
issued. The applicant's recluesl: for a 'hardship exemption' is based on the processing time
at Riverside County. The applicant feels that if their applications were processed in a timely
manner through Riveride County, then they would have had their approvallparrnits prior to
the Cit~ of Temecuis moratorium on Outdoor Advertising Displays, Attachment No. 4, dated
May 7, 1990, are the County of Riverside notices that the signs were to be considered by the
County of Riverside Planning Department, Attachment No, 5, dated May 31,1990, are denial
letters by the County of Riveride Planning Depe~bnent f.or the proposed displays, Although
the denial letters are not signed, the date on the denial letters indicates that the projeots were
being processed by Riverside County after. the moratorium was established in the City of
Temecula.
City Staff requested either an approval letter or approved exhibits from the applicant, however
none of the requested items could be provided.
Subrnittai 1:o the Ciw of Temecula
Plot Plans No. 245 and 246 were submitted to the City of Temecuis Planning Department on
July 15, 1992. The applicant has submitted these Plot Plans pursuant to Section 4,A. of
Ordinance No. 90-06 (the hardship clause contained within Ordinance No. 92-06). Staff
conducted a preliminary review of the submittal and informed the applicant that the necessary
findings could not be made for their hardship request. The applicant was also informed that
.if the Plot Plan applications were pursued, Staff could not support a recommendation of
approval. This information plus comments relative to amendmer~ to the submit'el were
conveyed in a letter dated August 5, 1992. The applicant chose to pursue the applications
and re-submitted amended site plans on August 14, 1992. Staff reviewed the r~submittais
and determined that the projects were complete.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plot Plan No. 245 is a proposal to erect a V-type Outdoor Advartiing Display on the eas~ side
of Winchester Road, approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Rcad and
Winchester Road. Plot Plan No. 24,6 is a proposal to erect a V-type Outdoor Advertising
Display on the east side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,850 feet north of the
intersection of Nicholas Road and Winchester Road. Total height of each Outdoor Advertising
Display shall be thirry-five (35} feet, however from the roadway grade, the igns shall be
twerTCy-five (25) feet in height. The distance between the two signs is approximately 640
feet. The separation of the display faces on the V-type signs is twenty-five (25) feet.
3
ANALYSIS
ADDrOYal Procedures
The Riverside County Planning Department processed applications for the City of Temecula
until July, 1990. All projects which were processed by the County of Riverside Planning
Department were ultimately placed on the agerides of the City of Temecula Ci~f Council.
According to Ordinance No, 89-13, notice of all decisions of the County planning Director and'
the County Planning Commission were to be filed with 'the Clerk of the City Council within
fifteen {15) days after the decision. No notice of decision for those two plot plans was
received by the City of Temecule City Clerk, and the Outdoor Advertising Display applicationS
(reference Attachment No. 4, letter to Mr. David Dixon dated September 12, 1990, which
states: "Due to the series of circumstances enumerated above, the sign applications would
not be approved'). In the event that the projects were approved by Riverside County, the
above mentioned procedure would have to be followed. Since the procedure was not
followed, the City Council would not have the opportunity to act on the Riverside County
Planning Director's decision if they had chosen to do so.
Ciw Council Denial of Other Outdoor Advertisina Display Applications
The City Council previously denied two appeals for Outdoor Advertising Displays. Both were
denied during the review period for the applicant's Outdoor Advertising Displays by the
Riverside County Planning Department. Plot Plan No. 1170 was denied on February 27, 1990
and Plot Plan No. 1168 was denied on March 13, 1990. Findings to support both denials
included aesthetic concerns of the proposed signage, and inconsistency and incompatibility
with present and future development of the surrounding property. BOth Of the applications
were denied prior to the moratorium on Outdoor Advertising Displays .which went into effect
on April 24, 1990.
Inconsi51encv with DrBf~ Fut~Jre General Plan
The proposals to locate two (2) V-type Outdoor AdvertiSing Displays on The east side of
1,200 feet north of the intersection of
Winchester Road, (one display approximately
Winchester and Nicholas Roads and the other approximately 1,850 feet north of this
intersection) are likely to be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan for the following
reasons:
The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the subject project site is Medium Density
Residential. If the Draft Preferred Land Use Ran is ultimately adopted, then the proposed
Outdoor Advertising Displays would be inconsistent with the residential designation for the
site.
Residential uses exist to the west of the project site and are proposed to the northeast and
the east. The Outdoor Advertising Displays would not be compatible with these residential
uses. Section E of the Land Use Element of the Draft General Plan states: 'Residents want
adequate buffering from non-residential uses in terms of light, noise, Traffic impacts and
neaative visual impacts.'
Section B of the Community Design Bement of the Draft General Plan identified the northern
portion of the City along Winchester Road as a 'gateway" to the City. It is further elaborated
in Section E: "The primary entrances or 'gateways' to the City should be clearly defined
through monumentation, signage and extensive landscape design features". The intent of
Section E will not be met if Outdoor Advertising Displays are erected in this area.
Policy 1.4 of the Land Use Element is to "Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and
infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development," The proposed project is
inconsistent with the D~aft Preferred Plan, the Land Use Element and the Community Design
Element, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the fact that the proposed
project site is a potential "gateway' to the City,
Twenty-Five {~51 Wide Trensoortation Corridor I:asement
The Southwest Area Community Ran (SWAP) contains a policy which requires a twenty-five
(25) foot transportation easement along Highway 79 (Winchester Road). Staff has been
requesting that right-of-way be set aside for this easement on both sides of Highway 79 for
all projects for future traffic mitigation program, The applicant currerffiy proposes to locate
the subject outdoor advertising displays within this right-of-way. ~.The SWAP states: "This
easement may be used for additional parking and/or landscaping until such time it is needed
for transportation improvements," In the event that the Planning Commission approves the
proposed outdoor advertising displays, it is Staff'a recommendation that the two (2) outdoor
advertising displays be relocated, since they are permanent structures, and they should not
be located within this right-of-way.
EXISTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Existing zoning for 'the project site is Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC), Outdoor
Advertising Displays are a permitted use with an approved plot plan in the M-SC zone. The
proposed signage meets the requirements prescribed under Section 19.3 of Ordinance No.
348. The SWAP designation for the project site if General Light Industrial (L!}. The SWAP
elaborates that the L! category is applied to areas that have been committed to the
Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) zone. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan
designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential. Although the existing zoning
and the SWAP identify the subject property as Light Industrial, Staff cannot make the finding
that the proposed project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan based upon
the projects inconsistency with the .Draft Preferred Land Use Plan as well as inconsistency
with the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Draft General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Plot Ran No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment' No. 1 are statutoriiy
exempt pursuant to Article 18, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). CtSQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
$L%-TAFFFim, R246,246j.p 5'
i
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
'Plot Plans No. 245 and 246 are proposals to erect two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising
Displays on the east side of Winchester Road, north of the intersection of Winchester and
Nicholas Road. Ordinances No, 90-08, 90-09, 91-17, 92-06 and 92-07 have been adopted
to .regulate the use of Outdoor Advertising Displays. The applicant previously submitted two
applications for Outdoor Advertising Displays to the County of Riverside Planning Department,
however, no approvals were received for the projects, The applicant has submitted two plot
plan applications to the City of Temecula under a hardship provision contained in Ordinance
No. 92-06. Staff has determined that s hardship has not been incurred by the applicant for
the following reasons:
No approvals'were received from the County of Riverside Planning Department.
The City Council never acted or had the opportunity to act upon the proposed projects
which were processed by the County of Riverside,
The applications were being processed by the County of Riverside after the moratorium
was placed on the use of Outdoor Advertising Displays by the City of Temecula,
The proposed Qutdoor Advertising Display applications will be inconsistent with the City's
future General Plan, The subject property has been 'classified as Medium Density Residential
On the Draft Preferred La~d Use Plan, and the use would be inconsistent with the land use
designation. Residential uses exist to the northwest and the north and are proposed to the
east of the subject site, The proposed signage would be incompatible with these uses, The
subject site has been identified as a 'potential gateway.to the City and therefore, the use
would be detrimental in attaining a gateway appearance, The proposed signage is statutoriiy
exempt from the California Environmerrtal .Quality Act (CEQA},
FINDINGS
1. There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No.
246, Amendment No. I will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The Draft
Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential.
The proposed signs are inconsistent with this land use designation. In addition, the
proposed signs are inconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use and CommunitY
Design Elements.
2. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future
adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan. The erection of two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent
with the proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site.
There are existing residential uses to the west of the project site and residential
development is proposed to the northeast and the east of ~e site. In addition, the
Community Design Bement has determined that the area of the project will be a
"gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays, the
proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
~TAimlzllmT~45,24e.pp 6
The proposed use or action does ncc comply with all other applicable reauirements of
state law and local ordinances. Ordinance No. 92-06 prohibits the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-O6 contains hardship
provisions, however, a hardship has not been demormrated to exist for the proposed
signs. Approvals were never granted by the Riverside County Planning Department,
and the subsequent approval procedure with the City of Temecula was not pursued.
The proposed signs am not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; and do not conform to the logical development of the land. Further,
the signs are not compatible with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding prop,m/. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for
industrial development- The Draft Preferred Land Use Ran has been developed and the
designation for the she is Medium Density Residential. The present development in the
immediate area is vacant to the south, east and portions north of the site. Residential
uses exist to the north/northwest of the site. Proposed uses will include residential
uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial uses to the south. The
signs, as proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding
developrearm In addition, the Community Design Element identifies this' area as a
potential gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor
Advertising Displays.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- denying Rot Plan No. 245,
Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff
report.
A~achments:
2.
3.
-'4.
5.
Resolution No. 92- - blue page 8
Exhibits - blue page 13
Chronology and Le~ers Submitted by the Applicant - blue page 14
County of Riverside Notices of Decision - blue page 15
County of Riverside Planning Director Denials - blue page 16
II
~,~TAiRmRirr~45,248,pp 7
ATTACHMENT N0, 1 .
RESOLUTION NO, 92-,,_,,,'
AT'fACH1vfl=ltT NO. I
RESOL.~ON NO. ~-
A E.F. SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM1VIISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECUI. A DENY/NO PLOT PLAN NO.
24S, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 2,2,
~Mlgl~ NO. 1 TO. ERECT TWO (1) V-TYPE
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 6.~0 ACKES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF WIN~'x'~ ROAD, AI'PRO~~Y 1,~00 AND
1,sl,~0 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
WINCHESTER AND NICHOLAS ROADS AND KNOWN AS
ASSF.~OR'S pARC'EL NO. ~I1-~
W~ ~':~-'~, Admns ~g filed Plo~ Plan No. 243, Amexntmcnt No. 1 and Plot.
Plan No. 24~, Amendmen~ No. 1 in accordance wixh ~ Rivex~ide County I.~nd Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subddvidon Ordinances__, which the City has adopted by rdcx'~xcc;
W'm~'AS, said Plot Plan applications were processed in the timc and manucr'
lm~scn'bed by Staxe and local law;
WHERY_.AS the Pl,v. xdng Commhdon conduaed a public hearing perudning to said Plot
Plans on Sepzrnber'21, 1992, at which time inr-resxed persons had opportunity to w. sdfy either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plans; and
W~, at the conclusion of the Commi.uion hearing, the Commission denied said
Plot Plans.
NOW, THI~[FORL THE PLANNING COMMBSION OF THE CITY OF
TElVI~aJIA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Punuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporaxed city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During rim 30-month
period of time, the city is not subjca to the r~quirement that a general plan bc adopted or the
rcqui~mcnts of smxe law that its decisions be consistent With thc gcncral plan, if all of the
following zequ,h'gmenr. s
1. The city is p~ing in a timely fashion with the preparation of thc
general plan.
S%ST~45-24e.PP
9
2. The planning agency finds, in airproving projects and taking other actions,
including the iss-~ce of buiIding permits, each of the fonowing:
a. There h a x~asonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consis~t with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. Thex~ is liVJe or no probabiIiv] of substantial de~ziment to or,
interference with th~ future adopted genenl plan ff the proposed use or action is ultmately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The pwpos~ use or ac~on complied with all other applicable
requi_rcmcnts of smu~ law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County C-eneml Plan, ~ mended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, ~ "SWAP") was adopte~l prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
' the Genenl Plan for the southwest porton of Rivehide County, including the ax'~a now within
the boundaries of the City.
guidelines while the City is procze, ding in a timely fashion with the l~oa-,tion of its General
C. The trropos~ Plot plans are consistent with the SWAP and meet thc x~uir~ments
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
1. The City is proceeding in a ~mely fashion with a preparation of the general
2. The Planning Commitoff finch, in denying projec~ and ~.g other
a~fions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this titS., _~eh of the following:
S. Thex~ is a likely probability tha~ the land use or action proposed
will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a r-'~-~onable ~me.-
b. Ther~ is a probability of sub smnfi~f den'iment to or inr~:rfer~nce
with the fumr~ adopted Genenl Plan if the proposed use or action is ukimau~ly inconsistent wifi~
the plan.
c. The proposed use or a~don does not comply with all other
applicable requirements of sw~ law and lots1 ordinance.
D. Pursuant to Sec~on 18.30{c), no plot plan my be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
lO
!!
1. The proposed use must conform to all the Gencnl Plan r~quircrncnts and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
2. The ovcx'all development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general w~ conforms to the logical development of the land and
· is comlva~ihle with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
E. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Plot Plans, makes 'the
following findings, to wit:
There is a ]ikly probability that Plot Plan No. 243, .~,n~*ndrvent No. 1 and Plot Plan
No. 246, Amendment No. 1 will not bc consistent with the General Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be .studied within a reasonable time. The Draft
The proposed si2ns are inco~t with this land use designation. In addition, the
proposed signs are inconsisumt with. the Draft General Plan I~nd Use and Community
There is a probability of substantial tte-im--t to or int~fc~tacc with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use or a~on is ultimaXely inconsistent with the plan. The
erection of two (2) V-type Outdoar Adverti~,~g Displays w:dl be incon-~i~*vt with the
proposed land use d,.slg~=tion of Medium Density Residen, i~ for the site.
cxisting residen,~=~ uses to the west of the project site and .x~lcntial development is
proposed to the northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the Community Design
Element has determined that the area of the l~ject will be a *gateway* to the City. By
appwving the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays, the proposed General Phn Goals
and Policies will be difi~axlt w ob~]n.
The proposed use or action does not comply with all other alOftcable requirements of
state law and local ordinances. Ox~n~nce No. 92-06 prohibits the esmbIhhmcnt of
Outdoor Advertising Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06 conP~n-~ hardship
the subsequent at~pwval proccdur~ with the City of Temecula was not pursued.
The proposed signs are not de.~igncd for the pwtecfion of the public health, safety and
Ecncral welfare; and do not conform to the logical developmcnt of the land. Further, the
signs are not compatible with thc pr~ent and future logical development of the
surwunding y~op~y. At the an-rent time, the subjea project site is zoned for indu~t~hl
development. The Draft Preferred 1 :~nd Use Plan has been. dcveloped and the
designation for the sire is Medium Density Residential. The present development in the
immediate area is vacant to the south, cast and portions north of the site. Residential
uses aist to the nortbJnorthwcst of the site. Proposed uses will include residen~:d uses
to thc north and east, with commercial and industrial uses to the south. The signs, as
S,,~TAF~qPT~45.34a.-eP
propozd, will not be consistent with the immediaz sm'wunding development. In
addition, the Community Design El~rn~tt identifies this aza as a potential gateway to
the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Displays.
Section 2. CondiHons. That the City of Temeath Planning Cornmission hereby denies
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 w crr~ two
('2) V-Type Outdoor Advertising Displays on a parcel containing 6.70 acres located on the east
side of W'mchester Road; apptoximnwly 1,200 and 1,850 feet north of the intersection of
W'mchcszr and lqicholas Roads and known as Assessor's Parcd No. 911-150-005
5. Section 3. DENrk'~ AND ADOFrED this 21st day of September, 1992.
LINDA FAHEY
CHA.I1LMA~
· STATE OF C.~,T-Ts=ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CiTY OF TEMECIH,A)
I H~.~.:ay CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Terneatla at a regular meeting thezzof, held on the 21st day of
· September,-1992 by the following vote of the Commis~0n:
A-YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:'
PI. ANNING COMMBSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THOENBTr .L
//
12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CHRONOLOGY AND LETI'ERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
! I
14
1) Applications were submitted to Riverside County February 22,
1990.
2) Processing should have been completed within. 30-45 days and
prior to City's imposed moratorium oZ April 24, 1990.
3) Applications :were approved; then, "at the last moment" the
required property owner's notices were not ms/led out.
4)' No comments were.received, and the applications were again
approved.
5) Planner then t~ought signs were located within SpeciZic Plan
- We immediately advised planner that property was not
within Specific Plan 213.
- Planner then had to veri~y this.
6)
7)
Applications were again approved.
Ultimately, we were advised that the property was now in the
City of Temecula. Once again, the County was. not.issuing
the permits.
- Due to the errors made by stafZ, Adsms was .advised of
this after Temecula had established a billboard
moratorium.
These applications should have been administratively
approved through the County, and if processed correctly,
would have been approved.
adams advertising, inc,
19081 Rocky Road, Santa Arm .ditomia 92705, (714) 838-9026 o FAX (7~..' '30-5461
adams advertising, inc.
VIA CERTIFIED MAlt
p..793 513 483
April 14, 1992
Mr. Gary Thornhill
planning Director
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Application for Billboa=ds
No. 91-20, Section
Accordance with Ordinance
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Some time ago, we met and discussed a situation where, as a
result of ~ series of errors made by Riverside County,' we did
not receive permits for two signs that should have been issued.
Enclosed is a letter from' Riverside CounIy that you ma? recs-ll-
It outlines some of wha~ occurred and supports. the.fact'.that a
mistake was made. I hope this helPs refresh your memory of this
issue and of our meeting- I have also enclosed a chronology of
what occurred: together with a plot plan ~nd map identifying the
Sign locations-
We believe these circumstances constitute a hardship in that we
were erroneously precluded from building signs- As a result,
busiDesses and developers in the southwest area have suffered a
hardship as they have been wrongfully denied the opportunity to
promote their business by being denied' the ability to advertise
on these signs.
In light of the foregoing, it is our contention that we,
together with the communitY, continue to suffer. a h~rdship which
we respectfully request you to relieve-
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or
need any additional information-
Thank you for your time a~d consideration-
Yours truly,
RECEIVED
Michele AdamS
MA: dt
gill 15 1992
· IZ[Z OF TEMECULA
September 1~j, 1990
Mr, David Dixon, City Manager
CiW of Temecula
P.O, 9ox .3000
Temecula, C,4 92390
PLAFII.FIG DEPAREITIEFIi
e· ·
RE: Adorns Adverd, dng, inc,
· AppEcatlons for Sign Permit Nos, 1 I83 and ~ I84
Dear Mr, Dixon:.
On FebruaP/ 22, 1990 Adams.Adverb~ing, inc, made application for two billboards to the
County of Riverride, The signs were proposed to be situated on the northeast corner of
Winchester Road and Hamilton Avenue in wi~at has now become the City of Temecula,'
Typica~y, the County .would have completed d~e proceedrig of such applications within 60
d~ys, Thus, in this case, processing would normany have been completed before the
moratorium on new billboards was imposed by your City on April 24, 1990,. However, that '.
was not the case, ; ·
The Riverside Couz~ty Planning D.epartrnent~ in fact, did approve l/#e applications but we
discovered at the i~ r~oment that tire required notice= to neighboring property owners were
not mailed out, Furthermore, .there ~as some confusion as to whether the two signs were
to be iocaled acfjacen~ to Specific Plan No, 2 ~ 3, After the no'ricerS/ere:mailed, no comments
w ere re ce~ved, and the' appllcadon~ .~er.e lg.i~.apRrovsd, Before the permits'could be issued
we discovered that the two ~ign ~tr~ctures 'were, in fact, propoised to be d~uated within the
City of Temecula, .~....~.~. :.~ :.. '~ ? ~ ,,.' :.., :., .'.,: :. ~ ,~' ~. ;': ;.".
Due ~o the series of c/rcu'~.stan'~Z~ enumerated 'b~e ~he'dgn 'applications could not be
aPproved. HoweVer, the application$ were, in'fac~, in compliance with afl regulations in effect
· prior to ti~e Cjcy'3 moratorium an~ou/cf ha~,e been acted upon favorably prior to fiat date,
· Very ~rul;,.yours,
F~IV~RSIDE CO UNTY PLANNING DE'PAR TMENT
Joseph A, I~ichard=, Planning Director
Mark ~ Bely$, .Chief Deputy .P!i.~ng Director.
MFB:aea
CC:
Joseph S. Aldufi
4000 LEMON STREET, gTH FLOOR 7~7'33 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE· SUITE E
ATTACHMENT NO. 4.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOTICES OF DECISION
15
RIVERSIDE (~uutrrY PLANNZNG DEPARTMENT
40~ L~ON ~T. MZ~
RIVE~XD[. ~I~IA ~501
(7]4) 27~3Z00
Jaseph A. R1c,E~s. pl8nntng
As p.scrtMd under ~e ~vtstens of County ~tnmnces, thtS ts . neatly ~u
cnaC the aDpl~caCton ~fe~nc~ ~1~ has ~ ~cetved to ~ constde~d by ~e
RIverside ~unCy Plinntng
~y ~on wishing to ant ~ ~ ~:ect mat su~tt ~ttt~ cmnU
the Planntq hN~nt it ~ I~ Iddms Nfe~ ~Y 71
~, P~LZC H~R]NG ~ t~ aWltgtt~ mll N held Nfo~ I dects(on ts mac
unless , heerl~ ts ~West~ In ~ttq pH~ ~ t~ afo~tt~ ~ by
the applicant or o~e~ ,ff~ ~, ~ tf ~e Pllnntng Dtm~r ~mtm
t~t i public hea~tng smld N ~Wt~- Zf I ~bllc helH~ Is s~lH
~fo~ ~e Planntng ~nc~r, ~ shill ~ ~ttftH.
~e p~sed ~e~ appllutt~ my N vte~ It ~ ~bllc 1riferation
counte~, ~nday ~ufh Frt~y ~ 9:~ I.m. nttl 4:~
Z~ ~u have any cmnU ~ su~tt or ~ ~ ~t a ~bllc NaHng, please
~ thts shHt and ~tu~ to ~tS ~ft~ ~ ~e aNve mtl~ ~.
~O0R ~VERTT$~ 22~. eat ~m ~, ts in ippltutton suMttM b~
Adams Advertising. Xnc for p~H~ lout~ tn ~e ~teU ~, and
Supe~tsort,l Dtst~tct I~ pneP811~ ~scHM as the NE cowP of
Road and Hamtlton ,nd rode ~usnt ~ O~tns~e No. 348, Rtve~tde ~ Land
Use 0~tnance ~tch p~s6 and o~f-st~ stgn.
CASE & NO. OUTDOOR ADVERTISERENT I183
I do not ~tsh a public hearing to be held on this case, but I would like
' to submit toemerits in regards to this pre~ect.,
! am reeuesttn~ that I public heering be held 'on this case for the
fol 1owing reasons:
I.' understand that I will be netlfted
hearIn9.
Signature
of the tim and date rf the public
Print Nm
Print Strut Address
Print City/State
RIVERSTOE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTHaT
4080 LDOR STREET, NINTH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFO~IA 92501
· .. (714) 275-3200
'JoseDh A. Richerda, Planntng Dtrector
As p~escrtbed under the provisions of County Ordinances, thts ts to nattry you
ths: the application referenced bale. has been received to be considered by the
RIverside County Planntng Department.
Any person vishtng to consent on the prsJect rest suMIt vrttten coame~t:s to
the Planning Departsent at the above address before Nay 7, 1990.
NO PUBLIC HEARZN6 on the appliesties shall be he1*d before a decision. Is made
unless a hearing ts re~gested tn vrttteg prior to the aforementioned date by
the applicant or *other affected person, or tf the Planntng Dtrector determines
that a publlc hearing should be rsqutred. Tf a publlc heartrig ts Scheduled
before the Plannlng Dtrsctor, you shall be notified.
The proposed project application my be vteved at the publlC Information
corntar, Nonday through Frtday free 9:00 a.m. unt(l 4:00
Xf you have any commenLs to subntt or vtsh to rmtlvest a publlc heartrigs please
return this sheet and return to thts office by the above mentioned date.
OUTOOOR ADYERTXSDqENT 1164s axewet from CSQA, ts an application submitted by
Adam Advertising, Xnc for property located tn the Norrteta Area and Ftrst
5uperYIsorlal DtstrIc~ and 'generally described as the HE corner of VtncheSter
Road 'and Hamilton and male pursuant to Gnathence No. 348,. RIverside County LInd
Use Ordinance whtch proposes and off-stte stgn-
CASE & NO. OUTDOOR ADVERTISDIENT 1184
I do n~ wtsh a publlc hearing to be held on th~s case, but I ~ould ltke
~o Submit coewrents In regards to thts project.
! am requesting that a publlc heartn'g be held on this case for the
' fellertrig reasonS:
I understand that I vtll be riotilted
hen rt n9 .
Signature
of' the ttme and date of ',,he publlc
//
PrlnT; 5Crest; Address
Prtnc Clty/Sta:e
Ztp
A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 5
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DIRECTOR DENIALS
/!
S~,.~TAFFRle'T~4S,-24,1Jqe
16
DATE: 31 May 1990
E: Plot Plan lio. I ~
F. nv~~tal Assesmln~ ~i4.
Dear A~I t cant:
the RIverside Cour~y [a Pla.nt.g Dtrec1:o,' []
above referraced plot plan:
APPRDY(D the Plot Plan, Exhtbtt , subject to the attached
condl ttons.
APPROYED the Plot Plan, Exhtbtt , subject to the attached
amended contit ttons.
APPROY(D the Plot Plan. Revtsed F. xMbtt , subject 1~ the
attached con(it ttons.-
APPROY(D l~e Plot Pqan, Rev(sed Exhfb(t , subject to the
attached amended condt ttons.
UPHELD the appeal,
DEMZED the appeal,
APPROVE:D the I([TI~RAVAL of the appeal request,
APPROYED the llXTi(DRAMAL of the Plot Plan.
DEHZED the Plot Plan based on the attached find4ngs.
ADOPTED the Negattve Declarat(on on the Eny(ronmental
no~ed above. .
Assesmerit
'Thts actlon my be appealed to the r~ planning C~mmtsston [] Board of
Supervisors v(tMn ten (10) i~s of ~e a~ of ~ts not(ce.- ~e ap~al ~sC ~
be ~de fn ~t~n9 and s~att~d vt~ a f~ tn accor~e ~ ~e he
~le ~ ~ ~p~pHa~ depa~ment. ~ ap~al · of 'any condition
c~stt~tes an ap~l of ~e actton as a ~ole 4nd r~utres a nev p~11c
~aHng be~e ~e ~propHa~ ~artng body.
Yer~ ~ul~ yours,
RZ~RSZOE CO~ P~NZ~ D~~NT
It
cc: Representart ve -.
· Ffle ,
Sian Prxnan, Planner III
Revised ..... - ....
4080 LEMON STREL='T, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(1'14) 787-.6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM ~
INDIO. CALIFORNIA 922
(619) 342-82
DATE: 31 May 1990
BE:: Plot Plan lie. 11 4
Eavtr~mental Assesmenl~/eo. NIA
Itemloan1 Teas leo.
ll~r AppltcarrC:
the Riverside Coun~ ~ Planning D4rec~or []
Dn ,31 May 1990
Planning Com~sslon I.] Board of Suprvtsors took ~he fol!o~tng actton on the
above refe-enced plot plan:
APPROV~'D the Plot Plan, Exhtbtt ·
toad11t o~s, .
APPROYED the Plot Plan, E.xhlb?t ·
ended cond! 1t ons.
APPROV[D the Pl.ot Plan, Revtsed [xh(btt
attached condT ttons.
APPROY~:D the Plot Plan,. Revtsed Exhtb4t
attached mended condt ti ons.
subject to
subject
the attached
to the attached
sub;) ec+- to the
, subject to the
UPHELD l~e appeal.
DENIED the appeal.
APPROYE:D the I(I:Ti~RAWAL of the appeal request.
APPROYED the WITHD~ of the Plot P
DDiI;D the Plot Plan based on the arttithed findSngs. 1 Assessment
ADOPTED the tiogarive Declaration on the Env(rornenta*
noted above.
Th4s action my be appealed to the [~ Planntn9 Ccmm(ss4on' [] Board of
Supervisors ~thtn ten (101 days of the date of thts notice.- The appeal mus~
be made fn writing and submitted 'th a fee tn accordance'vl~h ~%e fee
schedule to the spproprla~e deparlnent- An appeal of any cond(t(on
constitutes an appeal of l~e action -as a ~hole and reqrlres a ned pub11-c
hearing before the appropriate hear(rig body.
Very truly yours,
RZYERSZDE COUHTY PLAHJiZklG DEPARTI(HT
/ !
Sian Prgnan, Planner III
2~5-43
.'.'-- bv~sed
8.-10-88
cc: Represen ta ti ve .... - .....
Ffle .. " .- .. ' . ·
.*.,
4080 LEMON ~TREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOkT, 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA f~201
(6191 3.42..,t~77
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CORRESPONDENCE/PETITIONS
S~STAR=W'n2~R'S~LCC 1 I
City of Temecula
Planning Commision
September
As residents of Winchester Creek, Winchester Collection
are very much opposed to Plot Plan No. 245 and 246. These
billboards do not conform to the surrounding land uses and
will be an eyesore to our ~Tact. In addition they would
detract-attention from a very busy and dangerous area of
winchester Rd., these signs would be'located very near the
narrow bridge located just north of Nicholas Rd. and could
be a safety hazard to the motorists.
Thank You
Richard and Donna Dietrich
RECEIVED
SEP 18
ClTf OF TEMECULA
Jack E. & Ruth A, McLean
39423 Lon9 Ridge Drive
Temecul~; CA 92591
September 21, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Temecul~, CA 92591
We spe~if'maily protest the thought of pl~cing two signs on WINCHESTER
ROAD requested b,v ADAMS ADVERTISING, INC.
We protes'l becau:;e me sicins would Rot irnpri;ve the appearance of the
~t;inche_qer Creek sub~Frvi$ioz~. In fact !he pro, po_~ed ,liar is not
consi_cten~ with any pre_~ent or future plans bein,~ impiemerzted by
CITY OF TEIvfECUL,~..
It my be of interest to ,you that the notice which informs me public of
the heatin9 ~9 above P_~rtnot be read unless you am procem~n9
at a speed d 10 tares per hour, or mop the car and w~k back to mad
me ~_ VERY POOR i~POSUFIE._
Atso, when the call w~s made to protest the possible construction, the
person who answered the call did not know there was a WINCHESTER,
SUBDIVISION... Seems rather odd tP~='Lt planning would not be aware of
surToundings near such an important proposal
Jack E. McLean
. ·
RECEIVED
SEP 2 1 199L
CITY tF TEM ECULA
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
S%STAFFRFT'~29APPEALCC 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
DE1, LAGO
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No, 246, Amendment No. 1
EXHIRIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
5~TAFFRP'~245-246.PP
mini
/
SWAP - EXI=tmIT B
CITY OF TE1VIECULA
L!
SP 1~
Designation:
General Light Industrial (LI)
R-R
SITE////
:/,
S-P (213)
.,. S-P.(,16,,4)
\
ZONING - EXIHRIT C Designation: Manufacturing-Service Commercial (1VI-SC)
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
P.C. Date: September 21, 1992
S~STAFFRPT~45-24~ .lap
CITY OF TEMECULA
EYb'rlNE, R:eFr'l' C:N: IDA'(
· UL'TIIMATE RibliT OF I,,,LAY
· \
Proposed
Sigi1
\'? '~'Lz,~,-_
NI'N'C~S, TE'R' l~;el:D
· .'TO NrLO~S Ro~0 '
'V
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. lfPlot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
EXBTnZT: n2 SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
t
CITY OF TE1VIECULA
Gateways
TT. M4r,1OO P-O::SOa. D~ · DraZt Date: July 21:), 1992 11:23am
Page 10-10
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
ExnrRrr: E LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992 AND GATEWAYS
S%,ql'AFFRFT~245-246.Pf,
ITEM NO. 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
City Attorney
January 26, 1993
28613 Pujol Street - Assessment of Nuisance Abatement Costs
PREPARED BY: City Attorney's Office
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing and approve the NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT
ASSESSMENT LIEN as a special assessment against the real property located at 28613 Pujol
Street and the vacant parcel across therefrom.
DISCUSSION:
On June 15, 1992, hearing officer Harold Wolters, Judge retired, caused the property located
at 28613 Pujol Street and the vacant parcel located across therefrom to be declared a public
nuisance and to order the nuisances abated. The nuisances generally consisted of inoperable
vehicles, barrels of liquids, tires, appliances, scrap materials and dry brush.'
In August of 1992, the Building and Safety Department, pursuant to an abatement warrant, took
all necessary steps to clean up and dispose of the items of nuisance on the property.
Attached hereto is a list of the charges incurred by the City to remove the items of nuisance on
the property. The total mount for these charges is $44,986.49. Included in the mount are the
contract payments awarded by the public bid. Due to the theft of two utility trailers and the
need to secure the property with a chain link fence, the bill from Hunt's Wrecking Company
increased from the original bid of $17,725 to $19,575.
Agenda Report
January 26, 1993
Page 2
Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code § 6.14.013 and 6.14.109, the City Council my assess
all costs of abatement against the property through the use of the attached Notice of Nuisance
Abatement Assessment Lien. Upon recordation of the Notice of Nuisance Abatement
Assessment Lien in the office of the County Recorder, the assessment shall constitute a lien on
the property.
The Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien and a Notice of Hearing on Nuisance
Abatement Assessment Lien were mailed to the property owner, Karl S. Henning on January
15, 1993, and posed on the property and at City Hall on January 19, 1993. An Affidavit of
Posting and Proof of Service have been executed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Collection of the $44,986.49 assessment is not expected immediately. After recordation, a copy
of the Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien is delivered to the Riverside County Tax
Collector so that the amount of the assessment may be added to the next regular tax bill levied
against the subject property. Assuming non-payment of the assessment, the amount of the lien
· may be collected by the City upon the sale of the property. If no sale takes place, and the
assessment remains unpaid for five or more tax years, the Riverside County Tax Collector and
Board of Supervisors may approve the sale of the property at public auction.
The City may consent to the sale and either receives 1) the total assessment if the sale price
exceeds the assessment, property tax and penalty delinquencies or 2) shares in a proportionate
amount of the sale price if such price is lower than the amount of the assessment, property tax
and penalty delinquencies. Alternately, the City may object to the sale by adopting a resolution.
In this instance, the City's fight to its full assessment survives the sale of the property and the
City may attempt collection at a later date.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
List of Department of Building & Safety Abatement Charges
Notice of'Hearing on Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien
Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien
Proof of Service and Affidavit of Posting
ADDRESS:
Date
28613 Puiol
APN:
Case Investigation 9/5/91 - 1/16/92
Inspector's Field Time - Marshall/Berg @ $21.13/Hr.
Mileage ~ $.28/Mile
Inspector's Office Time
Clerical Time e ~15.20/Hr.
Postage
Case Follow-up 7/7/92 - 10/2192
Inspector's Field Time - Haehnlen/Berg @ ~21.13/Hr.
Mileage L~ 9.28/Mile
Inspector's Office Time
Clerical Time - Agenda Prep L~ $15.20/Hr.
Postage
Building Official -Tony Elmo @ 943.09/Hr.
Field Inspection 9/14/92 - 10/2/92
Meeting with City Attorney 11/21/92
Return Warrant Preparation 1/16/92
Photos
Hunt Wrecking (Cleanup & fence)
Steam Masters (Boardup)
Enviro Recovery
Attorney's Fees and Costs Billed
Attorney's Fees and Costs Unbilled
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
ABATEMENT CHARGES
Case No: T-91-156
922-054-011 & 922-053-013
Time Spent Distance
26.5 Hours
3.5 Hours
I Hour
5 Miles
Charges
9559.95
9 1.40
9 73.96
$15.20
Cert 92.29
55 Hours
5 Hours
2 Hours
62 Miles
$1162.15
9 17.36
9105.65
9 30.40
12 Cert. 927.48
6 Hours
I Hour
.5 Hours
55 Hours
9.7 Hours
9258.54
'9 43.09
~ 21.55
9 192.15
919,575.00
9 213.75
91 4,548.00
9 6,936.07
$1,202.50
TOTAL 165.2 Hours
67 Miles
944,986.49
AbmteCharg. Pujol
RECORDING REQUESTEr} BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAn, TO:
City of Temecula
c/o Anthony J. E!mo
Chief Building Official
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
ABOVE SPACki FOR RkiCORDk~V,'S USt~
NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT ASSES~ LIEN'
CLAIM OF THY~ CITY OF ~
Pursuant to the authority vested by Chapter 6.14 of the Temecula Municipal Code, on
June 15, 1992, hearing officer Harold Waters. Judge Retired, caused the property hereinafter
described to be declan~ a public nuisance and to order the same abated. The City of Temecula,
pursuant to an abatement warrant issued by the Municipal Court of the three Lakes District in
the County of Riverside, took all necessary steps to clean up and dispose of the items of
nuisance on the property. On January 26, 1993, the City Counc~ of the City of Temecula
assessed the cost of such abatement and determined that none of the assessed costs have been
paid to the City.
The City of Temecula does hereby claim a lien for such abatement in the amount, to wit:
The sum of $44,986.49. Upon the recording of this Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment
Lien in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside, the assessment shall be
a lien upon the property until paid in full and discharged of record. The lien shall bind and
benefit all successor interests to the property and the City of Temecula.
The. real property hereinabove mentioned, and upon which a lien is claimed, are those
certain parcels of land within the City of Temecuh, County of Riverside, State of California,
generally described as 28613 Pujol Street in the City of Temecula, Assessor Parcel Numbers
933-053-013 and 922-054-011, and more particularly described as follows:
Lots 5 and 6 and the Northwest 12 feet of Lot 4 in Block 36 of the Town of Temecula
as shown by map on file in Book 15 page 726 of Maps, in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, California; and
The Northwesterly 255 feet of the following described property;
The Northwesterly one-half of that tract of land formerly used as a railroad right-of-way
and station ground of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Pailroad Company, conveyed
to N.R. Vail, et at, by De~ recorded June 11, 1940 in Book 464, Page 505 of Official
Records, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside, State of
California, said property being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most Southerly comer of Lot 1, Block 27 as shown by map on f~e in
Book 15, page 726 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, State of California; thence Southwesterly in a straight line to the most Easterly
comer of Lot 1, Block 36, as shown by said map; thence Northwesterly in a straight line
to the most Northerly comer of Lot 10, Block 37, as shown by said map; thence
Northeasterly on a straight line to the most Westerly comer of Lot 22, Block 25 on said
map; thence Southeasterly in a straight line to the point of beginning;
EXCEFIING therefrom the Northwesterly 595 feet thereof;
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom those portions included in River and Pujol Streets as
shown on said map.
Dated: This day of ,1993.
David F. Dixon, City Manager
City of Temecuh
A~T:
June Greek, City Clerk
City of Temecula
NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATElV~.,NT ASSESSlV~,NT Lr!~:N
CLAIM OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
Page 3
STATE OF CALr!~ORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF )
On ,1993, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the bash of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
executed it.
WITNF, SS my hand and official seal:
Notary Public in and for said State
(sea )
ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it
could prevent fraudulent attachment of the certificate to another document.
THIS CERTIFICATE
MUST BE ATTAC~
TO THE DOCUMF-NT
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:
Title of Type of Document
Number of Pages
Date of Document
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
cIT. Y OF TEMECULA )
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not'a party to
the within action; my business address is 43174 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California 92590.
On
described as:
, 1993 I served the foregoing document
"NOTICE OF HEARING ON NUISANCEABATEMENT ASSESSMENT LIEI~'
to the owners of record of the property as shown on the last
equalized assessment role, by placing a true copy thereof
enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Mr. Karl S. Henning
28613 Pujol Street
Temecula, CA 92590
I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at
Temecula, California. The envelope was mailed with postage
thereon fully paid. I am "readily familiar" with my employer's
practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in
the ordinary course of business.
Executed on Januar7 15 , 1993 at Temecula, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
state of california that the above is true and correct.
January 4, 1993
MR. KARLS. m~NING
28613 PUJOL STREET
TEMECULA, CA 92~90
VIA U.S. MAn,
AND
POSTEB ON PROPERTY
NOTICE OF FrEARING ON NUISANCE ABATElV~-NT ASSESSMENT LrF, N
A public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on January 26, 1993 at the Temecuh
COmmllnity Center located at 28816 Pujol Street, Temecuh, California, 92590 before the City
Council of the City of Temecuh, to determine whether the costs incurred by the City to abate
the nuisances at 28613 Pujol Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 922-053-013 and 922-054-011) shall
constitute a special assessment against said property in accordance with Chapter 6.14 of the
Temccula Municipal Code.
Attached hereto are copies of the NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEM~-~
ASSESS~ l.r~-~N and the City of Temecuh Department of Building and Safety Report
which itemizes the costs necessary to abate the nuisance on the subject property.
If, at the hearing, the City Council decides to assess the abatement costs against the
property, the NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEMRNT L~N shall be recorded in the Riverside
County Recorder' s Office and shall constitute a lien against the subject property for the amount
of the assessment mentioned therein.
All persons having an interest in this matter may attend the heating and give evidence
and testimony, which will be given due consideration by the City Council. Call (909) 694-6439
for questions regarding this notice.
UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF TH/S NOTICE, when posted upon the property,
shall constitute a misdemeanor (Temecula Municipal Code §6.14.201).
ADDRESS:
Date
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
ABATEMENT CHARGES
28613 Puiol
APN:
Case Investigation 9/5/91 - 1/16/92
Inspector's Field Time -Marshall/Berg @ $21.13/Hr.
Mileage e $.28/Mile
Inspector's Office Time
Clerical Time @ $15.20/Hr.
Postage
Case Follow-up 7/7/92 - 10/2/92
Inspector's Field Time- Haehnlen/Berg ~) $21.13/Hr.
Mileage e $ .28/Mile
Inspector's Office Time
Clerical Time - Agenda Prep ~ $15.20/Hr.
Postage
Building Official -Tony Elmo @ $43.09/Hr.
Field Inspection 9/14/92 - 10/2/92
Meeting with City Attorney 11/21/92
Return Warrant Preparation 1/16/92
Photos
Hunt Wrecking (Cleanup & fence)
Steam Masters (Boardup)
Enviro Recovery
Attorney's Fees and Costs Billed
Attorney's Fees and Costs Unbilled
Case No: T-91-156
922-054-011 & 922-053-013
Time Spent Distance Charges
26.5 Hours
5 Miles
3.5 Hours
I Hour
$559.95
$ 1.40
$ 73.96
$ 15.20
Cert $2.29
55 Hours
5 Hours
2 Hours
62 Miles
$1162.15
$ 17.36
$105.65
$ 30.40
12 Cert. $27.48
6 Hours
I Hour
.5 Hours
55 Hours
9.7 Hours
$258.54
$ 43.09
$ 21.55
$ 192.15
$19,575.00
$ 213.75
$14,548.00
~ 6,936.07
$ 1,202.50
TOTAL 165.2 Hours 67 Miles $44,986.49
AbateCharg. Pujol
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, LOUIS E. BaEHJT.mq , hereby state that in compliance
with the Temecula Municipal Code, I have personally posted the
following:
"NOTICE OF HEARING ON NUISANCE ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT LIEN"
on the property at 28613 Pujol Street and the vacant property
opposite to 28613 Pujol Street (assessor parcel nos. 922-053-013
and 922-054-011) and at City Hall. I posted said notice on
JANUARY 19 , 1993.
Executed on
California.
JANUARY 19
, 1993 at Temecula,
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California that the above is true and correct.
[ NAME ] LOUIS
[ TITLE ] CODE ENFORCNMMWr OFFICKR
16526.1
January 4, 1993
lVlR. KARL S. N~qNING
28613 PUJOL STRI~-RT
TE1VIECULA, CA 92590
VIA U.S. MAn',
AND
POSTED ON PROPERTY
NOTICE OF B'EARING ON NUISANCE ABA~ ASSESSMENT LrF,,N
A public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on January 26, 1993 at the Temecula
Community Center located at 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, Cslifornia, 92590 before the City
Council of the City of Temecula, to determine whether the costs incurred by the City to abate
the nuisances at 28613 Pujol Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 922-053-013 and 922-054-011) shall
constitute a special assessment against said property in accordance with Chapter 6.14 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Attached hereto are copies of the NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABA~
ASSESS~ r,rlc~N and the City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety Report
which itemizes the costs necessary to abate the nuisance on the subject property.
If, at the hearing, the City Council decides to assess the abatement costs against the
property, the NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEIrritaNT I.IDI shall be recorded in the Riverside
County Recorder' s Office and shall constitute a lien against the subject property for the mount
of the assessment mentioned therein.
All persons having an interest in this matter may attend the hearing and give evidence
and testimony, which wffi be given due consideration by the City Council. Call (909) 694-6439
for questions regarding this notice.
UNAUTHORITm'~ REMOVAL OF lifts NOTICE, when posted upon the property,
shall constitute a misdemeanor (Temecula Municipal Code §6.14.201).
ADDRESS:
Date
28613 Puiol
APN:
Case Investigation 9/5/91 - 1/16/92
Inspector's Field Time- Marshall/Berg @ $21.13/Hr.
Mileage @ $.28/Mile
Inspector's Office Time
Clerical Time @ $15.20/Hr.
Postage
Case Follow-up 7/7192 - 1012/92
Inspector's Field Time- Haehnlen/Berg @ $21.13/Hr.
Mileage @ $.28/Mile
Inspector's Office Time
Clerical Time - Agenda Prep @ $15.20/Hr.
Postage
Building Official -Tony Elmo ~ $43.09/Hr.
Field Inspection 9/14/92 - 10/2/92
Meeting with City Attomey 11/21/92
Return Warrant Preparation 1/16/92
Photos
Hunt Wrecking (Cleanup & fence)
Steam Masters (Boardup)
Enviro Recovery
Attorney's Fees and Costs Billed
Attorney's Fees and Costs Unbilled
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
ABATEMENT CHARGES
Case No: T-91-156
922-054-011 & 922-053-013
Time Spent
26.5 Hours
Distance
5 Miles
3.5 Hours
I Hour
Charges
$559.95
$ 1.40
$ 73.96
$ 15.20
Cert $2.29
55 Hours
5 Hours
2 Hours
62 Miles
$1162.15
$ 17.36
$105.65
$ 30.40
12 Cert. $27.48
6 Hours $258.54
1 Hour $ 43.09
.5 Hours $ 21.55
$ 192.15
$19,575.00
$ 213.75
$14,548.00
55 Hours $ 6,936.07
9.7 Hours $ 1,202.50
TOTAL 165.2 Hours 67 Miles $44,986.49
AbateChafe. Pu/ol
ITEM NO. 12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney
January 26, 1993
Resolution No. 93-
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR
CITIZEN CENTER IN A REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
DISCUSSION: In order to use Redevelopment Agency (RDA) tax increment
to finance the Senior Center and in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section
33679 it is necessary to conduct a public hearing and make the following findings:
That the buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements are of benefit
to the project area, or the immediate neighborhood in which the project is
located, regardless of where the improvement is within another project area,
or in the case of a project area in which substantially all of the land is publicly
owned, that the improvement is a benefit to an adjacent project area of the
agency·
s
That no other reasonable means of financing such buildings, facilities,
structures, or other improvements are available to the community (Health and
Safety Code Section 33445).
The Senior Center will provide a facility for the use of senior residents of the
Redevelopment Area which is presently unavailable to them. Its funding will come
partially from Community Development Block Grant funds, however these funds are
insufficient to finance the total cost of construction of the Center. No other funds are
available to the City for this purpose. It is therefore necessary to commit tax
increment funds if the center is to be build. The Redevelopment Plan authorizes
construction of Public Facilities in the Redevelopment Area.
The expenditure has been reviewed and approved by the Old Town RDA Advisory
Committee.
Attachment:
Resolution No. 93-
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX
INCREMENT FUNDS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR CITIZEN
CENTER IN A REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and
declares as follows:
A. The City of Temecula is constructing a senior center located on a 2.75 acre site,
northeast of the center line of Mercedes Street, in Redevelopmerit Project No. 1-1988
redevelopment area. The Temecula Redevelopment Agency will be financing one million dollars
($1,000,000) of the cost of the project from the proceeds of redevelopment bonds, which it
intends to issue, the debt service on which will be paid from tax increment funds received by
the Agency;
B. The Senior Center and all of the associated improvemenLs being constructed
regarding the center are of benefit to the project area in that they will provide an essential
service to the residents of the area not presently available and provide an aesthetic improvement
to the area;
C. No other reasonable means of financing the proposed senior center are available,
and if tax increment funds are not used to help finance the cost of construction, available funds
will be insufficient to complete the project;
D. The redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1-1988 redevelopment-
area provides for the installation or construction of public facilities which benefit the area;
E. A public hearing in substantial compliance with the requirements of California
Health and Safety Code Section 33679 has been held, a notice has been published in a newspaper
of general circulation in the community for at least two successive weeks prior to the Public
Hearing.
Section 2. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
determines that the senior center is necessary for the benefit of the Redevelopmerit Project No.
1-1988 redevelopment area and that the proposed contribution to its financing is the only
reasonable means available to insure its completion. The City Council does hereby approve
contribution of one million dollars ($1,000,000) of tax increment funding to construction of a
senior center in the Redevelopment Project No. 1-1988 redeve!opment area.
~ 5/Resos290 -1 -
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVI~X} AND ADOPTFY} this day of ,1993.
ATTEST:
I. Sal Mu~oz, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 93--- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the day of , 1993, by .the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBEI~:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
5/Rcsos290 -2-
ITEM NO. 13
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICE~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Harwood T. Edvalson, Assistant City Manager//~'~J"~
January 26, 1993
ANTI-GRAFFITI ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 93-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING
DIVISION 4 TO CHAPTER 6o14 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO GRAFFITI REMOVAL AND ESTABLISHING REWARDS FOR
INFORMATION LEADING TO THE SUCCESSFUL CONVICTION OFANY PERSON
PLACING GRAFFITI ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meeting of January 12, 1993, staff received direction to prepare the final
proposed draft of an anti-graffiti ordinance. As a result of Council input, and input from the
anti-graffiti ad hoc committee the ordinance includes the following elements:
(1) The criminal Penalties associated with graffiti-vandalism of public and private
property; and
(2)
Direction that City pursue, as appropriate, both criminal and civil remedies to
acts of graffiti-vandalism; and
(3)
That the City may use public funds to eradicate graffiti on public and private
property; and
(4)
That the City will pursue the normal nuisance abatement process with property
owners who, for whatever reason, refuse to either allow the City to clean the
graffiti or refuse to abate the graffiti themselves; and
(5)
Establishment of a basic reward of $100.00 for information leading to the
successful conviction of graffiti-vandals. This amount may be increased by
Council action.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is anticipated that the adoption of this ordinance will have little or no new fiscal impact.
ORDINANCE NO. 93 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THF~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF T~MF]2ULA ADDING DIVISION 4 TO CHAPTER 6.14
OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO GRAFFITI REMOVAL AND ESTABL~r~IG.
REWARDS FOR INFORMATION L~AJ)ING TO THE
SUCCESSHIL CONVICTION OF ANY PERSON PLACING
GRAFFITI ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY
WnERF.,AS, graf~ti on public and private property is a blighting factor which not
only depreciates the value of the properly, but also the value of the adjacent and surrounding
communities; and
~S., the proliferation of graffifi vandalism is often gang related and can be
the beginning signs of greater illegal activities; and
WHEREAS, criminal penalties under Penal Code Sections 594, 640.5 and 640.6 for
acts of graffiti include fines up to $50,000, imprisonment up to one year in State Prison or
County Jail, restoration of property and up to 96 hours community service by the
perpetrators; and
WHEREAS, under Civil Code Section 1714.1Co), the parent[s] or legal guardian[s] of
a minor-can be held civilly liable up to $10,000 for damages to the property of others caused
by the willful misconduct of the minor resulting in the defacement of such property; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53069.3 authorizes this City to enact
ordinances to provide for the use of City funds to remove graffiti from public and privately
owned permanent structures located within the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.3, the City Council of the
City of Temecula finds and determines that graffiti or other inscribed material on public or
privately owned structures on public or privately owned property within the City is
obnoxious to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community and the citizens
of this City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prompt removal of any
and all graffiti wherever located in the City is in the public interest and for the public
benefit; and
WHEREAS, the City Counc~ finds and determines that a program allowing for the
use of City funds to remove graffiti on public and private property is a suitable mechanism
for the prevention and removal of graffiti within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney is hereby directed to seek restitution for the costs to
the City for the removal of graffiti wherever authorized by hw;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMF.,C~A ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose and Intent.
It is the intent of the City Council of this City to provide for the removal of gift
on public and private propraty as set forth in this ordinance, and to authorize the use of
rewards for encouragement of information leading to the conviction of persons placing
graffiti on any public and private pmtgny.
Section 2. 'Division 4 - Graffiti Removal* is hereby added to Chapter 6.14 of
the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows:
"'nlVISION 4 - GRAFFITI R~,MOVAI,
6.14.301 Authorization to Remove Graffift and other UnauthoriT,Y! Inscribed
Materials from Privste. nnd Public
Whenever the City Manager or Ms/her designated representative determines that
graf~ti or other inscribed material is so located on public or privately owned, permanent
structures on public or privately owned real property within this City as to be viewed by a
-person utilizing any public fight-of-way in this City, the City Manager or designated
representative is authorized to provide for the removal of the graffiti or other inscribed
material upon the following conditions:
A. In removing the gmffirl or other inscribed material, the painting or
repair of a more extensive area than necessary to remove said graffiti shall not be authorized.
B. When a structure is owned by a public entity other than this City, the
removal of the graffiti or other inscribed material may be authorized only after securing the
consent of the public entity having jurisdiction over the structure and such entity executes a
release and waiver approved as to form .by the City Attorney.
C. Prior to the removal of graf~ti on private property, the City shall
obtain written consent of the property owner and the owner shall execute an appropriate
release and waiver approved as to form by the City Attorney. The owner shall be charged
only for the actual cost incurred by the City to remove the graffiti.
"6.14.302 Alternative Procedures Available.
In the event the property owner of private property upon which graffiti or
other inscribed material has been placed, declines to consent to removal thereof by City, or
fails to remove the graffiti or other inscribed material within five (5) calendar days after
service of a Notice of Intent to Remove Graffiti, the affected property shall be subject to the
nuisance abatement process set forth in this Chapter of the Temecula Municipal Code.*
"6.14.303 Rew~rd for lnforrnntion.
The City Council determines that rewards for any information leading to the
identification, apprehension and conviction of any person who has placed graffiti upon any
public or private property in the City shall be a minimum of One-Hundred Dollars
($100.00). The City Council reserves the fight to offer a higher reward in circumstances as
determined by the City Council. The identity of those seeking rewards shall be considered
confidential and will not be released to the public. The City Council reserves the right to
require that the convicted offender reimburse the City for any reward paid, and place the
responsibility for such reimbursement upon the parent[s] or legal guardian[s] of any minor so
convicted."
Section 3. Severab~ity.
The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or
word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of
competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions,
sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and
effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this
.. day of ,1993.
ATfEST:
J. Sal Mu~oz, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[Seal]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss'
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, luno Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do .hereby certify that the forgoing
Ordinance No. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the__ day of ,1993, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was
duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the__ day of ,
1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIM~MBERS
COUNCILMEMB~
COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek
City Clerk
ITEM NO. 14
APPROVA x.
FCiITY ATTORNEY "' "
NANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
,d~,~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works\City Engineer
January 26, 1993
Award of Contract for the Construction of Ynez Road Widening from
Rancho California Road to Palm Plaza (Project No. PW 92-05)
PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
Award a contract for the construction of Ynez Road Widening from Rancho California Road
to Palm Plaza, project no. PW 92-05, to the Vance Corporation of Rialto, California for
$2,612,811.29 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract.
Authorize the City Manager to approve change order not to exceed the contingency amount
of $391,921.69 which is equal to 15% of the contract amount, for a total of $3,004,732.98.
BACKGROUND:
On October 27, 1992 the City Council authorized the Public Works Department to solicit
construction bids for the widening of Ynez Road to six lanes from Rancho California Road to
Palm Plaza. The project includes widening Ynez Road to six lanes, constructing curbs, gutters
and sidewalks, raised medians, traffic signals, retaining walls, and storm drains. This is the
first project to be constructed within Community Facility District 88-12 and has estimated
construction cost of $3.6 million.
Ten bids for the project were publicly opened on January 14, 1993. The bids received were
as follows:
1. Vance Corporation
$2,612,811.29
R. J. Noble Co.
$2,886,436.00
Riverside Construction Co.
$3,104,735.32
C. A. Rasmussen, Inc.
$3,216,318.15
pwO7%agdrpt~93%O126\ynez.awe 0114
5. E.L. Yeager Const. Co.,Inc. $3,241,511.00
6. Ron E. Varela & Co., Inc. $3,389,016.20
7. Hillcrest Constracting, Inc. $3,404,263.59
8. Summit Grading & Paving, Inc. $3,428,800.60
9. Fleming Engineering, Inc. $4,036,552.05
10. Matich Corporation No Bid Bond
The amounts listed above include the base bid as well as and alternative to replace the
masonry retaining walls with a decorative wall that can be covered with plant material and
various items that will be reimbursed by the adjacent developer.
The construction schedule is for 180 working days and work is expected to begin in early
March and completed in late November.
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office,
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project is being funded from the first series of bonds which have been sold for
Community Facilities District 88-12. Funds are available for the construction amount of
$2,612,811.29 and a contingency amount of $391,921.69 for a total of $3,004,732.98.
pw07~agdrpt~93~0126~ynez.awa 0114
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PW92-05
YNEZ ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
CFD 88-12: YNEZ ROAD CORRIDOR
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the day of ,19 ,
by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY",
and VANC~ COLPO~,,q'TOe , herelnafter referred to as
"CONTRACTOR.'
WITNESSETH:
· That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as
follows:
1.8
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract Includes all of the Contract
Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance
Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW92-
05 - YNEZ ROAD WIDENING PROJECT - CFD 88-12: YNEZ ROAD CORRIDOR,
Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of
California Department of Transportation Standard Spe{:ifications (1992 Ed.) where
specifically referenced in the plans and technical specffications, and the latest version of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. including all supplements as written
and promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southem Califomla Chapter of
the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, 'Standard
Specifications") or amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and
Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW92-05 - YNEZ ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
- CFD 88-12: YNEZ ROAD CORRIDOR. Copies of these Standard Specifications are
avajlable from the publisher:.
Building News, Incorporated
3055 Ovedand Avenue
Los Angeles, Califomla 90034
(213) 202-7775
The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction rnatedals, and
construction methods for this Contract except as mended by the Plans and Specifications
of this Contract.
In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents,
the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over and be used in lieu of such
conflicting pertions.
CONTRACT CA-1
Where the Plans or Specifications describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in
complete detail, It is understood that the item is to be fumished and installed completed and
in place and that only the best general practice is to be used.
Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools,
equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract
The Contract Documents am complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as
binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract
Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract.
SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed,
shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment,
and all utility and transportation services required for the following:
PROJECT NO. PW92-05
YNEZ ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
CFD 88-12: YNEZ ROAD CORRIDOR
All of said work to be performed and materials to be fumished shall be in strict accordance
with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents
hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY.
CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished
and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the
approval of CITY or its authorized representatives.
CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. CITY agrees to pay and CONTRACTOR agrees
to accept in full payment for the work above-agreed to be done, the sum of:
T~O NIT.T,ION SIX HUNDRED TI~ELVK THOUSAND EIGH~ 'HUNDRED KT.I~EN DOT.T.AeR AND
'rk"EbT~-N]~: CEI~S ($2,612,811.29), the total amount of the base bid]
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed ONE HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY (180) working days, commencing with delivery of Notice to Proceed by CITY.
Construction shall not commence until bends and insurance are approved by CITY.
CHANGE ORDERS.' All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that
the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order,
changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established
by the City Council.
PAYMENTS. On or about the 30th day of the month next following the commencement of
the work, there shall be paid to the CONTRACTOR a sum equal to 90 percent of the value
of the work completed since the commencement of the work. Thereafter. on or about the
30th day of each successive month as the work progresses, the CONTRACTOR shall be
paid such sum as will bdng the payments each month up to 90 percent of the previous
payments, provided that the CONTRACTOR submits his request for payment pdor to the
last day of each preceding month.
CONTRACT
CA4
e
The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part therof unencumbered, shall be made 60
days after CITY acceptance of the work and the CONTRACTOR filing a one year waranty
with the CITY on a warranty form provided by the CITY. Payments shall be made on
demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by certificate signed by the
City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in
accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is
due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be
considered as an acceptanco of any part of the work.
10.
WARRANTY RETENTION. Commencing with the date the Notice of Completion Is
recorded, the CITY shall retain a pertion of the Contract award price, to assure waranty
performance and correction of construction deficiencies according to the following schedule:
CONTRACT RETENTION RETENTION
AMOUNT PERIOD PERCENTAGE
$25,000 - $75,000
$75,000 - $500,000.
Over $500,000
180 days 3%
180 days 2%
One Year 1%
Failure by the CONTRACTOR to take corrective action within 24 hours after personal or
telephonic notice by the City on items affecting use of facility, safety, or deficiencies will
result in the CITY taking whatever corrective action it deems necessary, All costs resulting
from such action by the CITY will be deducted from the ratsntion, The mount of retention
provided for herein shall not be deened a limitation upon the responsibility of the
CONTRACTOR to carry out the terms of the Contract Documents,
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code
Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of One
Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond
the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted
from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR.
WAIVER OF CLAIMS. Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Contract, on or
before making final request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall
submit to CITY, in writing. all claims for compensation under or arising out of this Contract;
the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all
claims against CITY under or adsing out of this Contract except those previously made in
writing and request for payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit,
release and indemnify agreement with each claim for payment,
PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the
State of Califomla, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem
wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification. or type of workman needed to execute this Contra~ from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may
be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's offico of Temecula.
CONTRACT CA-3
CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the
adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the
provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the
CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each
laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any
work done under this Contract,.by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the
provisions of the Contract.
11. LIABILITY INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, heroby certifies:
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
*1 am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code whi;h requires every
employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or undertake self-
insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract."
TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this Contract.
INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in
preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the dsk of CONTRACTOR alone.
CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, Its officers,
employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons
(CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or
indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by
CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY.
CONTRACTOR'S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. No plea of Ignorance of conditions
that exist or that may hereafter exist or of conditions of difficulties that may be encountered
in the execution of the work under this Contract, as a result of failure to make the necessary
independent examinations and investigations, and no plea of reliance on initial
investigations or reports prepared by CITY for purposes of letting this Contract out to bid will
be accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the CONTRACTOR to
fulfill in every detail all requirements of this Contract. Nor will such reasons be accepted as
a basis for any claims whatecover for extra compensation or for an extension of time.
GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or
representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees,
agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or secudng favorable
treatment with respect thereto.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage
relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or
any architect, engineer, or other puerperal of the Drawings and Specifications for this
project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in his/her employ has been
employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids.
CONTRACT
CA-4
17.
CONTRACTOR'S. AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this
Contra~t, CONTRACTOR shall file with the CIty Manager his affidavit stating that all
workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon
the Project have been paid in full,
and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials,
except certain Items, ff any, to be set forth in an affidavit covedng disputed claims or Items in
connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the
State of California.
18. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR
19.
Corporations:
The signature must contain the name of the corporation, must be signed by the President
and Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and the corporate seal must be affixed. Other
persons may sign for the corporation in lieu of fie above if a certified copy of a resolution of
the corporate board of directors so authorizing them to do so is on file in the City Clerk's
Partnerships:
The names of all persons comprising the partnership or co-partnership must be stated. The
bid must be signed by all partners comprising the partnership unless proof in the form of a
certified copy of a certificate of partnership acknowledging the signer to be a general
partner is presented to the City Clerk, in which case the general partner may sign.
Joint Ventures:
Bids submitted as joint ventures must so state and be signed by each joint venturer.
Individuals:
Bids submitted by individuals must be signed by the bidder, unless an up-to-date power of
attorney is on file in the City Clerk's office, in which case said person may sign for the
individual.
The above rules-also apply in the case of the use of a fictitious firm name. In addition,
however, where the fictitious name is used, it must be so indicated in the signature.
SUBSTITUTED SECURITY. In accordance with Section 22300 of the Public Contracts
Code, CONTRACTOR may substitute securities for any monies withheld by the CITY to
ensure performance under the Contract. At the request and expense of the
CONTRACTOR. securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the
CITY or with a State or Faderally chartered bank or an escrow agent who shall pay such
monies to the CONTRACTOR upon notification by CITY of CONTRACTOR's satisfactory
completion of the Contract. The type of securities deposited and the method of release
shall be approved by the City Attomey's office.
CONTRACT CA..5
20.
21.
23.
24.
25.
RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS. Any dispute or claim arising out of this Contract shall be
arbitrated pursuant to Section 10240 of fie Calomla Public Contracts Code.
NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that
any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance
of fie Contract, CONTRACTOR shall Immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant
information with respect thereto, to CITY.
BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof
as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be
subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
UTILITY LOCATION. CITY acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility
facilities pursuant to Califomla Govemment Code Section 4215.
REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS. CONTRACTOR agrees to centact the appropriate
regional notification center in accordance with Govemment Code Section 4216.2.
TRENCH PROTECTION AND EXCAVATION. CONTRACTOR shall submit its detailed plan
for worker protection dudng the excavation of trenches required by the scope of the work in
accordance with Labor Code Section 6705.
CONTRACTOR shall, without disturbing the condition, notify CITY in wdting as soon
as CONTRACTOR, or any of CONTRACTOR's subcontractors, agents, or employees
have knowledge and reporting is possible, of the discovery of any of the following
conditions:
C3
The presence of any material that the CONTRACTOR believes is hazardous
waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code;
Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated
in the specfficalions; or
Unknown physical conditions at the alte of any unusual nature, different mat. dally
for those ordinarily enceunterod and generally recognized as Inherent in work of
the character provided for in this Contract.
Pending a determination by the CITY of appropriate action to be taken,
CONTRACTOR shall provide security measures (e.g., fences) adequate to prevent the
hazardous waste or physical conditions from causing bodily injury to any person.
CITY shall promptly investigate the reported conditions. If CITY, through, and in the
exercise of its sole discretion, determines that the conditions de materially differ, or do
involve hazardous waste, and will cause a decrease or Increase in the
CONTRACTOR's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work,
then CITY shall issue a change order.
CONTRACT
CA..6
In the event of a dispute between CITY and CONTRACTOR as to whether the
conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or
increase in the CONTRACTOR's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part
of the work, CONTRACTOR shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date,
and shall proceed with all work to be performed under the contract. CONTRACTOR
shall retain any and all dghts which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests
between the parties.
26.
INSPECTION. The work sh~ll be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its
authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and
places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers.
CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and
convenience of Inspectors. All Inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as
to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance
notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final Inspection shall be
made within a reasonable time after completion of the work.
27.
DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not,
discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national odgin,
color, sex, age, or handicap.
28. GOVERNING LAW. This Contract and any dispute arising hereunder shall be govemed by
the law of the State of California.
29.
WRITTEN NOTICE. Any wdtten notice required to be given in any part of the Contract
Documents shall be pedormed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and
to the CITY addressed as follows:
Tim D. Sedet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606 .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the
date first above wdtten.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR - VA~CF- COI~OI~AI~ZOI~
By:
Pdnt or type NAME
Pdnt or type TITLE
CONTRACT CA-7
DATED:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
J. Sal Munoz
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attomey
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
CONTRACT
CA-8
ITEM NO. 15
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
,~,
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
,,l~-~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
January 26, 1993
City Road Projects
Status Report
PREPARED BY:
Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive, file and provide staff direction.
BACKGROUND:
The status of the on-going city road projects is outlined in the attached report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
Road Project Report
Listing of Priority Projects
-1 - pwO7%agdrpt~93%0126%road.rpt 0115
CITY OF TEMECULA
City Road Project Report
The following is the status of on-going city road projects:
Margadta Road:
Ynez Road:
Overland Crossing at I-15:
Winchester Loop:
Rancho California Loop:
Western By-Pass Corridor:
Moraga Road Improvements:
Pujol Street Improvements:
Solarm to Winchester -
Project is under construction and is
expected to be completed at the and of
February continent upon the weather.
Rancho California to Winchester -
Bids were received on Jan. 14 th with
construction to begin in early March and be
completed in late November.
Jefferson to Yrmz -
Caltrans reviewing Project Report and
advancad planning study for the bridge.
Construction anticipated to begin in
November of 1993.
North Bound On-Ramp -
Caltrans reviewing Project Report and
advance planning study for the bridge
widening. City reviewing Cooperative
Agreement. Construction anticipated to
begin in July of 1994.
North Bound On-Ramp-
Caltrans reviewing Project Report and
advance planning study for the bridge.
Preparing prlim. construction plans.
Construction anticipated to begin in
September 1994.
South 79 to North City Limits -
Alignment study to be presented
January 28 th Traffic Commission.
at
At Long Valley Wash -
Plans and specs are 90% complete. Permit
from Army Corp and Fish and Game
required.
First Street to Town Association -
Plans and specs are 90% complete. Need
to determine additional funding source for
construction costs above CDBG funds.
John Warner I Leifer:
Pavement Mgmt. System:
Butterfield Stage Road:
Calvert Installation -
Soliciting bids for culvert improvements.
City Wide -
Consultant gathering data for road
inventory and providing staff training.
La Serena to Chapos -
Preparing request for qualifications.
-isting of Priorty Projects
Capital Improvement Projects- "92-93"
Circulation
Project Priority
Sourct of
Funds
Total
Rancho California
Interchange
Winchester Road Interchange
Ynez Road Corridor
Overland Overcrossing
Butteffield Stage Road Extension
Margarita Rd Improvement
(East Side)
Nicolas - Calle Chapos Paving
Solana Way - Ynez to Margafita
Old Town Street Repairs
· IN .ga Storm Drain
Traffic Signals at Following Locations:
North Highway 79 at La Serena
North Highway 79 at Margarita
S. Highway 79 at Butterfield Stage Road
South Highway 79 at Margarita
South Highway 79 at Pala Road
South Highway 79 at La Paz Road
South Highway 79 at Nicholas
First Street Bridge
CFD 88-12
CFD 88-12
CFD 88-12
CFD 88-12
AD
DIF
Measure A
DIF/RA
LTF
Measure A
FSTA
FSTA
DIF
DIF
DIF
DIF
DIF
RDA
7,602,230
8,328,350
5,631,275
12,191,396
5,400,000
235,000
500,000
346,250
200,000
200,000
100,000
150,000
78,750
78,750
130,000
130,000
130,000
ITEM
16
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY t/~~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Plannii~/,.CO~1''
January 26, 1993
Non-Profit Organization Exemption of Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
DIRECT Staff to Exempt Non-Profit Organizations from the
Payment of Fees for Minor Outdoor Events.
BACKGROUND
- This item was continued from the meeting of January 12, 1993.
At the City Council Study Session.January 19, 1993, the City Council reviewed the
Development Processing Fees for the City. In their consideration of the total fee package, the
Council agreed in concept to exempt non-profit organizations from the $190.00 minor outdoor
event application fees for Planning Department review. The total fee package will be
scheduled for public hearing by the City Council in mid February, where a final decision will
be made.
FISCAL IMPACT
As indicated in the October 27, 1992, (memo attached), the Planning Department would lose
approximately $4,700.00 per year if this exemption is approved.
Attachment
1. Memo Dated October 27, 1992 -page 2
vgw
S~STAFFRF~NONFROF. CC 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
MEMO DATED OCTOBER 27, 1992
S~'STAFF'RPT~NONPR~'CC 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
October 27, 1992
Consideration of Exemption of Non-Profit Agencies from Payment of Outdoor
Activity Permit Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to Staff.
BACKGROUND
This item was placed on the agenda a the request of Mayor Birdsall.
Under the current City Ordinances, applicants for minor and major outdoor events must pay
a fee of $197.00. This fee covers the costs of processing by City and County agencies, and
is distributed as follows:
Planning $105.00
Health 57.00
Police 27.00
Public Works 8.00
Total $197.00
Staff has reviewed the applications submitted to the City over the past year in order to
determine how many were submitted by non-profit agencies for special events. Staff's finding
was that 60% of the submittals were applied for by non-profit organizations.
Recently, Staff has received a number of requests from non-profit agencies to waive fees.
It is the feeling of these non-profit groups that, because their special events are usually
fundraisers to support their various causes, all fees should be waived.
However, irregardless of the benefits, the costs associated with ensuring that public health
and safety concerns are satisfied must be paid by someone. If the processing costs are not
paid by the applicant, then the burden falls on the community at large.
One possible remedy to this situation (suggested by Mayor Birdsall) is to consider allocating
a certain amount of money in the budget toward covering the processing of non-profit special
events. Staff has done some research on the estimated costs per year to cover the
processing of these applications; it is estimated that this would amount to approximately
$4,728.00 per year.
S%STAFFRPT~NON-PRFT.CC
FISCAL IMPACT
If implemented, it would result in a loss of approximately $4,728.00 per year.
vgw
S~STAFFRPTWON-PRFr. CC 2
ITEM
17
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Council/City Manager
FROM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
DATE:
January 26, 1993
SUBJECT: Amendment to Employment Agreement with the City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the attached
letter amending the City Manager's Agreement to allow the city vehicle to be used for
vacations at a reimbursement rate of $10.00 per vacation day.
DISCUSSION: David F. Dixon was appointed City Manager on June 13, 1990.
The current form of his employment agreement is reflected in the attached letters of July 2,
1991, and May 29, 1992. The agreement presently provides that the City will provide the
City Manager with a City vehicle for professional and personal use, not including vacations.
The City is to pay for all insurance, gasoline, maintenance and registration.
The City Manager currently only has this one vehicle for use. Consequently, it is requested
that the vacation exclusion be modified to allow use of the vehicle during vacations subject
to reimbursement. Given that the City is already responsible for insurance, and registration,
a fair rental rate need only address the depreciation and maintenance associated with the
vacation use of the vehicle. It is suggested that the City Manager pay a rate of $10.00 per
vacation day, plus all gas and oil associated with any vacation travel.
Accordingly, is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the attached
amendment to the City Manager's agreement, authorizing vacation use of the vehicle at the
rate of $10.00 per vacation day, plus gas and oil.
FISCAL IMPACT: Is minimal, as the City will be paid for vehicle depreciation and
maintenance associated with vacation use of the vehicle.
ATTACHMENTS:
City Manager agreement dated July 2, 1991
Second amendment to City Manager's agreement dated May 29,
1992
Proposed third amendment, dated January 26, 1993.
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
(909) 694-1989 · FAX (909) 694-1999
January 19, 1993
Mr. David F. Dixon, City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca 92590
Re: City Manager/Third Amendment to Appointment Agreement.
Dear Mr. Dixon:
As you know, your current Appointment Agreement provides that the City will
provide you with a vehicle for your professional and personal use. The City Council
hereby proposes that Section 10 of your amended Appointment Agreement of July
2, 1991 (as otherwise amended by the second amendment of May 29, 1992), is
amended to read as follows:
10. Vehicle - The City will provide you with a City vehicle for your
professional and personal use. The City will pay for all insurance,
gasoline, maintenance, registration (exempt license plate) forthis vehicle,
except that you will pay for gasoline and oil associated with vacation
travel and further that you will pay the City a vacation rate of $10.00 per
vacation day for which the vehicle is used. In addition, the City will
provide for regular replacement of the vehicle consistent with the
depreciation policies of the City.
This third amendment to your Appointment Agreement is
approval and authorization of the Temecula City Council.
Sincerely,
made with the
J. Sal Mu~oz, Mayor
City of Temecula
Accepted:
Dated:
,1993.
David F. Dixon
1989
C!
TY
0
TE
M
ECU
LA
May 29, 1992
Mr. David F. Dixon
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: CITY MANAGER/SECOND AMENDMENT TO APPOINTMENT AGREEMENT
Dear Mr. Dixon:
As you know, the City Council is desirous that the City Manager live wilhin the City, and
included specific provisions in this regard in your original letter of appo ntment dated June 13,
1990, as further amended by the Amended Appointment Agreement dated July 2, 1991. In
order to further that goal, while at the same time limiting the City's total obligation, Section
11 (a) of the July 2, 1991 Agreement is amended to read as follows:
(A) Low Interest Loan. The City will make available to you a housing
loan. The loan, a first mortgage, will be up to 90% of the purchase price of a
home within the City. The principle plus interest payments will be paid to the
City on a monthly basis at a rate equivalent of the interest earned by the City's
investment portfolio or some other mutually agreed upon index. The rate will
be an adjustable rate, calculated on an annual basis. There will be a cap rate
of three percentage points on the loan which means that the rate will not
increase by more than three percentage points during the life of the loan. The
loan will be due and payable within twelve (12) months of either your leaving
your employment with the City or when the home is no longer your primary
residence, whichever occurs first. You will obtain a life insurance policy in the
amount of the loan and the City will be named as the primary beneficiary in
order to pay off the loan in the event of your death. You will be responsible for
the cost of this policy and you will file a copy of the policy with the City.
43174 ]SUSINE55 P~RK DRIVE · TEMECUL~. CALIFORNIA go2590 · PHONE (714)694-1989 · FAX (714)694-1999
David F. Dixon, City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
May 29, 1992
Page Two
This amendment to your Appointment Agreement is made with the approval and authorization ·
of the Temecula City Council.
erely, ·
cia H. Birdsall, Mayor
CITY OF TEMECULA
Accepted:
.ATED: ~ '~'~J'
,
David F. Dixon
,1992
City of Ternecula
43172 Business Park Drive .Ternecula, California 92390
~ld J. Parks
Mayor. hly 2, 1991
H. Birdsall
~.~ Pro Tern
jndemans
Jncilmember
Moore
~nalmernber
David F. Dixon
11140 Pioneer Ridge Drive
Moreno Valley, CA 92388
Sal Mufioz
JncdrnernDer
Re: City Manager/Amended Appointment Agreement
'id E Dixon
:i~y Manager
~)69~1989
~)694-1999
Dear Mr. Dixon:
As you know, the Council is desirous that its City Manager live within the
City, and included specific provisions in your letter of appointment to accomplish
that goal. The Council also recognizes that the present real estate market has
frustrated that goal.. -
In addition, the Council also recognizes that the City's present health plan
differs from what was contemplated when you were appointed
The purpose of this letter addresses both of these issues by revising the
terms and conditions of employment for your position.
1. Appointment - If you decide to accept this position, your appointment
would become effective hly 5, 1990. Your appointment will terminate on July
5, 1995; however, the City and you anticipate that this Agreement may be
extended from time to time with the consent of the City and you, and according
to such terms as the City and you may agree on.
2. ~ - Your base salary will be set at $103,870.00 per year for the
remainder of the fiscal year 1989-1990, and all of the fiscal year 1990-1991.
Your annual base salary will be payable in installments at the same time as the
other employees of the City. Commencing on July 5, 1990, the City will
contribute to a deferred compensation program of your choice, a sum equal to
Seven and 22/100 percent ('7.22%) of your base monthly salary.
9. Professional Development - All normal business expenses, including
attendance at League of California Cities, Independent Cities Association,
California Redevelopment Association, and International City Managers
Association meetings and conferences, 'as well as local service club membership,
business lunches and dinners, etc., will be paid for by the City and provided for
separately in the operating budget of the City Manager's Office. All other job-
related seminars, training sessions, and professional dues and subscriptions will
be paid for by the City and provided for separately in the operating budget of the
City Manager's Office.
10. Vehicle - The City will provide you with a City vehicle for your
professional and personal use, not including vacations. The City will pay for all
insurance, gasoline, maintenance, and registration (exempt license plates) for this
vehicle. In addition, the City will provide for regular replacement of the vehicle
consistent with the depreciation policies of the City.
11. Residency - The City and you have acknowledged the desinbility of
your relocation to the City of Temecula. In order to secure your relocation, the
City will provide you with:
(A) Low Interest Loan. The City will make available to you a housing
loan. The loan, a first mortgage, will be up to 70% of the purchas~ price of a
home within the City. The interest payments will be paid to the City on a
monthly basis at a rate equivalent to the interest earned by the City's investment
portfolio or some other mutually agreed upon index. The rate will be an
adjustable rate, calculated on an annual basis. There will be a cap rate of three
percentage points on the loan which means that the rate will not increase by more
than three percentage points during the life of the loan. The loan will be due and
payable within twelve (12) months of your leaving your employment with the City
or when the home is no longer your primary residence, whichever occurs first.
You will obtain a life insurance policy in the amount of the loan and the City will
be named as the primary beneficiary in order to pay off the loan in the event of
your death. You will be responsible for the cost of this policy and you will file
a copy of the policy with the City.
(B) Moving Expenses. The City will pay your expenses, in an amount
not to exceed $4,000, for packing, moving and transporting, storing, unpacking,
and insurance of your .personal belongings and those of your family. Moving
expenses is defined to include temporary relocation to the City for a period not
to exceed ten (10) months.
12. Performance F,v~luation - The Council will review and evaluate your
performance at least once annually in advance of the adoption of the City's
budget. This review and evaluation will be in accordance with specific criteria,
goals, and performance objectives developed jointly by you and the Council.
13. Outside Activities - You will not engage in any outside activities for
compensation without the prior approval of the Council.
14. Termination of Appointment: Severance - The City and you will have
the right to terminate this Agreement prior to Jfily 1, 1995 or any extensions of
this Agreement, except that the City will not terminate this Agreement during the
first ninety (90) days following a regular or special municipal election in which
members of the Council are elected. The City may terminate this Agreement for
any reason; however, should you be involuntafily terminated by the City for any
reason other than conviction of an illegal act involving moral turpitude or
personal gain to you, you would be provided with a lump sum cash payment
equal to six {6) months' aggregate salary. Medical benefits and life insurance
will be extended six {6) months after termination, or when replaced by another
employer, whichever first occurs. You may terminate this Agreement for any
reason, provided you first furnish the City with at least thirty {30) days advance
notice.
15. Indemnification and Bond - The City will defend, save harmless, and
indemnify you against any tort, professional liability claim or demand, or other
legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or
omission occurring in your performance of your duties as City Manager. This
provision will not apply with respect to any intentional ton or crime which you
may commit or to any punitive damages which may be assessed against you. The
City will bear the full cost of a fidelity bond in the mount of $100,000.00 or any
other bonds which may be required of you in the performance of your duties as
City Manager.
16. Miscellaneous - Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, you
will receive all benefits to which executive management employees of the City are
entitled. In addition, the City will not at any time during the term of this
Agreement reduce-your salary, compensation, or other f'mancial benefits, except
to the degree the City reduces such benefits, or any portion of such benefits, for
all employees of the City.
This offer of employment is made with the approval and authorization of
the Temecula City Council.
Ronald Parks,
Mayor of the City of Temecula.
ACC/~-rP_iD:
~: 712J~~~~, 1991
David F. Dixon
ITEM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVAT.
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
David F. Dixon
City Manager
January 26, 1993
Item No. 18 - Discussion of Boys and Girls Club Grant Request
City Clerk June S. Greek
BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize a staff report on this item
it to you under separate cover.
JSG
and forward
ITEM
NO.
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
DATE:
JANUARY 26, 1993
SUBJECT: OFFICIAL NAME OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: ~- SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
'Consider and if desired, cliange the official name of the Parks and Recreation
Commission to the Community Services Commission.
DISCUSSION: On April 24, 1990, the City Council established by
ordinance the Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission and stipulated by resolution
that the Commission's duties included providing recommendations to the City Council
concerning parks and recreation services and programs for the community. Although
the Community Services Department is responsible for additional functions other than
parks and recreation services, the primary issues considered by the Commission relate
to parks and recreation services.
At the December. 14, 1992 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the
Commission cited that the League of California Cities recognizes Parks and Recreation
Departments as Community Services Departments because of the movement towards
offering human services as a part of recreation programming. With the addition of the
City's new Senior Center, a wide variety of human services will be offered at this
facility i.e. blood pressure testing, social security information, veterans services, para
legal services, etc.
Therefore, the Commission is recommending that the official name of the Parks and
Recreation Commission be changed to the Community Services Commission without
adding any additional responsibilities or duties to the Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 90-05
AN-ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEM~-CULA ADDING CHAPTER 13.01 TO ~ TE1V!~,CULA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A TEMECULA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF TEM~CULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 13.01 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code as
follows:
· "13.01.010 Temecul~ Psrh and Recr~llon Commission - F-~tablished. There
is hereby established a Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission.
13.01.020 Time and pbc-- of meeting. The time and place of the meetings of
the Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission shall be established by resolution
of the Commission.
13.01.030 r~uties. The duties of the Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission
shall be established by resolution of the City Council. *
SECTION 2. SF, VFRABII .trY. 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 decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause
the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law.'
ATTEST:
June S. Deputy City Clerk
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day April, 1990.
RONALD I. PARKS
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula,
HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No 90-05 was duly
.adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the 24th day of April, 1990, by the following roll call
vote.
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
i COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
JuneC~Greek, ~eputy City Clerk
"" RESOLUTION NO. 90-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECUIA ESTABLISHING THE ORGANIZATION,
OBJECTIVES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A
TEMECUIA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The City Council of the City of Temccula does resolve, determine and order
as follows:
Section 1: Establishment of Cowroission. Pursuant to Section 13.01 of the
Temecula Municipal Code, there is hereby created an advisory commission which shall be
known as the 'Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission."
Section 2: Commission Membership. The Temecula Parks and Recreation
Commission shall consist of five (5) members to be nominated and appointed pursuant to
Chapter 2.06.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Section .3: StaffA~sistance. The City Manager shall ensure that adequate staff will
be allocated to provide necessary technical and clerical ass/stance to the Commi.qsion.
Section 4: Time and Place of Meetings. The Temecula Parks and Recreation
Commission shall establish a regular date, time and place for Commission meetings, which
shah be open to the public. Said meetings shall occur no less frequently than once a month.
Section 5: Term. The Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission shall continue
in effect pursuant to Chapter 2.06.060 of the Temecula M. nlcipal Code.
Section 6: Duties of Commission. The duties of the Temecula Parks and
Recreation Commission shall be as follows:
k Review and make recommendations to the City Council concerni-g the
Parks and Recreation element of the General Plan and work with the
Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Valley Unit:led School
Disi;'i~ and other city departments and COmmunity grOupS tO provide parks
and recreation services and program-~ for the community.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula,
HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 90-39 as duly
adopted at'a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the 17th day of April, 1990,.by the following roll call
vote.
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Munoz, Parks
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
June S~ , DepUty City Clerk
Resolution 90-39
Page 2
Section 7: This Resolution shall become effective concurrently with the effective
date of the City Ordinance adding Chapter 13.01 of the City Municipal Code. The City
Clerk shall certify the adoption of thi.~ resolution-
PASSED, AlPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1990.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
un~'. ~pu~C a j
] Gree ity Clerk
[SEAL]
-""""' Resos/90-39 0~/1~!90 lO:lOam
ITEM 20
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Harwood T. Edvaison, Assistant City Manager(~
January 26, 1993 //
PURCHASE OF LAW BOOKS
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT-THOUSAND DOLLARS
($8,000.00) THE PURCHASE OF LAW BOOKS AND BOOKSHELVES TO BE
GRANTED TO THE TEMECULA BRANCH OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LIBRARY
SYSTEM.
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the purchase of law books
from Mr. Norm Achen for donation to the Temecula Branch of the Riverside County Library
System, and to purchase shelving as necessary. The total cost for books and shelves not to
exceed $8,000.00.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Norm Achen has closed his law practice in Temecula, and has offered to sell his law
books to the City of Temecula for $6,000.00. The set of books include the following titles:
(1) California Forms of Pleading and Practice, (2) Cal Jur, (3) California Civil Actions, (4)
Shepards California Citations, (5) California Legal Forms, (6) California Procedure, (7)
Summary of California Law.
The Temecula Branch of the Riverside County Library System currently has West's Annotated
California Codes, and has determined that the collection offered by Mr. Achen would be of
benefit to both the legal profession and the general public, who must now generally travel to
Riverside to use these books. Although space at the Temecula Branch Library is limited, the
Branch has agreed to house these books if appropriate shelving is also provided.
In addition to Council approval, one final detail to be resolved is the responsibility for annual
updates to the legal books. City staff has taken the position that it would be ill-advised for
the City to accept an ongoing annual obligation to pay for the updates. The Library has
indicated that it lacks the funds to provide for the updates. Recognizing a potential benefit
to its members, a representative of the local bar association is attempting to provide for the
updates. No purchase of the law books would be finalized until this issue is resolved.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City's obligation for the law books is $6,000.00. The book shelves are estimated to not
exceed $2,000.00 in cost. Details of the law book grant to the Library would be finalized in
time for an appropriation to be made from the General Fund's unappropriated balance at the
Mid-Year Budget Adjustment. The City's fiscal impact would not exceed $8,000.00.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT-THOUSAND DOLLARS
($8,000.00) THE PURCHASE OF LAW BOOKS AND BOOKSHELVES TO BE
GRANTED TO THE TEMECULA BRANCH OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LIBRARY
SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the purchase of previously-owned law books
and subsequent grant of those law books for display at the Temecula Branch of the Riverside
County Library System would have direct benefit to the residents of the City of Temecula;
and
WHEREAS, Temecula residents now desiring to use such law books must travel to the
Law Library in Riverside; and
WHEREAS, the Temecula Branch of the Riverside County Library System has agreed
to house the books if appropriate shelving is also provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Staff is authorized to purchase a collection of law books from
Mr. Norm Achen for the amount of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00), and to purchase book
shelves for the collection in an amount not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00).
Section 2. That the City Staff is directed to grant the collection of law books and
shelving for display at the Temecula Branch of the Riverside County Library System.
Section 3. That the City Council authorizes the expenditure of an amount not to
exceed Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00) from the unappropriated fund balance of the
General Fund.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 8th of September, 1992.
ATTEST:
J. Sal Munoz, Mayor
June S. Greek
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
!, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution Nol 92-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January, 1993, by the
following vote:
AYES.
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
P:~-DVALSH~WBOOKS.RE$
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORTS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAL:
CITY ATrORNEY ~
PmANCP- omcnR
CITY MANAGER
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
January 26, 1993
Building and Safety November and December, 1992, Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
Since installation of the Sierra Permit Tracking System, we are in the process of redesigning our
monthly activity report format. The following, however, is a summary of activity for this two
(2) month period.
Building Permits Issued
....................................... 305
Building Valuation
..................................... $13,383,190
Revenue Collected
....................................... $ 178,952
Housing Starts
....................................... ' ...... 134
Attached you will find a summary of building inspections performed during the past twenty-two
(22) month period. What's interesting to note during these recessionary times, is the activity
levels posted for November/December '92 as compared to the same period for' '91.
The following is an update of projects of special note that staff is currently involved with and/or
recently completed.
V:XWI=~'GENDA.RERCCCM0126
Agenda Report
January 26, 1993
Page 2
New Construction
Rancho California Water District Headquarters
Chili' s Restaurant
Pep Boys
Carl's Jr.
Percent Completed
80%
100%
V:~WRAI3ENDA.REP%CCCM0126
0 8 0 0
0
APPROVAl
CITY ATTORNEY ..~/-f'.:-/';',~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
January 26, 1993
Monthly Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and File
Discussion:
The following is a summary of the Planning Department's
caseload and project activity for the month of December, 1992:
Caseload Activity:
The department received applications for 11 administrative cases and 4 public hearing
cases. The following is a breakdown of case type for public hearing items:
* Minor Public Use Permit 3
* Conditional Use Permit I
Onqoina Proiects:
General Plan: On October 19, November 2 and 23, December 7,1992 and
January 4, 1993 the Planning Commission held public hearings on the Draft
General Plan. To date, the Commission has tentatively approved all the General
Plan Elements and the Environmental Impact Report.
At the January 25th meeting the Commission will consider the make a formal
recommendation to the City Council.
Old Town Master Plan: The preferred Land Use Plan and Circulation alternative
were presented to the City Council and Planning Commission at a November
18, 1992 meeting.
French Valley Airport: City Staff sent a comment letter to the ALUC on
October 7, 1992, stating the City's concerns on the draft Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
1 R:~$~IONTHLY.RPTI1992%DEC.92 1119/93 klb
Temecula Regional Center SPeCifiC Plan and Environmental Impact Report: This
Specific Plan was presented at a Planning Commission Workshop on May 4,
1992. The Commissioners gave direction to the applicant and staff. This
Specific Plan was scheduled for a DRC meeting January 5, 1993.
Winchester Hills and CamDos Verdes Soecific Plans and Environmental Impact
Reoorts: These Specific Plans were discussed at a Planning Commission
Workshop on May 4, 1992. The Commissioners gave direction to the applicant
and staff. The Notice of Completion for the Campos Verdes EIR went to State
Clearinghouse July 10, 1992. Both of these Specific Plans were scheduled for
DRC meetings on January 5, 1993.
RoriDauoh Hills Soecific Plan: This Specific Plan has not yet been filed with the
Planning Department. The plan proposes to develop 800 acres at an overall
density of 3 units per acre and will contain approximately 30 acres of open
space, neighborhood commercial and two elementary schools. A pre-
application workshop on this Specific Plan was held at the July 6, 1992
Planning Commission meeting.
Murdv Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Imoact Report: This Specific
Plan was presented to the Planning Commission at a Workshop on April 6,
1992. The Commission provided Staff and the applicant direction relative to
design issues. The applicant has incorporated these changes into the Specific
Plan. This Specific Plan will be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting
upon completion of the Development Agreement and the Congestion
Management Plan.
Johnson Ranch SoecifiC Plan: The Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is a mix of
residential land uses and a mixed-use "resort village" core area on 1,765 acres
located adjacent to Anza Road and Borel Road, north of Rancho California Road.
This Specific Plan was submitted in early March. The Notice of Preparation
was submitted to State Clearinghouse on April 17, 1992. A DRC meeting was
held for this Specific Plan on May 14, 1992. A subsequent DRC date has not
yet been set.
2 R:%St. MONTHLY.RPT~1992~DEC.92 1119/93 Idb
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNE~SF/-.~-
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
January 26, 1993
Public Works Monthly Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly
Activity Reporst for November and December, 1992.
pwO 1 ~egdrpt%93~0126~rnoectl 1.12
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON
JANUARY 26, 1993
STORM DAMAGE REPORT
RECREATION FACILITIES
CITY PARKS AND
PREPARED BY: Ci~,~ BRUCE A. HARTLEY, MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDEN~
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
-Receive and file storm damage report concerning City Parks and Recreation
Facilities.
DISCUSSION: In response to the recent storms, the Community Services
Department has conducted inspections to determine the extent and nature of any
damage to City owned or maintained property. The results were encouraging. Some
minor erosion to City maintained slopes was found and no property was damaged or
threatened. No damage was found on any median or park with the exception of the
Rancho California Sports Park. Below I have listed those items that will require
attention when the storms have subsided·
Slopes above the Upper South Soccer field at the Rancho California Sports Park
have severe erosion and will require regrading and landscape improvements for
future stability. This has been identified as a project proposed for the next
fiscal year.
The tot-lot landscape improvements at Sports Park have not been damaged.
The grading that was done in preparation for the winter was successful in
preventing any damage, but will need to be repaired once the rains stop.
The flood control channel in the park has silted in to the point that it will not
adequately protect the park from future storms. This will require some tractor
work to move the material to a more suitable area of the park.
The slope areas throughout the City have some trees that fell that were not
salvageable. These will be replanted when weather permits.
The flood control channel in the Vintage Hills Development on Rancho California
Road experienced a large deposition of sand as well as some damage to one
area of rip-rap. The sand will be removed by California Landscape as an extra
work item. The rip-rap may be repaired in the same manner.
The access road to the Saddlewood slopes has some flood damage. The
damage is about the same that occurs every winter and will be repaired by the
Park Maintenance crew.
The Community Recreation Center (CRC) construction project has come
through the storms with little damage. According to the Public Works
Department, the erosion that did occur will be repaired by the contractors at no
additional cost to the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are available within the existing budget to
cover all maintenance repairs resulting from the recent rains.
ITEM NO. 2
APPROV~T.
CITY ATTORNEY~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
JANUARY 26, 1993
CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR WIMMER
ASSOCIATES - PALA ROAD PARK SITE
YAMADA
PREPARED BY:
b~G)~GARY L. KING,
ADMINISTRATOR
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
1. Approve amendment to contract with Wimmer Yamada Associates (WYA) to
provide additional engineering 'and architectural services for the Pala Road park
site.
2. Appropriate $17,000 in the capital projects fund (210-190-120-5802) from fund
balance.
DISCUSSION: On August 25, 1992, the City Council awarded a contract
to WYA to provide design services for the 28 acre park site located adjacent to Pala
Road. However, the contract did not include engineering of the off-site access road
and utility improvements because a site analyses needed to be completed to determine
the extent of the off-site improvements. Further, an additional rest room/snack bar
facility was recommended by the Project Committee and approved by the Parks and
Recreation Commission and the Board of Directors. It is therefore recommended that
the contract with WYA be amended to include the additional engineering and
architectural design services for this project with a not-to-exceed amount of $18,975.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is necessary to appropriate $17,000 in the capital
projects fund from fund balance. This amount will be funded from Community
Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor).
AMENDMENT NO. 02 TO CONTRACT ORDER NO. 12838
Pala Road Park Site
January 7, 1992
The Agreement dated August 25.1992 between the City of Temecula, and Wimmer
Yamada Associates (WYA|, (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby
amended as follows:
Re: ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Section I
Scope of Work is hereby amended to include additional services as described in
Exhibit "A" (attached).
Compensation for these additional services is a not to exceed $18,975 to be paid in
one (1) lump sum following completion of said service.
Section 2
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year above
written.
CONSULTANT
By: By:
CITY OF TEMECULA
J. Sal Munoz, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/TCSD Secretary
Exhibit "A"
Pala Road Park
Off-site Improvements
1. Off-site road work on Temecula Lane
Perform field survey to obtain as-built information at point of connection to Loma
Linda Road. Prepare replacement for existing off-site plan/profile for Temecula
Lane. Identify adjacent land owner and assist City in obtaining additional right-
of-way to allow construction of full 32' width pavement.
2. Off-site sewer to Pala Road.
Prepare plans for construction of private sewer lateral from park site through
Tract 21067 to existing EMWD main in Pala Road. Process approval of lateral
and connection through EMWD and Kingsway Construction, including crossing
of existing concrete drainage channel. Prepare plats and legal descriptions for
permanent and temporary easements'from Kingsway to City for sewer laterals.
Off-site Water Main. Prepare plans for construction of public water main from
existing 16" main in Loma Linda Road to park site; process approval of plans
through Rancho California Water District.
The work product from these efforts will include at least four additional
drawings, plus the various easement plats from· Kingsway to the City. The
drawings would be incorporated in the regular construction documents for Park
project. Additional related costs will include title company charges (for
easements) and plan check/inspection fees for the two utility agencies involved.
· Additional Restroom Facility
ServiCes will include schematic design, design development, construction documents,
specifications and one cost estimate, for services within five feet of the building. Scope
includes phone consultation and three site visits during construction administration, and
review of shop drawings.
Specific detail for small restroom building: Concession/Restroom consisting of Men's
and Women's restrooms (3 toilets, 1 urinal and 2 lavatories) with concession counter.
All work to be completed in conjunction with main concession building as part of single
bid documents preparation for park.
Additional Fee Schedule
The total fee for services as described for off-site improvements and the additional
restroom facility will be the lump sum amount of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED SEVENYY FIVE DOLLARS ($18,975.00).
ITEM
NO.
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY~)
FINANCE OFFICER~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
DATE:
JANUARY 26, 1992
SUBJECT:
CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO MENTONE TURF SUPPLY -
LOMA LINDA PARK
PREPARED BY: ~, RY L. KING, DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATOR
SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Approve amendment to contract with Mentone Turf Supply to install tw~ (2) handicap
accessible concrete drinking fountains at Loma Linda Park.
DISCUSSION: On September 21, 1992, the City Council awarded a
contract to Mentone Turf Supply for the installation of irrigation as part of an
approved Master Plan for Loma Linda Park (2.9 acres). It is felt that it would be cost
effective to install drinking fountains during the installation of the irrigation system.
It is therefore recommended that the contract with Mentone Turf Supply be amended
to include the installation of drinking fountains with a not-to-exceed amount of
$9,858.
FISCAL IMPACT: The $9,858 amendment to the contract does not exceed
the previously approved $200,000 capital improvement budget for this project.
AMENDMENT NO. 02 TO PROJECT NO. CSD 92-01
Loma Linda Road Park Site Improvements
December 21, 1992
The Agreement dated September 22, 1992 between the City of Temecula, and
Mentone Turf Supply, (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as
follows:
Re: ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Section 1
Scope of Work is hereby amended to include additional services as follows:
Installation of two (2) pedestal type drinking fountains as per plans and specifications.
Compensation for these additional services is a not to exceed $ 9,858 to be paid in
the same manner as specified for the related services in the Agreement.
Section 2 :
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year above
written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA
By: By:
David F. Dixon, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/TCSD Secretary
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
~PROV~L
CITT ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY!~I~gER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
DATE:
JANUARY 26, 1993
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
PREPARED BY: (~ SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
Construction documents are now underway for the 28 acre park site located on Pala
Road. It is expected that this project will be bid in the next three months and
construction will begin in July, 1993.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission
on February 15, 1993. Once approved by the Planning Commission, it will forwarded
to the City Council for final approval after the General Plan has been adopted. The
Parks and Recreation Master Plan was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation
Commission on November 9, 1992, and was unanimously approved.
Staff has been in the process of developing conditions for the Winchester Hills and
Campos Verde Specific Plans. A part of these discussions include the possibility of
providing a neighborhood park that would benefit both Winchester Hills and the
residents of Winchester Creek. These negotiations will provide a North park adjacent
to the Winchester Creek homes once the specific plans are approved. Both
developments will create an important impact on the community in terms of parks and
recreation facilities.
Staff is in the process of receiving quotes to install new ballfield fencing on the North
and South fields in Sports Park. This is required to improve the safety of the youth
and adults that participate on these fields. Also, the installation of grass around the
tot lots at Sports Park is completed and will provide a safer and more enjoyable
recreation experience for park users.
Improvements are progressing to the Loma Linda Park Site, and the concrete walking
paths are installed. Irrigation improvements and two (2) tot lots will be completed by
the end of January if weather permits. Further improvements will include
hydroseeding anc~ landscaping improvements, picnic tables, trash receptacles,
barbecues, and passive open space. This park is scheduled to be completed by the
end of March, 1993.
Staff will proceed with the master planning of Sam Hicks Monument Park once the
Old Town Specific Plan is completed (February, 1993). The improvements to Sam
Hicks Monument Park and whether the museum should be located in the park will'
depend on the recommendations from the Old Town Specific Plan.
Parks in both the Paloma Del Sol development (9 acres) and the Presley development
(9 acres) are scheduled to be completed by June 30, 1992. These parks were
conditioned by staff to meet a portion of the Quimby requirements of their respective
developments.
A Neighborhood Council meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 14, 1993 at
5:30 p.m. at City Hall in the Main Conference Room. The Neighborhood Council is
an Ad Hoc Committee that discusses various City issues and provides input to City
staff. The Neighborhood Council meets on a quarterly basis and no agendas are
prepared. Each meeting concludes with an open forum to answer questions on a wide
variety of topics. It is felt that only City residents should serve on the Neighborhood
Council and not residents within the sphere of influence because the. County of
Riverside provides municipal services to those areas outside the City.
The Senior Center is under construction, and staff is still in the process of completing
the lease of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) property adjacent to the
Senior Center. CDF has informed us that the lease will be completed February 3,
1993.
Phase I of the Community Recreation Center (CRC) Project will be completed by the
end of January if weather permits. It is planned that Phase II (actual construction of
the CRC) will begin in February, 1993.
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1993
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order
Tuesday, January 12, 1993, 8:10 P.M., Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street,
Temecula, California, Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding.
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberrs, Stone, Mufioz,
Parks
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David Dixon, City Attorney Scott Field and City Clerk June
S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CONSENT, CALENDAR
It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Birdsall to approve
Consent Calendar Items No. I and 2
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS:
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Robarts, Stone, Mufioz, Parks
None
Minutes
1.1
Approve the minutes of December 8, 1992.
e
Combinino Balance Sheet as of Sectember 30, 1992 and the Statement of Revenues,
Exoenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Three Months Ended Sectember 30,
2.1
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30,
1992 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balance for the Three Months Ended September 30, 1992.
RDAMIN1/12/93 -1 o 1121/93
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTI:R JANUARY 19.1993
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S R;PORT
City Manager David Dixon advised that the RDA will be selling bonds next month. He also
advised that the City has been approached to consider a project taken over by the RTC.
AGENCY MEMBERS REPORT
None
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Mufioz, seconded by Agency Member Roberrs to adjourn
at 8:25 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried.
The'next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency will be held on
January 26, 1993, 8:00 P.M., Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula,
California.
ATTEST:
Chairperson Ronald J. Parks
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
RDAMIN 1 I12/93 -2- 1121193
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1993
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order
Tuesday, January 12, 1993, 8:10 P.M., Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street,
Temecula, California, Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding.
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberrs, Stone, Mufioz,
Parks
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David Dixon, City Attorney Scott Field and City Clerk June
S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Birdsall to approve
Consent Calendar Items No. I and 2.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS:
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Roberrs, Stone, Mur~oz, Parks
None
Minutes
1.1
Approve the minutes of December 8, 1992.
a
Combinino Balance Sheet as of Seotember 30.1992 and the Statement of Revenues.
Exoenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Three Months Ended Seotember 30.
2.1
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30,
1992 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balance for the Three Months Ended September 30, 1992.
RDAMIN1 I12193 '
-1- 1121/'93
REDEVELOPMI=NT AGENCY MINUTFS JANUARY 19, 1993
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
City Manager David Dixon advised that the RDA will be selling bonds next month. He also
advised that the City has been approached to consider a project taken over by the RTC.
AGENCY MEMBERS REPORT
Norl8
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Mur~oz, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to adjourn'
at 8:25 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency will be held on
January 26, 1993, 8:00 P.M., Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula,
California.
ATTEST:
Chairperson Ronald J. Parks
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
RDA MIN 1112193 -2- 1121/93